E852 v 3
Public Disclosure Authorized Department for International Development Reduction of Nutrient Discharges and Methane Emissions in Rostov-on-Don Environmental Impact Assessment
Public Disclosure Authorized
Halcrow Group Limited
Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Department for International Development Reduction of Nutrient Discharges and Methane Emissions in Rostov-on-Don Environmental Impact Assessment August 2001
Halcrow Group Limited
Halcrow Group Limited Burderop Park Swindon Wiltshire SN4 0QD Tel +44 (0)1793 812479 Fax +44 (0)1793 812089 www.Halcrow.com
Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of their client, DFID, for their sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.
© Halcrow Group Limited 2001
Halcrow Group Limited Burderop Park Swindon Wiltshire SN4 0QD Tel +44 (0)1793 812479 Fax +44 (0)1793 812089 www.Halcrow.com Department for International Development Reduction of Nutrient Discharges and Methane Emissions in Rostov-on-Don Environmental Impact Assessment August 2001
Contents Amendment Record This report has been issued and amended as follows:
Issu Revisio Description Date Signed e n 0 Draft April 2001 1 1 Final with amandments August added from reviewers 2001 Contents
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 8 1.1 Background 8 1.2 Context and Need for Improvements 8 1.2.1 Introduction 8 1.2.2 Regional Projects 9 1.2.3 Specific Scheme Development 11 1.3 Study Area 13 1.4 Scope and Approach 13 1.5 Structure of the Report 14
2 Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework 15 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Institutional Framework 15 2.2.1 Protection and Management of Natural Resources 15 2.2.2 Management of Water Resources 16 2.3 Russian Legislation (Federal, Oblast and City) 18 2.3.1 Environmental Impact Assessment 18 2.3.2 Environmental Protection 18 2.3.3 Water Resources Management 19 2.3.4 Waste Management 19 2.4 International Agreements 19
3 Methodology 21 3.1 Introduction 21 3.2 Baseline Data Collection 21 3.3 Evaluation of the Environmental Impacts 22 3.4 Consultation 23
4 Description of the Project 24 4.1 Introduction 24 4.2 Existing Treatment Process 24 4.3 Outline description of proposed process improvements 28 4.3.1 Component 1: Upgrading of screening and grit removal 28 4.3.2 Component 2: Renovation of the primary settlement tanks28
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc ii 4.3.3 Component 3: Modification and extension of the secondary aeration tanks (6) 28 4.3.4 Component 4: Incorporation of lamella settlers (7) 28 4.3.5 Component 5: Chemical Phosphorus stripping 29 4.3.6 Component 6: Sludge digestion 29 4.3.7 Component 7: Sludge dewatering (31) 29 4.3.8 Component 8: Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant – Methane use 29 4.4 Nutrient Reduction 29 4.4.1 Concept 29 4.4.2 Upgrading of screening and grit removal, renovation of primary treatment tanks (Components 1 and 2) 31 4.4.3 Biological nutrient removal (Components 3 and 4) 31 4.4.4 Phosphorus stripping (Component 5) 32 4.5 Sludge Processing and Methane Utilisation 33 4.5.1 Introduction 33 4.5.2 Sludge digestion (Component 6) 39 4.5.3 Sludge Dewatering (Component 7) 39 4.5.4 CHP plant – Methane Use (Component 8) 40 4.6 Sludge Quantities and Quality 41 4.7 Construction Programme 42
5 Existing Environmental Conditions 43 5.1 Introduction 43 5.2 Physical Environment 43 5.2.1 Topography, Geology and Soils 43 5.2.2 Climate 44 5.2.3 Hydrology 44 5.2.4 Hydrogeology 47 5.3 Natural Environment 48 5.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology 48 5.3.2 Aquatic and Wetland Ecology 50 5.4 Human Environment 53 5.4.1 Population, Employment and Income Distribution 53 5.4.2 Water Resources, Supply and Sanitation 54 5.4.3 Public Health 57 5.4.4 Land Use, Industry and Agriculture 64 5.4.5 Fisheries 67 5.4.6 Energy Production and Consumption 69 5.4.7 Transport Infrastructure 71
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc iii 5.4.8 Solid Waste Disposal 72 5.4.9 Tourism and Recreation 85 5.4.10 Cultural Heritage 86 5.5 Environmental Quality 86 5.5.1 Surface Water Quality 86 5.5.2 Groundwater Quality 107 5.5.3 Sediment Quality 108 5.5.4 Air Quality 120
6 Environmental Impacts of the Scheme 124 6.1 Introduction 124 6.2 Environmental Impact Matrices 124 6.3 Impacts during Construction 131 6.3.1 Introduction 131 6.3.2 Components 1 and 2 132 6.3.3 Component 3 132 6.3.4 Component 4 133 6.3.5 Component 5 Chemical Phosphorus removal 133 6.3.6 Component 6 Sludge digestion 133 6.3.7 Component 8 CHP – Methane use 133 6.4 Impacts during Operation 133 6.4.1 Introduction 133 6.4.2 Components 1 - 4 134 6.4.3 Component 5 Chemical P removal 135 6.4.4 Component 6 Sludge digestion 138 6.4.5 Component 8 CHP 140
7 Overview of Alternative Schemes 142 7.1 Introduction 142 7.2 Options for Reduction of Nutrient Discharges 142 7.3 Options analysis 143 7.3.1 Preferred Option 147 7.3.2 Other proposals 147
8 Environmental Management Plan 149 8.1 Introduction 149 8.2 Mitigation Plan 149 8.3 Monitoring Plan 153 8.3.1 Introduction 153
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc iv 8.3.2 Monitoring during Construction 157 8.3.3 Monitoring during Operation 157 8.4 Training and Capacity Building Requirements 157
9 Conclusions 159 9.1 Introduction 159 9.2 Key Environmental Effects 159 9.3 Residual Adverse Impacts 160 9.4 Key Mitigation and Monitoring Measures 161 9.5 Recommendations for Future Studies 162 9.5.1 Introduction 162 9.5.2 Development of a Sludge Disposal Strategy 162 9.5.3 Chemical stripping of return liquors from sludge treatment163 9.5.4 Energy consumption audit 163 9.5.5 Audit of WWTW chlorination programme 163 9.5.6 Don Delta and Sea of Azov Biodiversity Studies (non-RVK) 164
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc v APPENDICES
Appendix A: Photographs Appendix B: List of relevant environmental legislation Appendix C: Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Fisheries and Drinking Water Appendix D: Water Quality Data and Figures Appendix E: The Environmental Assessment Team Appendix F: EIA workshop Appendix G: References
FIGURES
1.1 The Rostov Oblast, showing the Lower Don River 1.2 The Greater Rostov area, showing the location of the WWTW 2.1 Water Resources Management in Rostov: Organisation chart 4.1 Site Map showing existing and proposed GEF-funded improvements 4.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Process (in text) 4.3 Site Map showing location of sludge lagoon 4.4 Schematic of proposed modified biological treatment process (in text) 4.5 Proposed process line incorporating sludge treatment and methane use (in text) 4.6 Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions without methane use (in text) 4.7 Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions with methane use (in text) 5.1 Major abstractions and discharges on the Lower Don 5.2 Natural ecosystems of the Rostov Oblast 5.3 Protected areas within the Lower Don area 5.4 Land Use map for Rostov City 5.5 The Lower Don Recreation Area 5.6 Archaeological sites of the Lower Don 5.7 Exceedance of Fisheries Maximum Allowable Concentrations along the Lower Don (in text) 5.8 Exceedance of Drinking Water Maximum Allowable Concentrations along the Lower Don (in text) 5.9 Typical seasonality in the contribution of point and non-point sources to phosphorus concentrations in the river (in text) 5.10 Air pollution in Rostov City
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc vi GLOSSARY
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand (an indirect measure of the level of biologically available organic material – used as a measure of pollution) CHP Combined Heat and Power CPPI Centre for the Preparation and Implementation of International Project (North Caucasus branch) CSIP Community Social Infrastructure Project DBWMA Don Basin Water Management Authority DFID Department for International Development (British Government) Ecology Note to translators: Ecology should be translated into Russian as Biology EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EPC Equilibrium Phosphorus Concentration EQO Environmental Quality Objective EQS Environmental Quality Standard GEF Global Environment Fund (World Bank) GRESAP Greater Rostov Environment Strategic Action Plan Lumbricidae Family of Annelid worms, including the earthworm MAC Maximum Allowable Concentration MNR Ministry of Natural Resources MSW Municipal Solid Waste OCP Organochlorine pesticides RVK Rostov Vodokanal SPS Sewerage Pumping Station SRP Soluble Reactive Phosphate VOC Volatile Organic Compound WHO World Health Organisation WPA Water Protection Area WWTW Wastewater Treatment Works
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc vii Executive Summary 1. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of two Global Environment Fund grants aimed at improving nutrient removal and reducing the amount of methane emitted from the Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) in Rostov City. The long- term objective of the improvements is to reduce pollution loads (especially the nutrients causing eutrophication) to the River Don, Sea of Azov and Black Sea, and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The work was commissioned by the British Government (Department for International Development, DFID) as part of a collaborative approach to the delivery of technical and financial assistance to the region.
Water and wastewater services are under the jurisdiction of Rostov Vodokanal (RVK), which is a unitary enterprise of the Rostov Municipality. Rostov is a city of approximately 1.3 million people, situated in the south of the Rostov Oblast in south western Russia. The city lies on the right bank of the River Don, approximately 30km from the Azov Sea. The discharge of poorly treated effluent from the WWTW has been identified as one of the principal sources of pollution of the Lower Don River and particularly as a source of phosphorus and nitrogen substances that contribute to eutrophication of the river and Azov/Black Sea. This project is part of a number of regional and local initiatives aimed at reducing the pollution of the Black Sea, including the Black Sea Environment Programme and the Greater Rostov Environmental Strategic Action Plan (GRESAP). It also forms part of an ongoing programme of improvements to the Rostov WWTW funded by the Municipality and the Community Social Infrastructure Project (CSIP).
The EIA was conducted according to World Bank guidelines, and is also intended to comply with Russian EIA legislation. Public consultation was not conducted as part of the study as it was agreed with the World Bank that this will be conducted as part of a larger study examining the socio-economic and environmental effects of RVK’s entire improvements programme.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The WWTW is located on the left bank of the River Don, in an established industrial complex to the south west of the city. It currently receives approximately 390,000m3/day from the city’s wastewater collector system. The wastewater undergoes screening and grit removal, primary settlement, biological treatment and chlorination before discharge to the River Don 6km downstream of the works (and outside the city). Dilution at this point in the river is approximately 1:100 or better. Sludge generated from the settlement stages is consolidated in gravity thickening units and stored in drying beds or lagoons on site. The lagoons are large, unlined and bunded. They represent a significant environmental risk through uncontrolled
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 1 leakage to groundwater and potentially during a large flooding event in the River Don when they could be inundated. All proposed improvements to the WWTW will be constructed within the boundary of the existing works.
2.1 Nutrient Reduction The proposed project is designed to achieve a 60% reduction in phosphorus and a 50% reduction in nitrogen load in the effluent. Nitrogen reduction and some of the phosphorus reduction is achieved through process changes to the existing biological treatment tank, allowing the wastewater to pass through three treatment stages: anaerobic (to prepare bacteria for phosphorus removal later in the process), anoxic (where nitrates are reduced) and aerobic (where ammonia and phosphorus are uptaken by bacteria). The project also involves construction of a new 20,000m3 aeration tank. This increased capacity will further reduce the nutrient content of the effluent by allowing increased duration of biological treatment. Further phosphorus removal will be achieved by chemical dosing, the details of which have not yet been decided. Additional process improvements include replacement of existing screens, grit traps and primary settlement tank scrapers.
2.2 Sludge Processing The aim of this component is to reduce the volume and BOD of sludge produced, and thus the volume requiring disposal.. These components are still under design, but the concept involves digestion of thickened sludge in six new digesters, sludge settlement in existing settlement tanks and finally sludge dewatering in three new centrifuges. Sludge liquors will be returned to the head of the works, and sludge, until a suitable disposal strategy is in place sludge will be stored in the drying beds and lagoon on site. The centrifuges are already in place (funded by CSIP) and will be commissioned in the near future. They are designed to produce a sludge cake of 35% solids. the likely final sludge volume depends on the digester design and operation regime chosen, but could be up to 50% less than the existing situation.
2.3 Methane Use Bacterial digestion of sludge produces large quantities of methane, which is known to be a potent greenhouse gas. The aim of this component is to use methane captured in the sludge digesters to produce energy and heat. This on-site energy generation will significantly reduce emissions to the atmosphere (following current national and international policy) as well as representing a major cost saving to RVK. It will involve construction of a new Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant and purchase of equipment. It is currently planned that the energy produced will be used to power sludge digestion and dewatering (both energy- intensive processes). Heat from the exhaust gases will be converted to steam to heat the sludge, and cooling waters will be diverted directly into the central heating system of nearby buildings.
3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 2 The report contains a description of the existing environment in terms of:
• Physical Environment: topography; geology and soils; climate; hydrology; hydrogeology; • Natural Environment: terrestrial ecology; aquatic and wetland ecology; • Human Environment: population, employment and income distribution; water resources, supply and sanitation; public health; land use, industry and agriculture; fisheries; energy production and consumption; transport infrastructure; solid waste disposal; tourism and recreation; cultural heritage; and • Environmental Quality: surface water quality; groundwater quality; sediment quality; air quality.
Of particular relevance to this scheme are:
• Aquatic and wetland ecology: the Don Delta area is high in biodiversity. The area is particularly important to migrating birds. There are a number of regionally protected areas, but the Don Delta is not yet protected at the national level. Key threats to biodiversity include pollution (both point and diffuse sources), overexploitation and habitat destruction. • Water resources: the Lower Don’s water flow is regulated at the Tsimylansk reservoir, approximately 300km upstream of Rostov city. Water resources are limiting in most years, with heavy demands placed on them for industrial, agricultural (especially irrigation) and municipal uses. Rostov depends on the Don for its supply of domestic water. • Public health: pollution of the river, both by the Rostov WWTW and by other sources, has a negative impact on downstream uses including drinking water supply, fisheries and recreation. Given the fact that WWTW effluent is chlorinated and then diluted in the river by 1:100, it is considered unlikely that the effluent has major negative health impacts on downstream users. The potential negative effects of waste water chlorination are discussed in the Initial Environmental Evaluation of the Water Supply and Waste Water Strategy (Halcrow 2001). • Land use, industry and agriculture: land use in the region is predominantly agricultural. Diffuse sources such as fertilisers and pesticides are therefore likely to have major impacts on the water quality. Industrial discharges are also known to have a significant impact, and sediments are known to be high in heavy metals as a result of the previous intensive industrial activity in the area. • Fisheries: fish continue to be an important sector of the economy, despite the catastrophic collapse of stocks after the construction of the Tsimylansk dam in 1956. The fishery is threatened by overexploitation, pollution and the water regulation regime which precludes upstream migration for spawning. Heavy metals and pesticides are detected in fish tissues, but are not above legal limits.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 3 • Energy production and consumption: the majority of the region’s energy is produced at the Novocherkassk power station through the burning of low quality coal with high sulphur content. RVK’s energy consumption represents a significant cost. The WWTW used approximately 29 million kWh during 2000. • Tourism and recreation: the area downstream of Rostov is a popular regional tourist destination, and has become more important as a seaside destination since the break up of the Soviet Union. There are public beaches along the river and at the Azov Sea (Rostov, Azov and Taganrog), and swimming is a popular activity. Swimming is banned by the SANEPID at times due to poor water quality. • Surface water quality: both the Lower Don and the Azov Sea suffer from eutrophication and frequent algal blooms in spring and autumn as well as summer. The fisheries Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) limits for river water quality are exceeded by over 600% for nitrogen, BOD by approximately 50% and petroleum products by 250% downstream of Rostov. Phosphate levels at this point are just over the MAC. The river water is compliant with the majority of drinking water MACs downstream of Rostov. Illegal industrial discharges to the sewers and directly to the river are identified as a problem affecting both the efficacy of the wastewater treatment process and river water quality. • River sediment quality: the sediment contains high concentrations of heavy metals, especially downstream of existing or historical industrial discharges. Phosphate levels are also high, as phosphorus is absorbed into the sediment. • Air quality: this is a major problem within the city, with the majority of pollutants coming from vehicles.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
Likely impacts of the scheme are judged as far as possible (given the status of the designs and the available data) for each of the baseline areas, both during construction and during operation. The major impacts are summarised below:
4.1 Impacts during construction All construction activities pose a potential risk to health and safety and to surface water quality through accidental spillage and careless waste disposal. It is recommended that existing norms and manuals on construction practice and health and safety are followed carefully. Training of staff may be needed. If the recommendations are followed, it is envisaged that there will be no major negative environmental impacts during construction.
4.2 Environmental improvements (benefits of the project) Examination of the baseline data indicates that the environmental improvements associated with the operation of the new components will be:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 4 • An overall 7.6% reduction of inorganic nitrogen loading of the Lower Don downstream of the Rostov WWTW. The annual average transport of total inorganic nitrogen downstream of Azov City after the improvements is predicted to be approximately 10,000 tonnes/year, which is a net reduction of approximately 900 tonnes/year compared to the existing situation; • An overall 10% reduction of phosphorus load of the Lower Don downstream of the WWTW. The annual average transport of phosphate downstream of Azov City after the improvements is predicted to be approximately 3,800 tonnes/year, which is a net reduction of approximately 250 tonnes/year compared to the existing situation; • An estimated 70% reduction in emissions of methane and 60% reduction in CO2 equivalent (note: these figures depend to a certain extent on the final design and residence period chosen for the sludge digesters).
It is proposed that these changes will:
• Cause a steady decline in the levels of concentration of dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus in the Don river directly downstream of Rostov-on-Don during the first year; • Cause an decline in the Don river eutrophication downstream no sooner than 3 years after the reconstruction; • Have a positive impact on surface water quality of the River Don, thus contributing to reducing the eutrophication of both the river and the Azov Sea; • Have subsequent positive impacts on river sediment quality, aquatic ecology, public health, fisheries, tourism and recreation in the Lower Don and potentially the Azov Sea; • Have a positive impact on groundwater quality through disposal of a lower volume of sludge to the on-site lagoon in the short term (until a suitable sludge disposal strategy has been agreed); and • Have a positive impact on climate and air quality through a reduction in emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds.
4.3 Residual Adverse Impacts If the mitigation and monitoring plans, training and capacity building are implemented as recommended, no major residual negative impacts are envisaged during operation. Minor impacts are likely to be
• The only major negative environmental effect as the designs currently stand is the increased energy requirements for the sludge digestion (and dewatering processes, completed under the CSIP project). This impact will, however, be offset by the major improvement to climate through reduction of methane emissions. • Increased health and safety risk during operation of sludge digesters due to the potential presence of an explosive air/gas mixture. If the recommended mitigation measure of zoning and careful choice of machinery is implemented, this risk will be minor;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 5 • Increased energy consumption for the sludge digestion. This impact is considered to be minor because energy will be supplied through methane use at the CHP plant, representing a comprehensive cost saving and a cleaner fuel supply than the low quality coal burnt at the Novocherkassk power station which is the current source. This impact can be partially mitigated through monitoring of sludge quality, sludge volume and energy consumption to ensure that the equipment works to full efficiency; and • Minor impact on transport infrastructure through necessity for transporting the reagent for chemical phosphorus removal to the site. This impact will depend on the reagent chosen and its source. It is recommended that the adjacent railway be used if possible.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The purpose of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is to ensure that the adverse impacts of the project are mitigated where possible, through implementation of the mitigation and monitoring plans, taking account of complementary institutional strengthening and social aspects.
5.1 Key Mitigation Measures It is envisaged that compliance to existing norms and manuals during construction, will be sufficient to manage environmental risks during construction.
The major mitigation measures during operation relate to monitoring and training. Both are important as they serve to minimise the health and safety risks associated with operation of the new processes, and to optimise the efficiency at which the processes are operated to reduce the use of resources and to minimise pollution to air and surface water (i.e. maximising environmental benefit). In summary, the key mitigation recommended is:
• Regular monitoring of flow and phosphorus levels to ensure optimum dosing of phosphorus stripping reagent (at least three times daily); • Use of CHP exhaust gases and cooling water for energy supply to hot water system, digesters and centrifuges wherever possible to minimise air quality impacts of operating a supplementary boiler; • Regular monitoring of sludge volume, sludge quality and energy consumption at digestion (and dewatering) to maximise efficiency in order to minimise energy consumption; • Implementation of zoning and careful choice of equipment in the vicinity of the digesters to minimise the health and safety risks associated with the potential presence of an explosive air/gas mixture; and • ‘Hands on’ training of operating staff in order to reduce health and safety risks and maximise efficiency of new processes.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 6 5.2 Key Monitoring Measures Monitoring measures recommended, other than those discussed with the mitigation measures, include:
• Regular monitoring of water quality at effluent to ensure that the nutrient reduction targets are met, and that pollution of the river by toxic substances does not occur; and • Increased monitoring of water quality between processes within the works to maximise the efficiency of processes.
The importance of using the monitoring data to feedback immediately to process operation is emphasised. There are training and capacity building requirements associated with the above, which are discussed in the main report.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, this project will result in reduced nitrogen, phosphate and BOD loadings to the River Don and the Azov Sea. This will provide a significant contribution to the ongoing programmes of pollution control for the Black Sea. It will also considerably reduce the volume of sludge produced by the works and emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Recommendations are given for further improvements to the works, including:
• Separate phosphate stripping of sludge return liquors, which would assist in achieving the objective for phosphate reduction; • Monitoring of energy use throughout the works; and • Further progress towards reducing polluting industrial discharges to the sewer network.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 7 Introduction %DFNJURXQG Rostov is a city of approximately 1.3 million people, situated in the south of the Rostov Oblast in south western Russia. The city lies on the right bank of the River Don, approximately 30km from the Azov Sea. The discharge of poorly treated effluent from the city’s wastewater treatment works (WWTW) has been identified as one of the principal sources of pollution of the Lower Don River and particularly as a source of phosphorus and nitrogen substances that contribute to eutrophication of the river and Azov/Black Sea (Greater Rostov Environmental Strategic Action Plan, World Bank, 1998).
This EIA report documents the environmental assessment of two separate GEF grants aimed at improving nutrient removal and reducing the amount of methane emitted at Rostov’s WWTW. The long term objective of the treatment process improvements at Rostov WWTW is to reduce pollution loads to the River Don, Sea of Azov and Black Sea and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The former objective is in line with the aims of the Black Sea and Danube Environmental Programmes. In the short term, with the assistance planned through GEF, the stated aim is to obtain some improvement to wastewater treatment at an affordable cost. Although the EIA addresses GEF granted projects the work has been funded by the British Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) as part of a collaborative approach to delivering financial and technical assistance to the region.
Water and wastewater services are under the jurisdiction of Rostov Vodokanal (RVK), which is a unitary enterprise of the Rostov Municipality. Technical designs are completed by Giprokommunvodokanal, hereafter referred to as the Design Institute.
&RQWH[WDQG1HHGIRU,PSURYHPHQWV Introduction The wastewater treatment facilities in Rostov are in need of repair and refurbishment, and are currently insufficient to treat existing domestic and industrial loads, both in terms of volume and quality. As a consequence, 72% of the industrial and wastewater load is discharged to the River Don without sufficient treatment and 18% is discharged without any treatment. Less than 10% (largely cooling water) complies with the severe Russian Standards. This results in pollution of the River, exacerbating the pollution situation in the Azov Sea and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 8 Black Sea. The importance of the Black Sea environment and the need for improvement in the quality of rivers draining to it has been identified in the formulation of the Black Sea Environmental Programme and the Danube Environmental Programme.
This project is one of a number of projects both locally and regionally aimed at improving municipal infrastructure and at reducing pollution loading to the Black Sea. The major driver for this project is reduction of pollution in the Don River entering the Azov Sea, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as part of the international effort to combat global warming.
A brief description of the most relevant projects is given below.
Regional Projects A number of regional projects and plans provide objectives which have contributed to the development of this project:
The Black Sea Environment Programme and the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea The Black Sea Environment Programme was launched in 1993, after the signing of the Bucharest Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against pollution in 1992. The programme comprises a range of measures aimed at rehabilitating the Black Sea basin. Its major achievements have been the establishment of Regional Activity Centres in all the Black Sea, countries, strengthening of NGO and public support for conservation, completion of Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses, and development of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
The Black Sea Strategic Action Plan was agreed between all Black Sea Basin countries in 1996. It calls for progressive reduction of nutrient loads in the Black Sea Basin until the water quality objectives for the Black Sea are met. Each country has obligations (amongst others) to:
• Harmonise procedure for monitoring effluent discharges;
• Develop and implement environmentally sound waste management policies, giving due consideration to waste minimisation, recycling and reuse; and
• Rehabilitate the coastal and estuarine areas required for the recovery of Black Sea fish stocks.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 9 The Plan also proposes to widen the existing Convention by including a new Protocol on Biological Diversity and Landscape Protection. The Protocol is currently draft, but it calls for enhanced protection of existing marine and coastal conservation areas, and the designation of new protected areas.
North Caucasus Water Resources Management Project The North Caucasus Water Resources Management Project is being undertaken under the Russian Federation Environmental Management project and will be a model for similar future projects throughout the Federation. The study is funded through the World Bank, implemented by CPPI, Halcrow and partners and will take four years to complete at a cost of 4 million. It is focussed on the water resource problems of the Lower Don Basin, and involves the following components:
• Establish and test an Integrated Information Management System (IIMS) for the Lower Don water resources and management;
• Develop a prototype of an improved cost-effective system of monitoring the status and use of Lower Don water resources for planning and management purposes;
• Develop a sustainable planning and management plan for a small catchment demonstration area;
• Develop recommendations for restructuring basin water resource management policy, including all the necessary legislative reforms, strengthening of institutional mechanisms, necessity to educate and train;
• Develop a computerised Decision Making Support System for Lower Don basin water resource management and a mechanism for regulating pollution; and
• Develop a strategic (20 year) perspective plan for integrated sustainable water resources use and protection in the Lower Don.
A large proportion of the study has already been completed, and more details can be found in World Bank (1996).
GRESAP
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 10 The Greater Rostov Environmental Strategic Action Plan was prepared in 1998 as part of the Black Sea Environmental Program. It contains an analysis of the current state of the environment in the Rostov area, and of the problems related to pollution, resource use, management and regulation.
The report contains strategic objectives for improving the environment of the Rostov area in the short, medium and long-term. The objectives of relevance to this project are:
• Improvement of wastewater treatment in Rostov City to remove the threat to drinking water supplies for Azov and Taganrog;
• Safely manage all industrial hazardous wastes so as to minimise pollution of surface and groundwater, reduce waste volumes and minimise promiscuous dumping at uncontrolled sites;
• Minimise toxic pollutants in wastewater treatment sludge by reclaiming heavy metals and stabilising and safely disposing of accumulated sludges; and
• Sanitary management of all municipal solid waste so as to minimise pollution of surface and groundwater, minimise disease vectors and reduce waste volume.
Specific Scheme Development A number of other projects involve upgrading of the municipal water facilities in Rostov are of relevance to this EIA:
Existing local investments RVK and the Rostov Municipality are implementing a programme of improvements, which includes a number of improvements to the WWTW (see Figure 4.1). Discussions with the Design Institute indicate that works on Phase 1 (lines 1-4, the northernmost lines of the works) are ongoing, and include refurbishment of the screens, grit traps, sand cyclones and aeration tanks. It is understood that works on the primary tank of line 3 and on the aeration tank of line 2 are almost complete.
Community Social Infrastructure Project (CSIP) The CSIP is funded by a World Bank loan, and has the objective of addressing an urgent need for investment to rehabilitate deteriorated municipal infrastructures,
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 11 including the upgrade of health, education, water and sanitation infrastructure. The loan has included approximately $30 million to Rostov Oblast for water supply and sanitation, with $24.4 million to water and wastewater facilities in the city of Rostov-on-Don. Of relevance to this EIA are:
•Construction of sludge centrifuge dryers at the WWTW (see Section 4 and Figure 4.1 for more detail);
•Completion of construction of the No.68 sewer line from the sewerage pump station (SPS) “Severnaya-1” to the underwater crossing of the Don River (Subproject No.62), which will eliminate the current discharge of up to 10,000m3/day of untreated sewage to the Temernik River; and
•Construction of a High-pressure Pumping Station at the WWTW to pump wastewater directly to the processing units.
Strategic Plan and Short-term Investment Plan for the Municipal Water Services of the City of Rostov-on- Don This DFID-funded Plan is currently under development (Halcrow, 2001, in prep.). The objective of the strategic plan is to prepare a long term (15 year) investment programme for the city's water supply and sewerage system. A key aim of the strategic plan will be to achieve environmental improvements and manage or mitigate potentially adverse impacts. Investment will cover refurbishment of existing facilities as well as development of necessary new works and completion of priority studies. The plan will include a Short-term (5 year) Plan of priority improvements and investments to be developed and implemented within the framework of the longer term Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is being developed by Halcrow in consultation with Rostov Vodokanal (RVK), and is referred to hereafter as the RVK Strategic Plan
Rehabilitation of the River Temernik A draft “Environmental programme on rehabilitation of the Temernik river basin” has been developed by the institute ‘Rostov Vodokanalprojekt’ and was approved in 2000. It consists of a set of engineering options aimed at rehabilitating the Temernik river basin (within the Rostov City limits), including:
• Dredging of the Temernik river bed with extraction, partial decontamination and disposal of bottom sediments to a specially constructed landfill;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 12 • Construction of three two-section concrete settlement tanks within the river bed for retention of coarse material transported by the river flow;
• Construction of three biological modules with water vegetation for biological water treatment in the river;
• Construction of a drainage sewer (diameter 200 mm and 500 m long) in the area of the Severny cemetery to prevent penetration of the polluted ground water to the river bed;
• Construction of a new collector (tunnel) along the Temernik river (diameter 2000 mm and 6.5 km long) to collect untreated discharges (Project No.68, as discussed in CSIP section above); and
• Construction of a drainage storm-water collector (sewer) (diameter 1500 mm and 3 km long) in the Bezymyanaya gully.
The activities are proposed to be implemented in three phases over 7 years.
6WXG\$UHD The Study Area for this EIA is defined as the service area for Rostov Vodokanal, i.e. the city of Rostov and its satellite towns of Aksai and Bataisk (Figure 1.1). For the purposes of river quality and use, this is extended to include the River Don and surroundings upstream of Rostov to the Tsimlyansk Dam, and downstream of Rostov through the Don Delta to the Azov Sea (Figure 1.2).
6FRSHDQG$SSURDFK This EIA is based on the requirements of Russia’s Environmental Impact Assessment regulations (State Environmental Committee Decree 372, May 16th, 2000) and Operational Directive 4.01 and guidelines presented by the World Bank (1991). It is proposed that this EIA report serves to meet the World Bank’s requirement for the EIA as specified in the ToR, as well as meeting Russian requirements. It is anticipated that Vodokanal will arrange submission of this report to obtain the necessary permissions under Russian legislation.
A number of different improvements to the WWTW have been proposed and discussed in existing reports, but the scope of this EIA has been limited to the improvements proposed to be funded by the GEF (according to Halcrow’s Terms
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 13 of Reference). These are the reduction of nutrient discharges, sludge treatment and reduction of methane emissions.
It should be noted at this stage that socio-economic aspects of the project have not been investigated in detail. This was agreed in discussions with the World Bank and CPPI, and is because an EIA and Environmental Awareness programme of Vodokanal’s new works (including those funded by GEF), which will involve detailed socio-economic analysis and public consultation, will be conducted in the near future (Rostov Vodokanal and Rostov Oblast administration, 2001).
6WUXFWXUHRIWKH5HSRUW This report is structured according to World Bank Environmental Assessment Guidelines. Chapter 2 contains a discussion of the Russian and international policy, legal and institutional framework within which this EIA is conducted. Chapter 3 describes the methodology used, and Chapter 4 contains a description of the proposed project. Existing environmental conditions are described in Chapter 5 in terms of physical environment, natural environment, human environment and environmental quality. Chapter 6 provides an assessment of the environmental impacts of the scheme on the baseline environment as described in Chapter 5. Both negative and positive impacts are discussed and where possible quantified. Chapter 7 contains a brief review of alternative schemes that were considered during development of this proposed scheme. The Environmental Management Plan is presented in chapter 8, and includes Mitigation and Monitoring Plans and requirements for training and capacity building. Chapter 9 draws conclusions on the major environmental benefits, likely residual impacts and future studies required. Appendix E contains a team list, and Appendix G a full reference list.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 14 Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework ,QWURGXFWLRQ This Chapter identifies national and international legislation and policies of relevance to this project , with a brief commentary on their requirements and importance.
,QVWLWXWLRQDO)UDPHZRUN Protection and Management of Natural Resources In the Russian Federation, natural resources and environment protection are under the jurisdiction of the State and Subjects of the Federation. The Ministry of Natural Resources recently (2000) took over responsibility for environmental protection from the Ministry for Environment and Protection of Natural Resources. Its responsibilities are to monitor, inspect and supervise the condition of the environment and efficient use of natural resources; to co-ordinate activity of different departments, businesses and institutions; and to introduce a state system of environmental monitoring. Government Decree No. 1229 (1993) on an Integrated State System of Environmental Monitoring (ISSEM) determines the functions and duties of various branches and departments with respect to collecting and analysing of information on state of the natural environment, and exchanging data.
State management of natural resource use and protection lies under the jurisdiction of: the Ministry of Agriculture, the Committee of Land (Use and Protection of Land Resources), the Ministry of Forestry (Use and Protection of Forest Resources), the Ministry of Geology (Prospecting, Use and Conservation of Mineral Resources), the Committee for Water Management (Use and Protection of Water Resources), the State Committee for Fisheries (Use and Protection of the Fish Stock). The State Committee for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring performs monitoring of the atmosphere and hydrosphere. Monitoring and supervision of sanitary and epidemiological conditions of the human environment and public health is done by the bodies of the State Committee for Sanitary Epidemiological Control (SANEPID). Departments work according to independent programmes, co-ordinated by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Each department has regional, Oblast, and local divisions, and their work is supported and facilitated by local state authorities.
In the Rostov Region the main decisions on environment protection and use of natural resources are determined by the Rostov Oblast Environment Committee. Management, protection and efficient use of the Lower Don are under the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 15 jurisdiction of the Don Basin Water Management Association (DBWMA) and the MNR. Both function according to Federal Laws applicable to the regional level.
Management of Water Resources Figure 2.1 shows the institutional framework within which water resources are managed in the Rostov area. Licences for major water abstraction and use are issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Local water abstraction licences are issued by the Oblast Environment Committee. Wastewater discharges to Rostov’s sewer network are licensed by RVK. The license stipulates the allowed type of water use, water intake and effluent discharge limits, water discharge, and quality standards. SANEPID monitors water abstractions and discharges in terms of public health. If conditions or requirements of the licences are violated, the Oblast Environment Committee and SANEPID both have the right to fine a legal entity or person for the violation. Payments for use of natural resources (including discharges of pollutants) do not excuse the user from the responsibility to take measures for environmental protection and for compensation for the damage caused by transgressions. The legislation gives the MNR and its bodies the right to suspend an activity in the case of a serious damage to the environment. Vodokanal currently pays for the water it abstracts, and pays fines to the Environment Committee for its polluting discharge to the Don and its storage of sludge on site. The fines for 2000 stood at approximately 14.7 Rb million. More detail is given in the financial section of the RVK Strategic Plan.
The use of water resources in the catchment is managed by the State Committee for Water Management, through 19 Basin Water Management Associations (BWMA). Each BMWA has regional and territorial committees (boards) for integrated use and protection of water resources, Offices in small river basins, and Boards in charge of operation of water reservoirs. The basin associations:
• Plan the efficient use of water resources, including setting water use limits (water consumption and water discharge);
• Monitoring of water bodies, and collation of records from other monitoring organisations;
• Perform federal appraisals of draft and design documentation for construction and reconstruction of the sites which may affect conditions of water resources;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 16 • Perform monitoring of use and protection of water bodies and check compliance with the water protection zones;
• Co-operate with MNR and Oblast Environment Committees on licensing in the field of protection and use of water bodies; and
• Prepare and implement agreements on joint use and protection of water resources;
• Perform routine management of use and protection of water resources, establish measures against hazardous effects on water and preventive measures against negative consequences of hazardous situations.
The State management of water resources of the Don basin is carried out by the DBWMA located in Rostov. A number of problems related to the current water management system were identified in the North Caucasus Region Integrated Water Resources Conservation and Management Project (World Bank, 1996), including:
• The existing system of water resource state and use monitoring involves a large number of organisations;
• Multiple drawbacks exist in the regulatory and legislative documents relevant to the water resource management system;
• Trans-boundary water use problems;
• A system for truly integrated water resource management is not available; the decision support systems feature multiple drawbacks.
• Processes of water resource formation and their properties are poorly known;
• An integrated system for data acquisition, processing and transfer to facilitate water resource management is not available;
• State institutions and authorities in charge of water resource management and protection are poorly equipped with technical facilities.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 17 A number of recent initiatives working towards Integrated Water Resources Management, including the establishment of a water quality database for the Lower Don by the DBWMA (World Bank, 1996).
5XVVLDQ/HJLVODWLRQ )HGHUDO2EODVWDQG&LW\ Legislation of relevance to this project exists at both Federal and Oblast (regional) levels (see Appendix B for full list).
Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment is regulated in Russia by State Environmental Committee Decree 372, 2000. This was developed in order to comply with the Decree on Environmental Expertise, 174, 1995, which is aimed at implementation of the Russian citizen’s constitutional right for favourable environment through mitigation of the negative impacts of economic or other activity on environment.
Environmental Protection The major Federal environmental law is Decree 2062-1, 1991 ‘Environmental Protection’ (amended 1993). It defines the objectives, systems and principles of environment protection, the jurisdiction of environmental agencies, environmental rights (liabilities), economic mechanisms of environment protection, principles of environmental quality standards and environmental requirements for construction and operation of the bodies and international co-operation.
Environmental monitoring is regulated by the Decrees "On development of a Unified state system of environmental monitoring”, 1993 and "Regulations on state monitoring of water bodies”, 1997. These Decrees define the goals, objectives and responsibilities for environmental monitoring.
Regulation of environmental issues related to public health is done through Decree 3912-85 "Guidelines for sanitary and epidemiological agencies and institutes involved in sanitary supervision on control of implementation of activities on sanitary protection of environment from pollution by solid and liquid toxic industrial waste". The Decree defines goals and objectives of industrial enterprises, Sanitary agencies and federal agencies on environment protection in terms of organisation and control on liquid and solid hazardous wastes storage and disposal.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 18 Water Resources Management Water resources are regulated through the Water Code, Decree 167, 1995. The Decree aims to achieve the citizens rights to clean water and a favourable water environment; to support favourable conditions of water use; to guarantee that surface and ground water quality meet sanitary and environmental requirements; and to protect water bodies.
The quality of water resources is protected by a range of Decrees and norms (see Appendix B) and is also protected according to Federal Regulations establishing Water Protection Areas (WPA). These mostly relate to restricting activities on land within 500m of the river. Restrictions are tighter around water abstraction points. The Rostov WWTW is situated within a WPA, and pays fines to the Rostov Oblast Environment Committee for the pollution it causes.
The Oblast has passed a Decree ‘on payments for wastewater and pollutants discharged to a sewage system of the Rostov Oblast settlements’ ( 268, 1997) aimed at increasing the role of economic incentives in improving the quality of waste water discharged to the sewage system. This means that RVK is obliged to pay fines to the Oblast Environment Committee for discharges which fail to meet the norms for Maximum Allowable Concentrations for wastewater discharged from Municipal WWTW. The MAC for Rostov RVK are set in conjunction with the City Decree ‘Acceptance conditions of wastewater pollutants discharged to the sewage system of Rostov-on-Don’ ( 1285, 1996).
Waste Management Waste management (except for the radioactive, air emissions and effluents discharged to the water bodies) is regulated by the Waste Decree ( 89-FL, 1998) which sets waste management regulatory powers, establishes inventory order, reporting and standards, and establishes principles of economic regulation and control.
,QWHUQDWLRQDO$JUHHPHQWV Russia is signatory to a number of International and Regional agreements:
• Bazel Convention on trans-boundary transfer of wastes and their elimination. Bazel, March 20-22, 1989;
• Convention on trans-boundary EIA, 1991;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 19 • Bucharest Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, April 1992;
• RF Government Resolution 670 dated July 1st, 1995 On priority measures aimed on execution of the Federal law "On ratification of the Bazel Convention on control of trans-boundary transfer of wastes and their elimination ";
• State regulation of trans-boundary transfer of hazardous wastes. RF Government Resolution 766, July 1st, 1996;
• Concept of the Russian Federation transition to sustainable development. RF President Decree, 1996;
• Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea, 1996;
• Charter "On joining the Russian Federation to the Ocean Charter". RF Government Resolution 13, January 4th, 1999; and
• The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, 1997.
In terms of water quality, the most relevant of these are the 1992 Bucharest Convention, and the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea, which was developed as a result of the Convention. The Convention states that “…Contracting Parties shall prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment of the Black Sea from land based sources…”. The Strategic Action Plan more specifically calls for progressive reduction of nutrient loads in the Black Sea Basin until the water quality objectives for the Black Sea are met (article 29), and for the development and implementation environmentally sound waste management policies, giving due consideration to waste minimisation, recycling and reuse (46). The Bucharest Convention and Strategic Action Plan are therefore strong international drivers for the completion of this project.
The Kyoto Protocol, although not yet ratified, has been signed up to by the Russian government. At the Third Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1999), the government went further by agreeing a target of achieving no increase in greenhouse gas emissions over 1990s levels by 2008-12.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 20 Methodology ,QWURGXFWLRQ The approach taken to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed scheme has been based on the following steps:
• Assessment of existing conditions; • Review of proposed scheme; • Identification and evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed scheme; • Preparation of Mitigation and Monitoring plans to address the adverse impacts; • Consideration of training and capacity building requirements; and • Preparation of an environmental management plan to ensure that the proposals are implemented adequately.
%DVHOLQH'DWD&ROOHFWLRQ Baseline data was collected through a series of meetings with relevant parties, and through assessment of existing reports and data. The major organisations consulted were:
• Rostov Vodokanal (RVK);
• Gipprokommunvodokanal (Design Institute);
• Centre for Preparation and Implementation of International Projects – North Caucasus Branch (CPPI);
• Rostov Oblast Environment Committee;
• Research Institute of Azov Sea Fishery Problems;
• Don Basin Water Management Authority (DBWMA);
• Institute of Parasitology; and
• SANEPID.
The main sources of baseline information are listed below, and full list of references can be found in Appendix C:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 21 • State of the Environment in Rostov Oblast, 1999 (Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment Committee, 2000);
• Assessment of the Cost of Environmental Degradation and the Benefits of Environmental Initiatives – Pilot Study in Rostov-on-Don, Russia. Prepared for the World Bank by Elektronowatt-Ekono Oy Consulting, Finland (World Bank, 2000a);
• Socio-economic status of Rostov-on-Don in 1999 (Rostov City Department of Statistics);
• State of the Environment in Rostov Oblast, 1998 (Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment Committee, 1999);
• Comparative parameters of the socio-economic status of Rostov Oblast towns and districts. Statistical review for 1998. – Rostov-on-Don, 1999 (Rostov City Department of Statistics, 1999);
• Greater Rostov Environmental Strategic Action Plan (GRESAP), Prepared for the World Bank by Hagler Bailly, USA (World Bank, 1998); and
• North Caucasus Region Integrated Water Resources Conservation and Management Project: Inception Report. Prepared by Halcrow and CPPI for the World Bank (World Bank, 1996).
The baseline information is presented in Section 5.
(YDOXDWLRQRIWKH(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFWV The World Bank gives guidance on the potential negative environmental impacts of wastewater construction projects. The potential environmental impacts of each component on each environmental receptor (as identified in the baseline) both during construction and operation are considered in Section 6. Impacts were evaluated using, as relevant, some of the following qualitative attributes:
• Probability: low, moderate, high
• Avoidable or unavoidable
• Magnitude: not significant (NS), low (L), moderate (M) or high (H)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 22 • Duration: temporary or permanent
• Direct or indirect
• Type: beneficial, adverse or no impact (+, - or 0)
Impacts are assessed in as much detail as possible (given the incomplete nature of some of the designs) and presented in Section 6. Modelling was used to estimate the impact of the proposed project in terms of nutrient levels in the River Don and emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The results of the modelling were then used to make qualitative value judgements on the likely impacts of each component. For components where the designs are not yet complete, the process has been treated as a ‘black box’ and the influent, effluent and by-products assessed. Where details exist, the potential impact of different options is discussed.
&RQVXOWDWLRQ Russian legislation and World Bank guidelines require that public consultation must be conducted as part of an EIA. However, discussions with the Environment Committee, the World Bank and CPPI confirmed that consultation would not be necessary for this EIA as an extensive public consultation on this and other projects being undertaken by Rostov Vodokanal is planned as part of another project (see Section 1.4). Consultation has therefore been limited to organisations with relevant information or obvious interests in the WWTW improvements.
The Draft EIA was presented to RVK and other relevant bodies at a workshop held on 5 April 2001. A Russian Executive Summary was circulated before the meeting, and comments have been included in the report. A summary of the outcomes of the workshop and list of participants is given in Appendix F.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 23 Description of the Project ,QWURGXFWLRQ Proposals for nutrient reduction, sludge processing and methane use were prepared by the Design Institute on behalf of the Vodokanal, are recorded in the reports listed below. The situation has changed somewhat since the publishing of these reports, and up to date information on the design options was therefore obtained through discussions with the Design Institute. The description below is therefore based on both reports and discussions.
• Rostov Wastewater Treatment Works Reconstruction (First and Second levels): Giprokommunvodokanal (Design Institute), 1998;
• Russia Social Community Infrastructure Project (Water and Sanitation Component) Rostov Oblast - Appraisal Report for Subproject No. 64, Completion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation.
• CPPI, 2000. North Caucasus Water Resource Study: Rostov-on-Don WWTW Task 6.3: Draft Report. Prepared for CPPI by Halcrow; and
• Study Report: Reductions of Nutrient Discharges and Methane Emissions in Rostov-on-Don: World Bank, 2000.
([LVWLQJ7UHDWPHQW3URFHVV The works is located on the left bank of the River Don, in an established industrial complex to the south west of the city. It is designed to treat 460,000 m3/day of wastewater and on average receives 390,000 m3/day. Wastewater is collected from Rostov City via two main tunnelled interceptors, one serving the eastern district of Rostov and the other serving the northern and central districts. Wastewater is transferred across the River Don to the East Bank via a syphon to the Main Pumping Station which pumps wastewater to the WWTW. The estimated loads of pollutants entering treatment from the sewer network are given below in Table 4.1
Table 4.1 Estimations of loads of nutrients entering wastewater treatment works
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 24 Parameter Current loads BOD 61,035 kg/day Total suspended solids 53,074 kg/day Ammoniacal Nitrogen 4,830 kg/day Total Phosphorus 1,173 kg/day
The existing wastewater treatment process is outlined in Figure 4.2, and is described below. Site maps are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.3. There are eight treatment lines, which were built in two phases: Phase 1 (the 4 northern lines) and Phase 2 (the 4 southern lines). The numbers in brackets refer to buildings as shown in Figure 4.1.
1. Screening: Crude wastewater is screened (2) and then enters a grit trap (3). Screenings are manually raked and sent to the Rostov landfill site;
2. Primary settlement (5);
3. Biological treatment (6,7): Including aeration and recirculation of biologically activated sludge and it is currently during this step that most of the nutrient reduction occurs. Sludge generated during secondary settlement is recirculated to the primary settlement tanks (5) and removed automatically by sludge scrapers;
4. Chlorination: chlorine is added to the effluent in the final tanks of Phase 1 (8) before it is piped to the outfall into the river. Chlorination is carried out in order to comply with norms set by SANEPID.
The current total hydraulic residence time at design full flow to treatment is 4.7 hours and is insufficient for full nutrient removal.
Sludge generated from settlement is consolidated in gravity thickening units (28) and then stored in sludge drying beds (23, Photograph 1) or in on-site lagoons (Figure 4.3). Dried sludge is removed from the drying beds and stored on site. A small amount is used on site and in City parks. The sludge drying beds are underdrained. Pipework for removal of the drainage liquor and recirculation to the inlet of the works is in place but at least some of it is currently non operational. Similarly systems exist to remove supernatant liquor from the sludge storage lagoon but are also currently non operational.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 25 Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 26 Screenings and grit Return Activated Sludge
Preliminary Primary Aerobic Biological Reactor Chlorination screenings and grit Settlement l
Settled Sludge
Return Liquors
Gravity Thickening Sludge Storage Lagoon
(non-operational) Key: Wastewater flow
Sludge flow
Sludge Drying Beds Site generated liquors flow Return activated sludge flow
Figure 4.2 Existing wastewater treatment process
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 27 2XWOLQHGHVFULSWLRQRISURSRVHGSURFHVVLPSURYHPHQWV The proposed improvements can be divided into eight components. Final designs are in place for Components 1-4 and are described in Giprokommunvodokanal (1998). These components apply to Phase 2 treatment lines only (at the south of the works). A number of options exist for Components 5, 6 and 8, which are discussed in Halcrow (2000). Component 7 has already been constructed (funded by the World Bank CSIP), but is included in this assessment for completeness as it is an important part of the process. Components 5-8 apply to sludge and liquor from all eight lines at the works. Figure 4.1 shows the location of works to be included in the GEF grants, and those already funded by CSIP.
The eight components are summarised below, and discussed in more detail in subsequent sections. Buildings 29, 38, 39 and the solo tank 6 are not yet in place and will be built as part of the scheme. The major pipelines required are included for completeness, but it is understood that some pipeline connections already exist.
Component 1: Upgrading of screening and grit removal • Replacement of manually raked 16mm screens with automatically raked, tiered 3- 5mm screens (2); and
• Replacement of grit removal system and supporting structures (3).
Component 2: Renovation of the primary settlement tanks • Replacement of bottom scrapers, drive mechanisms and support gantries (5).
Component 3: Modification and extension of the secondary aeration tanks (6) • Extension of central partition walls to full depth;
• Provision of forced mixing within and between anaerobic and anoxic zones;
• Removal of air distribution system from anaerobic and anoxic chambers; and
• Provision of additional aeration tank of capacity 20,000 m3.
Component 4: Incorporation of lamella settlers (7) • Conversion of final tanks to incorporate lamella settlers to increase efficiency of settlement of activated sludge for return to the primary settlement tanks (5).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 28 Component 5: Chemical Phosphorus stripping • Dosing of liquors with lime or iron sulphate in existing storage tanks (32) or between aeration tank and lamellae (6 & 7), details yet to be finalised; and
• Construction of new pipelines from primary settlement tank (5) to sludge settlement tanks (28), from sludge settlement tanks to sludge digesters (29 – for sludge) and to head of works (5 – for supernatant), and from sludge digesters to phosphorus settlement tanks (32)
Component 6: Sludge digestion • Construction of six new sludge digesters (29) (existing digesters cannot be renovated); and
• Construction of new pipelines from phosphorus settlement tanks (see component 4) to centrifuges (31 – for sludge) and head of line (5 – for supernatant); and
• renovation and extension of hot water/steam raising plant (for digester heating) based on imported natural gas (26).
Component 7: Sludge dewatering (31) • Construction of three new sludge centrifuges and associated storage capacity (funded by CSIP, almost complete).
Component 8: Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant – Methane use • Construction of new Combined Heat and Power Plant (39);
• Construction of heating circuit for administration and laboratory facilities (27), based on use of the engine cooling water; and
• Construction of steam raising plant (for digester heating) based on heat recovery from engine exhaust (39).
1XWULHQW5HGXFWLRQ Concept The concept proposed by Vodokanal and the Design Institute for improving the nutrient removal process is based on renovation and expansion of existing assets, consistent with the stated aim of minimising capital and operating costs. The
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 29 objective for nutrient removal is to reduce nutrient levels in the effluent by the following:
• Total phosphorus 60% reduction
• Nitrogen 50 % reduction
The assumptions made during design included:
• Yearly average compliance for phosphorus and nitrogen; and
• Relaxed standards for nitrogen and phosphorus when the effluent temperature drops below 12oC.
In the long-term the works will eventually need to be improved, to ensure compliance with the following stringent Russian Discharge Consent: Standards from EC Urban wastewater directive 91/271/EEC in brackets.
• BOD 3 mg/l (25)
• Suspended solids 3 mg/l (35)
• Total Nitrogen 9 mg/l (1)
• Phosphorus 0.3 mg/l (10)
Halcrow (2000) ascertains that the phosphorus target of 60% reduction is unlikely to be achieved through the proposed biological treatment process alone, and recommends the implementation of phosphorus stripping (see Section 7 for more discussion on options development). Although the designs are not yet completed, if the chemical dosing is done correctly, the likely reductions in nutrient levels are summarised in Table 4.2 below.
Table 0.2: Estimated nutrient removal rates of the existing and proposed wastewater treatment N P removal BOD removal removal Existing Situation 30 to 40% 10 to 20% 60 to 70%
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 30 Proposed Modified 40 to 50 % 50 to 60% 60 to 70% Treatment Source: modified from Halcrow (2000)
Upgrading of screening and grit removal, renovation of primary treatment tanks (Components 1 and 2) These two components consist of the removal and replacement of old equipment (Photograph 2) and automation of existing equipment. No major construction works are involved. The Design Institute estimate that the volume of screened material will increase from the present 8-10m3/day to up to 30m3/day, depending on the fineness of the mesh. The use of finer screens will result in a slightly higher overall volume of solid waste emitted from the works as some of this material would otherwise be digested during secondary treatment. The benefits of removing more material at the screens are great, however, in terms of maintenance and lifespan of equipment such as pumps.
Full screenings containers will be transported to landfill without screening pressing or dewatering. Grit will be dewatered using a cyclone and further drained on a sand bed with cyclone effluent. Drained liquors will be returned to the head of the works.
Biological nutrient removal (Components 3 and 4) Components 3 and 4 involve conversion of the existing secondary treatment tanks and construction of a new 20,000 m3 aeration tank. Construction works to the existing tanks will be fairly minor. Lines will be worked on one at a time so that sufficient capacity to treat the wastewater flow is maintained at all times.
Construction of the new tank will involve more major works, including excavation of up to 20,000m3 of soil (depending on the depth to which the tank is buried). The tank will be approximately 5m deep, 130m long and 30m wide and will be partially buried. Excavated soil piled up against the edges and used elsewhere on site.
The process alterations allow for wastewater to pass through three stages of treatment:
•An anaerobic reactor that is essential for preparing bacteria for phosphorus removal in later stages of the process;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 31 •An anoxic stage in which nitrates are reduced; and
•An aerobic reactor which is responsible for the removal of ammonia and phosphorus uptake. Air is supplied by two duty 1,250 kW blowers which generate 1,500 m3/hour. Phosphorus is thus removed in the waste sludge.
Each lane shall adopt a serpentine flow, with four lanes. These would be arranged as follows and as shown in Figure 4.4:
Figure 0.4: Schematic of proposed modified biological treatment process
Aerobic Zone
Aerobic Zone
Anoxic Zone
Anaerobic Zone
The construction of the new aeration tank will extend capacity to 110,000m3 and provide a hydraulic residence time of 6 hours at full flow (the peak theoretical flow calculated from Rostov’s population estimate and the condition of the sewer network (after improvements) and 8 hours at average flow.
The provision of lamella separators requires only minor construction works to attach the separators, which are provided as packaged units (Photograph 3).
Phosphorus stripping (Component 5) The necessity of including phosphorus stripping in order to achieve the nutrient reduction targets was described in Halcrow (2000). Discussions with the Design Institute indicate that the design for phosphorus stripping has not yet been decided, but that it will involve chemical precipitation. The options for the reagent to be used include:
• Ferrous sulphate (in solution); or
• Lime (solid or as a colloid).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 32 The reagent would be stored in an existing building (37) and added either between the aeration tank and the lamellae (6 & 7) or directly to the phosphate settlement tanks (32). The dosing point would be chosen so as to ensure removal of sufficient phosphorus to meet the targets, and would depend on temperature and phosphate load.
Chemical dosing will increase the quantity of sludge produced. Table 4.3. gives a rough indication of the sludge volumes that may be expected, but it should be emphasised that volumes depend largely on the type of reagent used and the dosing level. The values given are volumes as removed from the main treatment process, prior to any processing.
Table 4.3 : Likely volumes of sludge arising with and without chemical dosing for phosphorus removal
Type of Sludge With Chemicals for P Without Chemicals Removal for P removal m3/d % DS m3/d % DS Primary sludge 1,220 3.0 1,220 3.0 Waste Activated 4,550 0.7 3,641 0.7 Totals 5,770 1.3 4,861 1.3 Source: Halcrow (2000)
6OXGJH3URFHVVLQJDQG0HWKDQH8WLOLVDWLRQ Introduction One of the main drivers of this project is to minimise the greenhouse gas emissions associated with re-development of the WWTW. In particular this comprises the beneficial use of biogas generated in the digestion process. The emission of greenhouse gases will be minimised through combustion of all methane produced in the digesters to form carbon dioxide.
At present there are no facilities for the proper processing of sludge and it is discharged in a wet state, after gravity thickening to either sludge drying beds or to lagoons at the rear of the site. A small but unknown quantity of sludge removed from the drying beds is used in City parks. Development of sludge processing and methane utilisation is planned based on:
• Methane generation by mesophilic digestion;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 33 • Heat and electricity generation through combustion of the biogas from digestion; and
• Installation of the Baker Hughes Centri Dry process.
The incorporation of these projects into the modified process line are shown diagrammatically in Figure 4.5 Additionally an outline of the process flow rates and associated estimates in reductions in green house gases are displayed in Figures 4.6 and 4.7.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 34 Screenings and Return Activated Sludge
Preliminary Primary Anaerobic Anoxic Biological Aerobic Biological Chlorinatio screenings and grit Settlement Biological Reactor Reactor Reactor n
Settled Sludge Return Liquors Chemical Polishing of Phosphorus Gravity Thickening
Key: Wastewater flow Sludge Digestion CHP Plant Sludge flow
Site generated liquors flow
Return activated sludge flow Sludge Dewatering Methane gas
Sludge Storage
Figure 4.5 Proposed process line incorporating sludge treatment and methane use
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 35 GAS FROM BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
CO2 = 9,004 kg/day
CH4 = 0 kg/day
o 1 Settlement Biological Treatment 2o Settlement
GAS FROM TREATMENT
CO2 = 37,142 kg/day ENERGY REQUIRMENT =2,300 kW CH4 = 14,348 kg/day
GAS FROM SLUDGE TREATMENT
CO2 = 25,068 kg/day
GAS FROM DIGESTION GAS FROM SECONDARY GAS FROM SLUDGE CH4 = 14,348 kg/day DIGESTION STORAGE
CO2 = 14,916 kg/day CO2 = 1,865 kg/day CO2 = 8,287 kg/day
CH4 = 10,074 kg/day CH4 = 1,260 kg/day CH4 = 3,014 kg/day
Sludge Storage
Digestion 2nd Digestion
ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 400 kW ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 20 kW ENERGY REQUIRMENT FROM DEWATERING = 400 kW
TOTAL ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 3,120 kW
GAS FROM BURNING COAL TO GENERATE ENERGY
CO2 = 3,070 kg/day
CH4 = 0 kg/day Figure 4.6 Estimation of green house gas emissions without methane use
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 36 GAS FROM BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
CO2 = 9,004 kg/day
CH4 = 0 kg/day
o 1 Settlement Biological Treatment 2o Settlement
GAS FROM TREATMENT
CO2 = 46,862 kg/day ENERGY REQUIRMENT =2,300 kW CH4 = 4,274 kg/day
GAS FROM SLUDGE TREATMENT
CO2 = 10,152 kg/day
GAS FROM SECONDARY GAS FROM SLUDGE CH4 = 4,274 kg/day DIGESTION STORAGE
CO2 = 1,865 kg/day CO2 = 8,287 kg/day
CH4 = 1,260 kg/day CH4 = 3,014 kg/day
Sludge Storage
Digestion 2nd Digestion
ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 400 kW ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 20 kW ENERGY REQUIRMENT FROM DEWATERING = 400 kW
GAS FROM DIGESTION TOTAL ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 3,120 kW
ESTIMATED ENERGY FROM CHP = 3,200 kW CO2 = 14,916 kg/day
CH4 = 10,074 kg/day GAS FROM CHP
CO2 = 27,706 kg/day
CHP CHP CH4 = 0 kg/day
Figure 4.7 Estimation of green house gas emissions with methane use
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 37
Sludge digestion (Component 6) Proposals for sludge processing and disposal are still at the preliminary stage, with various options still being considered. However following discussions with the Design Institute and RVK the preferred scheme, to cater for future sludge produced from the wastewater treatment streams is likely to include:
• Thickening of blended or co-settled primary and waste activated sludges to 5 or 6% dry matter in existing gravity thickeners (28)
• Mesophilic digestion at 350C and 15 to 21 days retention time. Digestion would be carried out either in the existing digesters after renovation or in six newly constructed units (29)
• Gas storage in purpose built vessels(30)
• Digester heating by steam and hot water
According to the most recent design calculations, 2/3 of the heat required for digestion will be produced by the CHP. The remaining energy will be produced in an ancillary heating circuit. It is proposed that this circuit will require the renovation or replacement of a boiler fired by a supply of natural gas. Previous proposals for use of two existing tanks with capacity each of 4,700 m3 (32) for secondary digestion have now been amended . It is now suggested that these tanks be used for chemical dosing, phosphorus removal and thickening of the sludge. Supernatant liquor from thickening is led to (4) The sludge produced with lime of ferric sulphate addition will contain slightly more dry matter but be less dense and occupy some 15% more volume.
Sludge Dewatering (Component 7) Thickened digested sludge (32) will be passed to three centrifuges located in building (31). These units have been installed and are currently being commissioned.
The centrifuges installed will produce a sludge of 30 to 35% dry matter in a granular form. Previous plans to produce a drier sludge of 55% dry matter content have recently been postponed.
After centrifuging the centrate will be returned to the primary settlement tanks (4) and the sludge held in hoppers which are emptied into Kamaz trucks of 6m3
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 39 capacity. The trucks shuttle the sludge to disposal. During night-time or when other disposal routes are unavailable the dried sludge will be stored temporarily on site in a purpose built silo. The silo is constructed of asphalt coated concrete and uncovered. A sloped entrance to the silo provides access for a front end loader. The loader will remove the sludge via a conveyor system to the Kamaz trucks for ultimate disposal.
The centrifuges are designed to work one duty (continuous), one standby and one approximately half time. However this pattern may change if sludge currently stored is removed and added to the process line at (32), (1) or elsewhere. The centrifuges and associated pumps consume approximately 200kW on full load and produce approximately 10m3 of dried sludge per hour.
CHP plant – Methane Use (Component 8) It is currently proposed to utilise the digester gas from the gas storage vessels as a fuel in Caterpillar engined CHP units which will be installed as stand alone packages. Engine start up will be achieved using natural gas. The biogas distribution main linking the gas storage vessels and the CHP unit will also comprise a condensate removal system.
The engines will be compression ignition converted to spark ignition provided in soundproof enclosures. Engine cooling water will be utilised for building heating (as a replacement for the natural gas currently used). It is not known if this cooling water will be able to be used for preheating sludge prior to digestion when the ambient temperature is high enough that building heating is not required. Additionally in high ambient temperatures a heat dump may be required to maintain optimum engine performance.
Engine exhaust gasses will be used to provide the base load of digester heating through a steam boiler. The combination of exhaust gas and natural gas fired steam heaters will ensure that sufficiently high digester temperatures can be maintained. Depending on the design and operation standard chosen, this may be sufficient to ensure stabilisation of the sludge.
The use of sludge dryers will also preclude the formation of methane (on site) from the digested sludge, although some methane may be produced if the dried sludge is subsequently disposed of to a wet anaerobic environment.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 40 Electricity produced from the CHP unit will be used on site as a substitute for that currently imported. This will result in further reductions of greenhouse gasses emissions as less coal is required to be combusted at the Novocherkassk power station.
In the absence of final designs, it is difficult to estimate accurately the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that will be associated with this project. Estimations based on the figures given in Figures 4.6 and 4.7 are shown in Table 4.4. It is understood, however, that current designs do not include secondary digestion. This is unlikely to have an impact on the total methane generated, as methane which would have been generated in the secondary digesters will be generated in the lagoon anyway (albeit over a longer timescale). The estimated reductions in methane emissions are given in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4 Estimated greenhouse gas emissions with and without methane use.
Gas Emission without Emission with methane methane use (kg/day) use (kg/day)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 37,142 46,862
Methane (CH4) 14,348 4,274
CO2 equivalent 388,668 151,575 Source: updated from calculations in Halcrow (2000)
6OXGJH4XDQWLWLHVDQG4XDOLW\ An estimate of the quantities of sludge that can be expected after completion of this project is shown in Table 4.5.
Table 0.5: Estimated sludge quantities produced from the nutrient removal process
Type of Sludge With Chemicals for P Without Chemicals for P Removal removal m3/d % DS m3/d % DS Primary sludge 1,220 2.5 1,220 3.0 Waste Activated 4,550 1.2 3,641 0.7 Totals 5,770 1.5 4,861 1.3
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 41 Source: Halcrow, 2000
The disposal route of sludge has been considered in outline by several of the concerned authorities but to date no specific plans or budget lines have been developed. To accelerate the process the terms of reference for developing a comprehensive sludge disposal strategy have been provided as a component for high priority consideration in the RVK Strategy Plan. The project would include a full analysis of the chemical, biological and physical characteristics of the stored sludges, an environmental assessment of the existing sludge storage, pilot studies on disposal methods and market studies on sludge uses.
As well as a change in the sludge volume, density and quantity of volatile organic material a further small decline in the metals content is anticipated due to the decline in industry. However the loss of dry matter through sludge digestion means that whilst the total contamination level remains constant, in the immediate future, the concentration of these contaminants in the dried sludge will increase. The composition of the sludge currently produced is shown in Table 5.23 and the quality of that stored on site is discussed in Section 5.4.7.
In the future it will be important as industry is revitalised to ensure adequate pre- treatment prior to discharge to sewer and strict controls are introduced. This subject is discussed in more detail in the Strategy Study.
&RQVWUXFWLRQ3URJUDPPH The construction programme is still to be confirmed, and will depend on the specific designs chosen. The Design Institute have indicated that works on the aeration tanks will be conducted one line at a time, and that this will allow for the renovation of two lines per year. The works will therefore take a minimum of two years to complete.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 42 Existing Environmental Conditions ,QWURGXFWLRQ This chapter presents information on the environmental features of the study area that are relevant to the scheme. As discussed in Section 1.3, the study area is defined for different factors as either Greater Rostov, or the Lower Don from Tsimlyansk to the Azov Sea depending on the feature under consideration.
Rostov City was founded in 1749 and is now a large industrial, agricultural, scientific and cultural centre. Greater Rostov includes the satellite towns of Aksai and Bataisk, and has a combined area of 7,900km2 and a population of approximately 1.3 million (Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000).
3K\VLFDO(QYLURQPHQW Topography, Geology and Soils Rostov city is situated on the North PriAzov plain, which is a rolling plain broken up by the valleys of the Don, its main tributaries (the Seversky Donets, the Sal, and the Manych), and a large number of small rivers and lowland valleys (Figure 1.2).
The northern part of the city is located on a plateau 80 - 100m above sea level, which slopes down to 25 – 30 m in the south of the city. The left bank of the Don river is only 1 – 10 m above sea level. The city territory is divided by large gullies and small flat-bottomed valleys, most of which are connected to the Temernik river valley and the right bank of the Don.
The Lower Don basin contains carboniferous, cretaceous, palaeogene, neogene and quaternary deposits. The northern half of the Rostov Oblast consists mainly of sands, sandstones, clays, and palaeogene and neogene carbonate rocks. The southern half of the Rostov Oblast is composed of quaternary sands, clays and loess loams. The Donetsk mountain-ridge of the Seversky Donets river basin contains carboniferous rocks (mudstone and sandstone with the dissemination of lime-stone. The lowland valleys slopes to the north of the Donetsk mountain ridge consist of Upper Cretaceous marls, sands and sandstone.
The main soil-forming rocks of the Rostov Oblast are quaternary deposits (yellow- brown loess loam, yellow-brown and red-brown clays) underlain by more ancient deposits of different geological age and lithological structure, from carboniferous coal limestone, sands and shale to sandstone, chalks, marls and saliferous clays of Cretaceous and Tertiary geological age. Soils are mainly clays, sands and loams of
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 43 thickness is from 0.7 to 4 m. The relief forming rocks are Neogene and Palaeogene sediments.
In places, the city suffers from erosion, accumulation, sliding and suffusion processes. Changes in groundwater levels have led to flooding of some city districts. In 1997, approximately 530 hectares were flooded within the city area.
Climate Rostov has a continental climate with moderately hot dry summers and unstable winters with frequent thaws. Average temperatures range from +22.8 in July to
–5.7 in January. The prevailing winds are easterly, and often turn into hot dry winds bringing dust storms. Westerly winds prevail in June and July.
The average annual precipitation is 555 mm, consisting of rain (70%), snow (8%) and sleet (22%). The majority of precipitation occurs during the warm period of the year.
Hydrology The Don river basin has a catchment area of 422,000 km2, and occupies approximately 60% of the Azov Sea basin. The basin covers 12 regions, including two Krays, one autonomous republic of the Russian Federation and three regions of Ukraine. The river is 1870 km long, and has over 5,000 km of tributaries. The river has a well-developed flood-plain with a width of 10-12 km, and in some places up to 20-25 km.
The Lower Don is defined as the 327 km stretch from the Tsimlyansk reservoir to the Bay of Taganrog. The river channel of the Lower Don is 200-600m wide, and meanders freely, with a great number of bends and crossovers. Depth ranges from 4-6 m, decreasing to 0.7-1.0 m on the crossovers. The current velocity during the low-water period is 0.5-1.0 m/s, and in snow melt flood period this increases to 2.0 m/s.
River flow has been regulated since the construction of the Tsimylansk dam in 1952. The major source of water is the spring snow-melt, which takes place in March and lasts 3 - 4 weeks (compared to 2 - 2.5 months before the dam was constructed). Fluctuations of water level have decreased greatly as a result of flow regulation, and during low-water years the spring flood no longer occurs.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 44 Due to the low tidal range of the Azov Sea, the water level changes little at the river mouth. The water level regime here is influenced mainly by the wind (the so- called pile-up pile-down phenomenon). Ice is formed on the Don in the second half of December and generally persists until to the middle of March.
The Tsimlyansk reservoir is one of the largest in the steppe zone and extends for 281km in a north-easterly direction. It is used for annual and long-term regulation of the Don river flow in order to improve navigation conditions, develop irrigation, and meet requirements of different economy sectors (especially fisheries). Efforts are being made to improve the management of the dam to maximise benefit to all downstream river users, including development of a Reservoir Management Plan as part of the World Bank’s North Caucasus Water Resources Management Project (World Bank, 1997).
The largest tributary in the lower part of the Don is the Seversky Donets river, which rises in Ukraine and flows for about 200km through the Rostov Oblast to its confluence with the Don approximately 160 km upstream of Rostov city. The width of the river-bed varies from 150 to 350m, and the depth from 2-6 m. Current velocity during the low-water period is 0.2-04 m/s. Of significant historical and cultural interest to Rostov city is the River Temernik, whose valley runs north south, dividing the city into two parts. The Temernik was, and still is to a certain extent, an important feature of the city, and is used for recreational purposes. The river and its sediments are heavily polluted and in parts foul smelling, even in winter. This means that despite its low flow (0.06 km3/yr), it still has an impact on the quality of the main river. This is because a large amount of untreated industrial and domestic wastewater was discharged into the Temernik historically. Approximately 20,000m3 of untreated domestic sewage is still discharged into the river daily, but will soon cease as a new collector is under construction.
It is estimated that abstractions decrease the water resources of the Lower Don in an average year from 28.7 to 21.5 km3. During low-water periods, this figure can drop as low as 17.8 km3. The main causes are: industry, agriculture, domestic use, irrigation and evaporation from the reservoir surface (2.5 km3). Anthropogenic abstraction of the water in the Lower Don system is estimated at 6.5 - 10.6 km3 per year (23-37% of the natural flow).
Water balances of a number of medium and small rivers of the Lower Don basin are deficient in medium-dry (75 %) and low-hydraulicity (95 %) years. Water
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 45 resources have been practically exhausted in the rivers Seversky Donets, Sal, Manych, Bolshoy Yegorlyk, Sredny Yegorlyk, as well as in a number of rivers north of from the Azov Sea (Mius, Mokry Yelantchik, Sambek, Yeya, Kagalnik Azovsky). This is because of intensive water intake, highly controlled flow and violation of economical activity rules in water protection zones and flood plains. Data on catchment area and flow volumes for the Don and tributaries are summarised in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Water Resources of Lower Don Basin Rivers
Rivers flowing into Rostov Oblast Rivers rising within the Oblast River Source Catchment Annual inflow volume Catchment Annual flow volume area (km3) area (km3) (‘000s km2) (‘000s km2) Average Exceedence Average Exceedence 75% 95% 75% 95% Don Voronezh region 101.00 10.10 7.92 5.68 Don tributaries Voronezh region 135.22 11.34 8.03 4.78 Seversky Donets Lugansk region 72.64 4.65 3.13 1.98 1.50 0.13 0.07 0.03 Bolshaya Lugansk region 1.45 0.13 0.07 0.03 16.00 0.30 0.08 0.01 Kamenka Sal Kalmytskaya 3.43 0.05 0.02 0.01 republic. Manych Kalmytskaya 5.48 0.05 0.02 0.01 republic. Bolshoi Egorlyk Stavropolsky kray 11.00 0.07 0.03 0.01 Tchir 5.28 0.24 0.13 0.04 Tsimla 2.80 0.10 0.05 0.02 Kundryuchiya 2.10 0.11 0.05 0.02 Kalitva 11.00 0.55 0.27 0.10 Derkul 5.10 0.22 0.11 0.05 Others 48.50 1.46 0.73 0.29 TOTAL DON 330.22 26.39 19.22 12.50 92.28 3.11 1.49 0.56 Source: World Bank, 1996 (data provided by the North Caucasus Hydromet Service)
The Don is one of two major rivers flowing into the north eastern Azov Sea (the other being the River Kuban). The Azov Sea has a surface area of 38,700 km2, a volume of 290 km3 and a mean depth of 8.5 m (maximum 14 m). It belongs to the Mediterranean Sea system, and is bordered by Russia and Ukraine. The Azov Sea catchment is 556,000 km2 and includes south-eastern Ukraine and south-western Russia with a population of about 33 million people. Irrigation is very well developed in the basin and is the largest water-consuming component of the economy.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 46 Hydrogeology Groundwater resources are limited within the Rostov Oblast (World Bank, 1996). This is because the area is situated at a conjunction between artesian basins, and therefore has only limited capability to restore natural fresh ground water resources, and because precipitation (and hence groundwater recharge) is low. The average long-term magnitude of groundwater flow is 0.3 m3/sec from 1 km2, and is less than 1% of annual precipitation. It is estimated that groundwater flow accounts for 10-20% of river flow.
The total available groundwater with salinity of less than 1.5g/l in the Rostov Oblast (as estimated on the basis of 27 explored deposits) amounts to approximately 860,000 m3/day. Currently only about 20% of this is being used for domestic, industrial and agricultural needs (Table 5.2). Groundwater forms approximately 10% of the Oblast’s water supply, and is the main source of water in smaller towns and villages. Ground water abstraction is performed mostly through bore-holes (usually single bore-hole). 6,614 bore-holes were registered as being in use in the Oblast in 1993. Abstraction from these bore-holes is not metered, and since they are also used for agricultural purposes, it is difficult to determine the exact amount.
Table 5.2 Estimated available groundwater resources and groundwater abstraction in the Rostov Oblast
Volume abstracted in Oblast (m3/day) Household and Agriculture Mine workings Other Total drinking water 1998 1997 1998 1997 1998 1997 1998 1997 1998 1997 138,10 211,80 242,10 264,40 87,300 679,30 735,90 0 0 0 0 0 0
Known available resources: 888,700 m3/day Predicted available resources: 2,500,000 m3/day
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment Committee, 1999
Very little groundwater is abstracted for domestic use in the city of Rostov, and only 38 single bore-holes (of 77 used for decentralised water supply) were operating in 1995. It is understood that the majority of industries draw their water supply from groundwater.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 47 1DWXUDO(QYLURQPHQW Terrestrial Ecology The majority of the Rostov Oblast consists of dry to moderately dry steppes. Of particular relevance to this project are the ecosystems adjacent to the river banks, which are classified as meadows (Figure 5.2). The majority of this land is under agriculture.
Active transformation of the Lower Don environment began in the Middle Ages, and increased rapidly during the 1930s-60s when large scale use of water caused quality and quantitative transformation of natural water resources of the basin. The major steps were:
• Agricultural development of the region, ploughing of virgin lands, and introduction of deep ploughing (during the 1930s) caused the reducing of the Don river annual run-off to 10%;
• Damming and diking of large and small rivers of the basin altering the natural river run-off regime. This caused the disappearance of snow melt floods; breaking of migration patterns, especially of anadromous and fluvial- anadromous fish, and a fall in the productivity of the Azov Sea. The resulting ponds and silted channels caused a complete transformation of both riverine communities and terrestrial wildlife due to the lack of regular flooding;
• Increase in the abstraction of water for energy, industry, municipal services and agriculture so that water resources were no longer sufficient. This caused a number of aquatic ecosystems to dry up, and broke the fresh water balance of the Azov Sea;
• Development of water transport, especially the use of large-capacity steamers of the “river-sea” type;
• Dredging of sand, gravel and other building materials, changing the river’s hydrology and causing the silting up of spawning grounds, especially those of sturgeon and fluvial-anadromous fish; and
• Development of industry, municipal services and agriculture development, causing pollution of water bodies (see Section 5.5).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 48 To this can be added the present threats of:
• Inadequate protection, especially poor management of Protected Areas – discussed below; and
• The widespread practice of burning reeds and grass on land near the river during spring. This affects many animals which shelter and forage in these areas, as well as destroying habitat and nesting cover just as migrating birds arrive. It appears that the purpose of the burning is simply to clear the land, because it is generally not used for agriculture after the burning.
Despite the above, there are still some areas containing a number of important species remain. There is little available data on the presence and distribution of important species, although it is known that the area includes feather grass, Shrenk tulip, Bibershtein tulip, dwarf iris, and Taliev cornflower. The recent collapse of the agricultural system has allowed an increase in the number of endangered bird species. The Red Book-listed white-tailed eagle (Haliaetus albicilla) has even recently been observed breeding in the outskirts of the city (Lipkovich, pers.comm.). There are a number of terrestrial protected areas in the region, none of which are in close proximity of the river Don (Figure 5.3). Protected areas associated with the Don Delta are discussed in Section 5.3.2 below.
Hunting is popular in the area, and controlled by the State Hunting Department, which owns a number of reserves (Figure 5.3). Of relevance to this project is the Azov section of the Rostov Federal Hunting Ground, which is located in the Don Delta.
The official hunting statistics are shown below, to give an idea of the large animal biodiversity in the region (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3 Hunting Statistics for the Rostov Oblast, 1999
Type Estimated Licensed shoot Actual kill population Elk 246 4 3 Roe deer 2 043 111 42 Wild boar 3 044 375 226 European 674 82 63 deer Deer 185 18 16
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 49 Type Estimated Licensed shoot Actual kill population Fallow deer 72 11 8 Hare- 119 468 16 000 Red fox 15 153 8 200 Grey 83 615 1 674 partridge Pheasant 11 456 2 219 Goose 22 000 150 Ducks 340 000 48 768 Marten 300 - Beaver 480 - Muskrat 4 105 113 Raccoon 1 347 600 Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment Committee, 2000
Aquatic and Wetland Ecology The Lower Don The Lower Don used to be high in biodiversity, but is now less so due to the major changes to its ecosystem in terms of river dynamics and quality as discussed above. Water pollution is one of the major current threats to aquatic ecology in the River Don, and is discussed in detail in Section 5.5.1. It is understood from the Fisheries Institute and Kimstach et al (1998) that mass fish kills occur both in the Lower Don and the Azov Sea, and that these are linked to industrial pollution events and toxic algal blooms. Data on the frequency or severity of these events is not available. Algal blooms, as well as producing toxins, also have indirect effects on river wildlife, through reducing the oxygen levels in the water, and destroying habitat and food sources. The collapse of the turbot fishery in the Black Sea, for example, was linked to the demise of Phyllophora beds (the food source of turbot) due to algal blooms (BSEP, 2001).
Eutrophication also has an impact on sediment dwellers. Data from the Black Sea indicates that benthic fauna biomass has decreased dramatically in the last few decades, due to eutrophication and most likely also the impact of heavy metal pollution (BSEP, 2001). It is highly likely that the same impact has occurred on the Don River and Azov Sea.
Other indicators of the impact of pollution on aquatic ecology are an increase in the proportion of fish with pathological conditions, and a major decline in the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 50 crayfish population in some areas (Kimstach et al, 1998). Oil and pesticide levels are particularly high in the river, and are damaging to biota as they bioaccumulate. High levels of pesticides have been found in fish muscles, liver, eggs and brain tissue. Heavy metals in fish tissue do not generally exceed the MAC for health, but are likely to be a problem for fish physiologically e.g. affecting reproductive capacity.
There is generally a lack of reliable data on the present status of species, but some of the major biodiversity characteristics of the river and the delta are shown in Table 5.4 below.
Table 5.4 Aquatic biodiversity of the Don River and Don Delta
Number of species Parameters Total Endemic Rare Vulnerable Status not & defined disappearin g River Don High vegetation and macrophytes of coastal 149 11 9 5 zone Phytoplankton 1) 415 165 46 Invertebrates 355 13 2 157 Fish 62 1 8 8 8 Don Delta High vegetation and macrophytes of coastal 156 25 15 5 zone Invertebrates 341 12 2 146 Fish 59 1 4 8 8 Note: 1) including the Don delta Source: World Bank, 1996
The diversity and abundance of fish has decreased considerably since the 1930s. The current state of the fisheries is considered in Section 5.4.5, but the impact of the changes on biodiversity of fish in the river is considered below (Table 5.5):
Table 5.5 Changes in biodiversity of fish in the tributaries of the Lower Don and Seversky Donetz
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 51 Tributary Observation No. of fish species Period in catches Middle Don tributaries 1944-1950 50 1955-1960 33 1984 30 Tuzlov 1982-1984 11 Grushevka 1982-1984 6 B.Nesvetay 1982-1984 12 M. Nesvetay 1982-1984 8 Karachir 1982-1984 6 Aksai 1982-1984 12 Kazimovka 1982-1984 3 Seversky Donets Basin 1954 21 Kundryuchiya 1982 12 1995 10 1954 16 Bystraya 1982 12 Kalitva 1954 12 1982 7 Likhaya 1954 10 1982 6 B. Kalitvinets 1954 17 1982 8 Source: World Bank, 1996
Without statistical analysis, it is clear that there is a trend towards reductions in species diversity throughout the catchment. Current numbers of species are little more than half those recorded during the 1950s.
The Don Delta The Don Delta is recognised as an ecologically diverse area of conservation importance with high biodiversity and a number of endemic species (Table 5.5 above). It is situated on the bird migration route connecting Russia, western Siberia, the middle east and northern and eastern Africa. More than 70 species of birds are known to migrate through the area, with more than 50 species nesting.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 52 Unlike the deltas of other main rivers in Europe, the Don Delta is not protected at the national level. There are several overlapping regional protection designations (see Figure 5.3):
• Major Ornithological Territory “The Don Delta”, located in the Azov, Myasnikovsky and Neklinovsky districts. It covers part of the cities Rostov- on-Don, Azov and Bataisk. The total area is 53,800 hectares, including 1 km of the Taganrog bay along the delta shore. The Territory has an administration and security system;
• Don Fisheries Reserve , located in the Azov and Neklinovsky districts. The total area is 68,000 hectares. The area is regulated by the Fisheries Department of the Ministry for Agriculture. It is understood that fishing is banned within the reserve, and that patrols are made during daylight hours to protect sturgeon. Collective fish farms in the area were closed down, and only a few small carp and grass carp farms still exist. The reserve has an administration and security system;
• Rostov Federal Hunting Ground, Azov section, located in the Azov district., with a total area of 6000 hectares.,
• Girlovsky Federal Hunting Reserve, located in the Neklinovsky district of the Don reserved area. The total area is 5000 hectares.
It is understood that the protection afforded by these areas is imperfect, due to budgetary constraints and administrative overlap.
+XPDQ(QYLURQPHQW Population, Employment and Income Distribution Demography The estimated population of the Oblast is 4.5 million (World Bank, 1996), and average population density in the region is five times higher than that of Russia as a whole and is 44/km2. The majority of the Oblast’s population live within Greater Rostov.
Both Oblast and city are currently following the national trend of decreasing population. This is largely due to an ageing population, a decreasing birth rate and a high level of mortality for people of an active age. Birthrate in 1999 was 6.7 per
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 53 thousand being lower that for the Oblast (7.6 per thousand). The mortality rate was 13.4 per thousand, compared to the Oblast the rate of 15.0 thousand.
The city attracts large numbers of migrants due to its industrial nature, and the official unemployment rate in 1999 was only 0.66%. Shadow (unregistered) unemployment decreased in 1999 to an estimated 1.79%.
Income The Rostov-on-Don municipality forecasts that the average monthly salary in the city will increase to Rb1769 in 2000, compared to Rb1136 in 1999. The minimum subsistence income for 1999 was estimated at Rb741. The City Department of Statistics estimates that approximately 25% of the population earn less than this.
The Ministry for Economic Development and Trade forecast that economic growth, prices and salaries will continue to rise in the next few years (Table 5.6).
Table 5.6 Economic indicators and forecasts for Russia
Index Forecast 2000 2001 2002 2003 Change in consumer prices 20.2% 12-14% 11% 8% Gross domestic product 7.6% 4% 4.8% 5.2% Industry production 9% 4.5% 5% 5.5% Municipal services 1% 0.5% 1.2% 1.4% production Average monthly salaries n.a. 6-8% 6-8% 6-8% Source: The elaborated parameters of forecast for social and economic development of the RF for the period of up to 2003, Ministry for Economic Development and Trade
The Ministry predicts that gross regional product per capita will have increased by 128% in 2003 compared to 1999 (from Rb 22,900 to Rb 52,400), and that the ratio of revenue per capita:living wage will increase from 1.79 in 1999 to 2.1 in 2003. They also predict that the percentage of the population earning below the subsistence level will have decreased from 26.7% in 1999 to 19.3% in 2003.
Water Resources, Supply and Sanitation Water Resources
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 54 Water resources of the Don basin are used very intensively by the municipal, agricultural, industrial, irrigation, fisheries, transport, power generation and recreation sectors. In a year of average flow, more than 60% of the flow is used for economic purposes. Water deficits occur regularly in small and medium rivers during dry years (see Section 5.2.3). The lack of available water resources is becoming a limiting factor in some fields of regional development, and is causing increasing salinisation of the Azov Sea (World Bank, 1996). Water flow in the Don is regulated at the Tsimylansk dam (see Section 5.2.3 for more detail). The Tsimlyansk reservoir provides irrigation to a total area of 200,000 hectares.
Inter-basin and in-basin river flow transfers include: 0.3-0.45 km3/year transferred from the Don to the Vesyolovsky and Proletarsky reservoirs, and more than 0.5 km3/year transferred from the Don to the Manych reservoir, the Sal river and its tributaries.
The consented water abstraction volume for the Oblast is 17.8 km3/ year, 90% of which is surface water (World Bank, 1996, Figure 5.1). Irretrievable water consumption is estimated at an average of 10 % of water abstraction, and the majority of used water is returned into the water bodies as effluents of various compositions.
Table 5.7 below gives a summary of the abstraction volumes and use categories for 1995 to 1999.
Table 5.7 Water consumption and water abstraction norms for the Rostov Oblast (km3)
Note: signifies a downward trend
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Abstraction (km3) Abstracted from 5.2 5.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 natural water bodies From groundwater 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.25 0.2 Total use of fresh water 4.1 4.2 3.4 2.9 3.1 Consumption (km3) Municipal and drinking 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 water purposes Industry 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 Irrigation 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 55 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Agricultural water 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 supply Recirculated water 1.8 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 Discharge (km3) Untreated discharges 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 Insufficiently treated 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 discharges Discharges complying 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 with norms Discharges treated to 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 comply with norms Total discharged to 3.0 3.2 2.6 2.4 2.4 water bodies Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment Committee, 2000
Some comments on the above table:
• Industry: The major industrial abstractor on the Lower Don is the Novocherkassk heating power station, which abstracts 2km3/year for cooling of heating units. Water is discharged slightly warmed, but not polluted by chemicals..
• Agriculture and fisheries: In 1999 abstraction of water from the Lower Don by the Department of Irrigation Systems management for fisheries and irrigation was 1.8 km . Abstraction of water for fish ponds continues to decrease, and in 1999 was 0.004 km less than in 1998.
• Municipal Services: Water is abstracted by the Vodokanals of a number of cities: Rostov Vodokanal – 0.2 km ; firm Istok, Kamensk-Shakhtinsky –0.2 km ; Kamensk-Shakhtinsky Vodokanal – 0.008 km ; Volgodonsk Vodokanal – 0.004 km ; and Salsk Vodokanal – 0.004 km .
Water Supply The majority of the Oblast’s drinking water supply is drawn from surface water, with only 10% coming from groundwater. Rostov Vodokanal is responsible for water supply in the city of Rostov, and has two Water Treatment Works: Alexandrovska WTW located on the eastern edge of the city, and Central WTW located in the city centre. The city relies on the River Don as its only source of
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 56 drinking water. An estimated 98% of the population are connected to the mains, the remainder being served by wells and other sources. There are some problems related to the quality of drinking water arriving in the taps, and these are discussed in more details in Section 5.4.3. The city also provides drinking water to the satellite towns of Aksai and Bataisk and to the village of Kovalevka, and partially treated water to the district hot water supply company. It is estimated that 7% of the population rely on shared and private standpipes for their drinking water supply (RVK 2001).
The continuing problems of treated water quality in Rostov has led to the setting up of “Drinking Water Galleries” by the Municipality to sell satisfactory drinking water in the city. These galleries use water from RVK mains and advanced small- scale treatment processes such as ion-exchange, GAC absorption, ozonation and UV disinfection. Treated water is sold to customers to carry home in containers to use for drinking and cooking. The scale of these galleries is small with a combined capacity of approximately 100 m3/d (which equates to approximately 3% of the total water required for drinking and cooking in the city). More detail on water supply and its problems is given in the RVK Strategic Plan.
Sanitation The WWTW at the centre of this study is the only one in Rostov. The sewer network is approximately 950km long, and has 236,236 domestic connections and 4,272 industrial connections. It also receives wastewater discharged from the sewer system in Bataisk. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the city population, and 50% of Bataisk are not connected to the wastewater collection system (World Bank, 2000b). These people use pit latrines or septic tanks, which are emptied by the municipal agency Rostovavtodor. This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.4.3 below.
Public Health (a) Summary of public health in Rostov-on-Don and in the Russian Federation in general Statistics for the Russian Federation suggest that health status is lower than that in many other European countries and are summarised in Table 5.8 below.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 57 Table 5.8 Selected health indicators in the Russian Federation and the European Region
Russian Europe 1 Federation (1998) (1996) Life expectancy - average 67.2 years 72.8 years Life expectancy – men 61.4 years 68.6 years Life expectancy - women 73.3 years 77.1 years Infant mortality per 1000 live births 16.4 12.6 Maternal mortality per 100 000 live 44.0 19.8 births Standardised mortality rate (SMR) for all 1334.5 1013.7 causes of death per 100 000 1 The World Health Organisations’ (WHO) European Region comprises 51 member states Source: WHO (1999).
Mortality data in most countries tends to be more reliable and complete than morbidity (illness) data. Available mortality data for Rostov-on-Don is presented in Table 5.9 together with comparable national data for the Russian Federation and data for the World Health Organisation (WHO) European Region. It is not clear if the figures for Rostov-on-Don are standardised by age, if not then some over- estimation is possible of diseases in the most populous age groups. It would also be better to have national data for cities for the Russian Federation and for Europe to compare with Rostov. Given these differences, it is still possible to compare the different sets of data.
Table 5.9 Mortality rates for Rostov-on-Don, the Russian Federation and the WHO European Region
Rostov-on- Russian Europe Don (1998) (a) Federation (1996) (c) (1998) (b) Total mortality rate per 100 000 1323.1 1334.5 1013.7 population Mortality rate for cardiovascular 717.6 722.1 497.9 diseases per 100 000 population Mortality rate for malignant 212.3 193.1 188.3 neoplasms per 100 000 population
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 58 Rostov-on- Russian Europe Don (1998) (a) Federation (1996) (c) (1998) (b) Mortality rate for injuries and 85.7 186.0 93.1 poisoning per 100 000 population Mortality rate for diseases of the 40.0 37.3 40.3 digestive system per 100 000 population Mortality rate for diseases of the 19.5 56.9 65.8 respiratory system per 100 000 population Mortality rate for infectious and (not available) 19.7 13.7 parasitic diseases per 100 000 population Sources: (a) Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000 (b) and (c) WHO (1999).
Morbidity (illness) data for the city for 1997 to 1998 (Rostov city statistical department, 2000. Rostov on Don in figures) suggest that influenza, cancer and respiratory illnesses are the most commonly reported diseases along with viral hepatitis. Reported malignant tumours increased over the three year period while the other illnesses listed above decreased. Reported cases of active tuberculosis also increased over the period. The disease is strongly associated with poverty and an increase in absolute numbers and rate suggests that for some people in the city, living conditions are worsening.
(b) Brief overview of health and water supply and sanitation in Rostov-on- Don The health risks associated with water supply and sanitation in Rostov-on-Don mainly relate to access to services, functioning and operation and maintenance of systems and quality of drinking water. It is estimated that most people living in apartments have access to both in-house water supply and sanitation services. However, people living in the older, single-storey housing in the city, may have neither in-house water supply nor sanitation. Many of these people use pit latrines, which are an adequate and safe form of sanitation as long as they are well maintained and faeces are safely disposed of. The costs of having these latrines emptied are high and some families reported not having pit latrines emptied as often as they would like because of the cost. A further factor is the downstream health risk of the contents of pit latrines reportedly being emptied illegally into the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 59 storm water drainage system of the city by the agency responsible for their disposal.
Residents of many older buildings that are divided into apartments have to share both sanitation and stand pipes. It is not known whether sufficient amounts of water are stored for drinking supply and cooking as well as for washing and hygiene. Stoppages in the system also reduce the quantity of water available for drinking, cooking and washing. Poorer households are most at risk as they tend to have lower health status and are therefore more susceptible to ill-health and less able to afford both better services or treatment when they become ill.
Water quality in the city is known to be poor. The water treatment is likely to be fairly effective in removing bacteria as it includes two stages of chlorination. However, indicators of human viruses are found to be quite high in raw water and are likely, along with protozoan parasites to be found in treated water. Both viruses and protozoa present a risk to health. Viruses and protozoa both have very low infective doses (very small quantities can cause infection), they are fairly resistant to treatment and are difficult to identify. If treatment of the water supply is sufficient (i.e. chlorination removes most bacteria) then it is likely that the majority of the risk to health is from viruses and protozoa. If treatment is insufficient, bacteria will also present a risk to health.
The state of the water supply network is poor and appears to lead to a significant amount of secondary contamination of the water supply. This presents a further risk to health.
Public health and use of river water downstream of the WWTW There are several different uses of river water downstream of the WWTW that could affect health. These include drinking water downstream, recreational use, fishing and irrigation. Recreation and fishing are discussed more fully in Sections 5.4.9 and 5.4.5. Microbiological quality of surface river water is reported to be poor, especially downstream of Rostov-on-Don (Kimstach et al, 1998). This section contains a discussion of the impacts of current river pollution levels on public health.
Rural communities in the Azov area living along both banks of the river downstream are known to take river water as their drinking water supply. It is not known whether the water is always boiled before drinking or not. If it is boiled, bacteria will be killed but some viruses (for instance hepatitis A) may survive and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 60 present a risk. Rostov Oblast SANEPID recorded several cases of cholera 10 years ago which were related to drinking water from the river Don. At the time they introduced sand and gravel filtration and banned the use of river water for drinking. The water supply for these communities is now reported to be provided by tanker truck supply. There is still the suggestion that the older generation take water from the river directly (for some or all of their drinking water supply), whilst the younger generation do so to a lesser extent. The point at which river water is drawn, the length of time for which it is stored, and the availability of alternative sources are critical factors. Chemical contamination of water may also be important. It is likely that heavy metals will not pose a threat as they are likely to be contained in the sediment on the river bed. Heavy metal concentrations in fish in the river, for example, were not found to exceed the Maximum Allowable Concentrations. Other chemical contamination levels might be high enough, over a sufficient period to cause health effects. These may be subject to long latency periods and manifestations may be less obvious than the much more immediate symptoms from drinking micro-biologically contaminated water.
Exploration of alternative sources such as ground water (if sufficient quantity is available), or continued supply via tanker truck of sufficiently treated water from elsewhere (if affordable) would help to prevent risk.
Recreational use of the river is described in Section 5.4.9. SANEPID collects information about bathing water quality at official recreation sites. If the standards are not met, they are responsible for issuing warnings. Data on cases of ill-health related to recreational use of the river were not available. World Bank (1998) indicates that river beaches in Azov were closed due to outbreaks of cholera closed every summer between 1990 and 1994. It is not known what the source of these cases was (whether the vibrio cholera bacteria were environmentally occurring or were related to human cases of cholera).
The population at risk is large, with seasonal exposure. From research in many different settings, the most often and clearly identified risk to health from swimming in polluted water is gastro-intestinal illness. The main pathway is immersion of the head or swallowing of water.
Effluent from the Rostov WWTW is diluted at a rate of 1:100 during low flow in the summer, and chlorinated. It is therefore considered unlikely that it will have a major public health impact downstream. This is especially true for bacteria, which should be efficiently eradicated if the chlorination is done properly. Chlorination
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 61 can be less effective at destroying protozoa and viruses, which means that there may be a risk of contamination in the current absence of sludge digestion. There are no data on viral or protozoal levels in the effluent, but given the contamination of the river from other sources, improvements at the WWTW alone appear unlikely to have a very large impact on the health of downstream users. The discharge of untreated sewage into the Temernik River does pose a risk to public health, although it is a lesser risk as the river is not used for drinking water or for bathing. This risk will be alleviated following completion of the No.68 sewer line from the sewerage pump station (SPS) “Severnaya-1” to the underwater crossing of the Don River (Subproject No.62), which will eliminate the current discharge.
Table 5.10 provides recent World Health Organisation categories of health risk from sewage effluent in rivers receiving differing levels of treatment, with differing degrees of dilution and differing sizes of population upstream.
Table 5.10 Risk potential to health through exposure to sewage through riverine flow and discharge
Dilution effect Sewage treatment level None Primary Secondary Secondary Lagoon plus disinfection High population Very high Very high High Low Medium with low river flow Low population Very high High Medium Very low Medium with low river flow Medium High Medium Low Very low Low population with medium river flow High population High Medium Low Very low Low with high river flow Low population High Medium Very low Very low Very low with high river flow Source: WHO (1999a) Health-based monitoring of recreational waters. Protection of the human environment, water, sanitation and health series. Geneva; WHO. 1999.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 62 Table 5.10 indicates that there is only a very low health risk from the WWTW, because there is a high river flow and secondary treatment plus disinfection.
Fishing is very popular in the Rostov area and makes up a significant part of local diet. Sources suggest that chemical contamination of fish occurs in the Lower Don (Kimstach et al, 1998). Chemicals which most often and significantly exceed Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) include petroleum and phenols. These are largely associated with river transport. Heavy metals in fish muscle, in contrast were not reported to exceed the levels set by the health authorities. Levels of heavy metals and other chemicals produced by industry may however be expected to increase due to re-growth of industry in the area. Bottom-feeding fish may be the most susceptible to heavy metals poisoning. Pesticides are also investigated, by the Fisheries Institute in Rostov-on-Don. Their use may also increase due to local production of pesticides.
The Sanitary Epidemiological Service both take food samples for testing and record health outcomes of food poisoning. For 1999, the most recently available data, only 50 cases of food poisoning were reported for the whole of Rostov Oblast. This figure is likely to represent significant under-reporting. Cases of botulism were reported to be caused by fish contamination. However, these cases were thought (by staff at both SANEPID and the Fisheries Institute) to be related to poor handling and storage of fish rather than contamination of the fish at the time they were caught. This was seen as an issue for fish caught and processed outside of the formal fishing industry (i.e. largely at the household level). However, predicted increases in agricultural and industrial production mean that it will be important to continue to monitor fish as well as to try to improve food hygiene.
Use of river water for irrigation is a further area of potential risk. At present there is considerable institutional fragmentation of agricultural and irrigation authorities. Identifying and locating relevant information is therefore difficult. With deregulation of crop types it appears that there will be a move away from grain crops towards vegetables and other more profitable crops which require more irrigation. The type of irrigation and type of crop are both important. The region uses mainly spray irrigation which is less of a risk to agricultural workers than is posed by flood-irrigation techniques. Crops such as salad vegetables present the highest risk from reuse of waste water as they are not cooked before eating. Other crops which are cooked before consumption are generally safer. In terms of monitoring, Escherichia coli is the best indicator to measure in terms of health risk associated with reuse of wastewater for irrigation.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 63 There are regulations for the quality of water to be used for irrigation. However, it is not clear when and how data are collected or used or how much the information relates to health risk.
Land Use, Industry and Agriculture Land Use Rostov City is divided into residential areas, parks and a number of industrial complexes. Land use divisions for the city are shown in Figure 5.4. The WWTW is situated in an established industrial complex. The majority of land in the Oblast is agricultural.
Industry The Rostov Oblast has a highly developed industry and agriculture and is one of the leading Oblasts in the south of Russia in terms of economic development. The largest industrial centres of the region are Rostov, Novocherkassk, Taganrog, Volgodonsk, Kamensk, Shakhty, and Krasny Sulin. With its Azov Sea ports, the area has strong regional and international connections. The most important industry in Greater Rostov is machine building, and the area produces 75% of the country’s agricultural machinery. Coal mining and power generation are also well- developed, and constituted more than 35% of the Oblast’s industrial output in 1995. Ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy accounted for another 15% of output and food processing for about 13%. Other industries include chemicals, pulp and paper, construction and textiles.
Industrial production in the Rostov Oblast has declined drastically since the early 1990s (1995 output was only 50% of 1991), although less so in the Greater Rostov area (18% from 1991 to 1995). It is widely accepted that industry is now recovering, and real growth is predicted for the ensuing years. The outlook is particularly positive for the Rostov region, with its strong international connections for trade between Asia and Europe, a strong banking sector and a rapidly growing retail sector. The statistics for 1999 show a 300% increase in the value of goods and services produced in Rostov, and a slow increase in the retail and housing sector, as shown in Table 5.11.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 64 Table 5.11 Industrial Indicators for Rostov City, 1999
Index 1999 1999 compared to 1998 Production of goods and services (million 12,797. 300% Roubles) 8 Physical industrial production, % 141% New houses built (000s m2) 410.4 105% Retail industry turnover (million Roubles) 19841. 105% 0 Catering industry turnover (million 370.1 95% Roubles) Number of the registered unemployed 3057 40% people Consumer price index for goods and 147% services Source: Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000
The official statistics show that the number of industries returning an overall loss continues to decrease (Table 5.12). There is no indication as to the proportion of profit and loss-making businesses which are private or public.
Table 5.12 Industrial profit/losses in 1999
Overall profit Profit-making Loss-making from industry enterprises enterprises (000s % Profit % Loss Roubles) of (000s of (000s total Roubles) tota Roubles) l Rosto 4,517,000 66% 7,170,115 34 2,653,206 v % Oblast Rosto 2,666,000 78% 3,360,182 22 694,308 v City % Source: Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 65 The relative importance of different industrial sectors in terms of value of production is shown in Table 5.13 below. The most significant growth sectors were the chemical and oil processing industry, timber and woodwork industry; pulp and paper industry, and construction materials production.
Table 5.13 The relative importance of industrial sectors in Rostov City
Industrial sector Proportion of total in: 1998 1999 Chemical and oil processing 2.3% 2.4% Machine building and metal working 33.5% 29.7% Timber and woodwork; pulp and paper 1.0% 1.0% Construction material production 3.2% 2.5% Light industry 4.7% 5.2% Food 44.6% 47.0% Printing 1.5% 1.0% Others 9.2% 11.1% Total for the city 100% 100% Source: Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000
Emissions of industrial wastewater are considered in Section 5.5.
Agriculture The Rostov Oblast is one of the main producers of agricultural products in the Russian Federation. The region is predominantly a grain and stock-breeding area and is also a major producer of sunflowers, vegetables and fruit. The majority of the Oblast’s 101,000 km2 are agricultural, including: ploughed fields (over 60,000 km2), pastures (22,000 km2) and hayfields (22,000 km2). In recent years arable and horticulture has constituted 42% of the agricultural gross output.
The intensive agricultural production has lead, in places, to leaching of nutrients, salinisation and dehumification of the soil, erosion, swamping, and chemical pollution. Unfortunately the existing data and information on the influence of diffuse pollution sources on the Lower Don basin water resources is very limited (World Bank, 1998; 1996).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 66 Irrigation is an important factor affecting agricultural development. The construction of the Tsimlyansk reservoir in the 1950s increased the area of irrigated lands from 274 to 4330 km2. In recent years, about 18% of irrigated lands have become unproductive due to design and operational shortages. As a result, secondary soil salinisation, silting and overgrowth of drainage network canals are wide spread.
Agricultural production decreased substantially during the early and mid-1990s, but is now understood to be increasing once more. With the end of state control over choice of crop, farmers are diversifying away from grain towards higher value crops such as sunflowers and vegetables. In 1995, only 3% of the farms had been decollectivised, but it is understood that a higher proportion are now under private ownership.
Fisheries Fishing is an important industry in the Rostov Oblast. In 1999, there were nine Rostov commercial fishing companies exploiting the Don River in the Rostov area and ten in the Taganrog Bay area of the Azov Sea (Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000).
Before the 1950s, fishing was a key component of the region’s economy. The Azov Sea was noted as being one of the most productive seas in the world, with annual catches exceeding 300,000 tonnes. Fish catches in the Lower Don and Azov Sea have decreased on average by 90% since the 1950s, but for some species this decrease is 300-500 fold and even more. This is largely due to changes in the hydrological regime, but also due to pollution, overfishing and increasing salinisation of the Azov Sea due to the high volume of freshwater abstracted in its basin. Eutrophication is a particular problem, and has a detrimental impact on the majority of fish species of economic importance (Section 5.3.2). The pollution issue is discussed in more detail in Sections 5.5.1 and 5.4.3.
In an attempt to tackle overfishing, the State Committee for Fisheries sets annual commercial catch limits for sturgeon, bream, pike-perch (zander) and sea roach is regulated in accordance with the regulation of Goskomrybolovstvo (State Committee for Fisheries) No 44 dated March 2, 1999 (Moscow). Total catch for these species for 1997-1999 are shown in Table 5.14.
Table 5.14 Catches of regulated fish species in the Don river and Taganrog bay in 1997-1999 (tonnes)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 67 Total catch (tonnes) Species 1997 1998 1999 Don Taganrog Tota Don Taganrog Tota Don Taganrog Tota river bay l river bay l river bay l Sturgeon 1.3 6.0 7.3 1.0 4.2 5.2 1.2 5.2 6.4 (Acipenser sp.) Bream 240. 418.4 659. 378. 286.2 664. 173. 247.3 420. (Abramis brama) 7 1 7 9 2 5 Pike-perch 4.8 570.7 575. 2.9 682.0 684. 3.4 514.9 518. (Stizosterdion 5 9 3 lucioperca) Sea-roach 71.4 4.3 75.7 5.0 5.6 5.6 8.3 2.2 10.5 Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
Annual catch limits are set for the whole Oblast, and according to the data, were complied with for all protected species in 1999 (Table 5.15).
Table 5.15 Catch limits and actual catches of regulated fish species in the Rostov Oblast in 1999
Species Permitted catch Actual catch % of permitted (tonnes) (tonnes) catch
Sturgeon 465 421.2 91 Bream 800 649.1 81 Pike-perch 50 11.8 24 Sea-roach 33.6 24.3 72 Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
There is especial concern over the state of the sturgeon population, which has never recovered from the construction of the dam which barred the annual upstream migration to spawning grounds. The Fisheries Institute reports that more than 75% of sturgeon resorb their eggs and do not return to the Don to spawn. It is understood that there are proposals in place to completely ban sturgeon fishing in the Azov Sea.
Other important commercial species include kill (50,000t p.a.), anchovies (29,300), and the new commercial population of introduced pelingas in Azov Sea.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 68 Aquaculture is becoming increasingly popular. Approximately 15-20,000 tonnes of carp are produced per year in ponds. It is understood that the process is fairly extensive and uses few chemical, mainly involving the stocking of ponds flooded during the spring melt.
Recreational fishing both from the bank and from small boats is a popular activity in Rostov city and in the Delta. It is understood that fishing is banned at certain times of year in the Delta. It appears that there are no data on the size of the recreational and for-domestic-use catch, or of the number of people involved.
Energy Production and Consumption The majority of the energy produced in the Rostov Oblast is heat-generated (Table 5.16).
Table 5.16 Energy Production in the Rostov Oblast
Source Energy production 1998 Energy production 1999 Amount % Amount % (million kW) (million kW) Heat-generated 10,283 94.7 10,778 93.9 Hydropower 580 5.3 695 6.1 Total 10,863 11,473 Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
More than 70% of the region’s electricity is produced at the Novocherkassk Power Plant, 35 km to the north east of Rostov City. The plant has eight blocks and a total capacity of 2,400 megawatts. 80% of the fuel burned is low quality coal mined in the Donetz basin. The coal contains approximately 3% sulphur and up to 30% ash. In 1999, coal consumption was 3 376 000 tonnes (85 million GJ), fuel oil 277 000 tonnes (9.2 million GJ) and natural gas 298 000 m3 (11 000 GJ). The air quality impacts of the power station are discussed in Section 5.5.4.
The use of natural gas use is increasing as a substitute for other fuels in heating, industrial production, energy production. Rostov-on-Don has two heating power stations, both of which use natural gas. A new nuclear power station is currently under construction at Volgodonsk, on the Tsimlyansk Reservoir. It is understood that there may be plans to scale down coal consumption at the Novocherkassk power station once the Volgodonsk station is operational.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 69 The region is a net energy producer, exporting approximately 3,500 million kW per year. The different classes of energy consumption are summarised in Table 5.17 below.
Table 5.17 Energy Consumption in the Rostov Oblast
Sector Energy consumption 1998 Energy consumption 1999 Amount % Amount % (million kW) (million kW) Industry 5,017 38.8 5,295 39.4 Agriculture 1,918 14.8 1,876 14.0 Construction 77 0.6 81 0.6 Transport 697 5.4 876 6.5 Others 3,214 24.8 3,185 23.7 Energy supplied to 3,496 27.0 3,581 26.7 other NIS regions Total 12,946 13,448 Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
Rostov Vodokanal has high power requirements, which are understood to account for approximately 30% of its operational expenditure (Table 5.18).
Table 5.18 Rostov Vodokanal’s energy consumption
Sector Energy consumption (000s kWh) 1999 2000 :DWHU6XSSO\ Alexandrovska Water Treatment 158,735 159,438 Works Central Water Treatment Works 8,889 8,667 Pumping stations and distribution 209,233 219,182 network :DVWHZDWHU Wastewater treatment works 28,654 29,082 Pumping stations and sewer 34,863 36,094 network Total 440,374 452,463
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 70 Sector Energy consumption (000s kWh) 1999 2000 Source: RVK
Transport Infrastructure The Rostov area lies close to the Azov Sea, Ukraine and Georgia, and hence has a number of international and regional transport links that both support its current role as a trading centre for predicted growth in the area.
Rail Rostov Oblast is served by three major railroads:
• Moscow-Voronezh-Rostov-on-Don with branches to the Ukraine and the Oblast centre (Krasny Sulin – Ust-Donetsk);
• West - East line which links the Lower Don with the Ukraine and Povolzhie; and
• Black Sea Coast - Povolzhie through Volgograd with branch to Volgodonsk and continuing to the Caucasus.
Rail freight traffic handles over 80% of the Oblast’s cargo, which amounts to approximately 37,795 million tonnes/km/annum (Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000).
A railway line passes along the boundary of the works, and could be used for low- cost transport of reagents or of sludge in the future.
Motor transport Rostov Oblast is served by a network of highways of federal and regional importance. Road density is 102.1 km on 1000 km2 of which 90% are hard surfaced. The major road hub is Rostov-on-Don, from which Highway M4 links to Moscow in a south-north direction along the western edge of the Oblast. Highway 29 running south links Rostov with Baku (federal highway “Kavkaz”). Two highways lead west from Rostov; the M23 to Odessa and Rostov M19(E40) to Kiev. Through these highways the Oblast centre is connected with Taganrog and Novoshakhtinsk. From East to West the central parts of the Oblast are crossed by
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 71 highway 21 (Volgograd-Kishenev). The road links the towns of Morozovsk, Belaya Kalitva, Kamensk-Shakhtinsky.
Air transport Air services have been developed since 1925 and are mainly used for passenger transportation.
Pipelines More than a dozen major oil, gas and other products pipelines cross the Oblast.
Navigation 15% of the Oblast cargo is transported by river. The largest river ports are: Rostov-on-Don connected with more than 16 states through rivers and canals; Tsimlyansk (transfer from water to railroad and visa versa grain, construction materials, coal); Ust-Donetsk – river gates of Donbass for timber and coal. 73% of goods transported by river are minerals and construction materials. Navigation on the Don is year-round, with a maximum from April to November (Table 5.19). Most ships using the Don are ocean-going, and have an average of 2100 dead- weight tonnes.
Table 5.19 Lower Don: River traffic statistics
Number of passing vessels Cargo traffic (000s tonnes) 2005 2010 2005 River reach 2010 1997 2000 predicte predicte 1997 2000 predicte predicted d d d Upper Don canal 4 4 to Rostov-on- 2 070 2 150 2 520 2 990 5 300 360 530 6 280 Don Rostov-on-Don 3 3 1 600 1 850 2 350 4 200 4 800 to the Azov Sea 2 040 370 900 Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
Solid Waste Disposal Waste disposal and impact on surface and ground water More than 8.5 million tonnes of wastes are generated annually within the Rostov Oblast, comprising 7 million tonnes of industrial and 1.5 million tonnes of municipal solid wastes (MSW). The production of industrial waste is concentrated
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 72 within the city boundary. Outside the city the main wastes are of vegetable and animal origin. Table 5.20 shows the pattern of waste disposal in Rostov Oblast.
Authorised landfills for hazardous wastes disposal are located in Azov and Novocherkassk. Whilst neither landfill is operated in compliance with the regulations the standards of operation and maintenance are improving.
MSW, industrial wastes and some hazardous wastes are mainly disposed to the authorised MSW landfills however, fly tipping (‘wild’ landfill) is a common but diminishing method of disposal of all classes of waste. None of the landfills in the Rostov Oblast are designed for leachate and landfill gas management or are regularly monitored although the Rostov landfill had a weighbridge installed in 1999. A system has also been installed at the Rostov landfill for collection of leachate from new waste deposits and a monitoring system adopted. Operational practices at most landfills have improved but poor practice such as waste burning continue at some sites.
The Rostov City landfill is filled along a working face and the waste compacted by bulldozer. Construction waste is used for haul roads and as daily cover. In the absence of sufficient construction waste for daily cover, subsoil from a nearby borrow pit is occasionally used. The use of daily cover prevents the waste surface from becoming a breeding ground for disease vectors, minimises odours and reduces litter blow.
Due to the unlined nature of most landfill sites in the Oblast they pose significant environmental risks to the surrounding soils, surface and ground water. A number of sites are located on highly porous soils contingent with groundwater or in water protection zones.
The Rostov Oblast Centre for State Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision monitors the impacts of air and drinking water quality on public health but their remit does not extend to monitoring the effects of soil and ground water pollution. The Centre currently uses pollution criteria based on maximum allowable concentrations but is developing a methodology on assessing health risks due to wastes impact. This includes an information dissemination programme and the development of a harmful substances inventory.
Waste management strategy for Rostov-on-Don, Azov, Aksai, Bataisk and for the rural districts of Azov, Aksai and Kagalnitsky
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 73 In collaboration with foreign experts a specific project on developing strategies for waste management in Rostov was undertaken during 1996-1997. The project was a joint collaboration between Russian technical specialists, City and Oblast Administration, City Environmental Committee, waste producers, and private organisations (predominantly equipment suppliers). The Waste Management Plan which resulted is being actioned, and is under continuous development, by a variety of state and non-governmental agencies. As a result of the technology transfer associated with the project one private company has subsequently produced further plans including; 'Concept of waste management strategy for the Rostov Oblast', 'Strategy of waste management in town Primorsk-Akhtarsk, Krasnodarsky krai' and developed a ' Strategy of waste management in the Greater Rostov area'. Key elements of the strategies developed are summarised in Tables 5.21 and 5.22 below.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 74 Table 5.20 Waste Disposal Sites in The Rostov Oblast as at January, 1st, 2000)
Facility type Facilities Facilities Area Mass Type of wastes meeting (Ha) (000s Industrial wastes environmental tonnes) (IW), Waste standards1 Animal wastes (AW), class2 1. Managed landfills for industrial wastes and MSW 11 5 128.7 9 245.7 MSW, IW, medical waste 1 - 4 2. Authorised, unmanaged landfills 554 146 1 149.9 6 045.6 MSW, IW, medical waste, 1 - 4 AW 3. Sludge settling lagoons 43 23 276.6 6 427.7 IW 1 - 4 4. Mineral spoil heaps and ash dumps 149 51 1 194.1 414 915.3 IW - 5. Quarries and mines 26 14 84.9 2 786.2 MSW, IW, - 6. Graveyard of wastes 3 2 7.6 13.0 IW, AW - 7. Disposal at sites located at territories of enterprises 169 82 43.0 554.6 MSW, IW, medical waste 1 - 4 8. Storage at industrial sites 175 43 58.0 148.6 IW, AW 4 9. Unauthorised sites for wastes disposal 394 - 261.2 5 555.8 MSW, IW, AW 1 - 4 10. Artificial collectors, bunkers, containers and other 61 52 1.2 9.4 IW, AW 1 - 4 places for wastes disposal 11. Manure pits 559 60 374.5 1 947.5 IW, AW - (agricultural wastes) 12. Filtration fields 9 9 22.6 6 485.0 AW, IW - 1 According to Federal Law on Waste, 89-FL 1998 2 Classes of waste as defined in Sanitary Requirements for Construction and Maintenance of the Landfills for the Municipal Solid Wastes (SanPiN 2.1.7.722-98). 1 = hazardous waste, 4 = inert waste
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 75 Table 5.21 Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategy for the Greater Rostov area
Environmental Objective, activity Implementation goal period 1. Development of Development of a programme of sanitary cleanup of the populated places in the Rostov Oblast up to the 2001-2002 an integrated MSW year 2020 management system 2001-2008 for the Oblast Development and implementation of a wastes management GIS 2002-2010 Development and full implementation of an integrated system of waste management in the Rostov Oblast. 2. Improvement of Development and adoption of short-term and mid-term programmes of sanitary cleanup of specific 2001-2005 the existing system populated places. of sanitary cleanup 2000-2004 and disposal of Equipping sites of MSW collection and temporary storage with containers with closing lids; providing MSW population with plastic bags and packages for MSW collection. 2006-2012 Organisation of specialised container sites for separate collection of secondary material resources and provision of population with special (apartment) packing material for separate collection of secondary material resources. 2000-2008
Provision of improved equipment for landfill management and operator training. 2000-2002
Monitoring of waste morphology , district and seasonal variations in composition. 2000-2003
Inventory of all the unauthorised dumps and dumping places in towns and districts. . 2001-2005
Preparation of plans for reducing environmental impacts of landfills and other authorised dumps. 2000-2012
Assessment of further needs for waste treatment based on comparative analysis of the best practical environmental options. Selection of potential sites for municipal and inter-municipal landfills. 2001-2010
Design and construction of new facilities for MSW pre treatment. 2003-2008
Development of the MSW management monitoring system. Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 76 Environmental Objective, activity Implementation goal period 3. Institutional, legal Development and adoption of the Oblast programme ’Secondary material resources’. 2000-2001 and economic assistance in Development of institutional and economic conditions for rehabilitation in the Rostov Oblast system of 2000-2002 development of secondary material resources collection and recycling. market based waste management systems 4. Improvement of Development of public education on legal-institutional, economic and sanitary-epidemiological issues of environmental MSW management, in particular: awareness and - to organise a programme “Environmental hour” on local TV and radio; environmental - to promote a section on 'City and district ecology' in local newspapers. education of main participants Establishment of the Environmental Education Centre. involved in MSW management
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 77 Table 5.22 Strategy for WWTW sludge management in the Greater Rostov area
Objective Activities Duration Decrease of sludge hazard class Development of administrative decisions and economic measures of influence on enterprises. 2000-2001 due to improvement of the quality of waste water from industrial Development and implementation of measures aimed at improvement of quality of industrial 2001-2005 enterprises. enterprises waste water discharged to the city sewage system. Increase quality of treatment and Reconstruction of Rostov WWTW, including: 2000-2003 development of optimal - reconstruction of mechanical treatment plant 2000 conditions for sludge storage at - installation of sludge dewatering centrifuges 2000-2002 WWTW. - reconstruction of drying lagoons. 2000-2002
Project development and construction of plant for mechanical sludge dewatering at Azov 2000 – 2005 WWTW. 2000- 2005 Completion of WWTW construction in Aksai. Proposed development and Completion of disposal strategy for Rostov WTW and WWTW sludges. Construction of 2000-2002 implementation of facilities for sludge utilisation. environmentally applicable and economically viable options of Integration of Rostov, Azov and Aksai into a regional sludge disposal system. 2000-2003 WWTW sludge disposal. Development of sludge composting at Rostov, Azov, and Aksai. 2000-2003 Development of centralised Design and construction of drain stations in district centres, large settlements. 2001-2010 system of waste water treatment and WTP in rural districts.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 78
Disposal of WWTW to sludge lagoon and drying beds
At present sludge production comprises primary settled sludge, which receives no further treatment, together with surplus activated sludge. The total amount of sludge produced is not monitored and has been estimated at 1220 m3/day primary sludge and 1355 m3/day surplus activated sludge. An unknown but minor amount of the sludge is pumped to drying beds. The majority of the sludge is conveyed into a storage lagoon. Further details of sludge handling are provided in the RVK Strategy Plan Terms of Reference for Sludge Disposal/Management Strategy). Primary sludge has a moisture content of 95-96% and surplus activated sludge a moisture content of 98-99%.
The sludge drying beds have an asphalt covered concrete base in sections which are sloped to drain liquor via a drainage system back to the inlet of line 2. There are 31 drying beds each approximately 90m by 40m and with a nominal depth of 1m. The bed walls are made of uncovered concrete. On average the floor of the beds is 3.76m above the mean level of the Don which flows through its flood plain within about 200-400m of the beds. The beds are filled sequentially by pumps and emptied, on reaching a nominal 70% moisture content, by front end loader. The residence time is normally under one year and 12-14 beds are emptied each year. Where 13 beds of the above capacity are filled each year the sludge consumption would be approximately 46800 m3. Thus some 5% of the annual production of 939875 m3 is dried each year. Five samples of sludge being removed from the beds in 1998 and three samples in 2000 had an average moisture content of 77%.
The sludge removed from the beds is stored on site on a designated stockpile covering some 40000 m2 and from which unknown amounts of material are periodically withdrawn for use in City Parks. Some of the stockpile is also used for amelioration and grassing of the, sandy, soil on site. Neither of these uses has prevented the growth of the stockpile, which is now reported to be reaching capacity.
Sand removal associated with construction of the treatment works led to the formation of a lake. In 1984 a dyke was created around the lake to form an enclosed lagoon for sludge storage. The dyke was originally 2.5m above the bed level and constructed of an earth sand mixture. The bed level is approximately that of the mean level of the Don. The lagoon design included the provision of a clay liner but there appear to be no records of the installation. In 1994 the dyke height was raised to 3.5m above bed level and according to the design sketches, drainage pipes were laid through this extension to allow supernatant liquor to be pumped back to the inlet of line 2. These drains no longer function and at present the water level inside the lagoon averages 3m above bed level. The topography of the lagoon bed is not recorded but from the site plans the enclosed area has been estimated at 29.8 Ha of which some 30% is in
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 79
the form of islands. The lagoon capacity may therefore be estimated at 0.7 million m3. Additionally a second, somewhat larger lagoon abuts the first lagoon. Whilst the second lagoon was not intended to receive sludge this may be occurring through leakage across the unengineered boundary between the lagoons.
Following the decrease in local industrial activity the pollutant load of the sludge currently produced has decreased as shown in Table 5.23. This table may also be used to estimate contaminant loads for current sludge disposal options. There are no data for the degree of contamination of the lagooned sludge, but on the basis of the historical pollution loads the lagooned sludge may be expected to be highly polluted throughout. The potential impacts of the lagoon on groundwater quality are discussed in Section 5.5.2.
Table 5.23 Existing sludge composition from Rostov WWTW
Parameter Composition of sludge (g/kg) 1996 1997 1998 Mean NH4 9.7 8.0 6.6 8.1 NO2 0.14 1.46 0.19 0.60 NO3 8.3 38.0 17.6 21.3 Cl 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 P 2.5 2.9 3.0 2.8 BOD 83.9 79.5 77.2 80.2 Fe 0.91 0.81 0.77 0.83 Cu 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 Zn 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 Cr 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.04 Mg 21.3 16.7 18.4 18.8 Pb 6.5 7.1 6.6 6.7 SO4 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 Source: Rostov Vodokanal
Replacement of the (currently non-operational) sludge presses with sludge dewatering centrifuges is currently underway (see Section 4). The centrifuges are designed to produce a handleable sludge cake of approximately 35% dry matter. Predicted volumes are given in Table 4.2, and will represent a significant decrease compared to the existing situation (data on current sludge volumes are not available).
In the near future sludge from the WWTW will primarily be disposed of in the existing lagoon and drying beds at the site. The lagoon currently represents an unknown pollution risk from leaching to groundwater and the potential for contact with surface water during flooding (see
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 80
Section 5.5.2). The reduction in sludge arisings as a result of digestion will therefore lower the risk of pollution of the Don. This risk will reduce further if and when use of the lagoon ceases and the existing sludge are removed (see below).
In the long term, sludge will be disposed of in a more appropriate manner such as landfilling or reuse in agriculture. The development of a sludge disposal strategy is a priority for Vodokanal, and is discussed further in the forthcoming Strategic Plan.
Sludge Utilisation The terminology used in the various standards for materials which may be disposed of or added to soils is open to interpretation (Table 5.24). These materials are not exactly defined and there is an implication that compost made from sewage sludge is included in the standards but not necessarily sludge applied directly to soil. Additionally according to other standards sludge for subsequent utilisation in agriculture must be digested for a minimum residence time of 11 hours at 550C for pasteurisation and as well for 21 days at 350C for mesophilic digestion. However it is not known which of these standards has preference. It may also be noted that some of the standards referred to in Table 5.24 include reference to limits of certain pathogens but it is not clear how these organisms may be translated and they are not included in the table.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 81 Table 5.24 Comparative standards and reference data on soils, fertilisers and waste water sludge content (Rostov-on-Don) Parameter MAC MAC Concentratio Allowable Concentratio Concentratio Concentratio MAC (in Concentratio standards standards ns of concentratio ns of ns of ns of terms ns of for for EU elements in n in elements in elements in elements in SanPiN pollutants in Russian soils Russian soils compost, "Agrovit- Phosphorus nitric 2.1.7.573- sludge of soils (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Rostov-on- Eco” (mg/kg) fertilisers fertilisers 96) (mg/kg) RVK (mg/kg) Don (mg/kg) (mg/kg) WWTW for (mg/kg) 1998 (mg/kg) As 20 20 - 50 5 - 30 30** 20.0 2 - 1 200 2.2 - 120 20 - Cd 5 3 - 8 0.18 - 0.58 b 25** 5.5 - 16 7 - 170 0.05 - 8.5 30 - Hg 2.1 2 - 5 0.04 - 0.88 b 16** 0.54 - 10 0.01 - 0.12 0.3 - 2.9 15 - Pb 32 100 - 200 12 - 52 750** 40 - 600 7 - 225 2 - 27 1 000 23.3 Zn 23*(250)* 70 - 400 9 - 77 1 500** 280 - 1 200 50 - 1 450 1 - 42 4 000 35.6 Co * 25 - 50 0.5 - 50 100** 80** 1 - 10 5.4 - 12 - - Ni 5* (50)** 100 14 - 40 b 300** 30 - 250 7 - 32 7 - 34 400 - Mo 4* (100)** 2 - 10 1.6 - 4.6 b 20** 16.0 0.1 - 60 1 - 7 - - Cu 5 6 - 100 16 - 60 1 000** 80 - 850 1 - 300 1 - 15 1 500 45.5 Sb 3* (250)** 5 - 10 0.05 - 4.0 16.0** 10.0** - - - - U 4.5 50 - 100 37 - 425 b 400** 300.0 2 - 180 - - - Cr 150 75 - 100 71 - 195 b 750** 110 - 600 66 - 245 3.2 - 19 1 200 20.5 Sr 6* (100)** 1500–3000 520 - 3500 b 1 300** 1 000** 25 - 500 - - - Mn 10 - 340 - 1100 b 2 500** 2 500* 40 - 2 000 - 2 000 - P2O5 1 500 - 5* - 45** 2.2** 2.2 P12 - P54 - - - Mn + C 200 ------Pb + Hg 100 + 100 ------120 + 1
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 82 Notes: b - in black earth * - mobile forms of metals ** - in order to comply with the EU recommendations and results of studies of soils pollution and composts produced from waste water sludge
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 83 As a consequence of the current absence of sludge digestion at the Rostov WWTW, and the various interpretations referred to above, the legal status of the various sludges, which could be produced at the Rostov WWTW, is unclear. This currently precludes the preparation of a definitive sludge disposal plan.
The main limitation on the beneficial use or disposal of waste water sludge on land is the concentration of toxic substances and helminths. It may be noted from Table 5.23 that the concentrations of toxic components of the sludge have progressively decreased in Rostov in the past few years in proportion to the rate of industrial decline. However most of the sludge currently produced in Rostov is mixed for storage with sludge produced in the previous generation and has an unknown composition.
Utilisation of larger quantities of (recently produced) sludge or compost made from this sludge may be possible within the extensive agricultural, forestry and horticultural enterprises close to Rostov but the economics of such utilisation, even if technically and legally possible, have not yet been subjected to market analysis.
An estimate of the quantities of sludge which may be utilised in landfill restoration is shown in Table 5.25 However there are additional recent standards on disposal of sludge to landfill which may preclude such uses on the grounds of excessive helminth survival.
Further studies are also required to determine if the sludge, after drying, could be combusted at local coal fired boiler plant such as heating stations or the Novocherkassk power plant.
Table 5.25 Estimated quantities of sludge which may be utilised for landfill restoration in Greater Rostov
Volume of sludge required (000s m3) 2005 200 200 200 200 and 1 2 3 4 beyond
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 84 Volume of sludge required (000s m3) 2005 200 200 200 200 and 1 2 3 4 beyond 2nd phase of reclamation of the 175 175 Severny district MSW landfill Reclamation of the 1st cell of the 80 MSW landfill in the north-west industrial zone Daily cover of cell 2 of the MSW 10 10 10 landfill in the north-west industrial zone Reclamation of cell 2 of the MSW 50 landfill in the north-west industrial zone Covering of the new MSW landfill 5 (designed) Total 265 185 10 50 5 Source: NPP Don
Tourism and Recreation The Lower Don area is popular amongst regional tourists and, with the break up of the Soviet Union, has become more important as a seaside destination. This importance is reflected in the area’s recent designation as the Lower Don Recreational Area (Dolzhenko et al, 2000). The implications of this designation are as yet unknown.
Tourism and recreation mostly takes place from May to September. A number of large hotels exist in Rostov, Taganrog and Azov, but occupancy rates are low (average 35-45%). There is a shortage of high quality hotels in the area. There are a number of health resorts serving mostly the elderly in autumn and winter, and children in summer. These include Rostovsky, Tsimlyansky, and Eurasia Don. It is understood that the majority of tourists arrive in organised groups, but that independent tourism is becoming increasingly popular.
Swimming in the river and sea is a popular activity. There are several places within the city to swim, including the main public river beach (which is upstream of the WWTW) and an artificial lake known as the ‘Rostov Sea’, within the city.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 85 Downstream there are many other places along the river that people can bathe, such as at Asov and along the Taganrog Bay. It is estimated that 400,000 people use the area’s beaches every summer (World Bank, 1998). Surface water quality is one of the key factors affecting the development of recreation and tourism facilities. The public health implications of recreation are discussed in Section 5.4.3.
Cultural Heritage The main cultural centres in the area are Rostov, Taganrog, Azov and Novocherkassk, with museums, art galleries and theatres. The major cultural and archaeological sites in the Delta area or in close proximity to the river are listed below and are shown in Figures 5.5 and 5.6:
• Tanais: ancient fort and town (V-III centuries BC) in the Don Delta;
• Five brothers: scythian burial mounds;
• Azov: fortress with cemetery, Pod-Azov ancient town (I-III centuries BC), ruins of ancient Greek settlements (III-II centuries BC) and town Azaka-Tany (XIII-XV centuries);
• Mertvy-Donetz river: several sites from Tanais to Rostov including the Leventsovskaya fortress, Sukhochaltyrskoye ancient town;
• Kobyakovo ancient town: (II centuries BC) in Rostov-on-Don; and
• Starocherkassk: ancient Cossack settlement sites and fortress.
(QYLURQPHQWDO4XDOLW\ Surface Water Quality The Lower Don is classified as moderately polluted (Class 3) from the Tsimylansk dam to upstream of Rostov city, and polluted (Class 4) from Rostov to the Azov Sea (according to DBWMA classification, World Bank, 1996). Pollution through both point and diffuse sources, including industrial, agricultural and municipal. Eutrophication is known to be a problem in the Tsimylansk reservoir, the Lower Don and its tributaries, and the Azov Sea.
Microalgal blooms are common, especially within the more enclosed and slow- moving water bodies. It is understood from the Institute of Fisheries and CPPI
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 86 that blooms occur every summer in the Lower Don and its tributaries (especially the Seversky Donets and smaller streams), and that in some years they contain toxic blue-green algae. Algal blooms also occur regularly in the Azov Sea, and this is a well documented problem for the Black Sea as a whole (BSEP, 2001). Kimstach et al (1998) note that blooms of blue-green algae can also occur during the spring and autumn, and have observed a concurrent lower diversity of bacillariophytes and chlorophytes. They note that macroalgae biomass increases on the right bank of the Don where significant organic pollution occurs. It is understood that macroalgae blooms are generally not perceived to be a significant problem.
This section contains a discussion of the water quality of the Lower Don and of the discharges that have an impact on it.
Water quality monitoring within the Lower Don basin The Don Basin Water Management Authority (DBWMA) is responsible for the following observation programme:
• 38 sites along the Don river;
• Main Don river tributaries: Seversky Donets; Sal river, Kagalnik river and Egorlyk river basins; Manych river basin, including the Proletarsky, Vesyolovsky and Ust-Manyvch reservoirs; the Temernik river;
• Pri-Azov rivers: Mius, Krynka;
• Boundary sites located at borders with the Federation regions (inter-Oblast);
• Trans-boundary water bodies, boundary sites with the Ukraine.
Water quality is monitored at frequencies ranging from annually to weekly:
• At water intake sites (drinking, irrigation, fisheries, technical);
• Downstream of waste water discharges of large towns and cities;
• At potential pollution sources; and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 87 • At small rivers for the purpose of studying effectiveness of earlier undertaken hydrotechnical and irrigation activities on rehabilitation of small rivers.
During 1999 in the Rostov Oblast, 425 samples were taken, including 418 samples of natural water and 7 samples of waste water. 62 sites were monitored at 15 water bodies (Rivers Don, Manych, Sal, Seversky Donets, B. Kamenka, Kundruchiya, M. Donets, Mius, Krynka, Krepkaya, Tuzlov, Burgusta, M. Elenchil). Monitoring of trans-boundary water bodies is conducted by the DBWMA in accordance with the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine Government. Eighteen boundary sites, including eight sites at trans-boundary water bodies (border of the Russian Federation and the Ukraine) were named in the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine Government and in the Rostov Oblast Basin Agreement. Water quality is monitored, entered into a database and classified according to Guidelines on formalised integrated assessment of surface and marine water quality in terms of hydrochemical parameters (1988). Methodologies developed by the Hydrochemical institute were also used (“Organisation and regime observations for surface water pollution at Hydromet Service network”, RF 52.24.309-92, 1992).
Discharges to surface water In order to understand the water quality, it is first necessary to analyse discharges to the river. The unstable economic situation, long breaks in the operation of industrial enterprises, and the closure of enterprises and mines has lead to changes in water consumption and a concurrent decrease of waste water discharges and pollutant loadings to within the Lower Don as shown in Tables 5.26 and 5.27, respectively. Table 5.26 shows that the quality of water discharged from Rostov city is significantly worse than the average for the Oblast.
Table 5.26 Waste water discharge within the Lower Don during 1999
Discharged waste water (%) Normatively Polluted - Polluted - Treated to Total clean, no no insufficient comply with (km3) treatment treatment treatment norms required Rostov 145 18.1 77.9 3.8 0.2 Azov 8.9 0.0 0.0 10.9 89.1 Bataisk 0.2 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 Belaya Kalitva 7.2 9.0 67.2 0.0 23.8
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 88 Discharged waste water (%) Normatively Polluted - Polluted - Treated to Total clean, no no insufficient comply with (km3) treatment treatment treatment norms required Volgodonsk 28.2 3.9 96.1 0.0 0.0 Gukovo 20.2 0.00 45.7 0.00 54.3 Donetsk 3.5 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 Zverevo 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Kamensk- 0.0 85.0 0.0 15.0 Shakhtinsky 9.4 Krasny Sulin 6.7 9.1 10.0 4.9 76.0 Millerovo 1.3 0.0 89.2 10.8 0.0 Novocherkassk 1,505 0.05 0.05 (98.3*) 1.6 Novoshakhtins 16.2 1.9 98.1 0.0 0.0 k Salsk 2.3 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 Taganrog 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Shakhty 30.7 2.4 49.4 0.0 48.2 Total for 1812 50.7% 1.7% 28.0% Oblast 2.5% * Cooling waters from the power station, therefore not included in the calculations Source: Federal Data
Table 5.27 Comparative analysis of pollutants discharged into the Lower Don for 1998-1999 1998 1999 Change (%) Volume of waste 0.59 0.62 5.1% water with pollutants, (km3) Pollutants (tonnes) BODtotal 8,800 6,270 -28.8% Oil products 124 83 -33.1% Susp. solids, 52,200 11,200 -78.5% Dry residue 816,700 965,000 18.2% Sulphates 347,600 431,500 24.1% Chlorides 159,000 151,800 -4.5% Phosphorus total 529 525 -0.8% Ammonia-N 781 814 4.2% Nitrates 3,176 3,681 15.9% Nitrites 164 66.4 -59.5%
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 89 1998 1999 Change (%) Iron 189 222 17.5% Lead 1.5 1.4 -6.7% Aluminium 0.5 2.0 300.0% Surfactants 37 41 10.8% Nickel ND 0.05 ND Copper 3.0 28 833.3% Chromium total 1.0 0.83 -17.0% Zinc 2.7 2.7 0.0% Manganese 0.6 0.7 16.7% Arsenic 0.02 0.02 0.0% Oils and grease 351 371 5.7% Cadmium 0.4 ND ND Magnesium 9,931 ND ND ND – No data available Source: Federal data
Industrial discharges in Rostov city Laws governing industrial discharges are imposed on federal basis, and are implemented in Rostov by the City Decree 1285 (1996) concerning “The Acceptable Level of Wastewaters Pollution Substances Discharged into the City Sewage Network by Customers (Industrial Enterprises)”. The decree contains a list of the main pollutant substances and their maximum allowable concentration defined for nine different categories of industrial enterprise:
1. Food industry (43 enterprises)
2. Machine-building and metal processing (30 enterprises)
3. Electronics industry (23 enterprises)
4. Chemical industry (22 enterprises)
5. Construction industry (24 enterprises)
6. Transport industry (38 enterprises)
7. Light industry (20 enterprises)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 90 8. Wood industry (2 enterprises)
9. Fuel-energy industry (8 enterprises)
The Water Quality Chemical-Technology Control Service of RVK controls industrial enterprises, and has water supply and wastewater services contracts with 210 industrial enterprises. The contracts require that industrial wastewater is pre- treated prior to disposal into the wastewater network. RVK does not control the operation of industrial pre-treatment facilities, but they do monitor industrial waste discharges against standards laid down by the municipality’s environment committee. Standards are enforced through a penalty system. It is understood that monitoring is often infrequent due to limitations in monitoring equipment and funds, and that self-reporting is often relied upon. Samples are only taken during the day, and flow rates into the wastewater treatment works suggest that a significant amount of industrial discharge occurs during the night. Installation of continuous monitoring equipment at industrial facilities should therefore be considered to be a priority, and is developed further in the RVK Strategic Plan.
Several industries discharge water defined as ‘non-polluted industrial wastewater’ directly into the Don or the stormwater system. This water, however, is often polluted by oil, lubricants and detergents. Quantitative data on industrial emissions in Rostov City is not in the public domain. However, RVK have supplied data on the major industries and parameters for which the MAC is exceeded in their effluent (Table 5.28).
Table 5.28 Major polluting industries in Rostov and their pre-treatment facilities
Enterprise Parameters exceeding Pre-treatment facilities Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) JSC “Rostselmach” (agricultural machines) • from general plant Petroleum products, General plant WWTW reconstruc- WWTW ; Chromium, Iron, tion & de-watering unit capital Aluminium, repair. Zinc, Sulphates, Surfactants (anionic)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 91 Enterprise Parameters exceeding Pre-treatment facilities Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) • from booster ; Petroleum products, Iron, Liquidation of industrial pollution Zinc, sources in WWPS. • from “RSM” Surfactant (anionic) Technical Institute; Sludge de-watering unit & Petroleum products, neutralization unit reconstruction. Chromium Iron, Aluminium, • from aluminium Surfactant (no ion) castling works Zinc Petroleum products separator reconstruction. Petroleum products Surfactants (anionic) JSC “Krasny Aksaj” Petroleum products, Iron, Reconstruction of galvanic & Copper, Zinc, Sulphates, petroleum products sites of the Surfactants (anionic) WWTW. JSC “Rostvertol” Petroleum products, Ion exchange treatment devices (helicopters plant) Cadmium, Zinc, introduction. Aluminium, Surfactants Local petroleum & fat products (anionic) Iron, Sulphates, separators reconstruction. Fats Reconstruction of local WWTW & sludge mechanical de-watering unit 129 (stipulate no ion surfactant treatment) Federal State Enterprise Copper, Zinc, Nickel, Local WWTW unit no.50 & works “Elektroapparat” Cadmium**, Surfactants no.23 & 31 reconstruction. (anionic)*, Petroleum products Iron, Sulphates JSC “Granit” Sulphates, Petroleum Development of project products documentation & designing of Fluorides, Zinc, Nickel wastewater final treatment facility. JSC “Donskaya Chromium, Hydrogen Commitment of WWTW Kozha” sulphide, reconstruction according to the (leather processing) Surfactants (anionic)* project documents & the sludge de- Suspended solids, Fats, watering units arrangement. Sulphates, Chlorides, Aluminium CSC “Agat” Iron, Petroleum products, Local WWTW reconstruction &
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 92 Enterprise Parameters exceeding Pre-treatment facilities Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) Chromium, Copper, Zinc, sludge mechanical de-watering unit Nickel design & installation. JSC “10th Bearing Petroleum products, Iron, Commitment of WWTW Plant” Surfactants (anionic)*, reconstruction with installation of Copper sludge treatment & de-watering equipment. Civil aviation Iron, Chromium, Zinc, Post-reconstruction WWTW Rostov Plant 412 Cadmium**, Surfactants introduction with sludge facility. (anionic)* JSC “Rostov Petroleum products, Copper, WWTW reconstruction with sludge Watch Producing Nickel, Chromium 6+, de-watering unit introduction. Plant” Surfactants (anionic)*
JSC “Tochpriborservis” Petroleum products, WWTW reconstruction (machine workshops) Copper, Zinc, Nickel, Chromium 6+, Surfactants (anionic) Federal State Chromium, Iron, Re-setting of galvanic out-falls Enterprise “Rubin” Aluminium, discharging non-treated water into Petroleum products, the sewerage networks & local Surfactants (anionic) WWTW reconstruction. Federal State Cadmium, Copper, WWTW introduction according to Enterprise “Almaz” Chromium, Zinc, Petroleum the project documents (stipulate products, Sulphates, installation of equipment for Surfactants (anionic) chlorinated iron solution regeneration) JC “Gorizont” Cadmium**, Copper, Iron, Local WWTW reconstruction Zinc, Nickel, Petroleum products, Sulphates, Surfactants (anionic) Federal State Cadmium, Chromium, Introduction of equipment for Enterprise Copper, Zink, Sulphates Copper electrical-chemical “Rostovsky Pribor” regeneration. WWTW reconstruction with sludge de-watering unit. Federal State Cadmium**, Zinc, Old & new local WWTW Enterprise Chromium, Copper, reconstruction with mechanical “RNI&RS” Petroleum products, sludge de-watering unit introduction Surfactant (no ion), Iron for the new WWTW JSC “Skif” Copper, Zinc, Iron, Galvanic departments’ out-falls to be
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 93 Enterprise Parameters exceeding Pre-treatment facilities Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) Petroleum products, set on local WWTW. Surfactants (anionic) WWTW reconstruction with introduction of copper solutions & sludge de-watering equipment. JSC “Quant Plant” Zinc, Nickel, Cadmium, WWTW reconstruction with sludge (radio-equipment) Sulphates, Petroleum mechanical de-watering unit products introduction. JSC “Rostpishmash” Petroleum products, Iron, Introduction of the whole WWTW (food industry) Copper, Nickel, Sulphates, complex with sludge mechanical de- Cadmium watering unit. “Molot” Petroleum products, Iron, WWTW reconstruction. Publishing House Copper, Nickel, Sulphates, Chromium, Manganese, Dry solids. “Ros-Ital” Co Ltd. Iron, Zinc, Sulphates, Stipulate wastewaters final treatment Aluminium, Petroleum after neutralization works, products, Copper improvement of wastewaters separator functioning. “Impuls VOS” Rostov Iron, Zinc, Petroleum Stipulate wastewaters final treatment Enterprise Ltd. products, Surfactants & WWTW reconstruction. (anionic), Sulphates. JSC “Empils” Iron, Surfactants (anionic), WWTW reconstruction (paints, lacquers) Petroleum products. Rostov Electrical Zinc, Iron, Surfactants Galvanic treatment unit introduction. Equipment Plant (anionic), Petroleum Petroleum products separating products, complex improvement. WWTW Copper. reconstruction. “Rostov Sevkavexpress” Surfactant (no ion), Arrange WWTW construction. Petroleum products. JSC “Don-Chakk” Iron, Sulphates, Petroleum Local WWTW introduction, & MSC-3 products, Copper, Nickel, stipulating WWTW for MSC-3. Zinc, Chromium, Surfactants (anionic) JSC “PEMI” Chromium, Copper, Zinc, WWTW galvanic treatment unit Nickel, Iron, Petroleum reconstruction with sludge products. mechanical de-watering unit introduction. SC “Gefest” Iron, Chromium, WWTW reconstruction Manganese, Petroleum
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 94 Enterprise Parameters exceeding Pre-treatment facilities Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) products JC “Automojka” Chromium, Copper, Zinc , WWTW reconstruction & (car washing) Iron, Chlorides, Petroleum introduction of chlorinated iron products regeneration unit. “Polymer-Plus” Petroleum products, WWTW reconstruction with sludge Chromium, Copper, Zinc , mechanical de-watering unit Iron introduction JSC Petroleum products, Local WWTW reconstruction “Sevkavaccumulator- Iron, Lead, Sulphates, remont” Chlorides JC “Mjasokombinat Petroleum products, Local & general plant WWTWs Rostovsky” Chlorides, Suspended reconstruction (meat processing plant) solids, H2S, Surfactants (anionic), residual solids JC “Tavr” Petroleum products, Local WWTW reconstruction (meat packing & Chlorides, Suspended processing) solids, H2S, Surfactant no ion, residual solids JSC “Smychka” Petroleum products, Local WWTW reconstruction (canning plant) Chlorides, Suspended solids, residual solids, Fats, Iron “MP SDRSU-1” Suspended solids, Local WWTW reconstruction Petroleum products, Iron JSC “Kinoautomatika” Zinc, Iron, Chromium, Introduction of wastewater final Petroleum products treatment stage with sludge mechanical de-watering unit introduction
Discharges from RVK Rostov WWTW discharges approximately 390,000m3/day into the River Don. This represents a dilution of approximately 1:100 during low summer flows. The effluent is chlorinated in the final settlement tanks in order to comply with SANEPID regulations, and then discharged through a pipeline 6km downstream of the works. The 6km pipeline was recently installed in order that WWTW
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 95 discharges are made downstream of the city. There is some concern over the formation of harmful organochlorines in the effluent . It is not normal practice to chlorinate effluent in the UK.
Maximum Allowable Concentrations for pollutants in the effluent are agreed between RVK and the City Environment Committee (Rostov City Mayor Decree 1285, 1996, Acceptable conditions of wastewater pollutants discharged to the sewage system of Rostov-on-Don). Data on effluent characteristics are given in Table 5.29 below. Federal Russian discharge consents are very stringent, and currently set at BOD – 3mg/l; Suspended solids – 3mg/l; total nitrogen – 9mg/l; phosphorus – 0.3mg/l.
Table 5.29 Characteristics of the Rostov WWTW effluent discharged to the River Don
Wastewate 1998 1999 r Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Parameter (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) Suspended 126.3 20.8 128.8 29.5 Solids BOD 159.5 27.7 170.9 35.93 Ammonia 17.8 2.5 18.2 2.8 Nitrogen Nitrites 0.10 0.67 0.12 0.48 Nitrates 0.43 7.01 0.34 6.3 Phosphates 5.43 4.75 5.62 4.42 Mineral 1258 1154 1108 1067 Comp. Chlorides 238.9 202.7 200.9 188.2 Sulphates 325.2 298.7 280.1 260.1 Anionic 0.71 0.09 0.98 0.048 Surfactants Non-anionic 0.37 0.08 0.12 0.054 Surfactants Petroleum 0.41 0.11 1.49 0.4 Products Phenols No trace No trace No trace No trace Fats 10.92 5.78 9.77 4.03 Iron 1.66 0.45 1.93 0.47 Copper 0.059 0.027 0.0449 0.024 Zinc 0.113 0.029 0.115 0.024
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 96 Wastewate 1998 1999 r Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Parameter (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) Nickel 0.010 No trace No trace No trace Aluminum 0.18 0.024 0.24 0.0223 Chromium 0.052 0.014 0.043 0.014 Manganese 0.009 No trace 0.110 No trace Lead 0.039 0.015 0.0229 0.012 Cadmium 0.008 0.0021 0.0077 0.0008 Magnesium 48.94 48.45 44.25 43.64 Fluorides 0.45 0.36 0.40 0.35
In relation to water treatment, a localised impact on the Don river may arise adjacent to the water treatment facilities from the current practice of disposing of backwashed sludge directly to the river. Recently “Kaustik” enterprise of the town of Sterlitamak started production of cationic flocculant VPK-402. Cationic
polyelectrolyte – polymethyldiallylammonium chloride C8H16NCl (PMDAA or VPK-402) – is a heterocyclic cationic polymer (quaternary salt), a high-molecular compound linear-cyclic resulting from alkaline radical polymerisation of monomer dimethylammonium chloride. Although VPK-402 is known to be of low hazard to human health, the impact on the environment as a result of disposal is unknown.
Water Quality of the Lower Don In order to clearly show the historical impact of pollutants within the surface water of the Lower Don river, water quality data were requested from the DBWMA as an average of chemical pollutant concentrations during the last five years. Water quality was assessed in terms of a Water Pollution Index (WPI). This is an average arithmetical value of the multiple by which the Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) was exceeded for the analysed period. MACs are set by Federal Regulation for various river uses. The MACs which apply to the Lower Don are the fisheries and drinking water MACs, and are given in Appendix C.
Water quality for important boundary sites within the Lower Don river, expressed in relation to MAC values for fisheries and drinking water are presented in Figures 5.7 and 5.8, respectively. Distances from the Azov sea are estimated. The data are presented in Appendix D.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 97 Figure 5.7 Exceedance of Fisheries Maximum Allowable Concentrations: Lower Don River
8 Downstream Upstream of Downstream Upstream of Downstream Mouth of Upstream of Downstream Upstream of Downstream of reserviour S. Donets of S. Donets Manych of Manych Aksay Canal Rostov Rostov Azov WWTP of Azov WWTP WWTP WWTP 7
6
5 BOD
Soluble Phosphate 4 Ammonium Nitrogen
3 Iron
Copper
2 Petroleum Products
Surfactants (anionic) Exceedance of MAC Value for Fisheries (MAC = 1) 1
0 -327 -205 -202 -130 -127 -72 -62 -60 -35 -30 Distance from Azov Sea (km)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 98 Figure 5.8 Exceedance of Drinking Water Maximum Allowable Concentrations: Lower Don River
8 Downstream Upstream of Downstream Upstream of Downstream Mouth of Upstream of Downstream Upstream of Downstream of reserviour S. Donets of S. Donets Manych of Manych Aksay Canal Rostov Rostov Azov WWTP of Azov WWTP WWTP WWTP 7
6
5 BOD Soluble Phosphate Ammonium Nitrogen 4 Iron Copper Petroleum Products 3 Surfactants (anionic)
2
Exceedance ofExceedance MAC Value for Drinking Water (MAC 1) = 1
0 -327 -205 -202 -130 -127 -72 -62 -60 -35 -30 Distance from Azov Sea (km)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 99 The data reveal the following pollutants of concern in the Lower Don river:
• Downstream of Tsimlyansk reservoir border of Volgogradsky and Rostovsky Oblasts - 327km from Azov Sea: Water quality does not meet
fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (2.1 MAC) – (1.4 for drinking water MAC), ammonium nitrogen (3.8) and petroleum products (1.1) Compared to 1998 water quality class has changed from 3 (moderately polluted) to class 2 (clean) due to decrease in copper from 4.5 – 2.0 (MAC) to 1.0 (MAC).
• Upstream of the Seversky Donets – 205 km from Azov Sea: Water quality
does not meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.8 MAC) – 1.2 for drinking water MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 3.0), Iron (MAC 2.7) and petroleum products (MAC (2.2).
• Downstream of the Seversky Donets – 202 km from Azov Sea: Water
quality does not meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.6 MAC) - (1.1 for drinking water MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 2.2), Iron (MAC 3.0), aluminium (3.8) and petroleum products (MAC (2.2).
• Upstream of the Manych – 130 km from Azov sea: Water quality does not
meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.1 MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 2.5), Iron (MAC 3.4), aluminium (9.0) and petroleum products (MAC (2.2). Iron is registered as slightly above the drinking water MAC.
• Downstream of the Manych – 127 km from Azov sea: Water quality does
not meet the fisheries MAC in terms of BOD5 (1.2 MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 2.8), Iron (MAC 3.6), aluminium (8.7) and petroleum products (MAC (2.3). Iron is registered as slightly above the MAC for drinking water.
• Mouth of the Aksay Canal – 72 km from Azov Sea: Upstream of the Manych – 130 km from Azov sea: Water quality does not meet fisheries
requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.5 MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 6.3), Iron (MAC 1.2), cooper (1.0) and petroleum products (MAC (2.1). BOD is registered as equal to the MAC for drinking water.
• Upstream of Rostov– 62 km from Azov sea: Water quality does not meet
fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.5 MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 5.0), Iron (MAC 1.8), copper (2.4) and petroleum products (MAC (1.8). BOD is registered as equal to the MAC for drinking water.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 100 • River Temernik – This is small river located centrally within Rostov, 56km upstream of the Azov Sea. It is highly polluted, and has an impact on the Don river water regime. It must be borne in mind that the annual flow to the River Temernik is only 0.06 km3, which equates to a dilution factor of 3000 within the river Don (for this reason, it has not been included in Figures 5.7 and 5.8). The Temernik is one of the mostly polluted water course in the Rostov Oblast. There are 5 monitoring sites at the river: near the dam of the regulation reservoir, the upper and lower reservoirs, Zoo and river mouth. In 1999 water quality did not meet fisheries requirements in terms of copper (9.3 MAC), iron total (8.97 MAC), aluminium (10.9 MAC), nitrogen nitrites (5.9 MAC), nitrogen ammonia (5.6 MAC), sulphates (7.99 MAC), manganese (3.0 MAC), oil
products (2,0 MAC), zinc (2.9 MAC), phosphates ( ) (2.1 MAC) and BOD5 (7.2 MAC). Dry residues concentration is 1948.6 mg/dm3, suspended solids – 21.3 mg/dm3.
Between 1998 and 1999, MAC values increased for the following parameters: iron total from 6.0 to 8.96 (MAC), oil products from 0.0 to 2.0 (MAC), copper from 8.0 to 9.3 (MAC), zinc from 0.0 to 2.9 (MAC), phosphates ( ) from 0.3 to 2.1 (MAC); and decreased for: suspended solids from 32.0 mg/dm3 to 21.3 mg/dm3, sulphates from 10.6 to 7.99 (MAC), nitrogen ammonia from 25.9 to 5.6 (MAC), nitrogen nitrites from 22.0 to 5.9 (MAC).
Hydrobiological monitoring of water quality in the Temernik river mouth indicated low population values (5,500 specimen/m3), biomass (95.80 mg/m3) and species diversity (6 species). Sub-acute toxicity of water has been recorded, which might be caused by low zooplankton development.
• Downstream of Rostov WWTW– 60 km from Azov sea: Water quality does
not meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.4 MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 6.2), Iron (MAC 1.2), and petroleum products (MAC 2.6). BOD and copper are registered as equal to the MAC for drinking water.
• Upstream of Azov WWTW – 35 km from Azov sea: Water quality does not
meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.7 MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 5.0), Iron (MAC 1.1) and petroleum products (MAC (2.3). BOD is registered as slightly above the MAC for drinking water.
• Downstream of Azov WWTW – 30 km from Azov sea: Water quality does
not meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.0 MAC), ammonium
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 101 nitrogen (MAC 3.3), Iron (MAC 3.9), aluminium (MAC 4.4) and petroleum products (MAC (1.3). Iron is registered as slightly above the MAC for drinking water.
Pollutant loadings within the Lower Don The environmental impact associated with the upgrading of a WWTW on the receiving water quality can be estimated with knowledge of the expected effluent chemical load from the works, the in-stream concentration of pollution and the dilution capacity of the river. However, in the case of nutrient discharge, the environmental benefits of a decrease in nutrients from a point source on the within the Lower Don river (and the Azov Sea) must be put in the appropriate context. Typically, the contribution of nutrients to the receiving water from diffuse sources in an agricultural catchment area will be as much as two to three times higher than the total sum arising from point sources. If phosphorus concentrations in the Lower Don rivers are to be reduced to envisaged target levels, it is clear that an integrated approach is required to controlling loads, involving proactive action on both point and diffuse sources. However, there is no doubt that point sources are far easier to control than diffuse sources, and that, given the nature and timing of point source loads outlined above, a greater return for the resources invested are likely to accrue from tackling point sources comprehensively. In any given situation, the dominant contribution to point source loads from the WWTW may be significantly augmented by industrial discharges, which therefore need to be considered fully in any control programme (see Section 9.5 for recommendations).
Existing assessments of annual nutrient loads to the Azov Sea from all sources cover a wide range: for nitrogen from 75,000 to135,000 tonnes; and for phosphorus from 13,000 to 26,000 tonnes. Estimates of the nutrient load to the Black Sea from the Sea of Azov via the Kerchenski Strait range from 48,000 to 62,500 tonnes N/year; and from 2,600 to 4,100 tonnes P/year.
The largest point source polluters of the Sea of Azov are the municipal waste water treatment services (“Vodocanal”) of the towns Rostov-on-Don, Taganrog, Azov, Temriuk, Ejsk, Primorsko–Akhtarsk and Slaviansk-on-Kuban. In most towns industrial organisations discharge their effluent to the sewage systems of “Vodocanal”, but according to existing legislation “Vodocanal” is responsible for the quality of waste water treatment. Other important polluters include fisheries and fish–processing plants, as well as rice growing organisations subordinate to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 102 In order to gain insight into the environmental impact of the proposed scheme, an estimation of the chemical loadings to the Lower Don river from all the major point sources has been derived from the water quality data provided by the DBWMA (see Figure 1.2 for locations). Data (Tables D1 and D2)and figures (D1 – D6) are given in Appendix D, and commentary below. The figures show the change in concentration of pollutants between points just upstream and just downstream of a particular point source. The impact on water quality of the improvements at the WWTW is discussed in Section 6.
By way of summary, total inorganic nitrogen, soluble phosphate, BODtotal, suspended solids, petroleum products, surfactants and zinc are presented together in Figure D1 as a percentage of relative change between selected stations from below the Tsimlyansk reservoir to 30km above the Azov Sea. It is apparent from this data set that the greatest fluctuations in pollutants above the Manych are for petroleum products, surfactants and zinc. At the mouth of the Aksay canal, total inorganic nitrogen (in the form of ammonia) and suspended solids are largely increased. Downstream of the Rostov WWTW is characterized by an increase in phosphate, inorganic nitrogen and petroleum products. Below Azov City, increases in BOD, phosphate and suspended solids are noted. These pollutants are discussed separately in the sections below.
Nitrogen Figure D2 shows the relative change in ammonium-nitrogen, nitrate and nitrite at eight monitoring stations throughout the length of the Lower Don. The concentration of total inorganic nitrogen is also shown, as calculated from the sum of ammonia-N, nitrate-N and nitrite-N. The data reveal that the highest loadings of nitrogen (above the background concentration) within the Lower Don occur upstream of the Aksay Canal (4,584 tonnes/year) and to a lesser extent downstream of the Rostov WWTW (2,251 tonnes/year).
In terms of nitrogen pollution within the Lower Don, no data has been found to indicate that nitrate or nitrite concentrations are problematical within the river. Nitrogen pollution throughout the length of the Lower Don appears to be present in the form of ammonium which, in the unionised form, will have its greatest impact on the fish population. Such high levels of ammonia would be expected to cause intermittent fish kills and to be contribute to low populations and diversity. However, in such a big river, there are generally refuges where fish can avoid ‘spikes’ of ammonia carried by the main channel. Based on the ammonium
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 103 nitrogen MAC, the Russian MAC for unionised ammonia (NH3) is equal to 41 g N-1, which would be exceeded on a regular basis throughout the Lower Don river.
Phosphorus Increases in phosphorus within the Lower Don river, are shown in Figure D3. The first impact of phosphorus above background concentrations in the Lower Don occurs after the confluence of the Seversky Donets (1021 tonnes/year), with further increases above and below the confluence of the Manych of 188 and 304 tonnes/year. A dramatic reduction of phosphorus is recorded during the next 50 km, where a decrease of 1,031 tonnes/year is recorded upstream of the Aksay Canal. A further discharge of phosphate is recorded in the 8 km stretch above Rostov WWTW (643 tonnes/year). A further 587 tonnes/year of phosphorus from diffuse sources would be expected to be discharged to the river Don between Rostov and Azov. It is important to note that the concentration of soluble (biologically available) phosphorus increases throughout the length of the Lower Don river from 0.5 MAC downstream of the Tsimlyansk reservoir to 0.9 MAC downstream of the Azov WWTW. The concentration of soluble phosphate (data not supplied) would be expected to exceed the MAC within the vicinity of the confluence of the Don and the Azov Sea as a result of intense agricultural activity within the region.
Point sources are more important than estimates of annual total phosphorus loads suggest, since they enter the river continually through the year and are at minimum dilution through the growing season when phosphorus concentrations in the water column are critical. In addition, the phosphorus load in WWTW effluents is highly bioavailable and can therefore have an immediate impact. Figure 5.9 provides a stylised illustration of the seasonality in point source and diffuse loads, and gives an indication of how the contribution from each type of source changes with flow through the year. Inevitably, there will be large variation about this general pattern, mainly depending upon the degree of urbanisation of the catchment.
It is also important to stress that there is a strong seasonality in phosphorus behaviour within rivers. Phosphorus will tend to be taken up and retained in the sediment and the biota (macrophytes, algae and bacteria) through the summer months, whilst much of the accumulated load will be scoured and sorbed out during the high flows of autumn and winter (depending upon the strength of winter flows). Strong microbial activity in the spring can produce a significant flush of phosphorus from the sediment in advance of strong biological uptake through
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 104 the growing season. Seasonal patterns in the phosphorus loads from different sources add a further layer of complexity.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 105 Figure 5.9 Typical seasonality in the contribution of point and non- point sources to phosphorus concentrations in the river.
River flow
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Total Phosphorus loads
Point sources Diffuse sources
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Contributions to water column concentration
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month
Readily degradable organics Figure D4 shows that the greatest single impact of organic material to the Lower Don arises in the 50 km stretch between the Manych river and the Aksay Canal (6,679 tonnes/year). The current nutrient reduction activity at the WWTW reduces
BODtotal downstream of the WWTW by an estimated 678 tonnes/year.
Suspended solids
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 106 Figure D5 shows that the greatest single impact of suspended solids to the Lower Don appears within the 50 km stretch between the Manych river and the Aksay Canal (1.35 million tonnes/year).
Other pollutants Figure D6 shows the loading of petroleum products, anionic surfactants and zinc throughout the Lower Don river. It is evident that all three pollutants are present in the sections of the Lower Don between the reservoir and the Manych river. In the section between the Manych river and Rostov, an overall decrease of petroleum products and surfactants is calculated, with zinc remaining relatively unchanged. It is further evident that downstream of Rostov WWTW an increase in petroleum products would be expected probably as a result of shipping activities. It is noteworthy that surfactants are decreased by over 300 tonnes per year downstream of the Rostov WWTW. Since no information is available for non- ionic or cationic surfactants, a judgement on the impact of surfactants can not adequately be made at this stage.
Groundwater Quality Groundwater in the area is generally high in minerals, with a background level of 70-80mg/l Total Dissolved Solids, rising to 270-280mg/l in summer (Kimstach et al, 1998). Groundwater quality is described in more detail in other reports (as listed in Section 3.2), and is here restricted to discussion of the impact of existing sludge lagoons and sludge beds at the Rostov WWTW as being of relevance to the current project.
Groundwater quality around the existing sludge beds and lagoons has been investigated by RVK. In early 1998, a total of ten boreholes were drilled to a depth of 20m each. The boreholes were located along two lines crossing the WWTW territory from the North to the South, located according to the groundwater flow, across the Don river valley. Samples for chemical & bacteriological analysis were taken from the boreholes quarterly during 1998 and 1999. The analysis was performed by Vodokanal laboratory service of chemical-bacteriological & technological control. In total 39 samples have been taken for complete chemical analysis & 30 samples for bacteriological analysis. It should be noted that groundwater in the vicinity of the works is also likely to be contaminated by other industrial & non-industrial wastes deposition. It is understood that these results are considered to be preliminary, and that further boreholes are required in order to obtain good data. Sampling has therefore been temporarily suspended as new boreholes are being dug. The preliminary results do, however, highlight a number
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 107 of areas of concern, and indicate that the lagoon is a source of pollution to the river (Table 5.30). The need for further monitoring and action is considered in the RVK Strategy Plan.
Table 5.30 Preliminary results from groundwater quality monitoring at selected sites around the WWTW lagoon, for selected parameters of concern
Parameter Average concentration in groundwater (mg/l) Near lagoon Between lagoon Rest of site and river BOD 348 mg/l 415 mg/l 306 mg/l Petroleum products 5.27 mg/l 6.09 mg/l 0.8 mg/l Iron 112.7 mg/l 10.5 mg/l 34.5 mg/l Cadmium 0.029 mg/l 0.077 mg/l 0.03.5 mg/l Source: RVK
Sediment Quality The absorption of pollutants by river sediment is a complex and continually active process, which varies according to pollutant. The most important pollutants likely to be absorbed into the sediment are phosphates and heavy metals. There is little available data on sediments of the Lower Don and Azov Sea. The discussion below is based on data supplied by CPPI.
Phosphates Once in the river, phosphorus is highly chemically and biologically active, undergoing numerous transformations and moving between the particulate and dissolved phases, between the sediment and water column, and between the biota and abiotic environment. Physical deposition and resuspension of particulates are obvious methods of phosphorus transfer between the water column and bed sediments, but direct adsorption/desorption processes between the two compartments are also important and will depend upon the Equilibrium Phosphate Concentration of the sediment, SRP levels in the overlying water and current velocity (the latter dictating the sharpness of the diffusion gradient). The EPC is defined as the SRP concentration in the water column (or pore water) that produces no net flux of dissolved phosphorus to or from the sediment particles. This determinand is crucial to our understanding of fluxes between the particulate and dissolved phases, and in particular the release of phosphorus from riverine bed sediments.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 108 Labile phosphorus attached to suspended particulates can rapidly desorb into the water column and become bioavailable, again depending upon the EPC of the particles and the SRP concentration in the water column. Firmly held phosphorus deep within the particle matrix can diffuse slowly into the water column, and is most likely to be an important mechanism for the river once particulates have settled as bed sediments. Soluble phosphorus can be incorporated into inorganic phosphate minerals by precipitation, particularly in association with calcium, iron and aluminium. Precipitation of soluble phosphorus with calcium is particularly likely to occur below sewage treatment works in rivers with calcareous waters, where both calcium and soluble phosphorus concentrations are very high. Colloids of calcium phosphate minerals can be generated in the water column, whilst algal biofilms are thought to be involved in the coprecipitation of calcite and phosphorus onto bed sediments and plants. Filamentous, epiphytic and planktonic algae generally take phosphorus directly from the water column by necessity, although benthic algae (including filamentous mats) will utilise both sources. Microbial uptake from the water column and more particularly within the sediment can be substantial. Decay of plant shoots and the mineralisation of organic matter by the microbial community will lead to phosphorus release into both sediment pore waters and the water column, offset to varying degrees by uptake by rooted macrophytes and algae. Judging from the little available information (Table 5.31), the rate of removal of the mineral phosphorus from bottom sediments of the Lower Don downstream of Rostov-on-Don should be as follows:
• With the influence of hydro-physical and hydro-chemical processes in aerobic conditions the removal will be 210-380 mg/m2 a year; • Additionally, 120-330 mg/m2 a year should be removed from bottom sediments with invertebrates and vertebrates; and • About 6.5-14 mg/m2 of nutrients will be transferred yearly from bottom sediments to water with vegetation.
Table 5.31 Mineral phosphorus in bottom sediments of the Don downstream of Rostov-on-Don. Average for 1988-1996
Sampling site Type of Concentration of min. bottom In mg of for kg of sediments bottom sediments (dry weight) Upstream of Rostov-on- Loamy silts 125; 85; 153; 110; 138;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 109 Sampling site Type of Concentration of min. bottom In mg of for kg of sediments bottom sediments (dry weight) Don, 153; 90; 78; 120; 132; 1988, 1990-1993, 1995, 100; 120; 129; 119; 145 1996 Downstream of Rostov- Loamy silts 827; 632; 920; 740; 750; on-Don in the area of 740; 820; 660; 800; 930 Temernik river inflow, 1988, 1990-1993 Temernik River, mouth, Black silts 970; 1200; 1450; 3100; 1990-1993 5200 20 km downstream of Loamy silts 284; 150; 340; 300; 270; Rostov-on-Don, 350 1988, 1990-1993 Azov Sea coast in the area Loamy silts 45; 630; 67; 134; 89; 250; of the Don river delta, 95; 77; 84; 450; 120 1988, 1990-1993 Source: Zhulidov, pers. comm.
Heavy metals Heavy metal concentrations have been reported by Zhulidov (1996) for different environmental compartments upstream and downstream of the Rostov WWTP and in the Azov sea coastal waters. Figures D7 – D12 (Appendix D) show the results of analysis of heavy metal (Cd, Cr6+, Cu, Hg, Pb and Zn) concentrations in the water column, suspended solids, bottom sediment, periphyton and Lumbricidae during 1988-1996. Figure D12 shows the concentrations of metals in the mouth of the Temernik. Data on average concentration of metals in the Lower Don for 1999 is presented at the end of this section, although it is only an average for the whole 327km stretch of the river and is therefore of little practical use for determining the impact a scheme will have at a set location. The following observations can be made from the data set 1988-1996:
• Mercury: (Figure D7) Predominately associated with bottom sediments and suspended matter. Major contamination occurs at the mouth of the Temernik. Levels on suspended solids and bottom sediments have been recorded as three and five times higher, respectively, than levels found in the Don river in the vicinity of the Temernik. A progressive reduction of mercury in all compartments has been shown to take place between the Rostov and the coastal section of the Azov/Don confluence. Mercury was shown to be
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 110 present mostly in bottom sediment and Lumbricidae in both the Azov coast and upstream o Rostov. Data was not received for the concentration of mercury in the water column.
• Cadmium: (Figure D8) Predominately associated with biota (Lumbricidae) and bottom sediments, and to a lesser extent suspended solids. Also present during the 1990s in the water column but at level below a concentration which would affect the biota. The levels of cadmium at the mouth of the Temernik have been shown to be elevated for each environmental compartment by a factor of 2-2.5. A progressive reduction in all environmental compartments is demonstrated between the Rostov and the coastal section of the Azov/Don confluence.
• Lead: (Figure D9) Present in similar concentrations in Lumbricidae, bottom sediments and suspended solids throughout the Don river. Concentrations of lead were shown to be two- to threefold lower upstream of Rostov city. During the mid 1990s levels remained approximately 1.5 times higher in the Azov Sea coastal area. At the mouth of the Temernik, there appeared to be a sharp increase in the concentration present in Lumbricidae with a concomitant reduction in the concentration in suspended solids and bottom sediments.
• Zinc: (Figure D10) Present in all environmental compartments from upstream of Rostov to the Azov sea. Overall, zinc has been recorded at the highest concentration of all metals analysed. The highest concentrations found in the Don river are as follows: Lumbricidae > periphyton > bottom sediment > suspended solids > water column. Elevated concentration of zinc were recorded from the mouth of the Temernik (3-4 fold increase). Levels remained approximately 1.5 times higher in the Azov Sea coastal area.
• Copper: (Figure D11) Present in highest concentration in : Lumbricidae and bottom sediments throughout the Don river. Concentrations of copper in each compartment have been shown to be approximately half those recorded upstream of Rostov city. Levels were elevated twofold in Rostov, remaining at a similar level in the Azov Sea coastal area. An increase in copper was recorded at the mouth of the Temernik, primarily associated with an increase within : Lumbricidae. The concentration of copper is significant in terms of pollution at all locations.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 111 • Chromium: (Figure D12) A retrospective comparison for chromium is not possible for the Don since data only received for samples at the mouth of the Temernik. However, the data received do show that chromium levels in the Temernik mouth were associated mostly with periphyton (890 mg/kg dry weight) and to a lesser extent bottom sediment. A significant concentration was also present in the water column (123 mg/l). Figure D12 provides a comparison of all the metals analysed at the mouth of the Temernik.
The ultimate aim of the GEF funding is the protection of the Black Sea from nutrients, organic and inorganic pollutants, with reduction of loads from the major rivers (including the Don) entering the receiving water. In order to build a practical legislative basis for the protection of the Black Sea, the application of Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) has been adopted by the riparian countries to protect the marine environment (Reynolds, 1999). EQOs represent compliance with water or sediment quality standards for all agreed uses, in combination with an individual classification scheme to determine actual quality. The approach has two essential elements, the principal one being the assessment of compliance, and the secondary consideration being the distance from compliance in cases where water bodies are classified below an overall acceptable quality. In most cases, the proposed water quality standards for the region have been related to EU values thereby affording protection against the long-term effects of pollutants. The term ‘critical action level’ has also been adopted to indicate the maximum level to which a parameter in the water column or sediment can reach in the short-term without causing lethal effects on the indigenous population or impairing the specific water use in the longer term.
Sediment quality standards for the Black Sea were adopted from those values specified by regulatory authorities in The Netherlands. In the cases of either water or sediment, where the need for higher (or lower) protection was deemed necessary, due to regional specific factors, appropriate standards were proposed after consultation with a select regional committee. Table 5.32 shows the proposed characterisation of sediment quality (for the marine environment) for heavy metals. Since MAC values only exist for metals in the water column, the values presented in Table 5.32 have also been used to gain an insight into the relative distance from compliance to normatives for heavy metals in the Don river.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 112 Table 5.32 Heavy metal classifications proposed for the Black Sea
Paramete Concentration (mg/kg dry matter) r 1 2 3 4 5 Critical ‘High’ ‘Good’ ‘Fair’ ‘Poor ‘Bad’ level for ’ action Compliant Non-compliant Cadmium <0.2 <0.8 <3.2 <12.8 >12.8 >12.8 Chromium <25 <100 <400 <1,60 >1,60 >1,600 0 0 Copper <9 <36 <144 <576 >576 >576 Lead <21 <85 <340 <1,36 >1,36 >1,360 0 0 Mercury <0.075 <0.3 <1.2 <4.8 >4.8 >4.8 Zinc <35 <140 <560 <2240 >2,24 >2,240 0 Source: Reynolds, 1999
Figures D13-D16 (Appendix D) show the relationship of heavy metals during 1988-1996 to the current MAC values (water column for fisheries and drinking water use) and the water and sediment Environmental quality standards (collectively termed Environmental Quality Standards – EQSs) proposed for sediment in the Black Sea. The following observations are made:
• Mercury: (Figure D13) Analysis of the data shows that the concentration of mercury both in bottom sediments exceeded the proposed EQS by approximately 3, 14 and 10 fold, respectively, upstream of Rostov, in the vicinity of the Temernik, and 20 km downstream of Rostov. Levels in the Azov sea were recorded as 6 fold higher for bottom sediments than the proposed EQS. High levels of mercury were also associated with suspended solids in the vicinity of the Temernik. The mouth of the Temernik river contained mercury at concentrations 70 and 40 times the proposed EQS for bottom sediments and suspended solids, respectively. According to the scheme proposed for the Black Sea, these levels would exceed the ‘critical level for action’.
• Cadmium: (Figure D14) Concentration of cadmium exceeded the EQS for bottom sediments by approximately 1.5, 3 and 3 fold, respectively, upstream of Rostov, in the vicinity of the Temernik, and 20 km downstream of Rostov.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 113 Levels in the Azov sea are 2 fold higher for bottom sediments than the proposed EQS. High levels of cadmium were also associated with suspended solids in the vicinity of the Temernik. The mouth of the Temernik river contained cadmium at concentrations and 10 and 7 times the proposed EQS for bottom sediments and suspended solids, respectively.
• Lead: (Figure D15) For all environmental compartments, lead was below the MAC and proposed EQSs.
• Zinc: (Figure D16) Concentrations of zinc in the water column were below the MAC and proposed EQS levels at all locations measured in the Don river. However, exceedence of the water column Mac and EQS would have occurred at the mouth of the Temernik (8x MAC, 2xEQS). In the Don river, the only compartment which would have exceeded the proposed EQS is the bottom sediment in the vicinity of the Temernik (2.5x) and in the Azov Sea coastal area (1.3x). The mouth of the Temernik river contained zinc at concentrations and 11 and 3 times the proposed EQS for bottom sediments and suspended solids, respectively.
• Copper: (Figure D17) The concentration of copper would have exceeded the MAC (and to a lesser extent the EQS) in the water column at all locations. The concentrations upstream of Rostov and in the Azov sea was similar, approximately 7 times the MAC. However, in the vicinity of the Temernik and 20km downstream of Rostov, the levels recorded would exceed the MAC by 25 and 10 fold, respectively (EQS at the same locations is by 5 and 2 fold). Copper was only present at concentration of 2-3fold the proposed EQS for bottom sediments from Rostov to, and including the Azov sea coast. The Temernik river recorded levels of copper in surface water over 40 times the MAC (1993 data).
• Chromium: (Figure D18) As stated above, data for chromium were only available for samples at the mouth of the Temernik. The data reveal that chromium levels in the Temernik mouth exceeded the MAC and EQS for the water column by 6 and 8 times, respectively. Chromium was present at concentrations of 6 and 3 times the proposed EQS for bottom sediments and suspended solids, respectively. Figure D18 provides a comparison of the relationship to MAC and proposed EQSs for each of the metals analysed at the mouth of the Temernik.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 114 Figure D19 show the comparison between data recorded in 1999 as an average concentration of heavy metals in the river and bottom sediment, and the data presented above ranging from 1988 to 1996. The most striking is mercury in the water column (i.e. soluble). The MAC and EQS are, on average, exceeded by a factor of 43 and 4, respectively. Since no data was received for the period, 1988- 1996, it is impossible to make a comparison. The data does reveal however that the use of the MAC ten times higher in line with the EQS may be more appropriate. There is also one area of discrepancy: on average, copper concentrations in water in 1999 for the whole of the river Don only slightly exceed the MAC. During the earlier 1990s, the soluble concentration of copper was recorded at a level six times the MAC.
Other Pollutants During the 1998-1999 observations showed a decrease in the content of oil- products in the water of the Lower Don (Table 5.33). In the bottom sediments the content of oil-products in the summer and autumn period of 1999 ranged within 30 to 35,300 mg/kg of dry weight, the average being 1,190 mg/kg of dry weight. In 1998 the average yearly concentration was somewhat lower – 97 mg/kg of dry weight.
An extremely high concentration was recorded in bottom sediments, sampled in October downstream of Temernik river inflow – 35,300 mg/kg of dry weight.
Table 5.33 Average numbers of MAC exceedence in terms of oil products in the water of the Lower Don in 1995-1999
Times by Average Concentratio % of MAC which Years concentratio n range, mg/l exceedence MAC is n, mg/l exceeded 1995 0.17 0.01 – 0.98 70 3.4 1996 0.23 0.10 – 0.71 100 4.6 1997 0.12 0.02 – 0.33 62 2.4 1998 0.10 0.04 – 0.37 71 2.0 1999 0.09 0.04 – 0.25 87 1.8 Source: CPPI
A high level of oil-products is almost constantly recorded in the mouth area of the Aksay channel where the fleet is repaired. In June and July the concentration of
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 115 oil-products in the ground in this area was 4,040 and 4,290 mg/kg of dry weight accordingly.
Comparison of analytical results for 1995-1999 showed a decrease of oil-products concentration in water, whereas in bottom sediments oil contamination built up (Table 5.34). In the last three years (1997-1999) there was a 25% increase in the oil- products concentration when compared to the previous years.
Table 5.34 Exceedence of background concentrations of oil- products in bottom sediments of the Lower Don in 1995-99
Times by Average Concentration % of MAC which Years concentration range, mg/l exceedence MAC is , mg/l exceeded 1995 0.78 0.04 - 4.14 48 1.5 1996 0.83 0.10 - 6.10 65 1.7 1997 1.08 0.05 - 6.99 41 2.1 1998 0.97 0.15 - 5.08 60 1.9 1999 1.19 0.03 - 35.3 56 2.4 Source: CPPI
An average yearly concentration of pesticides in the Lower Don water in 1999 was 4.9 ng/l, with a range from 0.5 to 19.2 ng/l, which is approximately 1.5 times less than 1998 values. Seasonal variations in concentrations of organochlorine toxicants are insignificant. Exceedence of MAC was recorded in summer in points of inflow of Aksay channel and Temernik river, and in autumn in mouth stretches of rivers Seversky Donets and Manych. Average level of bottom sediments contamination during the year was 3.0 µg/kg, with a range of 0.04 to 24.6 µg/kg of dry weight and remained at the level of last year. Maximal concentration of pesticides in bottom sediments in 1999 was twice as high as in 1998.
Maximal contamination of bottom sediments with organochlorine toxicants was observed in points of inflow of river Temernik (24.6 µg/kg) and Aksay channel (20.4 µg/kg of dry weight). Metabolites of DDT group are the main contributors to the total content of persistent OCPs. Table 5.35 shows the average concentration of OCPs for the Lower Don.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 116 Table 5.35 Flux of Organochlorine Pesticides of the Don
Yea River No of Annual average gross OCP flux, Volume r discharg sample tonnes of usage e s J-HCH, 3 km D-HCH J- DD DDE tonnes HCH T 1988 20.9 6 0.460 0.230 0.16 0 461/593 1989 16.2 6 0.065 0.016 7 0 284 1990 16.3 6 0.065 0.065 0 0.244 30 1991 22.9 6 0 0.229 0.13 0 N.d. 1992 16.2 6 0 0 0 0 N.d. 1993 20.7 6 0 0.021 0 0 N.d. 1994 35.6 3 0 0 0 0 N.d. 1995 23.4 6 0 0 0 0 N.d. 1996 29.4 4 0.059 0.235 0 0.235 N.d. 0 0 Source: Zuhlidov, 2000, and relating OGSNK data for the period of 1988-1996 (Zhulidov, 1996)
PCBs were recorded almost everywhere in bottom sediments. The most polluted areas are points of inflow of river Temernik and Aksay channel, as well as points of discharge of WWTF of cities Rostov-on-Don and Aksay.
Studies of accumulation of organochlorine substances in hydrobionts revealed a high content of pesticides (126 µg/kg of raw weight) in fatty tissues of Azov-Don pike-perch. The concentration of pesticides in gonads of pike-perch was 30 µg/kg, in its liver - 7 µg/kg (raw weight) and 2 µg/kg in muscles. PCBs are recorded in all organs. Concentrations are the same as for pesticides, except for the fatty tissues, where they are twice as high.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 117 In the Rostov Oblast, the amount of pesticides used by the agriculture is declining rapidly within last 5 years from 3200 tons in 1995 to 1600 tons in 1999. In 1999 the decline compared to1998 was registered as by 400 tons. In 1999 total area of lands treated with the chemical and biological substances was 1.37 mln. hectares (compared to 2.06 mln. hectares in 1998).
In 1999 the main groups of pesticides used in agricultural production were distributed as follows:
• Insecticides 226.7 tons;
• Treatment materials 295.3 tons;
• Fungicides 235.0 tons;
• Herbicides 811.1 tons;
• Desiccants 2.2 tons;
• Rodenticides 2.1 tons;
• Growth regulators 1.5 tons; and
• Others 26.1 tons.
In 1999 protection activities were conducted using chemical method on the area of 1312 thousand hectares; biological method on area of 61.0 thousand hectares. Lands were treated against: pests on 734.8 thousand hectares; diseases on 94.2 thousand hectares; weeds on 520.0 thousand hectares, as well as with the purpose of desiccation on the area of 24.0 thousand hectares.
In 1999 pesticides load on 1 hectare of agricultural lands with chemical and biological treatment was 0.95 kg/ha (in 1998 - 0.81 kg/ha).
In 1999 forestry used about 2 tons of pesticide. Mineral fertilisers were not applied. Regardless the fact that use of means of plants protection decreased two times since 1995 and mineral and organic fertilisers are applied in small quantities the soils and other environment bodies pollution, as well as damage to the wildlife are very vital.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 118 The most acute problem is utilisation and disposal of unsuitable pesticides. According to the undertaken inventory the amount of such a pesticides is 1.178 thousand tones. The amount of pesticides suitable for future use and stored at a warehouse is estimated as 0.541 thousand tons. Within last years an unsatisfactory situation with storage of mineral fertilisers and means of plants protection has been registered on many agricultural enterprises. The demand for safe storage and fertilisers use is 714 places with total capacity about 22,600 tons. In the Rostov Oblast there are 456 warehouses with total capacity 17,300 tons. Only 232 warehouses with total capacity 5800 tons are suitable for pesticides storage. In terms of warehouses number the demand is met only by 32%, in terms of volume – by 49%.
In terms of water quality, the former USSR State Committee for Hydrometeorology and Natural Environment Control (Goskomhydromet), and now the Federal Russian Service of Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (Roshydromet), collected data since 1974 on organochlorine pesticides (OCP) fluxes from the former USSR and Russian Federation. The observations have been carried out at constant sampling stations of the State Service (Network) of Observation of Environmental Pollution (OGSNK prior to 1992 and GSN from 1992 onward. According to the OGSNK/GSN data, in 1988 the α-HCH, γ- HCH, DDT and DDE flux rates of Don were 0.46, 0.23, 0.167 and 0 tons per annum, respectively. The most recent estimate of OCP flux to the Azov Sea show changes over the eight year period of –0.401 (α-HCH), +0.005 (γ-HCH), -0.167 (DDT) and +0.235 (DDE) tons per annum (Zhulidov, 1996). In general, it may be concluded that the Don plays the major role in OCP contamination to the Azov Sea and to a lesser extent the Black Sea.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 119 Biological indicators of pollution In August 1999, the impact of the Don discharge on the total content in the Taganrog Bay intensified in the result of mass development of blue-green algae. The content of total nitrogen in the eastern part of the Taganrog Bay ranged within 1,000-1,300 mg/m3. Mass algal bloom of blue-green algae in still hot weather caused a dramatic deterioration of the environmental situation, sometimes resulting in fish deaths. One study showed a decrease in dissolved oxygen content down to a level unfavorable for fish (17-35%) in the bottom water layer 0.2 to1 km from the shore.
Previous studies have identified areas of high anthropogenic eutrophication in the lower stream of the Don River (in points of inflow of river Sal and Aksay channel and in Temernik river) and in the eastern part of the Taganrog Bay. An assessment of the official hydrobiological information on the Don river mouth area (downstream of Rostov-on-Don) may be summarised by the following general conclusions:
• Phytoplankton: an increase in the total population of algae mostly due to the growth of the groups of blue-green algae and diatom algae. A decrease in biodiversity, with appearance of dominating species: Stephanodiscus hantzschii; Melosira islandic, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae and Microcystis aeruqinosa. A decrease in the relative number of green algae. A strengthening in the development of α- saprobic organisms of Oscillatoria and Nitzschia genera;
• Phytoperiphyton: Decreased biodiversity and an increase in the Navicula and Nitzschia genera. A grown frequency in the occurrence of α and -α-saprobic organisms, mostly such as Nitzschia pelea, Oscillatoria tenius and Synedra ulna. Oppression of the development of Cladophora glomerata;
• Zooplankton: An increase in the number of highly tolerant species such as Euchlanic dilatata, Keratella quadrata, Brachionus Calycifloris, Eurytemora affinis; and
• Macrobenthos: an increase in the relative number of Oligochaeta, whose active development is an indicator of organic contamination of the river.
Air Quality The air pollution situation in Rostov is described in detail in World Bank (2000), and so is only summarised here. Air quality in Rostov-on-Don is particularly affected by:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 120 • High concentrations of industrial enterprises, especially in the City centre;
• High housing and traffic density resulting from narrow streets;
• Insufficient natural areas;
• An airport within the City limits; and
• A dry climate with prevailing North-eastern and Eastern steppe winds.
Figure 5.10 shows the distribution of air pollution within the city. The main sources of air pollutants are transport, energy enterprises, machine building enterprises and construction industry, as well as air transport (Table 5.36). Emissions have increased on average by 64,000 tonnes annually since 1992.
Table 5.36 Sources of air pollution in Rostov city, 1998
Source Emissions (tonnes) Proportion of total Transport 138,250 93.7% Aircraft 1,329 0.9% Stationary sources 8,039 5.4% Total 147,618 100% Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment Committee, 1999
Table 5.36 shows that the vehicles are the major source of air pollution in the city. This is partly due to the decrease in air pollution from industry as a results of the decrease of industrial production. Emissions to air from industry were 720 tonnes lower in 1998 than 1997.
The main cause of the increase in air pollution is the 87% rise in the number of vehicles since 1992. Vehicles are tested annually for compliance with government standards for exhaust emissions, and two City Decrees were passed in 1998 aimed at reducing air pollution from mobile sources. These Decrees were to strengthen the control on air emissions from buses, and to strengthen quality controls on petrol stations. At the same time, the sale of leaded petrol was banned in the city. Further initiatives are currently underway to improve the air quality situation.
Air quality monitoring within the city is conducted by Hydromet (seven observation stations) and SANEPID (three). According to the monitoring data, air
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 121 quality in Rostov-on-Don varies by district, but cannot be considered “good” in any district. Table 5.37 gives the official air quality statistics for 1999.
Table 5.37 Atmospheric emissions from transport, energy production and industries in Rostov-on-Don in 1999
Pollutant (tonnes per year) 2 2 Pollutant source group Particle SO2 NOx CO HC VOC Total s Transport 1 513 1 987 14 744 106 128 16 143 - 139 515 Energy 52 25 1 184 1 109 4.6 8.9 2 390 Industries, including: 637 154 799 3 019 1 101 528 6 346 Machine building 98 24 222 612 16 310 1 333 Chemical 12 2.2 34 87 24 109 270 Food 147 4.9 123 278 0.8 8.7 577 Construction 218 47 107 534 7.3 4.0 920 Other industries 160 76 314 1508 1 053 96 3 247 Services 2.7 1.4 1.3 13 54 6.6 86 TOTAL 2 204 1 167 16 728 110 269 17 303 543 148 337 Household heating 171.5 247.0 520.5 111.2 n.a. n.a. (municipal housing) Household heating n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. (private housing) GRAND TOTAL 2 376 1 414 17 249 110 380 1 Particles include 1 495 tonnes of soot and 18 tonnes of lead compounds. 2 Hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds are reported based on the Russian official grouping of pollutants. HCs exclude methane but include mainly substances with low boiling temperature and VOCs include mainly evaporating substances from paints and ethanol, buthanol etc.
Source: World Bank, 2000a
Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MACs) for Total Suspended Particulates
(TSP) are exceeded at six of the seven stations and NO2 at five. MAC for soot is exceeded at the one station where it is measured. On the average, CO concentrations are below MAC, but peak concentrations exceed MAC by a factor of four. In addition, the definition of MAC in terms of daily average for CO is
likely to underestimate the problems. SO2 concentrations are below MAC.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 122 Although not in the city, Novocherkassk power station is a major source of air pollution in the area due to its burning of large quantities of poor quality coal. The power station is located 35km north east of the city. It is not known how the pollutants subsequently disperse. Emissions data for 1997-1998 is summarised in Table 5.38.
Table 5.38 Emissions from Novocherkassk Power Plant in 1997/1998
Pollutant 1997 1998 SO2 79 784 66 673 NOx 23 899 24 358 Particles 46 410 37 601 CO 2 171 27 92 Source: World Bank, 2000a
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 123 Environmental Impacts of the Scheme ,QWURGXFWLRQ This chapter contains the assessment of impacts both during construction and operation. It was assumed that the improvements as designed will achieve the desired reduction in nitrogen, phosphorus and BOD. Halcrow (2000) indicates that this is likely for nitrogen and BOD, but that phosphorus may fail on occasions. For this reason, separate phosphorus stripping of return sludge liquors has been recommended (Section 9, Halcrow 2000).
As a first step, the baseline information was used to make a value judgement on the impact of the scheme as a whole on the identified ‘potential negative impacts of wastewater treatment works schemes’ as described in the World Bank guidelines (1991). These are summarised in Table 6.1 below. Impacts are assessed in more detail in Section 6.2 and 6.3.
(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW0DWULFHV The baseline information and results presented in Table 6.1 were used to assess the likely environmental impact in the short term (5 years) of each component on each baseline receptor both during construction and operation. Impacts are summarised in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 below and commentary on the likely short and long-term impacts are discussed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. The impacts of Component 7 (already completed under the CSIP) are discussed only where relevant to the impacts of the proposed project.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 124 Table 6.1 Summary Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Scheme
Potential negative impact Impact Comments and recommendations (expanded in Sections 6.2 and 6.3) (Source: World Bank, 1991) 'LUHFW ,PSDFWV 1. Disturbance of stream channels, aquatic 0 No impact plant and animal habitat, and spawning and nursery areas during construction 2. Alterations in watershed hydrologic balance 0 No significant change to volume of water discharged to river when wastewater is exported by collection in large upstream areas and discharged downstream 3. Degradation of neighbourhoods or receiving 0 No significant change to sensitivity of biological treatment process. Duplication of water quality from sewer overflows, treatment digesters and treatment lines together with excess capacity should preclude minor works bypasses, or treatment process failure process failures. 4. Degradation of receiving water quality High probability In the short term (<5 years) upgrading of the WWTW will result in a localised despite normal system operation of permanent reduction of nutrient and organic loading to the Don. Phosphorus levels however may improvement not significantly decrease in the short term due to re-equilibration of bound P in the sediment. (see Section 5.5.3) Low probability Minor risk from pollution of receiving water by overdosing of phosphorus stripping of temporary reagent. Recommendations made for installation and operation of monitoring system minor adverse to minimise risk of overdosing impact 5. Public health hazards in the vicinity of High probability No deterioration of water quality near the outfall is expected. Pathogen and odour discharges or reuse sites during normal of minor levels in sludge disposed to lagoon will progressively diminish as the improvements to operation of system permanent treatment lines, digester operation and centrifuges are implemented improvement to sludge lagoon 6. Contamination of land application sites: 0 No plans in the short term to apply sludge to land soils and crops by toxic substances and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 125 Potential negative impact Impact Comments and recommendations (expanded in Sections 6.2 and 6.3) (Source: World Bank, 1991) pathogens; groundwater by toxic substances and nitrogen 7. Failure to achieve desired beneficial uses of High probability Will play a major role (along with other pollution reduction initiatives) in the longer receiving waters despite normal system of major term towards achieving MACs for fisheries downstream of Rostov and drinking water operation permanent within the Azov region (see Section 5.5.1) improvement 8. Odours and noise from treatment process or 0 Works is sited in an established industrial area. Sludge will be less malodorous as a sludge disposal operations result of the improved process, but this is unlikely to affect the current levels of odour emanating from the lagoon 9. Emissions of volatile organic compounds High probability Digestion of sludge will result in lower emissions of volatile organic compounds from treatment process of permanent (VOCs) minor improvement 10. Soil, crop or groundwater contamination High probability Sludge disposed to lagoon will contain lower concentrations of N, P and BOD, thus and disease vector breeding or feeding at sludge of minor polluting groundwater less than current sludge (see section 5.5.3) storage, reuse or disposal sites improvement in the short-term Heavy metal binding efficiency within the sludge will also be increased during the and major digestion process thereby reducing the potential to leach into the groundwater after improvement in disposal the long-term Improvement of sludge quality as progressive implementation of WWTW investment programme and subsequent removal of sludge from current storage lagoon (for co- disposal with daily sludge arisings at landfill) would lead in time to remediation of the lagoon site 11. Worker accidents during construction and Low probability Impact mitigated by complying with established norms and procedures. operation, especially in deep trenching of temporary and operations avoidable and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 126 Potential negative impact Impact Comments and recommendations (expanded in Sections 6.2 and 6.3) (Source: World Bank, 1991) adverse impact 12. Worker accidents caused by gas Low probability Complying with established norms and procedures. Carry out a health and safety risk accumulation in sewers and other confined of temporary and assessment for bulk chemical storage and use; operation and maintenance work on spaces or by hazardous materials discharged to avoidable digesters and gas storage tanks. sewers adverse impact 13. Serious public and worker health hazard 0 This project does not involve works on chlorination facilities from chlorine accidents 14. Nuisances and public health hazard from 0 Duplication of digesters and treatment lines together with excess capacity should sewer overflows and backups preclude minor process failures. 15. Failure to achieve public health 0 No public health improvement within Rostov city. In the long term, may improve improvement in serviced area public health aspects of downstream recreation. 16. Dislocation of residents by plant siting 0 No impact 17. Perceived or actual nuisances and adverse 0 No impact as works located in an established industrial zone aesthetic impacts in neighbourhood of treatment works 18. Accidental destruction of archaeological 0 All works on existing footprint, with no archaeological sites sites during excavation ,QGLUHFW ,PSDFWV 1. Unplanned development induced or 0 No impact facilitated by infrastructure 2. Regional solid waste management problems No change in Sludge is currently stored on site. A long term sludge disposal strategy will be exacerbated by sludge impact in near developed as part of the RVK Strategy Plan. Minor amounts of construction waste term. Long term (mostly inert) for disposal to existing landfill. major permanent improvement 3. Loss of fisheries productivity High probability Likely improvements to fishery productivity only in the longer term since effective of medium propagation depends not only on surface water quality but on longer term
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 127 Potential negative impact Impact Comments and recommendations (expanded in Sections 6.2 and 6.3) (Source: World Bank, 1991) improvement in improvements to sediment quality and ecological restoration (see Section 5.5.1 and the long term 5.5.3) 4. Reduction of tourist or recreational activity High probability Expected minor improvement at Azov Sea resorts and Rostov city with respect to of minor bacteriological/viral quality as a result of upgrading of WWTW and associated permanent remediation of by products generated during these processes - CH (see Section 5.5.1) improvement
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 128 Table 6.2 Environmental Impacts during Construction
Component Environmental impact Physical environment Natural Human environment Environmental Quality Envmt
Topography, geology & soils & soils geology Topography, Climate Hydrology Hydrogeology Ecology Terrestrial Ecology Aquatic income & employment Population, & sanitation supply resources, Water Health Public agriculture & industry use, Land Fisheries consumption Energy Transport infrastructure disposal waste Solid recreation & Tourism heritage Cultural quality water Surface quality Groundwater quality sediment River qualityAir 1. Screening, grit removal 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Primary settlement tanks 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Secondary aeration tanks 0 0 0 ? 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Lamella settlers 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Chemical P stripping 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. Sludge digestion 0 0 0 ? 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 8. CHP – methane use 0 0 0 ? 0 0 + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Key: ++ Major positive impact; + Minor positive impact; 0 No significant impact; - Minor negative impact; -- Major negative impact; ? Insufficient information available to judge impact
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 129 Table 6.3 Environmental Impacts during Operation (during the next 5 years) Component Environmental impact Physical environment Natural Human environment Environmental Quality Envmt
Topography, geology & soils & soils Topography, geology Climate Hydrology Hydrogeology Ecology Terrestrial Ecology Aquatic income & Population, employment sanitation & supply resources, Water Health Public agriculture & industry use, Land Fisheries consumption Energy infrastructure Transport disposalSolid waste recreation & Tourism heritage Cultural quality water Surface quality Groundwater quality sediment River Air quality 1. Screening, grit removal 0 0 0 ? 0 ++ 0 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 ++ + 0 0 2. Primary settlement tanks 3. Secondary aeration tanks 4. Lamella settlers 5. Chemical P stripping 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 6. Sludge digestion 0 + 0 ? 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 8. CHP – methane use 0 + 0 ? 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ Key: ++ Major positive impact; + Minor positive impact; 0 No significant impact; - Minor negative impact; -- Major negative impact; ? Insufficient information available to judge impact
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 130 ,PSDFWVGXULQJ&RQVWUXFWLRQ Introduction This section contains a discussion of the potential environmental impacts during construction (as summarised in Table 6.2) in as much detail as possible. Given that designs are not complete and that the construction programme is yet to be decided, the majority of the impacts discussed are generic to all components.
There will be no significant impact during construction on climate; hydrology; terrestrial or aquatic ecology; water resources, supply and sanitation; public health (apart from occupational health, discussed below); land use, industry and agriculture; fisheries; energy consumption; transport infrastructure; tourism and recreation; cultural heritage; groundwater quality; or sediment quality. The construction of new buildings and tanks (components 3, 6 and 8) will have a slight impact on topography, but this is not considered to be significant in the context of an industrial complex. All construction work will have a slight positive impact on ‘population, employment and income’ through employment generation. These receptors are therefore not considered further in this section.
The majority of the potential construction impacts can be minimised through adherence to proper site practice and health and safety procedures. There are a number of Russian norms (standards) for construction practices, including SNiPs and the Manual on Labour and Construction Safety.
These avoidable impacts include:
• Health and safety: it is understood that each team of workers has a designated health and safety officer, and it is recommended that good practice should be followed in conducting a risk assessment and briefing with the Design Institute and contractors (as appropriate) before each construction exercise. This impact is recorded as a minor negative impact on (occupational) public health. Depending on the capability of the staff, further training may be required. Potentially dangerous excavations should be fenced off and warning signs erected. The site is not accessible to the general public; and
• Surface water and air quality: all construction works may have minor negative impacts on surface water and air quality through spillage of petroleum products and operation of machinery. The former would be mitigated by spill control procedures and the latter through correct choice of fuel and plant maintenance.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 131 With adherence to existing norms and manuals and good site practice, it is envisaged that these impacts will be minimal.
The construction of buildings, tanks and underground pipelines may have an impact on the groundwater regime. This impact may be assumed to be negative (in disruption of existing groundwater flows) but the level of impact is likely to be marginal and no mitigation measures would be required. However borehole monitoring should be instituted where there is likely to be groundwater diversion or rising water tables (see Section 8).
There may be a slight decrease in effluent quality during works which require direct interruption of process lines (components 1-4), but this is likely to be insignificant because retention time would not decrease significantly as the works currently has excess capacity.
All works generate construction waste. It is understood that soils excavated during building and tank construction will be used on site. Apart from soils, it is envisaged that the waste generated will be relatively small and therefore have only a slight impact on waste disposal. This impact should be mitigated by compliance with standard procedures (city ordinances) for construction waste disposal. The redundant equipment should not pose a particular health risk in handling but sensible precautions should be taken. Waste should be recycled where possible.
A number of construction impacts relate to specific components, and are discussed below.
Components 1 and 2 The construction works comprise removal of existing screens and grit removers equipment and installation of new equipment. This will have a minor negative impact on waste disposal. It is recommended that ferrous equipment should be recycled wherever possible.
Component 3 The improvements concern redesign of the secondary aeration tanks and the provision of additional aeration capacity. The construction works include minor changes to the layout of partition walls and the installation of several mixers at different depths. Separate works are required for the excavation and construction of an additional aeration tank, together with feed and return sludge lines and the installation of aeration devices on the tank floor.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 132 The excavation works are significant involving the removal of up to 20,000 m3 of soil. The spoil will be used for construction of the tank support walls, site feeder roads and other embankments such that offsite disposal is avoided. There may be an impact on groundwater, as discussed in Section 6.3.1 above.
Component 4 The provision of lamella separators requires only minor construction works to attach the separators which are provided as packaged units. There will therefore be no significant environmental impacts during construction.
Component 5 Chemical Phosphorus removal No specific environmental impacts during construction are envisaged as the reagent storage building already exists and is likely to require only minor refurbishment, depending on the choice of chemical and equipment required for its preparation.
Component 6 Sludge digestion This component involves extensive construction works which are likely to generate large quantities of waste construction materials. This will be mitigated by compliance with city ordinances on solid waste disposal, as discussed in Section 6.3.1.
Component 8 CHP – Methane use This component will involve the construction of a new building to house the CHP plant. No specific negative impacts other than those discussed in Section 6.3.1 are envisaged.
,PSDFWVGXULQJ2SHUDWLRQ Introduction There will be no impacts during operation on topography, geology and soils; hydrology; water resources, supply and sanitation; and cultural heritage. At this stage, it is envisaged that there will be no significant impact on ‘population, employment and income’ as there will be no major changes in staff needs, although this depends somewhat on the designs chosen. Given that this project is grant-funded, it is considered unlikely that it will have a negative impact on the population in terms of ability to pay for services. It should be emphasised, however, that these socio-economic issues will be considered in detail in the forthcoming study (Rostov Vodokanal and Rostov Oblast administration, 2001).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 133 In the short-term (5 years), there are no impact is foreseen on ‘land use, industry and agriculture’ and ‘solid waste disposal’, but in the context of a long-term sludge disposal strategy, there may be beneficial impacts of the disposal of a lower volume of less biologically-active sludge. This is discussed in more detail in the sections below.
The new buildings, pipelines and tank are likely to have a minor impact on hydrogeology due to flow diversion. Should it become apparent during construction that mitigation is required, appropriate mitigation, such as construction of a diversion channel, should be put in place (see Section 8).
Components 1 - 4 As each of these components form part of an integrated process, they have been assessed as a single process unit for the purposes of this section.
The quantity of grit disposed will not change as a result of the project, but the quantity of screenings will increase with more regular raking and the use of finer screens. There will therefore be a slight negative impact related to increased solid waste disposal and its transportation from WWTW to landfill site.
The implications of enhanced nitrogen removal at the WWTW are shown clearly in Figure D2 (Appendix D) through presentation of the data as total inorganic nitrogen before and after upgrading. The impact of a 50% removal of nitrogen at the WWTW equates to a decrease of 1000 tonnes N per year, giving an overall reduction of inorganic nitrogen loading at that point in the river of 7%. The annual average transport of total inorganic nitrogen downstream of Azov City is predicted to be approximately 10,000 tonnes/year. Given that the majority of nitrogen in the river appears to be present as ammonium which is detrimental to fish, there may be a minor positive impact on fisheries. Given the complexity of the factors affecting both nitrogen levels and fisheries, however, it is difficult to estimate this impact with any certainty. The reduction of nitrogen levels with the reduction in phosphorus levels is likely to decrease the eutrophication of the river, thus having a minor positive impact on aquatic ecology; and tourism and recreation. These impacts, and the impact of phosphorus reduction are discussed in more detail in the following section.
Whilst the amount of sludge produced after completion of components 1-4 will increase, this does not have a corresponding impact on solid waste disposal as all sludge produced from components 1-4 will pass through a closed cycle to the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 134 sludge digesters which will significantly reduce the amount of sludge produced. There is therefore no direct connection between the process improvements and impact on solid waste disposal.
Sludge from primary sedimentation is expected to contain some disease pathogens as well as parasitic eggs and cysts. Reducing the quantity of sludge carried over into the final effluent through replacing the scraper mechanism in the primary tanks…With less carryover of sludge into the final effluent there is also expected to be a small positive impact on public health.
Whilst the new screening process will require less manpower to operate dosing of ferric sulphate or lime, reagent monitoring and control will require increased manpower. The new system could therefore be operated with no net change in manpower. There is also unlikely to be any significant change in pumping duties once the new system is operating hence no change in energy requirements. It is envisaged that there will be no significant operational impacts on climate; energy consumption; transport infrastructure; terrestrial ecology; groundwater quality; sediment quality or air quality.
Component 5 Chemical P removal Total phosphorus has the potential to greatly affect the growth rate of individual algae at concentrations up to 200-300 µg/l and probably beyond. Under normal circumstances, increases in riverine concentrations from likely background concentrations to such levels are therefore potentially extremely important to the ecology of the river (see Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.3).
Phosphorus is present in wastewater in three forms: orthophosphate, polyphosphates and organic phosphorus compounds. During biological treatment three main changes occur:
• Organic materials are decomposed and their phosphorus content is converted to orthophosphate;
• Inorganic phosphates are utilised in forming biological flocs; and
• Most polyphosphates are converted to orthophosphates.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 135 After biological treatment, phosphorus is largely present as bioavailable orthophosphate, an ionic compound that reacts and precipitates out of solution in the presence of metal salts.
The critical need for phosphorus removal in the Lower Don is readily demonstrated by monitoring data which show that the average soluble phosphorus concentrations during the last five years ranged from 86 µg/l close to the outlet of the Tsimlyansk reservoir, to 150 µg/l downstream of Rostov, with a further increase to 176 µg/l downstream of Azov (Appendix D). Although total phosphorus data is not available we must assume that the critical levels are breached on a regular basis within the river reach between Rostov and the Azov Sea. Figure D3 shows that the upgrading of the Rostov WWTW will result in an overall 39% reduction of phosphorus load reaching the city of Azov. The annual average transport of phosphate downstream of Azov City is predicted to be approximately 3,800 tonnes/year.
Given the presence of phosphates in the sediments and the equilibrium balance of phosphorus (Section 5.5.3), the following impacts are predicted:
• During the first year a steady decline in the levels of concentration of dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus will be recorded in water of the Don river directly downstream of Rostov-on-Don; and
• An obvious decline in the Don river nutrient status downstream would be seen no sooner than 3 years after the reconstruction.
Reduced levels of eutrophication and hence reduced algal blooms will have a positive impact on river water quality by reducing the frequency of low oxygen and toxin release events. This will have a beneficial impact on aquatic ecology; public health, fisheries; tourism and recreation. Given the large phosphorus reservoir in the riverine sediments, positive impacts on sediment quality will accrue over time. In the short term, therefore, there will be no positive impact on sediment quality.
The use of chemical reagents for phosphorus stripping has both advantages and disadvantages as shown in Table 6.4.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 136 Table 6.4 Advantages and disadvantages of chemical P stripping
Advantages Disadvantages • Reliable, well-documented • Chemical costs higher than for technique biological systems. • Chemical costs can be • Significantly more sludge reduced substantially if produced than waste water waste pickle liquors (ferrous treatment process without chloride or ferrous sulphate metal addition; may overload are available and can be used existing sludge handling • Controls are simple and equipment; higher sludge straightforward - easy to treatment and disposal costs. maintain high P removal efficiency by controlling metal salt dosing rate. • Relatively easy and inexpensive to install at existing facilities • Sludge can be processed in the same manner as in non- P-removal systems • Metal addition prior to primary clarifiers can reduce organic load to secondary unit by 25-35%.
Chemical dosing will cause an increase in sludge volume, as shown in Table 4.3. The actual increase depends both on reagent chosen and the level of phosphorus in the wastewater (i.e. the dosing level). At present, however, it is envisaged that given the sludge digestion and dewatering processes, the overall volume of sludge will not increase compared to the existing amount. This represents a possible unknown minor impact on groundwater quality due to the possible disposal of larger quantities of sludge to the lagoon.
The chemical stripping process should be monitored carefully to ensure optimum reagent dosing and to ensure that surface water is not polluted (see Section 8).
The choice of reagent should be made carefully, taking into account both potential direct impacts on surface water quality, but also secondary impacts related to reagent production and transport. If possible, the chemical should be brought to
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 137 the works via the adjacent railway. The necessity for large quantities of reagent for dosing means that this component is likely to have a minor negative impact on transport infrastructure.
Given the present state of options, it is envisaged that this component will have no significant impact on climate; terrestrial ecology; energy consumption; groundwater quality and air quality.
Component 6 Sludge digestion Sludge digestion will eventually ensure major environmental improvements as the process leads to a significant reduction in final sludge volume see Figures in Section 4, and allows for the capture of methane for beneficial use. In summary digestion converts the volatile organic fraction of the sludge into a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. Unconfined production of these gases leads to significant negative impacts on climate which would be the end product of the sludge if disposed undigested to landfill. The organic load could be reduced by as much as 50%, depending on the chosen design and operating regime for the digesters.
Reduction of sludge volume is likely to have a positive impact on groundwater quality and air quality as it will decrease the volume of sludge disposed to the lagoon until a Sludge Disposal Strategy is in place. This is discussed further in the sludge dewatering section below. The lower volume will also have a positive impact on energy consumption by reducing energy required at the sludge dewatering stage.
During the digestion process the elevated temperature and long residence time in anaerobic conditions results in the destruction of pathogens thus reducing the potential health risks from the sludge. The extent to which pathogens are destroyed will depend on the operating conditions chosen (residence time and temperature). There may also be a minor improvement to the quality of the effluent as digestion represents a more effective treatment of viruses and protozoan pathogens (if the treatment process is properly operated and maintained) than chlorination. This represents a minor improvement to public health.
The digestion process converts the volatile organic fraction of the sludge into a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. Unconfined production of these gases leads to significant negative impacts on climate (in terms of global warming). This
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 138 is the current situation with methane emitted from sludge stored in the lagoons and drying beds. The capture of methane in the digesters therefore represents a significant climatic improvement, in reducing methane emissions from an estimated 14,348kg/day to 4,274kg/day. [The remaining methane emissions come from further decomposition of the sludge in its final destination, i.e. at present, the sludge lagoon and drying beds.] From digestion the gases may be stored for beneficial use, the impact of which is discussed in Section 6.4.6.
The digester design has not yet been finalised, but it is understood that the digesters will require an additional heating circuit based on natural gas, as the CHP system will supply on average only 2/3 of the heat required to raise and maintain digester temperatures. This represents a potentially negative impact on energy
consumption and climate (due to release of CO2) which may be mitigated by making use of the CHP cooling water to preheat digester feed when heat in excess of that needed for building heating is available. It is therefore recommended that the unit power consumption of the centrifuges be monitored to ensure optimum performance and as an indicator of maintenance requirements (see Section 9).
The operation of digesters represents a potential risk due to the presence of areas where explosive gas/air mixtures can be present. It will therefore be vital to introduce the concept of "zoning". Areas where explosive mixtures may be present should be identified, and special precautions taken within these areas. This will include locating equipment which may cause sparks outside the danger zone, and careful choice of mechanical and electrical plant, pipelines etc. within the zone.
Operation of digesters is a complex process, and staff will need to be given full training and ‘hands on’ experience. This is vital to the efficient operation of the digestion process (see Section 8).
The WWTW currently removes 60-70% of the effluent BOD. This equates to an
estimated reduction in the total BODtotal downstream of the WWTW of 678 tons/year (Figure D4). The current action of the works decreases the loading by 14,970, which means that the annual average transport of organic material downstream of Azov City is a predicted 75,000 tonnes/year.
Similarly, it is evident from Figure D5 that although the WWTW does reduce suspended solids load entering the Don by approximately 15%, the proposed improvement are unlikely to have an impact on the overall suspended solids
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 139 content in the Lower Don. The annual average transport of suspended solids downstream of Azov City is predicted to be approximately 2.7 million tonnes/year.
It is therefore envisaged that this component will have no significant impacts on aquatic ecology; terrestrial ecology; transport infrastructure; tourism and recreation surface water quality; or sediment quality.
Component 8 CHP The net result of the CHP is the conversion of methane to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide has a lower negative impact on climate through global warming than methane. Calculations suggest that a reduction in methane emissions from 14
tonnes/day to 4 tonnes/day and in CO2 equivalent emissions from 389 tonnes/day to 152 tonnes/day can be expected (Table 4.3). This amounts to a 70%
decrease in emission of methane and a 60% decrease in emissions of CO2 equivalent. This represents a major step towards the local control of climate change. Electricity and heat generated will be used on site, thus significantly reducing use of electricity generated by the coal fired power plant at Novocherkassk. Table 6.4 summarises the estimated energy production and requirements.
Table 6.4 Estimated energy requirements and production before and after commissioning of the project
Energy Production Energy Consumption (million kWh p.a.) (million kWh p.a.) Current situation (1999) 0 28.65 Predicted situation after completion of project 17.87 <66.93* Net change in energy use at WWTW after +35.28* completion of project * This figure does not take into account energy savings through use of cooling water and exhaust gases. Actual energy consumption will therefore be much less, although it will depend to a certain extent on the energy requirements of the digesters. Source: HALCROW (2000)
Table 6.4 shows that the new facilities will need a significantly higher energy input than the existing situation. This is mainly due to the high energy demand of the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 140 digesters and dewatering facilities (as discussed in previous sections). In the absence of methane use, this energy would be obtained from the Novocherkassk power station (in the short-term, although it may be replaced by the Volgodonsk nuclear power station in the longer-term). The significant reduction in the WWTW’s electricity requirements from the grid could therefore be considered to be an indirect benefit to air quality and climate (in the short-term at least).
Air pollution is known to be associated with respiratory illness (both in the form of harm to the respiratory system’s defence system and to respiratory infections directly. A reduction in air borne emissions should therefore have a positive impact on public health.
A reduction in the production of ash is likely to be beneficial to topography, soils and solid waste disposal, as it is understood that ash is currently disposed of to land. The use of methane to generate power therefore has a significant positive impact on both climate and air quality, and may have a minor positive impact on public health, topography, soils and solid waste disposal.
At present, it is envisaged that there will be no significant impacts on terrestrial ecology; aquatic ecology; land use, industry and agriculture; fisheries; transport infrastructure; tourism and recreation; surface water quality and sediment quality.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 141 Overview of Alternative Schemes ,QWURGXFWLRQ An important part of EIA is the consideration of the alternative schemes from which the preferred option was chosen. In this case, detailed assessment of options is not possible because:
• Some of the designs have already been finalised (Components 1-4, 7); and
• Some of the process improvements have yet to be designed or the designs are not yet complete (Components 5, 6, 8, see Section 4); and
• The interdependency of some of the optional components increases the complexity of the analyses.
The concept proposed by RVK and the Design Institute for improving the performance of the treatment process to remove phosphorus and nitrogen is described in Giprokommunvodokanal (1998). An options analysis was conducted for the nutrient reduction programme (Halcrow, 2000). These are summarised below.
2SWLRQVIRU5HGXFWLRQRI1XWULHQW'LVFKDUJHV As well as the solution being considered by Vodokanal and the Design Institute, several other options developed during the review can be considered. Each is discussed below. The key differences in each stem from:
• The use of chemical methods for P removal; and
• the use of lamella settlers in final tanks.
For each option the approach to be taken to increasing the aeration tank capacity is common. This involves increasing the capacity from 90,000 m3 to 110,000 m3. This additional volume could beneficially be increased if space and funds allowed. The main differences between the options stem from the approach taken to final settlement and P removal. These are summarised in Table 7.1 and discussed in the sections below.
Table 7.1 Summary of Options Considered
Option Phosphorus removal Final settlement
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 142 No. 1a Biological Existing final tanks 1b Chemically assisted Existing final tanks 2a Biological Use of lamella settlers 2b Chemically assisted Use of lamella settlers 3a Biological New final tanks 3b Chemically assisted New final tanks
2SWLRQVDQDO\VLV The treatment options are described in detail in the report, and are summarised here in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (Table 7.2) and the likely impact of each option on the quality of the final discharge (Table 7.3). Table 7.3 therefore gives a preliminary assessment of the potential environmental impact of each different option.
Table 7.2 Advantages and disadvantages of each nutrient removal option
Option Advantages Disadvantages 1a Low capital investment Poor final effluent quality 1b Low capital investment High chemical costs Only partial N and P removal achieved due to the under capacity of final settlement 2a Good effluent quality with high High chemical costs Capital investment required for upgrading final settlement levels of N and P removal Limited space required for final settlement 2b Limited space required for final Ammonia in final effluent as N removal is limited by the size of settlement the aerobic basin. Advanced nutrient removal processes require intensive operational management Capital investment required for upgrading final settlement Phosphorus stripping required for sludge treatment liquors 3a Good effluent quality with high High chemical costs Capital investment required for upgrading final settlement levels of N and P removal Large space required for final settlement
3b Ammonia in final effluent as N removal is limited by the size of the aerobic basin. Advanced nutrient removal processes require intensive operational management Capital investment required for upgrading final settlement Large space required for final settlement Phosphorus stripping required for sludge treatment liquors
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 143 Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 144 Table 7.3 Assessment of the impact of each option on nutrient removal Option Aeration Tanks Settlement Estimated Nutrient Comments No. Reduction 1a Existing Existing final tanks 60 to 70% BOD removal • Existing final tanks under • Expand aeration basin 30 to 40% N removal capacity 10 to 20% P removal • High suspended solids expected in the final effluent. • Limited N and P removal 1b Existing, modified for anoxic pockets for N removal, chemical removal of Existing final tanks 60 to 70% BOD removal • Existing final tanks under P 40 to 50% N removal capacity • Expand aeration basin 50 to 60% P removal • High suspended solids expected • Upgrade aeration M&E equipment in the final effluent. • Upgrade RAS return pumps a relocate return point • Improved N and P removal but • Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering ammonia expected in the final effluent 2a Existing modified for anaerobic and anoxic pockets for P&N removal Existing, with lamellas 70 to 80% BOD removal • Ammonia expected in the final • Expand aeration basin • Install lamellas with 50 to 60% N removal effluent • Upgrade aeration M&E equipment plate SA of 85,185m2 40 to 60% P removal • Chemical dosing may still be • Upgrade RAS return pumps and relocate return point required to polish phosphorus • Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering • Allow for phosphorus stripping process in sludge treatment process 2b Existing modified for anoxic pockets for N removal, chemical removal of P Existing, with lamellas 80 to 90% BOD removal • Improved N and P removal • Expand aeration basin • Install lamellas with 70 to 80% N removal • Upgrade aeration M&E equipment plate SA of 85,185m2 70 to 80% P removal • Upgrade RAS return pumps and relocate return point • Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering • Install chemical dosing equipment 3a Existing modified for anaerobic and anoxic pockets for P&N removal New Final tanks 70 to 80% BOD removal • Ammonia expected in the final • Expand aeration basin • Install 23 x 30m 50 to 60% N removal effluent • Upgrade aeration M&E equipment diameter conventional 40 to 60% P removal • Chemical dosing may still be • Upgrade RAS return pumps and relocate return point circular, radial flow tanks required to polish phosphorus • Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering • Upgrade RAS return • Allow for phosphorus stripping process in sludge treatment process arrangement 3b New final tanks 80 to 90% BOD removal • Existing modified for anoxic pockets for N removal, chemical removal for P Improved N and P removal • Install 23 x 30m 70 to 80% N removal • Expand aeration basin diameter conventional 70 to 80% P removal • Upgrade aeration M&E equipment • circular, radial flow tanks Upgrade RAS return pumps and relocate return point • • Upgrade RAS return Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering arrangement • Install chemical dosing equipment
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 145 Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 146 Preferred Option The options analysis (technical, financial and environmental) in Halcrow (2000) concluded that the preferred option should be:
• Use of chemical dosing for phosphorus removal rather than adopting a biological phosphorus removal approach (negating need for sludge liquor treatment if sludge digestion provided), allowing the configuration of aeration tank capacity for full nitrification / denitrification only;
• Phased extension of a Phase 3 stream to cater for balance of flows up to design horizon above that can be catered for efficiently through Phase 1 and 2 streams, with provision of adequately sized traditional final settlement tanks instead of lamellas; and
• Provision of sludge liquor treatment stream, to reduce load on main treatment process.
From the option review it is clear that improvement of the works is not straightforward and that none of the options considered by themselves, gives the optimum solution. However based on the technical review, and taking into account limits on performance and budget, the preferred solution will be adoption of either Option 2a or 2b, using lamella settlers, ideally with chemical removal of phosphorus. None of the other financially and technically feasible options will provide significantly greater benefit than the preferred option, or have significantly less environmental impacts.
Since submission of the report, the Design Institute has included chemical phosphorus stripping in the proposals, which therefore now represent Option 2b.
Extension of the Phase 3 stream and provision of phosphorus stripping on the sludge liquor treatment scheme is discussed in the Strategic Plan (Halcrow, 2001).
Other proposals The project as prepared by RVK and the Design Institute includes certain improvements not required to ensure the targets (discussed in Section 4) for P&N removal are achieved. These improvements are specifically targeted at BOD and solids removal (polishing) and pathogen control:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 147 • Relocation of chlorination dosing from the final aeration tanks on Phase 1 to the head of the recently introduced 6 km long outfall pipeline;
• Rehabilitation of the chlorination plant; and
• Renovation / replacement of site pipelines, and buildings.
These projects are being considered for inclusion in the RVK Strategy Plan.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 148 Environmental Management Plan ,QWURGXFWLRQ The objective of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is to ensure that the adverse impacts are mitigated as far as possible, taking account of complementary institutional strengthening and social aspects. It also recommends how the mitigation and monitoring should be delivered. The EMP therefore contains:
• An environmental Mitigation plan to address the adverse impacts;
• An environmental Monitoring plan to record the impacts of the project on the environment and where necessary to take corrective action; and
• Recommendations for training and capacity building.
0LWLJDWLRQ3ODQ The aim of mitigation is to minimise the negative environmental impacts of the project. Recommended mitigation measures are described in Section 6, and are brought together presented here in the form of a plan (Table 8.1). The aim of the plan is to clearly set out the mitigation tasks and suggested responsibilities for their implementation. Other bodies which may have responsibilities include the Oblast Environment Committee, Rostov Municipality and SANEPID. Their responsibilities are specified in the laws discussed in Section 2.3. The plan also describes the likely residual impacts, which are the impacts remaining after implementation of mitigation. Training requirements are discussed in more detail in Section 8.4. It is not envisaged that the mitigation measures (apart from the training required) will incur significant extra costs.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 149 Table 8.1 Mitigation Plan
No. Comp- Parameter Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Responsibility Training onent impacts required
During Construction (C) C1 All Air quality; Minor negative impact due to Careful site supervision and working Minor risk Contractor, with None Surface spillage, (oil, diesel etc), careless practices as specified in construction site supervision water waste disposal or operation of norms (SNiPs), spill control procedures, from RVK and quality machinery correct choice of fuel and plant other bodies as maintenance. necessary C2 All Solid waste Minor negative impact from the Compliance with standard procedures Minor Contractor, with Unknown, disposal works due to waste construction (city ordinances) for construction waste site supervision depending on materials produced disposal. The construction supervisor from RVK and knowledge of should ensure best practice, through re- other bodies as chosen staff use of construction materials and the necessary removal of hazardous wastes for separate disposal. C3 All Health and Health and safety risks to Compliance with Russian norms and Minor Contractor, with Unknown, safety construction workers and site Manual on Labour and Construction RVK and Design depending on staff during construction Safety. Risk assessment and briefing of Institute as knowledge of workers before each construction task appropriate chosen staff During Operation (O)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 150 No. Comp- Parameter Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Responsibility Training onent impacts required
O1 6,7 Air quality Use of natural gas to fire boiler to Use excess heat from CHP plant cooling Minor, RVK None supply energy to sludge digesters waters whenever possible (not and centrifuges. Magnitude of known impact depends on design of until digesters chosen digester designs complete) O2 6, 7 Energy Substantially increased energy This impact is difficult to mitigate, as it is Increased RVK Possibly consumptio requirements for sludge digestion an unavoidable result of process changes energy sampling n designed at improving other consumpti methodology environmental receptors (especially air on quality). The impact can be mitigated to compared some extent through monitoring to to existing ensure that the processes are operating at situation optimum efficiency, thus minimising energy consumption (see Section 8.3) O3 6 Health and Potential health and safety risk Areas where explosive mixtures may be None RVK Required safety associated with the presence of present should be identified, and special an explosive air/gas mixture in precautions taken within these areas. This the vicinity of the sludge digesters will include locating equipment which may cause sparks outside the danger zone, and careful choice of mechanical and electrical plant, pipelines etc. within the zone.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 151 No. Comp- Parameter Impact Mitigation Measure Residual Responsibility Training onent impacts required
O4 All Surface Potential impact due to Ensure operators are trained and have None RVK Training water inexperienced operators practical experience of operating the new required (see quality, equipment before commissioning section 8.4) groundwate r quality, energy consumptio n
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 152 0RQLWRULQJ3ODQ Introduction A number of requirements for monitoring were identified in Section 6 and in Table 8.1 above. The recommended monitoring schemes are summarised as a Monitoring Plan Table 8.2 below. Further detail is given where necessary in Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3. The aim of the Plan is to ensure that monitoring is conducted in order to:
• Provide sufficient information so that the success of the project can be measured in terms of meeting its nutrient and methane reduction objectives;
• Identify inefficiencies and failure to meet the targets, allowing process changes to be made to rectify the problems;
• Enable any negative impacts of the process changes to be identified so that process changes may be made where possible;
• Demonstrate the successes/failures of the project to allow replication, with changes as required, in other WWTW around Russia; and
• Provide improved data on the environmental impact of the Rostov WWTW.
The Plan identifies parameters to be measured, responsibility for conducting the monitoring and, importantly, what should be done with the data. Without feedback, monitoring is merely a data collection exercise. It is important that the data be recorded and analysed on a regular basis in order to detect where process changes or improvements need to be made, or when failures have occurred. There are training requirements related to the recommended monitoring requirements are discussed in Section 8.4 below. Both monitoring and training will incur additional project costs.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 153 Table 8.2 Monitoring Plan
No. Item to be Purpose and scenario Parameters to be Method Feedback / Actions Responsibility Training / monitored where required measured required on basis of Equipment results required During Construction (C) C1 Groundwater Only necessary where there Groundwater level Borehole dipping If a negative impact is RVK under is likely to be groundwater discovered during supervision of diversion or rising water construction, take other bodies as tables due to construction of appropriate mitigation appropriate buildings/pipelines. To measures such as ensure no significant construction of negative impact on diversion channels groundwater flow or level C2 General construction If a negative impact is Construction Possible, monitoring: environment discovered during supervisor, depending on and health & safety. Role for construction, take nominated by capability of a Construction Supervisor appropriate mitigation RVK existing staff measures During Operation (O)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 154 No. Item to be Purpose and scenario Parameters to be Method Feedback / Actions Responsibility Training / monitored where required measured required on basis of Equipment results required O1 Discharge to To ensure new process is Standard water Standard Feedback to process to RVK under Ensure capability river achieving nutrient reduction quality parameters laboratory make changes or supervision of and resourcing targets (to include methods – influent efficiency other bodies as of WWTW ammonium- and effluent of the improvements as appropriate laboratories nitrogen, nitrite, works plus necessary nitrate, selected points orthophosphate, within the process total phosphate, suspended solids and BOD, plus Escherichia coli as an indicator of health risk of effluent)
O2 Water quality To ensure efficient See Section 8.3 Expanded Feedback of results to RVK Ensure capability within works operation of new process monitoring operation of process to and resourcing regime, as detailed allow adjustments of WWTW in Section 8.3 where necessary laboratories
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 155 No. Item to be Purpose and scenario Parameters to be Method Feedback / Actions Responsibility Training / monitored where required measured required on basis of Equipment results required O3 Unit power To ensure optimum Data collation and Collation of data Implement RVK Appropriate consumption performance and as an analysis on sludge maintenance. Amend instrumentation of digesters indicator of maintenance production and maintenance schedules. requirements. Power moisture content; Review actual sludge consumption monitoring centrate return characteristics with should be part of good site flow and power respect to design practice for all energy- consumption figures and make intensive equipment process alterations as necessary O4 Sludge quality To monitor changes in Dried sludge Moisture content, Process and operational WWTW/RVK Ensure capability sludge quality resulting from analysis density, chemical changes to achieve and resourcing new process composition, design levels where of WWTW pathogen levels samples show that laboratories design levels have not been achieved O5 Energy Ensure optimum methane Gas rate and Digester gas Amend process WWTW Hands on production production and utilisation composition production rate conditions operator training from monitoring. and methane (pH/temperature/dry of similar methane content (from matter in feed) digesters and Electricity individual Ensure engine CHP systems. generation rate digesters) maintenance Particular Power production training in rate digester performance related to WWTW influent characteristics
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 156 Monitoring during Construction If the recommended site practice and supervision is followed, little monitoring will be required during construction. It may be appropriate to nominate a Construction Supervisor to ensure that the required environmental and health and safety procedures are followed during construction. Groundwater monitoring would only be required where a problem was identified during construction of a new building, tank or underground pipeline.
Monitoring during Operation To facilitate the operation of the new, more complex process, the WWTW laboratory’s monitoring regime will need to be expanded (O2 in Table 8.2). An expansion to the existing regime is detailed in Table 8.3 below. As discussed in Section 6.4.3, the sampling of phosphorus levels at the reagent dosing point is important to ensure that the correct dosing is applied. It is understood that some sampling already occurs, and although continuous monitoring would be ideal, it is recommended that sampling should be conducted at least three times per day.
Table 8.3 Proposed Expansion to Sampling Regime within the works
New parameter to be monitored Location Frequency Total phosphorus Inlet/Outlet 1/day Total phosphorus Phosphate stripping At least reagent dosing point 3/day Soluble ortho phosphate Inlet/Outlet 1/day Volatile Fatty Acids Inlet to aeration lanes 1/week Alkalinity Inlet to aeration lanes 1/day Concentration of suspended solids in Aeration lanes 1/day aeration lanes Total iron Outlet 1/day pH Aeration lanes 1/day Dissolved oxygen Aeration lanes (each zone) 1/day Nitrate Outlet 1/day Ammoniacal Nitrogen Outlet 1/day
7UDLQLQJDQG&DSDFLW\%XLOGLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV Once completed, the success of the new process will be dependent on the operational skill employed. This will include:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 157 • Understanding of the new process and all components;
• Training in operational requirements;
• Planned maintenance;
• Safe working conditions e.g. zoning, chemical usage;
• Process monitoring;
• Laboratory upgrading; and
• Computer (IT) equipment.
It is understood that the current sampling and laboratory facilities are insufficient for the purposes recommended. Laboratory services would need to be expanded to provide the process the information required for ensuring the optimum operation of the new system. This could include:
• Routine chemical tests;
• Routine efficiency calculations;
• Gas volume and composition measurements; and
• Instrumental monitoring.
It is understood that the overall budget contains funds for operation and maintenance. It is recommended that costs for the above be included with the overall project in order to ensure successful operation of the new equipment and processes. Projects to upgrade RVK’s laboratory services are also under consideration for the RVK Strategic Plan.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 158 Conclusions ,QWURGXFWLRQ This section serves to bring together the impacts and plans discussed above, by way of summary.
.H\(QYLURQPHQWDO(IIHFWV This environmental impact assessment has shown that completion of the proposed improvements, depending to a certain extent on the designs chosen, should have the following environmental improvements:
• An overall 7.6% reduction of inorganic nitrogen loading of the Lower Don downstream of the Rostov WWTW, and a reduction of 7% in the loading downstream of the Azov WWTW. The annual average transport of total inorganic nitrogen downstream of Azov City after the improvements is predicted to be approximately 10,000 tonnes/year, which is a net reduction of approximately 900 tonnes/year compared to the existing situation;
• An overall 10% reduction of phosphorus load of the Lower Don downstream of the WWTW, and a reduction of 6.5% in the loading downstream of the Azov WWTW. The annual average transport of phosphate downstream of Azov City after the improvements is predicted to be approximately 3,800 tonnes/year, which is a net reduction of approximately 250 tonnes/year compared to the existing situation;
• An estimated 70% reduction in emissions of methane and 60% reduction in CO2 equivalent (note: these figures depend to a certain extent on the final design and residence period chosen for the sludge digesters).
It is proposed that these changes will:
• Cause a steady decline in the levels of concentration of dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus in the Don river directly downstream of Rostov-on-Don during the first year;
•Cause an obvious decline in the Don river eutrophication downstream no sooner than 3 years after the reconstruction;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 159 •Have a positive impact on surface water quality of the River Don, thus contributing to reducing the eutrophication of both the river and the Azov Sea;
•Have subsequent positive impacts on river sediment quality, aquatic ecology, public health, fisheries, tourism and recreation in the Lower Don and potentially the Azov Sea and potentially the Black Sea;
•Have a positive impact on groundwater quality through disposal of a lower volume of sludge to the on-site lagoon in the short term (until a suitable sludge disposal strategy has been agreed); and
•Have a positive impact on climate and air quality through a reduction in emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds.
The only major negative environmental effect as the designs currently stand is the increased energy requirements for the sludge digestion and dewatering processes. This impact will, however, be offset by the major improvement to climate through reduction of methane emissions.
5HVLGXDO$GYHUVH,PSDFWV If the standard norms and Health & Safety manuals are complied with, it is envisaged that there will be no major negative impacts during construction. It is possible, but unlikely, that the construction of new buildings, tanks and pipelines may disrupt groundwater flow, and monitoring and mitigation is recommended should this be found to be the case.
If the mitigation and monitoring plans, training and capacity building are implemented as recommended, no major residual negative impacts envisaged during operation. Minor residual impacts are likely to be:
• Increased health and safety risk during operation of sludge digesters due to the potential presence of an explosive air/gas mixture. If the recommended mitigation measure of zoning and careful choice of machinery is implemented, this risk will be minor;
• Increased energy consumption for the sludge digestion and dewatering processes. This impact is considered to be minor because energy will be supplied through methane use at the CHP plant, representing a comprehensive
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 160 cost saving and a cleaner fuel supply than the low quality coal burnt at the Novocherkassk power station which is the current source. This impact can be partially mitigated through monitoring of sludge quality, sludge volume and energy consumption to ensure that the equipment works to full efficiency; and
• Minor impact on transport infrastructure through necessity for transporting the reagent for chemical phosphorus removal to the site. This impact will depend on the reagent chosen and its source. It is recommended that the adjacent railway be used if possible.
.H\0LWLJDWLRQDQG0RQLWRULQJ0HDVXUHV It is envisaged that with compliance to existing norms and manuals during construction, no mitigation during construction will be necessary.
The major mitigation measures during operation relate to monitoring and training. As discussed above, both are important as they serve to minimise the health and safety risks associated with operation of the new processes, and to optimise the efficiency at which the processes are operated in order to reduce the use of resources and to minimise pollution to air and surface water. In summary, the key mitigation recommended is:
• Regular monitoring of flow and phosphorus levels to ensure optimum dosing of phosphorus stripping reagent (at least three times daily);
• Use of CHP exhaust gases and cooling water for energy supply to hot water system, digesters and centrifuges wherever possible to minimise air quality impacts of operating a supplementary boiler;
• Regular monitoring of sludge volume, sludge quality and energy consumption at digestion and dewatering processes to maximise efficiency in order to minimise energy consumption;
• Implementation of zoning and careful choice of equipment in the vicinity of the digesters to minimise the health and safety risks associated with the potential presence of an explosive air/gas mixture; and
• ‘Hands on’ training of operating staff in order to reduce health and safety risks and maximise efficiency of new processes.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 161 Monitoring measures recommended, other than those discussed with the mitigation measures, include:
• Regular monitoring of water quality at effluent to ensure that the nutrient reduction targets are met, and that pollution of the river by toxic substances does not occur; and
• Increased monitoring of water quality between processes within the works to maximise the efficiency of processes.
The importance of using the monitoring data to feedback immediately to process operation is emphasised. There are training and capacity building requirements associated with the above, which are discussed in Section 8.4.
5HFRPPHQGDWLRQVIRU)XWXUH6WXGLHV Introduction The EIA process has also identified a number of areas of further work requirements. These include:
• Projects which would improve the environmental performance of the WWTW in the long term; and
• Studies which would support the decision making and design process for future investments within the water sector (to be considered by international funding agencies).
The former are being considered for inclusion within the RVK Strategy Plan (Halcrow, 2001), which will set the current WWTW proposals into the context of all other RVK responsibilities and investments.
Development of a Sludge Disposal Strategy There is a requirement for investigation of the quality (historic, present and future) of the sludges stored at the WWTW and appraisal of options for long term disposal. Options might, depending on the chemical/biological quality of the sludge, include landfill, incineration, use as a compost/soil conditioner on agricultural, recreational or other land. A Scope of Work for development of a Strategy for disposal of historic, present and future sludge is being developed as part of the RVK Strategy Plan.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 162 Chemical stripping of return liquors from sludge treatment Sludge liquors arising from the proposed sludge process, will be potentially particular high in phosphorus and would therefore benefit from separate treatment prior to discharge back to the main process (see Halcrow 2000 for more detailed discussion). This would help to ensure that the phosphorus reduction target is achieved. It would also help limit the return of any phosphorus removed biologically, released back to the liquors during the sludge processing cycle under anaerobic conditions found in digesters and dewatering. This can be as high as 100
mg/l of phosphorus. It will also help limit the formation of struvite (MgNH4PO4) crystals in the liquor pipelines that can cause blockages.
Notwithstanding this, it will be necessary to consider if returning volatile fatty acids, generated through the fermentation processes, could be beneficial in increasing biological P removal if this is retained. For this purpose the liquors from the sludge thickening process, given the short retention times (particularly if mechanical methods are adopted) may be beneficial and should, if possible, be kept separate.
Energy consumption audit The WWTW is one of the major energy consumers of the RVK system, and energy costs overall are very high. An overall energy consumption audit is being considered as part of the RVK Strategy Plan. A specific audit of energy consumption after WWTW plant changes is recommended here, as decreased consumption could be rated as an environmental benefit and increased consumption may suggest the requirement for mitigation measures, for example the equivalent of improved emission controls of power stations to eliminate
increased emissions of SOX and NOX. This may also be integrated into the on site electricity generation programme as an environmental driver. The incorporation of energy management systems, controls and other energy efficiency measures, particularly electronic variable speed controls of large pumps for energy savings, use of off peak rates, and reduction in peak load charges (to be phased in with the on site generation) are also recommended.
Audit of WWTW chlorination programme Chlorination is used to protect the river in order to comply with MACs aimed at eliminating harmful organisms remaining after treatment. There are, however, environmental concerns over this process as it may lead to the formation of harmful by-products such as organochlorides. For this reason, post-treatment chlorination is generally not practiced in Europe, except in exceptional
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 163 circumstances. It is therefore recommended that a study be conducted in order to ascertain whether chlorination is necessary after the improvements at the works.
Don Delta and Sea of Azov Biodiversity Studies (non-RVK) There is a notable lack of documentation relating to the current status and historic/ongoing decline of biodiversity in the Don Delta and the Sea of Azov. Appropriate investigations (at least at the desk-study level) are required to address this to allow assessment of the need for water quality improvement in the rivers entering the area and of the benefits of this.
Given that similar European deltas have been recognised as being internationally important wetlands through Ramsar designation it is recommended that the Don Delta is assessed against these criteria to give an appropriate context to its importance.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 164
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01 D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc 165