Wastenet Assessment Study

WASTEnet - A Black Sea network promoting integrated natural WAStewater Treatment systEms

ASSESSMENT STUDY on

Natural Treatment Systems for Wastewater Management of Rural Communities

Black Sea Basin 2007-2013 Joint Operational Programme

CONTENTS

1. GENERAL PART ______5

1.1. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DEVELOPMENTS ______5

1.2. EU LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT______8

1.3. NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS (GENERAL OVERVIEW) ______11

1.4. NTS VS. CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS ______15

1.5. NTS APPLICATIONS WORLDWIDE ______17

2. COUNTRY - SPECIFIC REPORT - ARMENIA ______18

2.1 ARMENIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT ______18

2.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN ARMENIA ______24

2.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN ARMENIA ______27

2.4 NTS VS CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS COMPARISON ______31

2.5 LITERATURE LIST______36

3. COUNTRY -SPECIFIC REPORT - GEORGIA ______37

3.1 GEORGIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT ______37

3.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN GEORGIA ______40

3.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN GEORGIA ______43

3.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN GEORGIA ______44

4. COUNTRY -SPECIFIC REPORT - GREECE ______48

4.1 GREEK LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT ______48

4.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN GREECE ______51

4.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN GREECE ______52

4.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN GREECE ______58

4.5 INVESTMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR NTS IN SMALL COMMUNITIES __ 63

5. COUNTRY -SPECIFIC REPORT - MOLDOVA ______66

5.1 MOLDOVIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT ______66

5.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN MOLDOVA ______71

5.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN MOLDOVA ______75

5.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN MOLDOVA ______79

6. COUNTRY - SPECIFIC REPORT - ROMANIA ______81

6.1 ROMANIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT ______81 6.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN ROMANIA ______82

6.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN ROMANIA ______83

6.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN ROMANIA ______84

6.5 INVESTMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR NTS IN SMALL COMMUNITIES __ 87

6.6 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES ______88

7. COUNTRY -SPECIFIC REPORT - TURKEY ______89

7.1 TURKISH LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT ______89

7.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN TURKEY ______91

7.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN TURKEY ______93

7.4 INVESTMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR NTS IN SMALL COMMUNITIES __ 95

8. COUNTRY - SPECIFIC REPORT - UKRAINE ______101

8.1 UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT ______101

8.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN UKRAINE ______102

8.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN UKRAINE ______108

8.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN UKRAINE ______111

9. CONCLUSIONS ______112

10. REFERENCES ______113

1. GENERAL PART

1.1. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DEVELOPMENTS Wastewater is the liquid endproduct, or byproduct, of municipal, agricultural, and industrial activities. As such, the chemical composition of wastewater naturally reflects its origin. The term ‘wastewater’, however, implies that it is a waste product to be discarded in an environmentally sound manner. On average, the overall wastewater generation rate varies significantly from country to country; for example, it is approximately 265 liters per capita and per day in the U.S. but it is less in European countries (e.g., in Greece it is about 180 liters per capita per day). Understanding the nature of wastewater is fundamental for the design of appropriate wastewater treatment plants and the selection of effective treatment technologies. For the removal of contaminants from wastewater, physical, chemical and biological methods are used (Fig. 1). In order to achieve different levels of contaminant removal and produce an acceptable effluent, wastewater treatment may be divided into three or four stages. These stages include the preliminary, primary, secondary and tertiary or advanced treatment (Fig. Figure 1: Wastewater treatment unit operations and processes 2). At the 1 st stage (preliminary) some non-favorable characteristics are reduced and wastewater is prepared for further treatment. Preliminary treatment processes consist of physical unit operations, such as screening, comminution, grit removal, flotation, flow equalization, septage handling and odour control methods. This treatment reduces the BOD of the wastewater, by about 15 to 30%. Primary treatment acts as a precursor •Removal of pathogens and nutrients (Chemical, for secondary treatment. It involves Tertiary Photochemical, Biological) physical operations (screening, sedimentation) and pre-aeration or mechanical flocculation with chemical Secondary •Removal of organic matter (Biological) additions. The liquid effluent from primary treatment often indicates a •Removal of suspended solids large amount of suspended organic Primary (Chemical, materials and high BOD (about 60% of Physical) initial). Primary treatment is followed •Removal of by secondary, where organic matter is organic Preliminary matter removed through biological processes, (Physical) either under aerobic or anaerobic Figure 2: Wastewater treatment stages conditions.

Aerobic biological units consist of: Filters (intermittent sand filters, trickling filters), Aeration tanks, with the feed of recycled activated sludge Oxidation ponds and aerated lagoons. Anaerobic biological units consist of: Anaerobic lagoons, Septic tanks, Inhoff tanks, etc. The final stage is the tertiary treatment which exceeds the level of conventional secondary treatment in order to achieve the removal of significant amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, biodegradable organics, bacteria and viruses. Other processes used at this stage are chemical coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation, followed by filtration and activated carbon. Finally some less used processes are ion exchange and reverse osmosis for specific ion removal or for dissolved solids reduction.

Table 1: Stages and processes of wastewater treatment Stage of Treatment Process Discharge area Appropriate treatment for discharge to: Fresh and estuarine waters <2,000pe; Screening of bulky solids (paper, rags, Coastal waters <10,000pe plastics etc) Preliminary Applicable to any treatment stage - Grit removal (dense solids such as sand and preliminary treatment to tertiary treatment, gravel) by flow attenuation depending on water use and associated standards Less Sensitive Areas discharges: Settlement of suspended solids, removal of Primary between 2,000 and 10,000pe to estuaries; some light organic matter >10,000pe to coastal waters Biological treatment (bacterial breakdown) Normal areas discharges: (a) activated sludge process (aerated Secondary >2,000pe to fresh and estuarine waters; agitated liquor); >10,000pe to coastal waters (b) filter beds (sewage trickled over coarse aggregate coated with bacteria)

Various types of tertiary treatment exist and are applied, in combination if needed, to Sensitive Areas discharges: Tertiary meet requirements for receiving waters >10,000pe (direct or indirect) contributing phosphorus and/or nitrate reduction; to the pollution of Sensitive Area disinfection by UV or filter membranes

Agricultural Land (52%) Sewage sludge produced from various Incineration (21%)

stages of treatment process Landfill (17%) Other (10%)

Sewage sludge consists of the organic and inorganic solids present in the raw waste that were removed in the primary clarifier and the organic solids that were generated in secondary treatment and removed in the secondary clarifier or in a separate thickening process. It has a complex composition, containing high levels of organic matter and several nutrients. Sludge management is a very complex and expensive activity. There are several processes and combinations for sludge treatment (Fig. 3). A host of new technologies and techniques for wastewater management are being developed around the world, in response to environmental, economic and societal limitations increasingly posed by conventional wastewater treatment systems. New approaches incorporate natural processes and are designed with sustainability in mind, in contrast to energyintensive and chemicaldependent systems in current use (Table 2).

Figure 3: Sludge processing and disposal flow diagram

Table 2: Urban and rural wastewater treatment URBAN/LARGE SCALE RURAL/ONSITE Constructed Wetlands Individual dwellings Membrane Bio -reactors Advanced Treatment Systems Small Diameter Collection Systems Composting Toilets Wastewater land application and groundwater recharge Shared and Cluster Systems Sludge and Septage Treatment Options

1.2. EU LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT

1.2.1 The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Οn 21 May 1991 a European Union directive concerning urban wastewater treatment was adopted. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (full title Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment) is a European Union directive concerning the "collection, treatment and discharge of urban wastewater and the treatment and discharge of wastewater from certain industrial sectors" . The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive: provides for an obligation to collect and treat wastewater from all settlements and agglomerations but the very small ones, sets the treatment objective as a rule as secondary treatment (biological carbon removal), plus - in the catchment of all areas being either eutrophic or potentially eutrophic - for nutrients removal, defines eutrophication and the catchment of waters suffering from (potential) eutrophication giving clear guidance for technical, financial and political decision, and indeed was upheld and interpreted by a range of judgments by the European Court of Justice promoting water protection, sets staged deadlines of 1998, 2000 and 2005, depending on the size of the wastewater discharge and the characteristics of the affected water: - larger agglomerations beyond 10,000 p.e. discharging into catchments of sensitive areas: 31.12.1998, - larger agglomerations beyond 15,000 p.e. discharging into normal areas: 31.12.2000, - all other agglomeration beyond 2,000 p.e.: 31.12.2005. For the 10 new Member States in Central and Eastern Europe, which joined the European Union on 1 May 2004, staged transition periods were negotiated as part of the Accession Treaties, obliging the new Member States to comply with the Directive by 2010 to 2015, at the same time providing them considerable financial support by the European Union for planning considerations, design and construction of wastewater treatment systems. With the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, the European Union has for the first time in a comprehensive way taken on board the nutrients dimension of water protection. Bearing in mind that most of the regional seas in Europe (Baltic Sea, parts of the North Sea, Black Sea, Northern Adriatic), as well as a range of estuaries and lakes are suffering from eutrophication, the objective set in 1991 is still environmentally sound and its implementation indispensable. Sensitive areas (i.e. catchment of waters where waste water from treatment plants above 10,000 p.e. has to undergo nutrient removal) natural freshwater lakes, other freshwater bodies, estuaries and coastal waters which are found to be eutrophic or which in the near future may become eutrophic if protective action is not taken; surface waters intended for the abstraction of drinking water which could contain more than 50 mg/l concentration of nitrate; areas where advanced treatment is necessary to fulfill European Union Directives.

Member States have a (limited) flexibility in applying these provisions: they can either designate and constantly monitor individual sensitive areas, in accordance to the above criteria, or apply the more stringent provisions of the Directive involving nutrient removal to their whole territory. Treatment objectives under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive a) standard provisions Parameter Value (concentration) Value (% reduction)

Biological Oxygen Demand , BOD 5 25 mg/l 70 - 90 % Chemical Oxygen Demand , COD 125 mg/l 75 % (24 hour average; either concentration or percentage of reduction shall apply) The Directive provides for mandatory minimum design rules for sewerage systems as well as treatment plants (minimum design requirement = highest maximum weekly average load throughout the year). b) additional provisions for sensitive areas Parameter Value (concentration) Value (% reduction) Total nitrogen Plants of 10 ,000 – 100 ,000 p.e. 15 mg/l 70 - 80 % Plants >100 ,000 p.e. 10 mg/l Total phosphorus Plants of 10 ,000 – 100 ,000 p.e. 2 mg/l 80% Plants >100 ,000 p.e. 1 mg/l (annual averages, either concentration or percentage of reduction shall apply) The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive has already contributed to an improvement of the quality of European large rivers. However, there are delays, in some cases even scandalous delays, with still prevailing discharges of untreated or insufficiently treated wastewater. Consequently, legal enforcement measures including applications to the European Court of Justice had to be applied.

1.2.2 The “new approach” for compliance promotion Despite the encouraging signs of progress, there is still a significant implementation gap, in particular in the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and after. This "new approach ” is set out in the proposed 7 th Environmental Action Programme (ΕΑΡ) and the "Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources ” document. The priority objective 4 in the 7th ΕΑΡ “To maximise the benefits of EU environment legislation ” proposed to carry out specific actions, in particular: Establishing systems at national level which actively disseminate information about how EU environmental legislation is being implemented, coupled with an EU-level overview of individual Member States ’ performance (a so called "Structured Implementation and Information Framework" (SIIF)). Drawing up partnership implementation agreements between Member States and the Commission.

1.2.3 Conclusions and outlook Nearly 20 years after the adoption of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, significant progress towards full implementation was achieved by 2010. For the EU-15, average compliance rates are 88% for secondary treatment and higher for collection systems and more stringent treatment (97 and 90%, respectively). The frontrunners Austria, Germany and the Netherlands have largely implemented the Directive with several others being very close to them. For all, the priority will be to maintain and renew the existing infrastructure. The picture is different for those Member States which have joined the EU in 2004 and later. Their distance to target is still considerable with average compliance of 72% for collecting systems and 39% and 14%, respectively, for secondary and more advanced treatment. Another area of concern is the lack of compliance in a significant number of "big cities". E.g. only eleven of the 27 EU capitals have a collecting system and treatment in place which is complying with technical standards of more than 20 years ago. Given the high pollution load of these big discharges, this causes still considerable environmental pollution. The Commission announced in these recent policy initiatives that it will further increase its support to Member States in their implementation efforts by promoting a "new approach" for reaching compliance. In December 2012, the Commission services started these "new approach" activities with the aim of encouraging Member States to establish or revise implementation plans at the latest by 2014.

1.3. NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS (GENERAL OVERVIEW) In order to avoid their contamination and impairment, local authorities have constructed large conventional wastewater treatment plants. However, these facilities can be applied to highly urbanized areas, but not to rural areas and small, isolated and/or peri-urban communities. In these areas, wastewater usually goes to septic tanks, due to the lack of sewage treatment units, with a common practice the illegal discharge of the septic tanks overflow to adjacent streams or storm sewers. An ideal solution for not only the elimination of this kind of problems, but also for the wastewater treatment in these areas, is the construction of Natural Treatment Systems. NTS, among them stabilization ponds (SPs), combine low-cost, low-maintenance, simple and reliable operation and high removal efficiencies. These systems are more appropriate for small to medium communities, where the resources and the skilled personnel required for the operation of conventional systems are often limited. Furthermore, SP systems could be an excellent alternative for the production of effluents that can be reused for irrigation.

1.3.1 Terrestrial Treatment Methods These methods depend on the physical, chemical and biological reactions on and within the soil matrix. The wastewater after a preliminary treatment step is disposed on the soil (vegetated or not). Technologies comprise slow rate, rapid infiltration and overland flow systems, as well as combinations of these types. In slow rate (SR) and overland flow (OF) methods, vegetation constitutes a significant treatment component while in rapid infiltration , vegetation is not necessary.

1.3.1.1 Slow rate This technology incorporates waste-water treatment, water reuse, crop utilization of nutrients and waste-water disposal. Wastewater is applied intermittently to vegetated land by sprinkling methods or surface techniques. The applied water follows various paths, such as evapotranspiration, Figure 4: Methods of land application percolation (vertically and horizontally) through the soil profile, surface runoff and reapplication. They are classified into two types: the objective of the first type is the wastewater treatment, while the objective of the second type is the water reuse.

1.3.1.2 Overland flow Wastewater is applied intermittently to the top of a vegetated sloping terrace and as it flows down undergoes physical, chemical and biological treatment and finally reaches a runoff collection channel. Application may occur through high-pressure sprinklers, low-pressure sprays, or surface methods. In comparison to SR and RI systems, OF is usually applied to impermeable soils, since due to the high slope infiltration through the soil is limited.

1.3.1.3 Rapid infiltration It constitutes the most intensive land treatment method, where high loads, both hydraulic and organic, are applied intermittently to shallow or spreading basins. The purification occurs through physical, chemical and biological processes into the soil matrix. RI system objectives are: recharge of groundwater and eventually of streams, recovery of water by wells or underdrains, with subsequent reuse or discharge and finally temporary storage of purified water in the local aquifer.

1.3.2 Wastewater Stabilization Ponds

They are open ponds, whose treatment function depends on sunlight, the microbial life and the lower forms of plants and animals. Organic matter is decomposed naturally, i.e., biologically. With the contribution of bacteria and algae, wastewater is stabilized and its pathogens are reduced. Generally organic content of the effluent is converted to more stable forms. Wastewater retention time ranges between 30 and 120 days. Stabilization ponds include various types, as: sewage lagoons, and oxidation, redox, maturation, facultative, anaerobic, aerobic and aerated ponds. They can be used in a wide range of weather Figure 5: Types of stabilization ponds. conditions alone, in series of various pond types (the common series is anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds), or in combination with other wastewater treatment systems.

1.3.3 Aquatic Plant Systems They are similar to stabilization ponds but they also treat wastewater through their content of higher plants and animals. Such systems may be divided into those with floating plants and those with submerged plants. Their extensive root system generates a substrate for micro-organism growth, which contributes to the removal of pollutants, thus achieving the best possible treatment.

1.3.4 Constructed Wetlands CWs are man-made, engineered systems designed to simulate the function of natural wetlands in pollutant removal. To achieve wastewater treatment, a series of physical, chemical and biological processes take place in CWs, based on water, soil, atmosphere (i.e. sun and wind) and micro- organism interactions. Wetland plants play a vital role in the removal and retention of organic matter, nutrients, heavy metals and various toxic substances. The common reed ( Phragmites australis ) and the cattail ( Typha latifolia , T. angustifolia ) are good examples of marsh species that can effectively uptake pollutants, and therefore, are commonly used in CWs.

1.3.5 Types of Constructed Wetland treatment systems Three are the most common CW types: Free Water Surface (FWS) systems, Horizontal Subsurface Flow (HSF) systems and Vertical Flow (VF) systems.

1.3.5.1 Free-Water Surface CWs They consist of one or more vegetated shallow impermeable basins or channels (40 to 60 cm deep) filled with soil, planted native vegetation (e.g., cattails, reeds and/or rushes), and equipped with appropriate inlet and outlet structures. The wastewater flows at depths 10 to 30 cm or even 45

cm, and is exposed to the atmosphere, the wind and direct sunlight. An anoxic/anaerobic zone prevails at the bottom of the wetland, while an aerobic zone exists near the surface oxygenated through atmospheric re-aeration, aided by the plant movement by the wind. As the wastewater flows through the wetland, simultaneous physical, chemical and biological processes remove the Figure 6: Schematic of a free -surface flow CW. pollutants. Although the soil layer below the water is anaerobic, the plant roots release oxygen into the area creating an environment of complex biological and chemical activity.

1.3.5.2 Horizontal Subsurface Flow CWs They are large gravel and sand-filled channels, planted with aquatic vegetation. The bed is 0.5 to 1 m deep (3 –32 mm in grain size diameter) and is lined over an impermeable liner (clay or impermeable geomembrane) in order to prevent leaching. Wastewater Figure 7: Schematic of a horizontal subsurface flow CW. is intended to stay beneath the surface of the porous media flowing within the pores and around the roots and the rhizomes of the plants. The bed should be wide and shallow so that the flow path of the water is maximized. A wide inlet zone is used to evenly distribute the flow. The bottom slope is normally 1%. Regarding wetland vegetation any plant with deep, wide roots that can grow in the wet, nutrient-rich environment may be considered as appropriate for such systems. Wastewater is purified as it comes in contact with the filter media and plant roots.

1.3.5.3 Vertical Flow CWs They are filter beds planted with aquatic plants. Wastewater is introduced to the wetland surface through a network of perforated pipes in order to achieve uniform flooding. The water percolates by gravity downwards through the filter matrix. It reaches then Figure 8: Schematic of a vertical flow CW. the drainage layer (bottom), which contains a network of perforated collection and aeration tubes. The bed contains various layers of different gradation. The first layer near the bed comprises gravel used for drainage (at minimum 20 cm thick), followed on top by layers of gravel and sand (surface layer 10-30 cm thick). The top layer is planted and the vegetation is allowed to develop deep, wide roots which permeate the filter media. The total depth varies from 0.90 m to 1.20 m. A bed slope of 1% is needed for drainage. Vertical flow CWs can operate with: Intermittent flow, unsaturated downflow, saturated up or downflow and tidal flow. Two phases appear on these systems: the flush and the drying phase. Depending on the climate, Phragmites australis , Typha latifolia or Echinochloa Pyramidalis are common options. The important difference between a vertical flow and the horizontal subsurface flow CWs is not simply the direction of the flow path, but rather the fill and dry cycles and the enhanced aerobic conditions in the VF case, factors leading to reduced area requirements.

1.4. NTS vs. CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS What is the ideal wastewater treatment system? An ideal one would produce highquality discharge, be aesthetically appealing, having the minimal environmental impacts. The success or failure of a wastewater treatment system depends on the appropriateness of the implemented technology. Choosing the most appropriate treatment system is not an easy task, but if done correctly, automatically the risk of future problems and failures is eliminated. Fig. 9 presents important parameters that should be taken into consideration in order to choose the most appropriate system. Conventional Treatment Systems (CTS) for wastewater offer a combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes and operations taking place within an artificial environment, in order to remove solids, organic matter and even nutrients from wastewater. The Natural Treatment Systems (NTS) attempt to simulate the naturally occurring processes of wastewater degradation and contribute to the removal of pollutants. When natural systems are incorporated into a natural landscape or a building design, they can provide added benefits compared to a conventional treatment system.

Appropriate System

Economically Environmentally Socially Affordable Sustainable Acceptable

Investment Environmental Public health protection protection

Government Population Resources density policy and conservation regulations

Technology Human Efficiency Water reuse settlement

Operation and Nutrient Planning Maintenance recycling

Residuals management

Figure 9: Parameters for the selection of the most appropriate system. Compared to conventional wastewater treatment systems, natural systems are more ecologically and economically efficient. NTS use natural processes and renewable energy sources in order to treat wastewater. These systems may also provide indirect benefits, such as aesthetic improvement of the landscape, creation of wildlife habitat, and recreational and educational opportunities. The design and construction of NTS is very simple in comparison to CTS. NTS require low construction, labor and maintenance costs in comparison to the CTS for the treatment of the same volume of wastewater. In addition, CTS require frequent monitoring and specialized staff, while these requirements do not appear on a NTS. The only limiting factor is the availability and the cost of land to place the treatment plants. For the construction of wastewater treatment plants, various materials are used, such as concrete, steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene (PE), soil materials, etc. Wastewater treatment

is based on several processes where there is need of chemicals, electricity, air supply, etc.; treatment byproducts are also produced, such as sewage sludge, methane, carbon dioxide, etc. The use and production of these materials and substances have a certain, low or high, environmental impact. Natural systems, on the contrary, do not require these materials or chemicals. While conventional systems consume large quantities of energy for their operation, natural systems do not require mechanical devices and depend only on natural processes and renewable energy sources. When a CTS experiences an occasional process upset (unexpectedly high loads), these leads to worse effluent values, thus worse efficiency. Worth noting is the fact that CTS create secondary problems in sludge disposal. This problem not only does not appear on NTS but also NTS are very reliable even in extreme operating conditions. They can absorb a wide variety of hydraulic and organic feed. In addition, NTS plants can perform as well as CWT plants do for the removal of most of the pollutants. A NTSs drawback is the fact that they are vulnerable and susceptible to climate, while CTSs are well protected. Climatic variations in particular may affect the performance of the NTS. The main parameters to compare natural and conventional wastewater treatment systems are shown in Table 3. Table 3: Natural vs. conventional wastewater treatment systems Wastewater treatment Conventional Natural Objectives Single one Multiple Benefits for the environment Low priority High priority (habitat creation, aesthetic appeal, education, etc.) Construction Mechanical devices required, No mechanical devices requirements, human origin materials use of natural materials Energy requirements Large quantities of conventional Renewable energy sources, use energy sources, electricity etc. of plants etc. Mass transfer mechanisms Pumps, air -blowers Gravity, natural microbial processes Processes Man -controlled Natural Installation location Irrelevant, not important Crucial, depending on scale and country Life expectancy Relatively low High Efficiency Controlled but insufficient when it Susceptible to climate, experiences an occasional process adaptability -flexibility and upset (unexpectedly high loads) tolerance on fluctuations in flow and pollutant concentrations Labor and maintenance cost High, frequent monitoring and Low specialized staff Land requirement Low High (limiting factors are the availability and cost of land to place the treatment plants)

Lifetime costs High total lifetime and often capital Low total lifetime costs and costs often lower capital costs

1.5. NTS APPLICATIONS WORLDWIDE At the early stage of CW development, the application of CWs was mainly used for the treatment of traditional tertiary and secondary domestic/municipal wastewater (Kivaisi, 2001) and was often dominated by free-water-surface CWs in North America and horizontal subsurface-flow (HSSF) CWs in Europe and Australia (Brix, 1994; Vymazal, 2011). Over the last three decades, these systems have developed rapidly, and CWs have been established worldwide as an alternative to conventional more technically equipped treatment systems for the sanitation of small communities (Garcia et al., 2010). Recently, due to inexpensive and effective ecological wastewater purification, the application of CWs has been significantly expanded to treat effluents from mines, tanneries, wineries, dairies, various chemical industries, etc (Table 4).

Table 4: Examples of the Use of Constructed Wetlands for Various Types of Wastewater (Vymazal, 2011) type of wastewater type of CW location type of wastewater type of CW location HF South Africa VF Netherlands refinery FWS China dairy VF-HF France FWS USA HF New Zealand pulp and paper HF USA cheese dairy VF Germany FWS USA chemical industry HF UK pesticides/herbicides VF UK textile industry HF Australia FWS USA HF Slovenia fish pond effluent food processing HF USA HF Italy abattoir facility HF Ecuador pig farms HF China FWS, HF Norway highway runoff HF UK landfill leachate HF USA airport runoff HF Switzerland HF Slovenia greenhouse runoff HF Canada FWS USA urban runoff FWS Australia explosives HF USA hydrocarbons HF USA FWS Canada mining waters HF USA

2. COUNTRY- SPECIFIC REPORT - ARMENIA

2.1 ARMENIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT

2.1.1 Introduction The regulatory framework and administrative aspect of wastewater management, including correspondence with the EU normative standards of surface water-flows pollution is the main objective of the current analysis. This paper consists of three thematic sections: 1. Analysis of national legislation with focus on availability and proper implementation of sanitary-epidemic standards, as well as regulatory and operational framework of Wastewater Drainage and Wastewater Treatment Plants systems (hereafter, WWTPs). Identification of scarcities and gap analysis. 2. Analysis of institutional framework (state, municipal and private) responsible for normative regulation, operation and management on constant functioning of the indicated systems, as well as observation and monitoring on sufficient and lawful functioning of the infrastructure (Wastewater Drainage and WWTP infrastructures). 3. Comparison of water quality standards with the EU Water Framework Directive 1. The legal basis of wastewater drainage and cleaning system, as well as the water quality requirements of the surface water-flows is generally well regulated. Both related laws and sub-legal acts adequately regulate the overall system of water-supply and drainage, and particularly, the sanitation and water quality framework. Moreover, there are separate norms with regard to impact on Lake Sevan, taking into account the unique ecosystem and strategic importance of the latter. Unlike the regulatory framework, institutional capacities and control over the implementation of indicated regulations are pretty much collapsed. The grossly overstated institutions dealing in the area of the indicated issue, often repeat the liabilities of each other, which lead to practical failure of effective management. As a result, the unclear division of liabilities between both national and municipal institutions and several state agencies leads to institutional confusion and lack of enforcement of composed responsibilities. However, the over-exhausted infrastructure of sewerage system does not allow conducting effective control, even if the management institutions are organized in a better manner. In fact, the wastewater drainage system is a sphere of activity, where the implementation normative sanitation standards is at extremely low level due to physical absence of wastewater cleaning mechanisms and consequently, the real control over the implementation of legal regulations is actually meaningless. Relatively recent developments show that both legal amendments and practical activities intend to adjust the situation somehow. It is obvious, that the state tries to find measures to urge the private sector to “clean after itself” when constructing a multifunctional objects in the c ommunities without centralized water drainage system. In addition, three WWTPs are expected to be built on the water-flows directed to Lake Sevan.

1 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060

In the present paper, the regulatory and institutional framework will be presented emphasizing on the following aspects of sanitation standards and wastewater management system: general regulations of sanitary-epidemic standards and the quality of water, additional restrictions concerning the preservation of Lake Sevan ecosystem, operational framework of Wastewater Drainage and WWTP infrastructures, including the ownership and utilization issues, management and observation, as well as charging fees from the companies responsible for the proper implementation of normative regulations, comparison of Armenian water regulations with EU legislation.

2.1.2 The scope of legislation in the system of wastewater drainage and cleaning stations The laws and related regulations, which are stipulating the scope of sanitation standards and regulating the wastewater drainage and cleaning stations’ system, are as follows: RA Water Code, RA Law “On Basic Provisions on National Water Policy”, RA Law “On National Water Program of the Republic of Armenia”, RA Law “On Provision of Sanitary -Epidemic Security of the Population”, RA Law “On Lake Sevan”, RA Law “On Approving of Annual and Complex Plans on Restoration, Preservation, Reproduction and Utilization of Ecosystem of Lake Sevan”, RA Law on “Environmental and Nature Use Charges”, RA Law “On the Tariffs of Environmental Charges”, Concept of water resources and improvement of water management approved by the Government Decree 92-N “On improvements of water management system” of 09 February, 2001, Government Decree 1228-N “On the approving of utilization of water -removal systems and standards of removed wastewaters” of 28 August, 2003, Government Decree “On Creation of bodies conducting state observation on water resource and water system area and their activities” of 20 March, 2003, Government Decree 1142-N “On approving the norms on obligatory location of local cleaning stations for newly built objects in the communities, which do not have centralized sewerage system” of 08 October, 2009, Government Decree 118-N “On defining the measures of usage of innovative technologies, improveme nt of water resource monitoring, and decrease and prevention of pollution” of 14 January, 2010, Government Decree 1400-N “On Approving of Charter and Structure of the State Water Committee of the Ministry of Territorial Administration of Armenia” of 05 Sep tember, 2002, Government Decree 649-N “On approving of Charter and Structure of Water Resources Management Agency of the Ministry of Nature Protection” of 14 April, 2004, Charter of the Water Resource Policy Division, of the Ministry of Nature Protection (Department), Government Decree 411-N “On creation on Monitoring Center of the Environmental Impact” of 03 April, 2003,

Government Decree 1110-N “On approving of assessment standards of impact on water resources by economic activity” of 14 August, 2003, Government Decree 75-N “On defining of ensuring of water quality standards for each basin management territory, depending on specifications o f the area” of 27 January, 2011.

2.1.3 Legislation and wastewater management capacities The RA Water Code is the fundamental legal act regulating main conceptions of water policy. Among its goals and objectives are the protection of national water reserves, creating respective grounds for meeting the citizens’ and economic demands through efficient management of usab le water resources and for the provision of ecological sustainability of the environment, prevention of harmful water impact, etc. In order to ensure the enforcement of the new Water Code, the Government has adopted around 120 normative acts since 2002 which are related with the procedures on issuing water use authorizations, water basin management, utilization of water- removal systems and standards of removed wastewaters, etc. 2 In accordance to Article 121, Part 6 of the Water Code, the Government or the liable body sets the standards of utilization, drainage and wastewater treatment, as well as assessment of the impact on water resources by the economic activity. In line with the demands of the Water Code, the Government adopted the standards of utilization of water-removal systems and standards of removed wastewaters in 2003. The indicated Government regulation comprehensively covers the whole area of wastewater drainage and water treatment norms, as well as the obligations and structure of the organizations, which are responsible for this activity. In practice, however, those commitments are almost not fulfilled. For instance, the Government Decree stipulates the mechanical, chemical and biological water treatment standards for the companies operating in water treatment areas, with further development and treatment of wastewater sediments. In practice, this operation is impossible due to the factual absence of WWTPs, capable to conduct this sort of wastewater treatment. In addition to the Water Code, the RA Law “On Basic Provisions on National Water Policy” and the RA Law “On National Water Program of the Republic of Armenia” embody the perspective of development of concept paper on water resources and water systems strategic use and protection. Article 24 of the RA Law “On National Water Program of the Republic of Armenia” obliged the Government to adopt water quality standards for each basin management territory, depending on peculiarities of the area, which were provided in 2011 and became effective since January 2013. Article 21 of the same law stipulates, that the Government is considered to define the measures for use of innovative technologies, improvement of water resource monitoring, and decrease and prevention of pollution, which was finally adopted in 2010. According to the official position of the RA Government, which was presented in the Second Environmental Action Program, “ one of the most important prerequisites of appropriate management of water resources is the assessment and classification of water reserves and resources of the Republic, which will in turn, allow making decisions related to the expansion of strategic water reserves and regulation of river flow ”. Another direction is related to the water quality management.

2 The Second National Environmental Action Programme of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan 2008.

It was ensured that the internationally adopted methodology of norms limiting the impact on water resources and norms on ensuring water quality is a preliminary precondition in water policy. To conclude, it is to be said that water supply and wastewater drainage standards are regulated by the national legislation at a satisfactory level. Both laws and consequent sub-legal acts normalized the area of healthcare and organizational standards. The institutional capacities, however, do not allow the complete implementation of the requirements foreseen by the legislation. Some 30-40 years back, around 20 wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) were constructed in the country’s various residential areas, which deteriorated in th e aftermath, due to lack of funds needed for investments and operation. All of them are currently inoperable. Only the “ aeration water treatment plant ” in Yerevan is operational, carrying out mechanical treatment. Currently, industrial and household wastewaters (in average, 1.8-2.0 billion m3) are collected (drained) through sewerage collectors and networks. The existing drainage system serves to collect (drain) approximately 70-80 percent of wastewaters in urban areas, whereas the rural areas, in their prevailing majority, have no draining systems. According to the Concept of water resources and improvement of water management of 2001, the overall length of the sewerage network is 3,990 kilometers, 1,200 of which are the main wastewater collectors. However, none of WWTPs are able to clean the water through the legally set standards. The Concept of Strategic Environmental Planning adopted by the Government through the protocol Decree on 06 June, 2014, it is planned “ to fundamentally rehabilitate the WWTPs and to construct new ones ”.3 In addition, separate standards of water quality are adopted for Lake Sevan. The ecosystem approach was adopted by the Article 10 of the Law “On Lake Sevan”, which forbids implementation of any economic activities, which may harm the ecosystem of the lake. In addition, the Law “On Approving of Annual and Complex Plans on Restoration, Preservation, Reproduction and Utilization of Ecosystem of Lake Sevan”, according to which separate assessment and annual reporting is needed to estimate the impact on water by all kinds of pollution. Due to efforts undertaken in the last 3-4 years, the French Government allocated funds for the rehabilitation of “Aeration” WWTP in Yerevan, and the restoration of a number of sewerage pipelines. It is planned to conclude these works by 2015. Apart from the above, treatment plants will be constructed in towns of Gavar, Martuni and Vardenis, within the scope of “Lake Sevan Environmental Project” funded by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Development and implementation of strategy for improving the water-supply and water sanitation services in communities were not serviced by water-supply organizations. The funding for the strategy was put on the RA State Budget program funding and the international funding, but not yet implemented in a sufficient manner 4.

2.1.4 Institutional framework and comparison with the EU legislation Article 10 of the Water Code puts the obligation of development of the mentioned standards on the state body of water resources protection and management. This body is the State Committee of Water Economy adjunct to the Ministry of Territorial Administration of Armenia. Several

3 https://www.e-gov.am/sessions/archive/2014/02/06/ 4 Republic of Armenia, Rio+20 National Assessment Report, Yerevan 2012.

additional state bodies, however, have similar or alike liabilities in the water treatment and monitoring activity. Particularly, the State Committee of Water Economy (the Ministry of Territorial Administration) 5, Water Resources Policy Division (Department of the Ministry of Nature Protection) 6 and the Water Resources Management Agency (separate subdivision of the Ministry of Nature Protection) 7 have the same responsibility for developing the policy of water resource management and adopting legal acts, technical standards and other regulations. In fact, responsibilities of mentioned bodies are not clearly divided and harmonized. Actually, the only body, which acts separately and in a special professional manner, is the Environmental Effect Monitoring Center. It is a state non-commercial organization established by the Decree of the Government, which provides weekly, monthly and annual reports on air and water pollution 8. Centralized water supply in Armenia is carried out by 5 organizations. Nearly 560 rural communities are not included in the centralized water supply and removal network. The water supply in some of the mentioned communities is arranged by water-carrying machines, in another part – through water wells, where the water quality indicators (chemical, bacteriological) do not match the republican standards of potable water. Main pollution sources of the water resources are the unpurified or not sufficiently purified sewerages. The issue is caused by the fact that none of the 19 existing wastewater treatment stations function properly. According to economic-technical estimations, only 6-7 of 19 can be rehabilitated and re-operated. The rest need to be rebuilt in compliance with new technologies for water purification. Taking into account the recommendations of “The Integrated Water Resources Management Program”, issued in 2001 the RA Government initiated the project aimed towards the modernization of the water sector management of the country, reviewed current legal field and determined institutional basis. All of this was stipulated by resolution No 92 “On the Reforms Concept Paper for the Water Sector of Armenia” ado pted by the RA Government in February, 2001. As a result of indicated reforms, a state-owned Armenian Water and Sewerage Closed Joint Stock Company (AWSC) was created, which was given the right to manage the water supply and wastewater drainage system. Legally, the whole infrastructure remains state or community owned, and the company was given the right to manage the system on the basis of renting (sub-rent). 100% of the company’s shares belong to the state (State Committee of Water Economy adjunct to the Ministry of Territorial Administration of the Republic of Armenia). Water supply and wastewater inter-communal networks are the property of the communities but on March 13, 1999 they were transferred to the Company for gratis utilization of the property, based on the contracts concluded with communities. Domestic and industrial wastewaters of almost all Armenian cities are discharged through wastewater centralized networks and main collectors providing 60-80% disposal (97% in Yerevan). AWSC provides services to 275,000 customers of which on average 190,000 use monthly services. Service tariffs (wholesale and retail tariffs) are defined by the Public Services Regulatory Commission, according to the Republic of Armenia Legislation 9.

5 http://www.scws.am/index.php?menu1=37 6 http://www.mnp.am/?p=256 7 http://www.mnp.am/?p=268 8 http://www.armmonitoring.am/

9 http://www.armwater.am/en/about_us.html

In accordance to the official statement of Armenian Water and Sewerage Closed Joint Stock Company (AWSC), currently the company carries out its activities through 3 regional branches: North West, Center West and South, and in 17 sectors and 16 subsectors. The Company jointly with its subdivisions provides technical operation, exploitation, and maintenance of water supply and wastewater systems to 37 towns and 280 rural communities in the Republic of Armenia. With the aim of increasing the efficiency of water supply and drainage management and to raise the level of sustainable service provided to consumers, the RA Government divided the controlled system into 5 regional systems. Apart from Armenian Water and Sewerage CJSC, Nor Akunq CJSC provides water supply and wastewater drainage services in Armavir and Metsamor cities and surrounding 10 villages 10 . Shirak Water and Sewerage CJSC provides the same services in Gyumri and Maralik cities and surrounding 36 communities 11 ; Lori Water and Sewerage CJSC provides water supply and wastewater disposal services to Vanadzor and 16 rural communities 12 ; and Yerevan Jur CJSC provides city water supply and sewerage services in Yerevan 13 . These companies work with the users on the basis of service provision. If technically possible, they may stop the water supply and wastewater drainage for unconscientious clients, except the multi-apartment houses 14 . In addition, the law obliges location of local cleaning stations for newly built objects in the communities, which do not have centralized sewerage system. This new regulation was adopted by the Government in 2009. In 2011, the Government adopted the Decree No 75-N “On defining norms for ensuring the water quality of each basin management terr itory, depending on peculiarities of the area”, which stated 5 scaled assessment system of the water quality. This regulation, in line with the term “water body” but not “water resource” sufficiently complies with the logic and philosophy of the EU Water Directive. In regard to the new policy, Armenia has adopted new water quality standards. The quality of water flows from Armenia to neighboring states complies with accepted standards. Within the framework of the EU Water Framework Directive, starting from 2008 a Model Plan for water basin management on the example of Marmarik pilot river basin had been developed, and approved by the RA Government on February 3, 2011. The Model Plan incorporates basic description of the basin, anthropogenic and biogenic impacts (including climate change) on water resources and assessment thereof, indication of current and desired prospective scenarios of water use, financial estimation for implementation thereof, and other aspects.

10 http://www.norakunq.am/index/y_nkerowt_yan_iravakan_kargavitwaky/0-23

11 http://shirakjk.am/?lang=en 12 http://loriwater.am/%D5%B4%D5%A5%D6%80-%D5%B4%D5%A1%D5%BD%D5%AB%D5%B6/?lang=en

13 http://www.veoliadjur.am/en/veolia-djur/values/ 14 https://www.e-gov.am/gov-decrees/item/22/

2.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN ARMENIA

When the USSR regulated Armenia, water quality standards were reportedly strict and largely enforced. However, following Armenia’s independence, economic decline and energy crisis, the wastewater treatment infrastructure diminished greatly and national priorities were redirected. The result was that most wastewater treatment facilities became incapable of either operating or maintaining the level of treatment they were design to accomplish. The regulatory Ministry of Nature Protection became overwhelmed coupled with a redirection of their focus away from enforcing the USSR’s strict wastewater standards. Lack of funding and redirection of priorities also prevented the Ministry of Nature Protection from performing the necessary monitoring to determine the impact that the bypassing of raw and partially treated wastewater had on the environment/public health. Over time it was reported that water quality monitoring was mostly accomplished by ‘ad hoc’ researchers. In 2002 through the assistance of USAID, a new Water Code was developed. The code was reported to have approximated well the European Union Water Framework Directive. It was structured to separate the management, regulatory, operation and maintenance functions of water services for municipal water supply, wastewater, irrigation and hydro-power. The code facilitated the retention and ownership of all water sources and water systems of state significance but set out several allowable models concerning transfer of management to the private sector. The new code was structured to have Water Use Permits issued and enforced based upon monitoring information. The code established a Water Resources Management Agency within the Ministry of Nature Protection. The Agency was responsible for the overall Water Resource Management. It also recognized the need for public awareness and participation. The code consolidated the 14 previously recognized river-basins down to (5) Basin Management Organizations, responsible for integrated water resource planning and management. The Ministry of Nature Protection remained responsible for monitoring surface and groundwater along with environmental laboratories. The Code established a Natural Water Council (highest Advisory body), consisting of the follow governmental entities: Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Nature Protection and Agriculture and Head of the State Committee of Water Resources, among others. The State Committee of Water Resources is responsible for monitoring the water supplies and controls the reservoirs. Industrial waste effluents remained the responsibility of each enterprise. The new code also addressed interstate cooperation, specifically recognizing a previous USSR agreement with Turkey and future hopes of creating a dialog with Georgia and Azerbaijan. Currently there is almost no treatment of wastewater in Armenia and the wastewater is directly discharged into rivers. As a result, the water quality immediately downstream of most of the settlements is low, while in general river water quality is sufficient thanks to self-cleansing capacities of rivers. Capital city of Yerevan is the worst polluter, as it is the largest settlement of Armenia. Since the independence, Armenian water sanitation sector had to deal with several issues, including: • Bad infrastructure – the existing infrastructure is highly deteriorated, and in many cases it is oversized, thus not efficient. Many of the communities do not have any wastewater treatment

infrastructure and WWTPs at all. Most of the existing WWTPs in Armenia are either not operational or do not ensure neither proper mechanical treatment, nor disinfection of sludge treatment, • Low quality of services – 55% of the collected wastewater is discharged into water bodies without any treatment. Wastewater collection and treatment systems are available in all urban and about 20% of rural communities. Existing 20 WWTPs were foreseen for mechanical and biological treatment and disinfection of wastewater. There are also several basic treatment facilities. Municipal sanitation systems are used for collection of wastewater, which later goes to WWTPs, often by gravity flow. Nevertheless, despite existence of collection systems, in many cases the wastewater is directly discharged into rivers and other water bodies, due to the absence of necessary facilities for collection and transfer of wastewater to WWTPs. Most of wastewater treatment plants were constructed prior to 1990 and are outdated. Since then these became inefficient and costly due to increasing of energy prices.

2.2.1 Recent developments As of 2014, there have been opened wastewater treatment plants in Gavar, Martuni and Vardenis towns. Within the framework of “Water project for small communities of Armenia” of European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and European Investment Bank some projects are also foreseen, aiming towards the improvement of wastewater removal systems, including the construction of WWTPs in Jermuk and Dilijan towns. Other large-scale sanitation projects are foreseen under the joint financing of KfW, European Union and European Investment Bank.

2.2.2 River water quality in Armenia in 2013 Results of river water quality assessment conducted by the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia are a good indicator of the impact of wastewater discharged into rivers from urban and rural settlements on the quality of the water. Below are presented the results of analyses of water quality in Aghstev, Akhuryan, Metsamor, Kasakh and Hrazdan rivers conducted during 2013. Aghstev river water quality in upstream section, above Dilijan city, is of the 1st category (i.e., perfect water quality); at the downstream part, below Dilijan, the water quality is of 3rd category (i.e., average water quality), due to the increased presence of ammonium. At the lower part of the Aghstev river, the water quality as per chemical status is of 2nd category (i.e., good water quality). Akhuryan river water quality at the upper and middle parts as per chemical status is of 2nd category (i.e., good water quality), which drastically deteriorates at the lower part of the river, below the city of Gyumri, to the 5th category (i.e., bad water quality), mainly caused by the presence of nitrite and phosphate ions. The quality of water in Akhuryan River below Yervandashat village is of 2nd category (i.e., good water quality). Metsamor River water quality at the southern from Vagharshapat is of 3rd category (i.e., average water quality), due to increased BOD, ammonium, nitrite and phosphates. At the lower part of the river, in the South-East of Vagharshapat, the water quality is of 4th category (i.e., insufficient water quality), due to raised concentrations of ammonium, nitrite and phosphate ions. Chemical status of Kasakh river water quality at the upper part of the river – above Aparan town, is of 2nd category (i.e., good water quality). The water in river below Aparan town is of 5th category (considered as bad water quality), due to ammonium and phosphate ions. At the middle part of the river – above and below Ashtarak town, the water quality as per chemical status is of 2nd

category (i.e., good water quality). At the delta area, the water quality deteriorates until the 4th category (meaning insufficient water quality), due to nitrate and phosphate ions. At the middle part of Hrazdan River, below Kaghsi village, the water quality is of 3rd category (i.e., average water quality), due to ammonium ion; below Argel village the water is of 2nd category (i.e., good water quality); below Arzni HPP the water is of 3rd category (i.e., average water quality), due to nitrate ion. At Geghanist village, along Hrazdan River the water quality is of 3rd category (implying an average water quality), due to ammonium and nitrate ions, and of 5th category (bad quality), due to vanadium and phosphate ion. At the lower part of the river, below Yerevan, in Darbnik village and river delta the water quality deteriorates reaching the 5th category (i.e., bad water quality) - in Darbnik village due to ammonium, phosphate ions and vanadium, and in delta due to phosphate ion and vanadium.

2.2.3 Treatment Levels In the Official Journal of European Communities, wastewater standards and treatment efficiencies were specified. The effluent limitations and treatment efficiencies identified in that agreement for participating states are shown in Table 5:

Table 5: Effluent limitations and wastewater treatment efficiencies according to Armenian Legislation. Parameter Effluent Limitation Treatment Efficiency (percent) Comment

BOD 5 25 mg/L 70 – 90% COD 125 mg/L 70 % TSS 35 mg/L 90 % > 10,000 PE TSS 60 mg/L 70 % 2,000 – 10,000 PE Phosphorus 2 mg/L 80 % 10,000 – 100,000 PE Phosphorus 1 mg/L >100,000 PE

2.2.4 Definitions of “Extremely high pollution” and “High pollution” concepts Extremely high pollution of natural environment is defined for: Surface waters Exceeding of threshold limit value 100 and more times (materials, for which there is defined complete absence in the water, 0.01 mg/liter is taken as threshold limit value) Z Decreased content of dissolved oxygen less than 2 mg/l,

Z Content of BOD 5 higher than 60 mg Օ2/l, Z Increased of water odor by up to 4 points and more, which is not specific for given area, Z Presence of any film (petroleum, oil or other) on more than 1/3 of panoramic horizon of 6 km 2 area, Z Ubiquitous extermination of mollusks, fishes, frogs and other water organisms and water plants. High pollution of natural environment is: For surface waters

Z Exceeding of BOD 5 by 10 to 100 times (for oil, phenols and copper ions – 30 to 100 times)

Z BOD 5 concentration content from 15 to 60 mg Օ2/liter, Z Decreased dissolved oxygen content from 3 to 2mg/liter, Z Presence of film (petroleum, oil or other) on ¼ to 1/3 of panoramic horizon o f 6 km 2 area, Z Presence of film with an area of 1-2 km 2 on panoramic horizon exceeding 6 km 2.

2.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN ARMENIA 2.3.1 Parakar Case The only ‘natural system’ cited in the literary sources was the Parakar aerated lagoon facility, which was specifically described as the first of its kind in Armenia. The facility was reportedly designed to receive an influent BOD 5 of 280 mg/L, and treat down to a BOD 5 of 42 mg/L. However, it should be noted that only 60 % of the households were connected at the time of startup. The specific treatment train consists of raw wastewater entering a wet well whereby screening was designed to occur. Following preliminary treatment, the waste enters a second wet well where it is pumped to an aerated lagoon cell followed by a second quiescent lagoon cell, prior to its discharge from the facility. Currently the effluent from the aerated lagoon facility is either used for irrigation or directed to a concrete trough for discharge to surface waters of Armenia. There is no disinfection provided at this facility. Although the project was constructed largely with foreign grants, operation and maintenance of the facility is reportedly funded locally. The project in Parakar was initiated by the village Mayor in 2010 in p artnership with “Parakar” Benevolent Foundation and Country Water Partnership (NGO). Within the framework of the project there has been implemented a demo project on domestic wastewater treatment. The project included construction of lagoon for wastewater treatment, which thus far is the only case of application of this technology in Armenia, though it is applied broadly in several countries in Northern America and Europe. The technology was localized for Armenia and the treatment structures were designed by JINJ engineering-consulting company. The technology enables treating the domestic wastewater to the quality required for irrigation water (reduction of BOD 5 from 280 mg/l up to 42mg/l) and using the treated wastewater for irrigation purposes. The construction works for wastewater collection and treatment facilities started in October 2010: 1. Construction of 882 m-long 250 mm polyethylene wastewater collector and 17 observation chambers. 2. Construction of mechanical structures of the plant. 3. Screen. 4. Installation of pump station with two pumps – horizontal with cutting machine, submerged, grinder pump and a vertical single-stage, stainless steel, submerged, three-phase engine with automatic switching, as a spare pump. 5. Air blowing node where two air blowers of Italian ROBUSCI production were installed, an air vent system, which evenly distributes air throughout the lagoon area. 6. First biological lagoon with 5,350 m3 operating capacity, which is moisture-proof with aeration pipes passing through it. 7. Sedimentation lagoon with 112 m3 operating capacity. 8. Fence. 9. A guide post. During the project implementation special attention was paid also to public awareness raising and formation of appropriate attitude of population towards the new wastewater treatment technology. By means of information leaflets and round tables the community population was informed about the project goals, the implemented works and the anticipated outcomes. The

population was informed also about the positive impacts of the project on the environment, health and social-economic conditions. During all of the public hearing meetings the participants appreciated the project results, since this was the first attempt of applying such a technology in Armenia and the possibility of its replication in other settlements depends on the project success. Under the project, training sessions were also organized for the plant operating staff. Despite being at the early stages, the project has already visible outcomes. First of all it provides a local solution for the local level problems. Second it improves the level of community involvement in the local water management. Then, it definitely provides benefits of integrated approach, since it incorporates wastewater service, improves condition of the irrigation system and reduces degradation of community farmlands, as well as health conditions in the village. Moreover, unlike the option developed under the general plan of the community, according to which the domestic wastewater of the commun ity would be pumped to the collector of Yerevan’s South-Western district and then removed to “Aeratsia” wastewater treatment plant, with US$1.5 million preliminary estimated value, this approach is rather inexpensive and more acceptable from the environmental point of view. This technology was adapted for Armenian conditions, which allow treating the domestic wastewater to the quality required for irrigation, while using the naturally treated effluents. The approach proved to be a viable alternative to the existing master plan of the community, based on which, the domestic wastewater of Parakar had to be disposed at the distance of 2.7 km to the main collector of capital Yerevan through a two-staged pumping for ultimate treatment at Yerevan “Aeratsia” wastew ater treatment plant. The treatment facility constructed by the project is rather cost-effective, environmentally-sound and can ensure substantial savings through operation. The system ensures the gravity flow of wastewater to the treatment facility. After mechanical screening, the wastewater is pumped up to the lagoon through a depth pump for biological treatment. Another significant advantage of this method is its energy efficiency. Table 6 presents the results of comparative calculation of annual energy consumption as per two options.

Table 6: Comparative calculation of annual energy consumption of WWTPs in Armenia. Annual energy consumption: Master plan: Yerevan SGP Project: Local conventional versus “Aeratsia” nonconventional wastewater nonconventional wastewater wastewater treatment plant treatment facility (kW/h) treatment (kW/h) Wastewater disposal 180,000 30,700 (I and II stage pump stations) (depth pump station) Wastewater treatment 182,000 131,400 (assuming 0.5 kW/h per 1 m 3 (pump blowers) treated) Wastewater disposal & 362,000 162,100 treatment

2.3.2 Potential regional/local rural sites for NTS application in Armenia Natural treatment systems are mostly applicable in relatively small rural and urban communities, which have centralized water removal system both for public and private facilities. These methods of wastewater treatment are extremely flexible and there may be suggested multiple solutions depending on wastewater output, treatment level, purpose and need for reuse of treated wastewater, land available for NTS, climate conditions and other factors. For mechanical treatment of wastewater in NT systems, sedimentation of relatively large material and organic particles there may be applied cages, septic tanks and other similar structure. And for biological treatment there may be used multiple solutions, like: - In case of availability of land – biological ponds with natural aeration and 0.6-0.8m depth, which require relatively large surface, - In case of land scarcity – biological ponds with artificial aeration and 2.5-3.5m depth, which require relatively small surface, - Marshy and drainage wetlands – application of different plants supporting wastewater treatment, - Hybrid solution – combination of above-mentioned options, as well as solutions specific for classic technologies of wastewater treatment. Treatment of small amount of excess sludge generated by NTS as a result of treatment may be conducted in sludge beds, where it is dehydrated and dried. Biological ponds with natural aeration are mostly applicable in plain and relatively flat settlements, where land is available and mild climate conditions prevail. It is desirable to have sufficient depth of groundwater, which will exclude the contamination of groundwater sources. In case of high level of groundwater and water penetrable soils, application of this system will require additional hydro-insulation of ponds’ surfaces. Biological ponds with natural aeration have to be constructed 500 and more meters away from settlements. Application of biological ponds with natural aeration for the purpose of wastewater treatment advisable for implementation in communities, which have sufficient lands not used for agricultural purposes, that may be provided for construction of NTS. Application of such system in these areas will also enable establishing additional green spaces, which may be used as recreational, as well as to create a favorable microclimate for the location. In these cases it is recommended to make primary treatment of wastewater in small scale artificially aerated ponds (for significant reduction of BOD, as well as reducing unpleasant odors), which enables ensuring further more effective biological treatment of wastewater. Artificially aerated biological ponds are applicable both in plain and mountainous settlements. Unlike systems with natural aeration, these systems do not require large surfaces and depending on size of surface available for NTS the working volumes of ponds are regulated through calculations. Taking into consideration this fact, these systems may be applicable both in rural and small and medium-sized urban settlements. Artificially aerated pond systems are applicable almost under any climate conditions, except of settlement where winters are long and severe. Depending on the volume of wastewater, as well as the treatment requirements, together with artificially aerated pond system there may also be applied structure with classic technologies – secondary cesspool, sludge collection, stabilization and fermentation, wastewater de-nitrification and/or nitrification structures. Use of both artificially and naturally aerated biological ponds for

wastewater treatment is preferable in case of irrigation water scarcity and where treated water may be reused for irrigation. In this case nitrates contained in wastewater become valuable fertilizers. Depending on wastewater treatment requirements there may also be conducted subsurface flow treatment. Wastewater may consequentially pass through first, second and third level biological ponds, where may be used higher water plants (i.e. water hyacinth), which will ensure deepest treatment, and the pond of highest level may also be used as an industrial fishery. Before flowing into basin the treated wastewater may be drained through natural ground filters, on surface of which could be established evergreen vegetation. Wetland systems are also applicable both in plain and foothill settlements. These are applicable in small settlements or individual districts of large settlements. These systems are also fairly flexible against climate conditions, but in this case application of these systems in settlements where winters are long and severe should be avoided. Wastewater treated in wetland systems requires primary mechanical treatment, which is required to ensure the possibly longest exploitation of filtering load of wetland. However, wetland systems may be applied as hybrid systems to ensure secondary and tertiary treatment of wastewater in cases, when settlements already have treatment plants with alternative of conventional technologies, which do not ensure required level of wastewater treatment. Energy demand of all above-mentioned options is very low, and operation and maintenance are fairly simple. Exploitation may be conducted by unskilled staff without professional training, which has received relevant technical training. Work of structures is very easy, creating good preconditions for expanding this application.

2.4 NTS VS CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS COMPARISON 2.4.1 General In order to make water removal and wastewater treatment process sustainable it has to be safe for human health, environment, and economic and social perspective. In this regards the comparison of conventional technologies and ecological technologies of wastewater treatment show that application of natural treatment systems in wastewater treatment process has triple benefits – for human heath, the environment, as well as the economy. The main differences between the conventional and natural treatment systems are: Wastewater natural treatment systems use natural treatment processes unlike conventional systems, where wastewater treatment is conducted as a result of artificial biological, chemical and physical processes, Wastewater natural treatment systems do not require the use of chemical materials, as well as the presence of mechanical equipment, which are necessary in case of use of conventional treatment systems, Unlike conventional systems, in which the only result of operation is the treated wastewater, operation of natural treatment systems results both in respective level of wastewater treatment and creation of favorable environment for biodiversity development and microclimate, as well may be used for educational purposes. Natural systems require smaller economic costs, both from construction and operation perspective. Unlike conventional systems, which use large volumes of electricity, natural systems use negligible volumes of electricity, and besides that, alternative sources of electricity may be used, There is no need for staff with special training in operation and servicing, which are necessary in case of conventional treatment systems, But unlike conventional systems these require relatively large areas, though in case of use of artificial aeration this issue is also solved at the benefit of NTS, Natural systems are sensitive in climatic conditions, thus characterized as adaptable and flexible.

2.4.2 The economic aspect of application of Natural Treatment Systems From the economic perspective Natural Treatment Systems are much more accessible than conventional treatment systems in case of ensuring the same quality of treated wastewater. This is especially true for smaller communities, which have the available land required for natural treatment systems. Wastewate r natural treatment systems’ operational and servicing costs, particularly energy costs, are also much lower in comparison to other treatment systems. Table 7 shows capital investments and operational and servicing costs for different types of natural treatment systems and conventional systems. Data is provided for wastewater treatment facility with a capacity of 400 m3/day and do not include land acquisition costs, since those depend on location.

Table 7: Capital and operation/servicing costs for particular types of wastewater treatment systems. Capital investments Operational and servicing costs Wastewater treatment method (US$/m3/day) (US$/m 3) Facultative pond 1 500-1 000 0.07-0.13 Aerated lagoon 2 600-1 200 0.10-0.16 Water hyacinth system 3 500-1 000 0.12-0.14 Surface-flow wetland 4 500-1000 0.03-0.09 Subsurface-flow wetland 1000-1200 1.0-1.2 Local treatment plants 1000-3000 0.01-0.1 Source: S.C. Reed et al., Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment, Manual of Practice FD-16 (Alexandria, Virginia: Water Environment Federation, 1990). 1/ Without primary treatment, hydraulic load ~ 400m 3/day 2/ Artificial aeration, hydraulic load ~ 400m 3/day, without primary treatment, 3/ Primary treatment, sedimentation or mechanical treatment with cage, hydraulic load ~ 400m 3/day, includes collection of plants, 4/ Surface-flow wetland. Primary treatment – sedimentation or mechanical treatment with cage, hydraulic load ~ 400m 3/day, irregular harvesting.

As shown in the table capital investments vary between USD 500 and USD 3,000, and operational and servicing costs per 1 m3 vary between USD 0.07 and USD 1.2. Figures 10 and 11 provide comparisons of, respectively, operational and servicing costs and capital investments for different treatment systems with a capacity of 378.5 – 3,785 m3/day. All costs are presented in USD. Land acquisition costs are not included in this case too.

Figure 10: Comparison of operational and servicing costs of different treatment systems.

Figure 11: Comparison of capital investment costs of different treatment systems. It is well seen in these figures that operational and servicing costs, capital investment costs of conventional treatment plants (in this case the calculations are done for oxidation pond system, including cesspool, oxidation pond, pumps, buildings, laboratory and sludge bed) are much higher in comparison to other technologies, particularly Natural Treatment Systems.

2.4.3 Assessment of territories necessary for treatment systems The area of land required for a wetland may be determined based on the following equation:

where: 2 Ah = wetland surface, m , 3 Qd = average daily flow of wastewater, m /day,

Ci = inflow BOD 5 concentration, mg/l,

Ce = effluent BOD 5 concentration, mg/l,

KBOD = constant of BOD decreasing speed, m/day.

KBOD is determined from K T *, where: (T-20) KT = K 20 (1.06) , -1 K20 = speed constant 20 (day ), T = system operation temperature, , Ԩ d = water column depth (m), Ԩ n = substratum porosity (expressed in fraction percentage).

KBOD depends on temperature and BOD degradation speed mostly increases by 10% under temperature increase of 1 . Thus, BOD degradation speed in summer will probably be higher than in

the winter. It is also proved that K BOD also increases in parallel with increasing of system’s “age”. For Ԩ smaller system, which in this case are the Natural Treatment Systems, approximation of system area may be made based on the fact, that size of the system is directly proportional with the design volume of wastewater flow (Q) and inversely proportional with the water penetrability of substrate/soil (K). In other words:

A (m 3) = p x Q (m 3/day) / k (m 3/m 2. day), where p is the parameter, which characterizes additional demand for land by the system and depends on the specific type of system.

Table 8: Estimated land requirements for mentioned treatment systems. Type of treatment system Required land size Local treatment systems A (m 2) = 1.5 x Q ( m3/day )/ k (m/day) Facultative ponds A (ha) = 5.1 x 10 -3 x Q (m3/day) Water hyacinth pond for secondary treatment A (ha) = 9.5 x 10 -3 x Q ( m3/day ) Water hyacinth aerated pond for secondary A (ha) = 1.5 x 10 -3 x Q ( m3/day ) treatment Free surface -flow wetland A (ha) = 8.2 x 10 -3 x Q ( m3/day ) Subsurface -flow wetland A (ha) = 2.7 x 10 -3 x Q ( m3/day )

2.4.4 Environmental aspects of Natural Treatment Systems implementation In comparison with conventional treatment systems, wastewater natural treatment systems also have much lower impact on the environment (only in system construction phase). These have the following advantages from the environmental perspective: Thanks to utilization of natural processes, the possibility of environmental contamination by artificial materials during operation of the system is excluded, These systems are not characterized by generation of sludge, which is inevitable in case of artificial biological treatment, Treated wastewater may be used for irrigation, thus fostering sustainable management of water and land resources, After a certain period of operation this system completely integrates with the environment and promotes biodiversity development, In natural treatment systems, particularly water hyacinth systems, used higher plants may be used as high quality food for animals, There is also a possibility of further use of green mass, as more effective organic fertilizer – bio-humus, than compost.

As a result, the application of this system for domestic wastewater treatment enables the introduction of water use closed cycle, which enables the introduction of a technology, which has minimal environmental impact.

Annex 1. The Republic of Armenia surface water quality monitoring network and levels of surface water pollution in 2010, by complex indicator for the assessment of BOD 5 (Biological Oxygen Demand), dissolved oxygen, nitrite, ammonium ions, pollution with vanadium and copper.

2.5 LITERATURE LIST 1. UNEP, Sourcebook of Alternative Technologies for Freshwater Augmentation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Available at: http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publication/techpublications/TechPub-8c/. 2. Tsihrintzis V.A., Akratos C.S., Gikas G.D., Karamouzis D. and Angelakis A.N., 2007, Performance and cost comparison of a FWS and a VSF constructed wetland systems, Environmental Technology, 28 (6): 621-628 3. Constructed wetlands and waste stabilization ponds for small rural communities in the united kingdom: a comparison of land area requirements, performance and costs D. D. Mara; School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK 4. United Nations, Economic and social commission for western Asia; Waste-water treatment technologies: A general review. Distr. GENERAL E/ESCWA/SDPD/2003/6 11 September 2003 5. USEPA, Wastewater Treatment/Disposal for Small Communities. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1992. (EPA Report No. EPA-625/R-92-005) 6. S.C. Reed et al., Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment, Manual of Practice FD-16 (Alexandria, Virginia: Water Environment Federation, 1990). 7. Iowa Department of Natural Resources; Constructed Wetlands Technology Assessment and Design Guidance; August 2007

3. COUNTRY-SPECIFIC REPORT - GEORGIA

3.1 GEORGIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Fresh waters are a natural source of drinking and irrigation, without which civilization would not exist. At the same time, they represent an integrated part of our ecosystem and are natural habitats for many species of flora and fauna. Economic activities can have a negative impact on water ecosystems. We use water from rivers and lakes for many reasons, primarily irrigation and municipal purposes, and thereby decrease the amount of this resource in ecosystems. In addition we discharge wastewaters into the water bodies from many different types of activities. The water ecosystem is capable of neutralizing a certain amount of polluting substances, though this ability is, of course, limited. Over-pollution or over-consumption of water resources can seriously damage, or even destroy the ecosystem. To prevent such situations it is necessary to undertake appropriate measures for the protection of surface waters. The current Georgian water-related legislation is fragmented, inconsistent and contradictory. It does not provide the establishment of a clear water management system and lacks effective pollution prevention mechanisms as well as mechanisms for preventing water overuse. The Current Water Law of Georgia does not encompass all aspects of water management and protection and lacks linkages to other sectors. In addition, the current water law does not provide for integrated, river basin-based approaches. In order to resolve all existing legislative inconsistencies and fully address all water-related issues it is necessary to introduce the new Law on Water along with the subsequent detailed regulations. At present Georgia attempts to protect its water resources through the regulation of discharges from activities that can have impact on the receiving waters. These regulations are based on setting standards on various parameters of the receiving water environment which are appropriate for the protection of the natural ecosystem. In Georgia water quality standards are defined according to the different categories of water use: “Drinking -economic water use”: these are the water bodies which are used for drinking, or food production purposes; “Economic -household water use”: these are the water bodies used for recreational, or irrigational purposes, or the water bodies, located within the limits of settlements; “Fish -farming water use”. This category comprises the water bodies, or their parts, which are significant for rehabilitation of fish stocks, fishery, and fish migration. This category is in turn divided into three categories: 1. Highest, 2.First, 3. Second categories, according to fish species inhabited the water body and its special characteristics (e.g., how rare they are, how sensitive they are to environmental conditions, how valuable they are from economic point of view, etc.). For the drinking-economic and economic-recreational water body categories, the water quality standards are defined as maximum concentrations of polluting substances permissible for human health in the river waters. They are defined in ‘Sanitary Rules and Standards for the Protection of Surface Waters from Pollution’. The ecologic norms for pollutants in surface waters are established by “the Rules of Protection of Surface Waters of Georgia from the Pollution”. This regulation defines

maximum permissible concentrations of polluting substances in water bodies significant for human heath, as well as for fish farming purposes. Water bodies are not as yet formally divided into the listed categories. In practice, the maximum permissible concentrations that are most commonly applied are those used for human health protection purposes. These standards are much less stringent as compared to the standards set for the protection of fish species and ecosystems. This is natural, as fish species are much more sensitive to water purity than human beings. However, the active legislative norms related to the protection of fish and ecosystems are those remaining from the Soviet era and, as it is typical for many Soviet norms, are unreasonable and inadequate. Therefore, the relevant EU norms, which are more realistic, are used in Georgia for the protection of fish and ecosystems (moreover, Georgia envisages full harmonization of active norms with the EU standards). The State regulates the activities of water users in order to maintain water quality standards. The level of regulation depends on the risk of pollution to the water environment posed by certain activity. In order to carry out an activity, which has the potential to cause a significant impact on the environment it is necessary to obtain an Environmental Impact Permit. The applicant must prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that examines all of the potential risks to, and impacts on the environment, and show that all appropriate measures are undertaken to minimize the identified risks and impacts on the environment (including water ecosystems). Low risk activities are subject to technical regulations on water abstraction and discharge. The State conducts a National water quality monitoring program to determine whether water bodies within the State comply with the relevant standards. There are no special permits for water extraction/use in Georgia. Both industrial discharge and water extraction are regulated through the environmental impact permit process. The environmental impact permit system needs improvement. Presently, the process cannot adequately address all water quality and quantity-related issues. The environmental impact permit does not address major industrial sectors responsible for high loads of nutrient-containing wastewater, such as food industries. Activities not subject to environmental impact permits have to comply with technical environmental regulations, which establish pollution discharge standards and provide for the approval of 5-year water extraction projects by the MEPNR. However, this standardized approach to discharge control does not account for differing background conditions, differing sensitivities of areas or the cumulative effect of several industries in a neighborhood. Finally, enforcement of environmental impact permit conditions and technical environmental regulations needs strengthening. The maximum allowable concentrations of the different substances for industrial and wastewater facilities which discharge to surface water bodies established by the above mentioned technical regulation are presented in the Table 9. It should be mentioned that no administrative framework to evaluate and manage diffuse sources of pollution from agriculture presently exits. Diffuse pollution from agriculture is primarily caused by the improper application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Other sources are point and diffuse pollution from stock farms (nitrates and ammonia). In order to achieve and maintain appropriate water quality, Georgia intends to amend the existing administration principles of water resource management and introduce an integrated river basin management approach.

Table 9: Maximum allowable concentration for effluent wastewater in Georgia. Ingredient Maximum allowable concentration for wastewater Suspended solids 60 mg/l

BOD 25 mgO2/l COD 125 mg O2/l Total P 2 mg/l TPH 5.0 mg/l Total N 15 mg/l Detergents 2.0 mg/l Fat 5 mg/l Phenols 0.1 mg/l Cr +6 0.1 mg/l Ni +2 1.0 mg/l Zn +2 4.0 mg/l Pb +2 1.0 mg/l Sn +2 2.0 mg/l Fe 2.0 mg/l Cu +2 3.0 mg/l Formaldehyde 0.05 mg/l pH 6.5-8.5 Temperature The wastewater temperature must not increase more than 50 oC of the monthly mean temperature of the last 10 year temperature of the very hot summer period . It is impossible to achieve reasonable and effective water use and satisfy interests of all interested parties, such as energy producers, the local population, enterprises, agriculture and recreation use, and on the other hand, to protect and maintain the aquatic ecosystems within the whole water basin, through the use of an administrative model of water resource management. The experience of many countries has shown that the Integrated River Basin Management System is much more effective for these purposes. In this approach, the water resource is considered in its entirety, without fragmentation and as such must balance the needs of all interested parties, such as water users located upstream and downstream, urban development or economic interests. A new Law on Water is being prepared to introduce this approach in Georgia. It is also planned to develop river basin management plans for each basin. A New Framework Water Law of Georgia is currently under preparation. The law will address all types of water bodies including groundwater and both water quality and quantity. It will provide for water management at river-basin level and incorporate all aspects of integrated water resources management, including a water classification system, water quality objectives and standards, water use, water resources planning, pollution prevention, monitoring and enforcement, flood risk management and public participation. Adoption of the new water law will be a significant step towards establishing internationally accepted water sustainability management practices. Georgia, as the ENP partner country, has committed to harmonize its water-related legislation to the EU water acquits. Full implementation of the EU-Georgia Action Plan will have considerable environmental benefits for Georgia in terms of establishing more sustainable use and management of water; more efficient and effective management of water at a river basin level; reduced flood risks; reduced pollution due to improved treatment of wastewaters; benefits for human health due to improved quality of drinking and bathing waters; benefits for ecosystems; improved conditions for economic activities, Tourism, for example; establishment of instruments to address water scarcity; development of water pricing as a tool for cost recovery and steering consumer behavior; and building ownership among stakeholders, as a result of public participation.

3.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN GEORGIA Due to the industrial decline since the breakup of the Soviet Union, total water withdrawal in Georgia has decreased. The amount of irrigated land also declined significantly. Industrial discharges, as well as the application of agricultural fertilizers and pesticides also declined. In the future, coincident with economic growth, water use, both extraction and discharge, is projected to increase. The planned increase in the number of hydroelectric facilities, a growing tourism industry, enlarged water supply networks and expanded irrigation systems will raise the demand and impact on water. Unless effective regulatory measures are enacted Georgian water resources will face increasing pressures. Untreated municipal wastewater is responsible for 67% of all surface water pollution. Industrial sectors strongly affecting surface water quality are: mining, oil production and food production. Other sources are: unsanitary landfills, illegal dumpsites and agricultural activities. Georgian rivers are mainly polluted with nitrogen or sometimes with heavy metals (River Mashavera, Bolnisi Region; River Kvirila, near Chiatura and Zestafoni) and rivers of the Black Sea in Adjara Regions are polluted with oil products. The main sources of polluting surface waters in Georgia are the water supply and sewerage systems, heat power engineering and industry. Water pollutants according to the sectors are distributed as follows: Water supply and sewerage systems – 344.1 mi c.m. per year (i.e., 67%) Heat power engineering – 163.8 mi c.m. per year (i.e., 31%) Industry – 9.6 mi c.m. per year (i.e., 2%) So the main pollutant for surface waters is communal sector (sewerage of towns and populated areas). Untreated municipal wastewater discharges into the rivers, and diffuse pollution from agricultural lands are considered as the main sources of ammonia and nitrite pollution in Georgia’s rivers. In addition, legal and illegal landfills which are often located at river banks are significant polluters of rivers. The liquid substance which arises from the degradation of wastes, leachate, is highly toxic to aquatic life. It contains high levels of nutrients and heavy metals, and, depending on the type of wastes disposed at the landfill may contain significant quantities of other hazardous compounds. As it was mentioned above, untreated municipal wastewater is a major cause of surface water pollution in Georgia. Presently, none of the water treatment facilities may provide wastewater treatment according to national standards. Biological treatment of wastewater is not available in any town. Primary mechanical treatment is implemented only at Tbilisi-Rustavi regional treatment facility. As a result, there is important pollution on recipient water bodies. Most of the forty sewage systems serving urban areas in Georgia discharge untreated effluents into the river networks. Only two (Tbilisi-Rustavi and Sachkhere) provide the basic level of treatment which removes only a limited fraction of pollution from wastewater. As a result, the discharged wastewaters results in the significant pollution of rivers. Presently, almost all wastewater treatment plants are non-operational. Nationally, there is only one fully operational waste water treatment plant (WWTP) in Sachkhere. Another, in Gardabani, provides only primary mechanical treatment. The Gardabani WWTP receives municipal wastewaters from the capital Tbilisi and the city of Rustavi. However, a significant volume of untreated urban wastewater from Tbilisi and Rustavi is directly discharged into the Mtkvari River.

Gradual rehabilitation and construction of wastewater systems in Georgia have been proceeding for several years. The rehabilitation of water supply and sanitation systems in Batumi, Poti, Kutaisi, Borjomi and Bakuriani is ongoing. Construction of a biological wastewater treatment facility in Ninotsminda is being finalized. Construction projects for a biological wastewater treatment facility in Batumi and the coastal settlements between Batumi and the Turkish borders, as well as for the city of Poti, have been already developed. Similar projects for Kutaisi, Borjomi and Bakuriani need to be developed. Construction terms of these facilities will be planned once financial resources are secured. Full rehabilitation and modernization of the Gardabani WWTP is required by the environmental impact permit conditions to be undertaken before 2018. However, that rehabilitation has not yet started. A similar situation is evident for landfills. Only two landfills out of the existing 63 have obtained the required Environmental Impact Permits. In addition, 28 illegal landfills have been reported, most of which are located adjacent to rivers. These landfills will represent a significant source of pollution for many decades into the future. A significant number of large scale projects aimed at improving the sewerage networks and the installation of wastewater treatment systems in many towns in Georgia are currently at different stages of development. However, given the extensive works which must be carried out at national level and the level of investment required, it will take significant time before all sewerage systems are upgraded to meet the new standards. Tables 10 and 11 are providing figures regarding the discharge of wastewater into surface water bodies for years 2007-2012. Table 10: Main Indicators for Protection and Use of Water Resources. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Extraction of water from natural sources, total 31,541 30,098 33,803 33,517 22,767 29,210 Among them from ground water sources 422 431 447 3,120 381 368 Water Use, total 31,720 29,756 33,344 33,415 21,603 28,571 Among them for following needs: Household 391 399 412 3,129 439 330 Industrial 260 333 279 207 358 363 Irrigation 95 57 54 59 115 338 Agricultural and other 30,974 28,967 32,598 30,006 20,691 27,540 Wastewater discharge into surface water bodies 30,800 29,090 32,829 29,162 20,829 27,235 Among them: Polluted 452 614 469 126 626 475 of which: Untreated 293 486 439 - - - Insufficiently treated 160 128 30 - - - Clean without treatment 30,333 28,462 32,206 28,868 20,101 26,637 Sufficiently treated 15 14 155 41 102 445 Losses on water trasportation 505 437 549 668 571 224 Cycling and secondary water supply 258 180 205 117 238 238

Note: Including the water used by hydroelectric power plants. Source: Ministry of Environment and natural Resources protection of Georgia

Table 11: Wastewater Discharged into Surface Water Bodies. Wastewater Discharge into Surface Water Bodies (mln. cubic metre) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total discharge 751.3 404.1 535.8 174.6 607.0 501.7 Dirty water 357.4 358.4 371.3 97.4 441.9 287.3 Normatively clean 378.7 32.6 9.5 12.7 63.3 91.7 Normatively treated 15.2 13.8 155.5 41.0 101.8 122.7

Note: Excluding the water used by hydroelectric power plants. Source: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia

In these tables, the terms have the following meanings: Normatively Treated wastewater - wastewater, which were treated at the facilities and after treatment their discharge into water bodies do not cause a violation of water quality standards. Normatively Clean wastewater – wastewater, which is discharged without treatment in water bodies without affecting the water quality norms at the discharge point. Wastewater - industrial and household communal wastewater (including mining and drainage waters) received by water bodies without any treatment or insufficient treatment, which contain polluted substances in much greater amount than the maximum allowed. Table 12 presents the figures regarding the discharges of wastewater from various cities to the surrounding surface water bodies.

Table 12: Discharge of wastewater in surface water bodies (mi c.m.) 2000 2005 2008 2009 2011 2010 2012 Georgia, 398.0 47732.0 1 29090.2 1 32829.2 1 29162.0 1 20828.7 1 27235.1 1 total Tbilisi 1.0 4812.6 3750.0 4658.1 4.461.4 465.7 3656.3 Batumi 14.4 110.6 25.3 31.3 27.4 960.6 18.0 Zugdidi 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 3526.6 Poti 1.1 2.3 1.8 2.0 3.8 2.3 2.2 Qutaisi 19.0 1949.5 1 1053.6 1 1546.0 1 2060.2 1 1736.8 1 1767.7 1 Tkibuli 0.0 101.3 119.0 96.0 114.6 99.2 1.2 Tshkaltubo 0.8 14948.8 1 10694.0 1 12975.0 1 13405.5 1 Chiatura 1.4 4.4 5.0 4.2 5.0 5.3 1.7 Gori 1.7 1.7 2.0 3.2 0.1 0.9 Mtskheta 1.7 4.0 4.3 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 Telavi 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 Akhaltsikhe 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 4.8 1.1

1 – including water used by the power stations

Figure 12 presents the amount of total wastewater discharge and its parts classified as polluted, normatively clean or normatively treated wastewater.

Figure 12: Discharge of wastewater, mi c.m.

3.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN GEORGIA

In Georgia there is no experience and practice of constructing Natural Treatment Systems. The first experience was in 2010 when the Wood Service in partnership with Dutch company Ecofyt initiated the launch of a natural alternative system of wastewater treatment in Georgia – Constructed Wetlands. This system represented an artificial treatment reservoir with the water purification as its main purpose. In 2011 Wood Services was planning to build two constructed wetlands: the first one at Eco- hotel on Bazaleti Lake and second one at Aragvi Adventure Center in Tvalivi village. Though later, due to several causes, these plans were not yet implemented.

3.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN GEORGIA

As a potential local site for the construction of a Natural Treatment System, the city of Poti located at the borders of Central Kolkheti Wetland may be proposed. The total area of this protected wetland is 33,710 ha, divided into several separate sites: Churia 8,531 ha, Nabada 6,578 ha, Pichora- Paliastomi 18,486 ha. The potential site is located at an altitude of 1.2 m above sea level (min: -0.2 m, max: 5.5 m). Kolkheti wetlands are located at the western part of the Kolkheti lowlands and comprise three wetland complexes: Anaklia- Churia, Nabada (Chaladidi) and Pichora-Paliastomi (Imnati). Territories are shared between Guria and Samegrelo Regions and the city of Poti, and encompass the administrative districts of Lanchkhuti, Senaki, Khobi and Zugdidi. Wetland territories are characterized by substantial stocks of peat, excessive moisture and humidity, richness with relict and endemic flora and fauna, rivers and lakes with abundant water resources. The sea level of the sight fluctuates in the limit of 0-22 meters. The region is an ideal flat and is faintly inclined to the sea and is characterized by slight dismembered surface. From the geological point of view the region is young. Its formation started in the middle of Holocene during the last 5-6 thousand years. Geomorphologically it is an accumulating plane with high hydrographical network. The big rivers (Rioni, Tskenistskhali, Abasha, Tekhuri, Khobi, Natanebi, Supsa) are transit rivers supplied by: snow, rain, ground and glacial waters. The small rivers are of marsh type. There are several lakes in the region. The most significant one is Paliastami , with the water table of 18.2 sq. km, having 3.2 meters depth. The lakes are located at the coastal part and are of lagoon origin. In the central part of the plane there are river-originated lakes, which are the subjects of a significant anthropogenic impact. There are coastal peat bogs between the mouths of Supsa, Rioni, Khobi and Enguri rivers, just behind the relict coastal bank (Grigoleti, Imnati, Nabada, Churia, etc.). The surface of the peat bogs is almost at the sea level, and the peat reaches the depth of 5-12 m (i.e., most is immersed below sea level). The age of deepest formations is estimated at 6,200-5,800 years (radiocarbon method). The region and its coastal part is an important area for 21 species of migratory birds, their recreation and wintery. Central Kolkheti wetlands (Churia, Nabada, Pichora) and Ispani II have been designated as a Georgian RAMSAR site. The establishment of Kolkheti National Park and Kobuleti Nature Reserve, on the other side is rendering the status of the wetlands of International Importance to them. The city of Poti is located on the coast of the Black Sea on the Kolkheti lowlands, by the estuary of the Rioni river. The average altitude is 0.8 m above sea level. The city is enclosed by the Kaparchina river, lake Paliastomi and the sea. The territory of the town covers 69 km². Information on population is provided below in Table 13.

Figure 13: Map of the potential site for NTS construction.

Table 13: Population change of Poti Municipality (Thousands). 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Poti 46.6 46.6 47.0 47.3 47.3 47.4 47.6 47.7 47.7 47.87 (source: http://geostat.ge )

The climate is determined by the Black Sea to the west and the amphitheatre of three big mountain ranges (the Great Caucasus, the Likhi and the Meskheti), in addition to the surrounding Kolkheti lowland (wetland) in the center. Because of its geographic situation, the Kolkheti lowland region represents a unique climate grouping. It combines a high annual temperature of 14.1oC with extremes ranging from -15 oC to +45 oC. The annual amount of precipitation varies between 2,531 mm in the south and 1,458 mm in the north of Kolkheti lowland. 29% of the precipitation falls in summer. Consequently, annual air humidity is high with values between 70% and 83% (source: Poti hydrometeorological station). The Rioni River is the main river of western Georgia. It originates in the Caucasus Mountains in the region of Racha and flows westwards to the Black Sea, entering the city of Poti from its north. The Rioni is the longest river flowing entirely within the borders of Georgia. The length of the river is 327 km and its drainage reaches 13,400 km². It starts from the southern slopes of the Caucasus Mountains at 2,960 meters above the sea level. The river receives its largest tributaries just leaving the mountains, when it reaches the area of the Kolkhida lowlands, where its watershed area increases by three times. The watershed of the river covers about the half of the area of Western Georgia Central Kolkheti (33,710 ha), on both sides of the Rioni River mouth, along the central part of the eastern Black Sea coast in the regions of Guria and Samegrelo, near the city of Poti. The site contains many relicts and endemic species of flora and fauna. The basin of river Rioni is one of the most densely populated regions, especially at the river valleys. As a result, there is a high anthropogenic pressure on the environment. For river Rioni the major effluents originate from: household waste, landfills, sewage, organic fertilizers used in agriculture, industry etc. In terms of pollution the greatest impacts originate from the cities: Kutaisi, Poti, Zestaphoni, Chiatura and their surrounding areas. The regular monitoring of river Rioni is conducted by the National Environmental Agency (NEA). For water quality trend analyses, the NEA’s water pollution monitoring data of the targeted region were used. NEA conducted water quality monitoring at two points: river Rioni – Poti (south)

and Rioni – Poti (north). In the water samples, 33 physical and chemical parameters were measured.

For the trend analyses the following parameters were selected: BOD 5, nitrate, phosphate and ammonium nitrogen. Figures 14-22 present the temporal trends of these compounds during the period 2008-2012.

Figure 14: Concentration of nitrate-nitrogen in Rioni – Poti, north, 2008-2012 (in mg/l).

Figure 15: Concentration of ammonium-nitrogen in Rioni – Poti, north, 2008-2012 (in mg/l).

Figure 16: Concentration of phospates in Rioni – Poti, north, 2008-2012 (in mg/l).

Figure 17: Concentration of BOD 5 in Rioni – Poti, north, 2008-2012 (in mg/l).

Figure 18: Concentration of nitrate-nitrogen in Rioni – Poti, south, 2008-2012 (in mg/l).

Figure 19: Concentration of ammonium-nitrogen in Rioni – Poti, south, 2008-2012 (in mg/l).

Figure 20: Concentration of phospates in Rioni – Poti, south, 2008-2012 (in mg/l).

Figure 21: Concentration of BOD 5 in Rioni – Poti, south, 2008-2012 (in mg/l). Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) of the different substances in surface waters are set up by the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia Order N297/n (August 16, 2001) on “Approval of Environment Quality Norms”. In accordance to this document the MAC for BOD 5 is 6 mg/l, for nitrate-nitrogen is 10 mg/l, for ammonium-nitrogen is 0.39 mg/l and for phosphates is 3.5 mg/l. On the basis of above mentioned we may conclude that during the last years BOD 5, nitrates and phosphates concentration levels were monitored below the relevant MACs, but ammonium- nitrogen concentrations mostly exceeded the norm.

4. COUNTRY-SPECIFIC REPORT - GREECE

4.1 GREEK LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT

4.1.1. Introduction The integrated management of municipal wastewater constitutes a basic prerequisite for the development of a long-term sustainable strategic management of the environment. The treatment of municipal and industrial wastewaters is an important sector of the general framework of water resources management - and aims at the reduction of the pollution burden of water resources and the marine environment. Although a large number of municipal wastewater infrastructure works is presently in operation or under construction, many municipalities continue to lack suitable systems for the collection, treatment and disposal of municipal wastewater.

4.1.2. Existing situation In recent years many municipal wastewater management projects have been included in the financing programs of the European Union (A and B Community Support Framework, ENVIREG, etc) and have been completed or are under implementation. The progress made in municipal wastewater facilities implementation and the corresponding population sensed is presented in Figure 22. At a country-wide level, the production of municipal wastewater corresponds to a total population equivalent (PE) of 12.0-12.5 x 10 capita; around 80% of this population is served today by secondary treatment facilities.

4.1.3. Institutional framework Casual observation reveals that environmental protection does not suffer from the lack of sufficient rules and regulations but from the deficient observance; this is also true for the sector of municipal wastewater management. The main institutional framework for wastewater management is shown in Figure 23. Since 1965, the Sanitary Decree Elb/221/1965, in addition to the operational conditions for small private drainage systems, has set the general terms for the disposal of sewage and industrial waste, depending on the type of receiving waters and soil. Furthermore, the Decree defined the procedure for securing the disposal license, which is in force until today. The engagement and obligations of Greece regarding the integrated management of urban sewages result from Council Directive of 21 May 1991 on the treatment of urban wastewater (Directive 91/271/EEC), which constitutes a key environmental policy of the European Union. One of the main provisions of this Directive is the obligation to establish at agglomerations wastewater collection systems combined with a suitable treatment process and a detailed timetable was proposed depending on the size of the community and the sensitivity of the receiving waters. However, the progress made in achieving these objectives is problematic, because of the delayed incorporation of the Directive to the National Law of Greece. Although, according to the Directive provisions, the terminal date for compliance with it was June 30 of 1993. The relative Ministerial Decision (MD) No. 5673/400/97 (Official Gazette 192B/1997) was published with four years delay.

Figure 22: Progress of municipal wastewater facilities and Figure 23: Main institutional framework for wastewater population served in Greece. management in Greece.

According to the 7th report of the European Committee regarding the application of Directive 91/271/EEC and the progress achieved by the Member States, most of the EU Member States collect their wastewaters at very high levels with an average rate of compliance equal to 94% (up from 92%). Some 15 Member States even reach compliance of 100%. All Member States have either maintained or improved on previous results. In 2009/2010, a total of 82% of the waste waters in the EU received secondary treatment complying with the provisions of the Directive, four percentage points up from the previous Report. Four Member States reached 100% compliance and another six Member States had levels of compliance of 97% and higher.

Figure 24: Compliance results per Mem ber State regarding Article 3 of the Directive (collection), in green, Article 4 (secondary treatment), in pink and article 5 (more stringent treatment), in blue

4.1.4. Problems, interventions, proposals The issues of management of wastewater have repeatedly concerned the Department of Quality of Life of the Independent Authority of The Greek Ombudsman ever since its operation begun. Individual sections, including collection, transport, treatment and final disposal of sewage and treatment by-products have been the subject of complaints of individual citizens and environmental organizations, with emphasis on the compliance of the administrative processes.

More specifically, charges have been addressed for the lack of sewerage systems and wastewater treatment facilities in many municipalities of the country, especially in small areas. The disposal of raw sewage in the surface receiving waters or soil, causes deterioration of water quality and places in danger public health. In the case of small private sewage treatment systems the control of operation is difficult, mainly as a consequence of not rational legal implementation of the system. Complaints often concern the lack of compliance to legal processes during the environmental appraisal of projects. Specifically, it is observed that the environmental impact assessment studies either are prepared at a slow rate and are approved following the completion of the project or are assigned after the completion of the final study of the project, aiming at the validation of the absence of environmental impacts. This a posteriori potential legalization of illegal situations not only is not consistent with the objectives of the standing legislative framework for an integrated prevention and pollution control, but also contributes to the perpetuation and consolidation of informal practices. The inadequate operation of industrial wastewater treatment facilities and non observance of approved environmental terms have also been ascertained during the investigation of a large number of complaints. In view these findings, the Greek Ombudsman has repeatedly pointed out to the responsible authorities: the prohibition of uncontrolled wastewater disposal, the obligation of systematic enforcement by the administration of the expected administrative actions and penalties, the need of observance of approved environmental terms, and the application of measures for continuous monitoring of qualitative parameters towards controlled wastewater disposal, as well as the need to meet legal assumptions during the environmental appraisal process of projects and assignment of the implementation of a project. Unfortunately, the response of the administration to the proposals of the Greek Ombudsman is not satisfactory. In most cases, interruption of uncontrolled disposal was not feasible, while at the same time the administration systematically abstained from the imposition of penalties to the responsible municipalities, citing the absence of alternative solutions or the initiation of environmental appraisal of projects, without, however, having completed the relative studies and bid the necessary projects.

4.1.5. Conclusions The Greek Ombudsman, as a basic mechanism of control for the application of environmental rules from the administration, has become the recipient of an important number of complaints that are related to the sectors of collection, transport, treatment and final disposal of sewages and the by-products of treatment. The abatement of relative problems is particularly difficult because of the paucity or inexistence of valid informative data, suitable for forming a rational estimate of existing conditions and proposing appropriate solutions. The direct consequence of the above is the breakdown of competences and not assuming responsibility by the competent authorities, which contributes to the slow rate of progress of relative procedures.

4.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN GREECE

Wastewater treatment in all parts of Europe has improved during the last 15-20 years. The percentage of the population connected to wastewater treatment in the Southern, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe has increased over the last ten years. Latest values of population connected to wastewater treatment in the Southern countries are comparable to the values of Central and Northern countries, whereas the values of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe are still relatively low compared to Central and Northern Europe (Figure 25).

100 Central Cyprus Greece Spain France Malta Italy North South East South - east 100 Portugal 90 90 80 and and

70 80

60 70

50 60

40 50 30 UWWTPs 40 connectedtowaterwastecollectionand UWWTPs 20

30 10

0 20 % of population population of % 10 % of population connected to waste water collection water waste to connected population of % 2007(6) 1990(4) 1995(4) 2000(4) 2002(4) 1990(8) 1995(8) 1995(3) 2001(3) 2002(4) 1995(2) 1998(2) 2002-4(7) 1994-5(3) 2003-4(3) 2003-4(3) 0 2005-2006(3) 2005-2006(7) 2007-2008(6) 2005-2007(5) 2008-2009(5) 2006-2007(3) 2008-2009(3) 1997-2000(4) 2008-2009(4) 1999 2000 2002 2004 2005 1980 1985 1993 1995 1997 2007 2009 1980 1985 1991 1995 2000 2001 2005 2006 2007 2008 2001 2004 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 2006 2007 2008 2005 Tertiary Secondary Primary Collected without treatment ( ) number of countries Tertiary Secondary Primary Collected without treatment Figure 25: Changes in wastewater treatment in regions of Figure 26: Changes in wastewater treatment in Southern Europe between 1990 and 2009 (Source: Eurostat) European countries between 1980s and 2009 (Source: Eurostat)

The overall rate of population connected to wastewater treatment ranges from 13% to 94% in the countries of Southern Europe, being highest in Italy (94%), Spain (92%) and Greece (88%) and lowest in Malta (13%). Tertiary treatment occurs most often in Italy, Greece with rates around 80% (Figure 26). The share of EU territory designated or considered as ‘sensitive area ’ has increased since the previous report, reaching almost 75% by 2010. The most relevant increases took place in France and Greece. The recent policy evaluation in the "Fitness check of EU freshwater policy" concluded that the effectiveness in the implementation of the Directive has been positively affected by the infringement procedures speeding up implementation. Even though enforcement action at EU level is a relatively slow and time-consuming process, the majority of cases have been resolved in the pre- litigation phase. Spain and Greece have made the most progress since the last reporting exercise amongst those Member States for which infringement procedures are pending, in particular as regards the treatment obligations [7th Report on the Implementation of the UWWT Directive (91/271/EEC)].

4.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN GREECE Natural systems often represent the main solution for wastewater treatment in rural areas and small, isolated or peri-urban communities, where there is no possibility of residence connection to a sewer and a public wastewater treatment system. This chapter summarizes the existing NTS applications in Greece.

4.3.1. Full-scale CW systems A NTS system was implemented in Pompia (Crete) in 1999 and comprises: (a) septic tank, (b) FWS CW system of 2 cells (4300m 2 and 1200m 2 respectively) planted with P. australis and A. donax (Figure 27). The basic parameters that were used for the pilot plant design were: ü Population served: 1200p.e. ü Mean daily flow: 144m 3/d ü Maximum and Minimum daily flow rate: 216m 3/d and 27.7m 3/h

ü Biological loading: 400mg BOD 5/L ü Septic tank effluent loading: 250mg

BOD 5/L

ü FWS effluent loading: 10mg BOD 5/L and COD<50mg/L ü Retention time: 5-14 days Figure 27: Schematic diagram of the pilot plant (Pompia) ü Sewage average temperature in winter 10 oC and in summer 22 oC A CW (Zdragas et al., 2002) built next to Gallikos River (area of Thessaloniki, North Greece) has been in operation since April 1997 for the secondary treatment of 100 m3/d of municipal wastewater, with an organic load (BOD) of 120 mg/L. The effluent is distributed equally to four parallel FWS beds (each 40.0 m x 13.8 m x 1.0 m), planted with Typha latifolia and substrate material clay loam for two of the beds and sandy loam for the other two. Then the effluent is channeled to a facultative stabilization pond (26.2 m x 20.8 m x 2.1 m) in order to enhance nutrient removal through algae and denitrification. Finally the effluent is redistributed into two HSF beds (each 32.4m x 19.2m x 1.0m) lined with limestone and planted with Phragmites communis . The cumulative residence time of the wastewater in all three

Figure 28 : Nea Madytos facility. compartments of the system is 14 days.

Another CW facility (Gikas et al. 2010) operates in Nea Madytos (a village in Thessaloniki Prefecture, Northern Greece) and was designed for 3,000p.e. (person equivalent). This facility comprises the following stages (Figure 28): (1) screen, (2) primary settling tank (Imhoff tanks), (3) 1st stage VF CWs (8 similar cells with a total area 1,360m 2), (4) 2nd stage VF CWs (6 cells with a total area 1,020m 2), (5) 3rd stage VF CWs (6 cells with a total area 1,170m 2), (6) two maturation ponds in series (total area 5,000m 2), (7) VF CWs for sludge treatment (SDRB; 4 cells with a total area 560m 2). All CW cells are planted with Phragmites australis . The porous media thickness of the wetland cells is 1.0m. A hybrid system was designed in Gomati (Chalkidiki Prefecture, North Greece) in order to serve 1,000p.e. (Gikas et al. 2007a; Tsihrintzis et al. 2007). It comprises the following stages (Figure 29): (1) screen, (2) primary twin settling tank (48m 3 each), (3) twin 3 sludge digestion-stabilization tank (48m each), (4) Figure 29: Gomati facility siphon tank, (5) 1 st stage VF CWs (4 cells 640m 2 each), (5) 2 nd stage VF CWs (4 cells 360m 2 each), (6) 3 rd stage HSF CW (800m 2), (7) VF CWs for sludge treatment. The sludge after 3 months residence in the settling tank is guided to the VF CWs beds (SDRB, 4 cells 60m 2 each) for sludge treatment. All CWs are planted with Phragmites australis . A FWS CW facility was designed to treat agricultural runoff (Akratos et al. 2006b). The CW receives agricultural drainage from a nearby drainage canal. After treatment, the wetland effluent is discharged into a nearby coastal lagoon used for fisheries (Vassova lagoon). The wetland is longitudinally divided into three cells by short levees made from permeable gravel placed across the wetland width. The aim of these levees is to pond and distribute the flow uniformly across the wetland, to avoid channeling and short-circuiting. A NTS system was designed in Agios Panteleimonas (2009) in order to serve 1,650 p.e. The facility comprises of a primary settling tank, 1st stage 4 VF CWs (225 m2 each and 1.45 m depth), 2nd stage 4 VF CWs (130 m2 each), 2 stabilization ponds (1.5 m depth and area 2,300 m2 the first and 2.5 m depth and area 1,400 m2 the second) and a sludge tank. The facility in Ano Porroia was recently updated (2009) and serves 2000 p.e. It now comprises of an anaerobic tank (12 m x 18 m) and 3 soil tanks (58 m x 9 m), with the first serving as stabilization pond and the other as FWS CWs. Effluent undergoes chlorination before exposal to adjacent stream. Finally, a NTS facility was constructed in Atsiki, for the wastewater treatment of Atsiki and Karpasi communities (1,400 p.e.). It involves: two twin anaerobic tanks (10 m x 5 m, 4.5 m depth and 400 m3 volume each), a facultative pond (120 m x 42 m and 1.75 m depth), two maturation ponds (55 m x 25 m, 1.5 m depth each) and a hybrid pond (120 m x 25 m). The first half of the hybrid pond serves as maturation pond (60 m x 25 m) and the effluent is channeled in the second half, which serves as a HSF CW. The embankment slope is 2:1. The effluent is disposed at the Bay of Moudros after UV treatment.

4.3.2. On-site CW system design and monitoring Two constructed wetlands were designed, constructed and are in operation for on-site, household wastewater treatment in the area of Thrace (Gikas et al. 2007b; Gikas & Tsihrintzis 2009a, b, 2010). The first unit is a HSF CW treating wastewater from a

single-family (4 p.e.) house Figure 30: Plan view and section along the constructed wetland system in Kosmio located in Kosmio village (Rhodope Prefecture, North-east Greece). It consists of (Figure 30): (a) two sedimentation tanks in series, (b) an HSF constructed wetland (25 m2) planted with reeds, (c) a zeolite tank, (d) a pump for recirculation, and (e) an outlet collection tank. Before entering the system, raw domestic wastewater enters two pre-existing storage tanks, then it over- flows into the sedimentation tanks, and then to the CW, and finally to the zeolite tank. The total HRT in the system is 14 days. The second unit is a vertical flow (VF) constructed wetland designed to treat wastewater from a two-family house (8p.e.) in Avdira (Xanthi Prefecture, North Greece). This system consists of: (a) two tanks in series, (b) a pump vault, (c) a vertical flow CW, (d) a zeolite tank, and (e) an outlet tank (Figure 31). The raw wastewater enters the first tank and then through an overflow pipe it enters the next tank. In the pump vault, a

Figure 31: Plan view of constructed wetland system in Avdira. pump is used to discharge wastewater onto the CW beds. The HRT in the three tanks is approximately 4.5 days. The pump discharges every about three hours approximately 150 liters of wastewater. The bed is separated in two equally sized (12.2 m2) cells (A and B). Cell A is planted with common reed and cell B is not planted. The effluent from the beds enters the zeolite tank for better nitrogen/phosphorus removal.

4.3.3. Stabilization Ponds Around 90% of the SPs are situated in Northern Greece, serving populations ranging from 500 up to 4,000 p.e. in rural regions. The 76% of them are located in the Region of Serres. A plant with stabilization ponds was constructed in 1996, under the supervision of the National Agricultural Research Foundation (N.AG.RE.F.). It consists of an anaerobic pond (with effective depth 4 m and total volume of 570 m3) and three parallel systems (Papadopoulos et al. 2011). Each system consists of a sequence of 3 ponds in series - one facultative followed by two maturation ponds (Figure 32). Each pond has a surface area of 1,200 m2 (60 m x 20 m)

Figure 32: Schematic diagram of the pilot plant (Sindos). 54

and an embankment slope of 2:1. The effective depths and volumes for the facultative and the maturation ponds are 1.75 m and 1,380 m3 and 1.25 m and 900 m3, respectively. All the ponds are lined with HDPE 1mm geo-membrane to prevent seepage of wastewater. There are 3 projects regarding the mentioned SPs: First project (1997-2001) : The objective was to evaluate the capacity of stabilization ponds in treating domestic sewage, which was received by the adjacent conventional treatment plant. This research project tested the system behavior under different organic loading rate conditions. Second project (2004-2005): The objective was to test the potential use of ponds in septage treatment. Septage still consist the major volume of domestic wastewater in the countryside. Third project (2008-2009): The average inflow was 36 m3/d during the cold season and it was increased to 60m 3/d in the warm months for the better simulation of the rise in population during the tourism period of the summer. The HRT was 24, 16.5 and 17.5 days in the warm season, with a total HRT of 58 days and 38, 25 and 25 days, with a total HRT of 88 days in the cold season. Three NTS systems are placed in the region of Florina, at Vegora, Faraggi. The SP system in Vegora comprises one anaerobic pond (area 120 m3), one facultative pond, with effective depth 1.75m and 2 maturation ponds, with effective depth 1.25m (60 m x 25 m) and a reservoir (2.5 m depth and 2,500 m 3 volume). Accordingly, the SP system in Faraggi comprises one anaerobic pond (60 m3), one facultative (1.75 m depth) and 2 maturation ponds (1.25 m depth) and a reservoir (3.5 m depth and 2,600 m3 volume). All the ponds and reservoir are lined with HDPE 1mm geo-membrane with an embankment slope of 2:1. In Lesvos a SP facility serves 400 p.e. and includes 2 anaerobic tanks (4 m x 4 m, 60 m3 volume), a facultative pond (16 m x 50 m), 2 maturation ponds (16 m x 50 m and 14 m x 49 m, respectively) and a reservoir for irrigation purposes (4,900 m3).

4.3.4. Full-scale CW system under implementation The following systems have been designed by the laboratory of Ecological Engineering and Technology (DUTH) but have not been implemented yet: A CW (Gikas et al. 2006) was designed to treat wastewater from Neos Oikismos (Korestia Municipality, Kastoria Prefecture, North-west Greece) and to serve 600 p.e. The facility comprises of three stages: two VFCWs and one HSFCW. The 1st stage consists of 3 VF CW beds of a total area of 891 m2 or 1.5 m2/p.e.; the 2 nd stage, consists of 2 VF CW beds of a total area of 594 m2 or 1.0 m2/p.e. and the 3 rd stage of one HSF CW bed of 903 m2 surface area or 1.5 m2/p.e. The porous media of the 1 st and 2 nd stage CW beds has 0.9 m depth and consists of three layers from bottom to top: a) 1 st stage CW, cobbles (20 –40 mm; 0.20 m), gravel (5 – 20 mm; 0.20 m), fine gravel (2 –8 mm; 0.50 m), b) 2 nd stage CW, cobbles (20 –40 mm; 0.20 m), fine gravel (3 –8 mm; 0.30 m), coarse sand (0.2 –4 mm; 0.4 m). The HSF CW bed has 0.5 m depth and is filled with coarse gravel (18 –30 mm). Another CW was designed to treat wastewater from Rhoditis (Rhodope Prefecture, North-east Greece) (800 p.e) and consists of two septic tanks, placed in parallel, having a total volume of 480m 3 (240 m3 each of them) and a HRT of about 4 days, 1st and 2 nd stage VF CW beds, and 3 rd stage HSF CW. The 1 st stage consists of 3 similar beds with a total area of 960 m2 or 1.2 m2/p.e.; the 2 nd stage consists of two similar CW beds with a total surface area of 640 m2 or 0.8 m2/p.e., and the 3 rd stage consists of one bed of 600 m2 or 0.75 m2/p.e. Another VF CW system was designed to serve 1,200 p.e in Kyprinos (Evros Prefecture, North- east Greece). It consists of three septic tanks in parallel, with a total volume of 720 m3 (240 m3 each) and a HRT of about 4 days, 1 st and 2 nd stage VF CW beds, and 3rd stage HSF CW. The 1 st stage consists

of 3 similar beds with a total area of 1,440 m2 or 1.2 m2/p.e.; the 2 nd stage consists of two similar CW beds with a total surface area of 960 m2 or 0.8 m2/p.e. and the 3 rd stage consists of one bed of 600 m2 or 0.5 m2/p.e. The porous media of the 1 st and 2 nd stage CW beds of Rhoditis and Kyprinos systems has 0.9 m depth and consists of four layers from bottom to top: cobbles (30 –60 mm; 0.20 m), coarse gravel (8 –20 mm; 0.30 m), fine gravel (3 –10 mm; 0.30m) and coarse sand (0.2 –3 mm; 0.10 m). The HSF CW bed of the two systems has a 0.5 m depth and is filled with coarse gravel (18 –30 mm). Another facility was designed in order to serve 2 settlements (Kalithea and Leukona, total 600 p.e.) at the region of Prespes (Florina County). The effluent values must conform to those mentioned at Table 14. Figure 33 presents all the units of the current facility.

Table 14: Required effluent values

Parameter BOD 5 COD TSS Tot . Nitrogen Tot . coliforms Faecal coliforms Required effluent <25 <100 <50 <15 <1000/100mL <200/100mL value (mg/L)

Figure 33: Kalitheas and Leukonas settlement flow diagram.

1) Inlet sewer, 2) Screen, 3) Siphon shaft, 4) Distribution siphon, 5) 1 st stage VF CWs, 6) 2 nd stage VF CWs, 7) 3 rd stage HSF CWs, 8) UV disinfection unit, 9) Outlet siphon, 10) Leukona stream, 11) Waste collection unit, 12) Digested sludge reclamation uses, 13) Plant composting unit, 14) Plants ( Phragmites Australis ).

Table 15: CWs data 1st stage VF 2nd stage VF 2rd stage HSF Efffective Area (m 2/p.e) 1.5 1 1.5 Number of Cells 3 2 2 340 340 495 Cell surface (external dimensions) (m 2) (16.5x21.5) (16.5x21.5) (18.5x27.5) 295 295 485 Effective cell surface (external dimensions) (m 2) (15,1x20,1) (15,1x20,1) (17,3x26,3) Total cell surface (m 2) 1020 680 990

At the region of Prespes (Florina County) another facility was also designed to cover the needs of 3 settlements (Agiou Germanou, Lemou and Plateos). The total population that it was designed to serve is 1310p.e. Figure 34 presents all the current facility units and Table 15 indicates data of the CW units.

Figure 34: Agiou Germanou, Lemou and Plateos settlement flow diagram.

1) Inlet sewer, 2) Screen, 3) Anaerobic tank (600m 3), 4) Distribution siphon with pump, 5) 1 st stage VF CWs, 6) 2 nd stage VF CWs, 7) 3 rd stage HSF CWs, 8) UV disinfection unit, 9) Outlet siphon, 10) Agios Germanos stream, 11) Waste collection unit, 12) Digested sludge reclamation us es, 13) Plant composting unit, 14) Plants ( Phragmites Australis ).

4.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN GREECE A study was conducted by the DUTH (Gemitzi et al. 2007), in order to select the most suitable areas for the installation of natural wastewater treatment systems, such as SPs. The areas included in this study were the region of Thrace, Northeast Greece and two islands, Thassos and Samothraki (Figure 35). The studied area has a surface area of 8,500km 2, with a Mediterranean type climate (Petalas 1997), and small villages spread in a wide area. The Mediterranean climate and the population distribution in small communities, together with the lack of wastewater treatment facilities in most parts of the region (except in the three urban centers Xanthi, Komotini and Alexandroupolis) make Thrace an ideal area for the establishment of natural treatment systems. The selection of the areas suitable for NTS installation depends on socioeconomic, environmental and design criteria, topography, land use, geological formation, distance to major rivers or lakes, distance to existing cities and villages, mean Figure 35: Location map showing the study area minimum monthly temperatures, the existence of environmentally protected areas, population served and the required wastewater effluent characteristics (Gemitzi et al. 2007).

Figure 36: (a) slope grid of the study area; (b) grid of selected areas with slope less than 5%.

In order to have an effective operation in the NTS, mild topography is required. Mild slopes lead to higher hydraulic residence time and eventually higher removal capacity, while steeper areas are economically unadvisable due to the excessive excavation requirements (Economopoulou and Tsihrintzis 2002; 2004). The maximum admissible slope for an SP system is 5%, while areas with slope higher than 5% were rejected (Figure 36).

In addition, the hydrogeological setting of the study area was examined in order to divide it into two categories: those that were or could become groundwater resources (aquifers) and those with no potential of groundwater resources (aquitards). Areas that belonged to the first category were rejected as inappropriate for NTS siting (Figure 37a). Despite the low seismic activity of the study area, with most of the area classified in Zone 1 of the new seismic hazard map of Greece (OASP, 2004), buffer zones of 500 m along both sides of major faults (Figure 37b) were assigned, so as to prevent the location of the proposed facilities to be on or too close to known faults (Figure 37b). According to the land use criteria, two classifications are acceptable for NTS: non- forested areas, which are agricultural or populated areas and grasslands (Figure 38a, b). The rest of the land use areas were rejected, as they were covered by sparse or dense forest. In order to avoid any public opposition a distance of 500 m was established from residential areas (villages and cities) (Figure Figure 37: (a) Distinction of the hydrogeological 38c). formations to two major categories; (b) 500 -m buffer zones along both sides of major faults in the study area. A distance of 300 m from highways and railways was adopted (mainly for visual impacts), but not for small provincial roads, since the treatment facility has to have access (Figure 39a). A 500 m buffer zone has been created around lakes, marshes and rivers of perennial flow, not only for protecting surface waters from a possible leakage of untreated wastewaters, but also for protecting the facilities from flooding (Figure 39b). Finally protected areas were excluded from the NTS potential areas selection procedure (Figure 39c). All the distances were selected based on the Greek Governmental Ministry Decision 114218/97 (1997) for sanitary landfills.

Figure 38: (a) Land use map of the study area; (b) grid showing the selected land use areas; (c) a 500 - m built -up area buffer zone. 59

With all the variables examined a grid file was produced indicating the areas that satisfy all the criteria and are appropriate for NTS application (Figure 40). The final part of the study included the sizing of the NTS. A typical municipal wastewater

was used with unit flow 150 L/capita/d, BOD 5 330 mg/L, total coliform number 10 8/100 mL (Figure 41). Two were the performance criteria:

BOD 5 effluent concentration of 30 mg/L and total coliform effluent concentration of 1000/100 mL. The process was completed with the computation of the maximum unit area requirements (m 2/capita) for SP treatment systems for each municipality, in order to meet the corresponding performance criteria for the minimum temperatures.

Figure 40: Grid presenting selected areas for stabilization ponds

Figure 39: (a) A 300-m road and railway buffer zone; (b) A 500 -m river, lake and marsh buffer zone; (c) Areas that belong to the EU Natura 2000 network, or the Ramsar Convention, or are designated as National Parks.

Figure 41: Stabilization pond sizing graph

Table 16 presents the fraction of the municipal area (both in surface units and % of the total municipal area) (column 1 and 2) suitable for NTS application and the total area required, according to the population of the municipality (column 3). A comparison between columns 1 and 3 indicates whether the required area is available for NTS application. The final results are shown in Figure 42. Table 16: Available and required surface area for stabilization pond (SP) systems for each municipality. Available area for SP system installation Percent of the total Total area required (ha) for Municipality name based on the GIS analysis (km 2) municipality area (%) SP systems Kyprinou 97.3 72.3 4.3 Vissis 58.2 34.2 10.6 Didimotichou 166.0 47.8 23.2 Metaxadon 89.0 47.2 7.2 Orestiados 113.3 43.1 23.6 Orfea 107.0 16.6 11.6 Soufliou 20.3 4.4 12.8 Trigonou 130.8 32.9 11.7 Arrianon 46.4 19.4 9.8 Kechrou 7.8 N/A N/A Organis 0.0 0.0 N/A Sapon 143.7 47.9 11.5 Komotinis a 78.6 22.3 77.2 Maronias 113.4 39.2 9.7 Neou Sidirochoriou 10.8 12.5 3.7 Filliras 42.4 17.2 13.1 Amaxadon 0.9 2.5 2.5 Avdiron 55.0 34.2 4.5 Vistonidos 12.8 8.0 10.2 Thermon 0.0 0.0 N/A Kotilis 0.0 0.0 N/A Satron 0.3 0.2 1.9 Selerou 0.3 1.1 5.5 Egirou 16.1 8.5 5.0 Iasmou 2.2 1.0 9.2 Sostou 0.2 0.1 11.9 Mikis 4.4 N/A N/A Xanthis a 9.2 6.0 75.2 Stavroupolis 27.8 N/A N/A Feron 87.3 21.4 11.8 Alexandroupolis a 108.0 16.8 70.3 Samothrakis 31.2 17.3 5.5 Traianoupolis 26.5 16.2 4.2 Ticherou 9.2 4.2 5.6 Topirou 27.9 9.0 15.6 Thasou 28.0 7.3 22.7 N/A: SPs are not suitable for the specified municipality due to the low minimum temperatures.

aCities with existing conventional wastewater treatment systems. Stabilization pond systems can be used for upgrading existing treatment plants.

Figure 42: Municipalities where natural wastewater treatment systems, such as stabilization ponds, are a viable solution.

4.5 INVESTMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR NTS IN SMALL COMMUNITIES

A CW (Gikas et al., 2006) was designed, constructed and is now in operation to treat wastewater from Neos Oikismos, Korestia Municipality, Kastoria Prefecture, North-west Greece. Population served is 600 p.e. Wastewater discharge per p.e. is 150L/d και the flow rate is 90m 3/d. Influent concentrations for design parameters are presented in Table 17.

Table 17: Characterization of influent wastewater Parameter Loading rate (g/ p.e. /d) Concentration (mg/L)

BOD 5 50 333 SS 52 350 TKN 10 67 TΡ 1.2 8

The facility has three stages, including two VF CWs and one HSF CW (Figure 43). The 1st stage consists of three similar CW beds of a total area of 891 m2 or 1.5 m 2/p.e.; the 2nd stage, consists of two similar CW beds of a total area of 594 m2 or 1.0 m2/p.e. and the 3rd stage of one HSF CW bed of 903 m2 surface area or 15 m2/p.e. (Figure 43). It should be noted that the system design followed the French approach, where there is no primary settling. In order to prevent leaks, an impermeable liner (membrane HDPE) is used to impede wastewater infiltration, and the consequent contaminants loading into the nearby groundwater system. The porous media of the 1st and 2nd stage CW beds has 0.9 m depth and consists of three layers from bottom to top: a) 1st stage CW, cobbles (20-40 mm; 0.20 m), gravel (5-20 mm; 0.20 m), fine gravel (2-8 mm; 0.50 m), b) 2nd stage CW, cobbles (20- 40 mm; 0.20 m), fine gravel (3-8 mm; 0.30 m), coarse sand (0.2-4 mm; 0.4 m). The HSF CW bed has 0.5 m depth and is filled with coarse gravel (18-30 mm). All the units are planted with common reed (Phragmites communis ). Technical specifications of the facility are summarized in Table 18.

Table 18: Technical specifications of CW in Neos Oikismos Parameter 1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage Unit type VF CW VF CW HSSF CW Number of units 3 2 1 Length (m) 18.0 18.0 21.5 Width (m) 16.5 16.5 42.0 Surface (m 2) 891 594 903 Depth (cm) 90 90 50 Plant density 4 plants /m 2 4 plants /m 2 4 plants /m 2 Plant type Phragmites Phragmites Phragmites

Vertical flow constructed wetlands (VFCW), such the present one in Neos Oikismos, are very effective and become more and more popular in Europe as much as in Greece. Table 19 presents mean pollutant removal statistics from 20 CWs systems in France, from Madytos, Greece (24 measurements) and from Gomati, Greece (37 measurements). Considering the previous, the

expected outflow concentrations are as follows: BOD 5<15 mg/L, COD<40 mg/L, SS<15 mg/L, TKN<6 mg/L, TP<4 mg/L.

Table 19: Mean removal statistics of VF CW units Parameter France Gomati (Greece) Madytos (Greece)

BOD 5 (%) 98 94.2 93.2 COD (%) 92 91.7 84.1 TKN (%) 91 70.2 85.7 SS (%) 96 93.2 98.0 TΡ (%) 43 62.8 35.8

Constructed wetlands offer low construction costs especially when the ground is inclined and wastewater movement takes place only with gravity. Construction budget for CW in Neos Oikismos is shown in detail in Table 20. The overall construction costs amount to 362.798 € or 605 €/ p.e.

Table 20: Construction budget for CW in Neos Oikismos Component description Cost (€) Excavation 74 ,457 Peripheral works (roads and fencing) 20,346 Influent -effluent structures, distribution piping 62 ,801 Pumps 50 ,004 The engineer’s fees 87 ,350 VAT (23% ) 67 ,840 Overall investment cost 362 ,798

The operation and maintenance costs are highly dependent on the local cost of energy and staff. The required time and energy supply are listed here: Time needed for operation and maintenance: 2 h/day Energy supply for the pumps: 22.5 kWh/d Assuming electrical energy costs 0.1 €/ kWh and daily wage of a worker 40 €, the operation cost is estimated to be 12.25 €/ d or 7.35 €/ p.e./yr or 0.13 €/ m3 wastewater.

Figure 43: Topography map of the CW in N. Oikismos.

Figure 44: Flow chart of the N. Oikismos facility.

Figure 45: Installation of geomembrane at the CW beds.

5. COUNTRY-SPECIFIC REPORT - MOLDOVA

5.1 MOLDOVIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT The hydrographic network of the Republic of Moldova comprises about 3,621 water courses with a total length of over 16,000 km and an average density of 0.48 km/km2 in the north, up to 0.12 km/km2 on the left bank of Dniester. Besides, the hydrographic network includes 3,500 lakes. The flowing waters in the Republic are mainly transit rivers. The state borders between Ukraine, Romania and Moldova are marked by the main rivers - Dniester and Prut. The following main laws are ruling in the Republic of Moldova related to the subject of the wastewater treatment: Law on the Environmental Protection Nr.1515-XII of June 16 (1993, amended 1997) Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (1994) Law on Ecological Expertise and Environmental Impact Assessment Nr. 851-XIII of May 29 (1996) Law on Sanitary-Epidemiologic Welfare of Population Nr.1513-XIII of June 16 (1993, amended in 1996) Construction Norms and Regulations (СНП 2.04 .01-04-85) The Rules on Surface Water Protection approved by the State Environmental Protection Committee Nr.03-13/57-442 of March 1 (1991) Law on Water Protection Zones and Strips along Rivers and Water Bodies Nr. 440-XIII f April 27 (1995) Law on Fundamentals of Town-Planning and Territorial Development Nr. 835-XIII of May 17 (1996) Law on Payment for Environmental Pollution Nr.787- XIII f March 26 (1996) The Law on Wastes Formation and Consumption Nr. 1347- XIII f October 09 (1997) Law on Drinking Water Nr.272-XIV of February 10 (1999) Law on Public Services of Communal Utilities Nr. 1402-XV f October 24 (2002) Law on Local Public Administration Nr.436-XVI of December 28 (2006) Law on the State Supervison of Public Healthcare, Nr. 10-XVI of February 3 (2009) The Waters Law Nr.272 of December 23, 2011 (entered into force on October 26, 2013) Governmental Decree Nr.950 of 25.11.2013, with regard on the Requirements towards the collection, treatment and discharge of waste waters into the sewerage system and/or into the natural water bodies for the cities and village localities Law on Public Service of Water Supply and Sewerage Nr.303 f December 13 (2013). The Republic of Moldova has signed a series of Conventions and Partnership Agreements in the field of water supply and sanitation: Convention ESPO, UNECE Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki) and 1999 Protocol on Water and Health Problems to it, Convention CIPFD, bilateral Agreements with Ukraine and Romania. The environmental legislative base in the Republic of Moldova has been initially designed in 1993-1996 and at that time only partially involved the international environmental policies and acts to which Moldova is a party, as well as the EU stipulations, which membership Moldova tends to receive. In the following years, the European environmental legislation was either partly harmonized

with the national one or still is in the process of harmonization, considering the following Directives of European Council and Parliament: Nr. 98/83/EEC on water quality for human consumption; Nr. 91/676/EEC on waters protection against pollution with nitrates from agricultural sources; Nr. 91/271/EEC on urban waste waters treatment; Nr. 2000/60/EC on establishing the community policy framework in the water resources area; Nr. 75.440/EEC on surface waters uses for potable scopes; Nr. 80/68/EEC on dangerous pollutants in underground waters; Nr. 76/464/EEC on dangerous pollutants in surface waters; Nr. 2006/7/EC on water quality management for bathing; Nr. 2007/60/EC on floods risks evaluation and management; Nr. 2008/105/EC on water environment quality, etc. In this way, the National Legislation of Moldova currently defines the principal objectives of public services development on water supply and sewerage systems in accordance with the aforementioned EU provisions, providing a legal framework necessary for the sustainable water management, protection and use. Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (1994). The general objective of protection of environment in the Republic of Moldova is defined by the Constitution. It stipulates in Art. 37 (1) that: "Each person has a right for the ecologically safe environment as well as for safe food and other goods for house use". According to Constitution, environmental protection is an obligation of all citizens of the country. "The country guarantees for each person the right for free access to environmental information, conditions of life and labor, quality of food and goods of house use and for distribution of this information". Physical and legal persons are responsible for compensation of health damages in case of non-observance an environmental legislation. Constitution requires rational use of land and other natural resources in accordance with national interests and restoration and protection of environment. Underground resources, air, waters and forests used in public interests according to the main law are subject of exclusively public ownership. Law on the Environmental Protection (1993, amended in 1997). This is a basic law that provides general framework for the environmental protection in Moldova and options for sustainable development. The law stipulates that relevant authorities are obliged to set up the limits of natural resources use and limit values for waste water discharge, as well as introduce environmental taxes. The law requires use of water saving technologies, to minimize utilization of technical water and ensure proper treatment of wastewater. Local public authorities are in charge for construction and operation of water treatment facilities (pre-treatment of drinking water and treatment of wastewater) to comply with relevant standards. According to the law the new programs and projects related to the water supply and sewerage development are required to be a subject of ecological expertise. Law on Drinking Water (1999). The law on Drinking Water has been developed in order to regulate relations in the field of drinking water supply, setting up the requirements for drinking water

provision of population and economic entities, and to establish the rules for safety of water supply systems and drinking water quality. This law needs to be revised in accordance with the Directive 98/83/CE on drinking water quality. The basic principles of the state drinking water supply policy are: the state is responsible for the provision of population with drinking water on the basis of existent water supply norms and water quality standards; water supply schemes should be developed as centralized water supply systems on the base of coordinated design, construction and operational standards and norms; state control over water supply systems functioning; payment for water supply service on the basis of formal agreements between water suppliers and customers and water use measuring; state support of water supply companies by means of economic stimulus; water conservation at all stages of water supply system development. Law on Ecological Expertise and Environmental Impact Assessment (1996). The law determines goals, objectives and principles of Ecological Expertise and Environmental Impact Assessment, as well as basic rules for both procedures. The law is supplemented by Instruction on the Procedure of Organization and Performance of the State Ecological Expertise (2002) adopted by the Ministry of Ecology. The Waters Law (October 26, 2013). This is a principal law in water area. This law provides a legal framework for the management, protection and efficient use of surface and ground waters based on the evaluation, planning and decision making in a participatory manner. The water law regulates and comes with a new approach to water management based on relevant international policies and recommendations. The new pr ovisions enshrine the state’s exclusive ownership of the surface and groundwater resources, providing for benchmarks for the regulation of water use relations. A major aspect of the new law is the introduction of the environment authorization for special water use for 12 years, with possibility of extension up to 25 years. It also puts in place new water management principles like participation, pollution prevention, polluter-pays principle, precaution, sustainable water use. This law regulates management and protection of surface and groundwater, as well as activities that impact on surface water and groundwater, including capture and water use, wastewater discharge and pollution, other activities that could harm water quality. The special laws regulate, among the other activities, water supply, discharge of wastewater and water treatment services for the population, commerce and industry. The National policy documents on waste water are regulated under the laws provisions on: design, financing, construction, commissioning and operation of collection systems and wastewater treatment plants; identification and implementation of measures that would provide the cost effective wastewater treatment in rural areas, so as to reduce and minimize pollution. The law prohibits discharge and introduction of pollutants into surface water bodies and sets the environmental requirements for water quality standards and monitoring. Requirements for operation of wastewater collection systems and operation of treatment plants are established by a regulation approved by the Government, which contains provisions on: the method and degree of treatment to be pursued on the number of people/the size of the locality served by a collection

system and a sewage treatment plant and/or receiving water quality in waters that are discharged by treated waste; identification and classification of such receiving waters designated as ‘sensitive areas ’; mandatory for all industrial wastewater discharges into a collection system in urban areas, sludge management requirements resulting from the treatment; mandatory monitoring of liquid waste discharges and their effects. The law also establishes new principles in water resource management: the principle of participation, principle of pollution prevention, the "polluter pays" principle, the principle of precaution and rational use of water sources. At the same time, the law establishes the exclusive ownership of the state over the surface and groundwater resources, providing guidelines for regulating relations regarding the use of waters between the state and the water use beneficiaries, as well as between the beneficiaries themselves. Law on Sanitary-Epidemiological Protection of the Population (1993). The law regulates sanitary-epidemiological safety of the population; providing general requirements for planning and building, production and technologies of goods, foods etc., drinking water and water sources, management of territories, dwellings; facilities and equipment operation, public training, prophylactic medical surveys, prevention and combating infections, etc.; juridical and economical responsibility of parties involved; state sanitary-epidemiological control; organization of state sanitary-epidemiological service. Law on Water Protection Zones and Strips along Rivers and Water Bodies, 1995. The law establishes the rules for creation of water protection zones and strips along rivers and water bodies, the regime of their use and protection. The law determines: dimensions of protected zones and strips; water protection regime within the zones and strips, as well as disputes, control and penalties. Any construction works, allocation of land for waste disposals, construction of sewerage system are prohibited in water protection strips. Water Supply and Sanitation Programme up to year 2015 and Action Plan. Willing to rehabilitate the water supply and wastewater systems, solve the problems of rational use of water resources and environmental protection, the Government of Moldova (GoM) approved in 2002 the Water Supply and Wastewater Action Plan. In 2005 the Action Plan has been revised and a new version was approved by the GoM (“Program of Water Supply and Sanitation of Localities of the Republic of Moldova up to year 2015”, #1406 dated December 30, 200 5). The Action Plan covers 43 urban localities (municipalities and towns) with a total population of 1.5 mi people and 77 rural localities with a population of around 237,000 inhabitants. The main goals of the Action Plan are health protection of the population; rational use of water; environment protection; pollution prevention of water resources; improvement of services provided to consumers; improvement of operation of the water supply utilities. The Law on Production and Consumption Wastes (1997). The Law provides basic principles in the field of waste management resulted in the process of various activities. It is prohibited any discharge into drainage systems and water bodies, on the territories of protected areas, zones of sanitary protection of drinking water supply sources, water-pipes, recreation areas, natural reserves, parks, forest protection strips along railways and roads. Governmental Decree Nr.950 (2013) with regard on the Requirements towards the Collection, Treatment and Discharge of Waste Waters into the Sewerage System and/or into the Natural Water Bodies for the Cities and Village Localities. This document involves some stipulations of the EU Directive № 91/271/СЕЕ of May 21 1991, and specifies the requirements to the application

and operation of treatment plants and processes, waste waters collection, treatment methods, effluent limits, treatment sludge utilization, monitoring of liquid wastes and other relevant issues. A Governmental Strategy on Water Supply and Sanitation for years 2014-2028 as an Annex to Governmental Resolution Nr.199 on March 20, 2014, has been published recently. The main scope of the Strategy is the step-by-step ensuring of access to safe water and proper sanitation of all the localities and population of Moldova, which will promote the improvement of health, dignity and life quality of population and economic development of the country. To satisfy the population needs in the improved efficient services on water supply and sanitation it is necessary to: implement the plans on water safety in accordance with EU Directive 98/83/ЕС ; reducing by 50% of water-induced diseases; achieving of the Millennium Development Goals with regards to ensuring of no less than 65% of population with safe water supply and canalization system by 2020 and; ensure the progress in the municipal wastewater treatment, according to stipulations of Directive 91/271/EEC.

5.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN MOLDOVA The main source of water for consumption in the Republic of Moldova is the surface water which supplies the majority of the population. Among the surface water sources, the most important source is the Dniester River, which supplies about 83% of the water used; the Prut River covers 1.8%, while groundwater sources provide about 15% of water. In 2010, the volume of water captured from surface sources was 721 million cubic meters. The share of the rural population in the total Moldovan population is high (more than 50%); this population lives in about 1,450 rural communities sprawled across the country, and in many of them the main water sources are shallow wells, with no centralized water supply and sanitation systems. Although Moldova has water reserves, water management is still poor and unbalanced. According to the National Bureau of Statistics there are high water losses in distribution networks, urban settlements and irrigation systems. Currently, per capita of population in the country there are about 500 m 3 per year of available drinking water, or even less, that puts Moldova in the category of countries with “insufficient water quantity”. By estimations, the available surface water resources will be reduced by 16-20% to 2020. According to the State Ecological Inspectorate, in 2007 there were 1,973 primary users of water, decreasing to 1,297 by 2010, of which only 632 beneficiaries had a special water management permit by the end of the year. The number of centralized water systems in the country was 644 with a total length of 8,036.2 km in 2010, with only 562 operating aqueducts. However, according to National Statistical data, in 2012 there were already 742 operating centralized water supply systems. There was a centralized water supply in 378 localities in 2012. In this year, about 1.5 million or 42,1% of population have benefited from water supply services (68.9% of city population and 22.7% of rural population). Over the past eight years the share of population connected to the sewage system in the total water supply system does not exceed 39% (State of the Environment in the Republic of Moldova, National Report, 2007 –2010). According to the other sources (Moldova Second MDG report, 2010), the proportion of the population that with access to sanitation in 2008 was 45.9%, and as a result of the actions carried in this period, the proportion of the population with sustainable access to sewage was 47.9 % in 2009. In the year 2012, 158 water systems had canalization systems, from which 110 were operating. There were 124 treatment plants. According to the National Statistics Bureau, the population having access to sewerage system was 761,000, i.e. 21.4% from total population, from them 50.1% in towns and only 1.0% in rural areas. Daily treatment capacity of waste waters was 0.7 million m3 in 2012. By the same source, in 2012 the total quantity of collected wastewaters in Moldova reached 66.5 million m3, from which 56.6% were household wastewaters received from urban population. 64.4 million m3 of wastewaters (96.8%) were treated at treatment plants. At the treatment plants there were registered about 26,400 accidents in 2012, by 3,800 more than in the year 2011. By the assessment of national experts, most of the wastewater purification systems in Moldova are physically and technologically obsolete, they have been operating for more than 25 to 30 years without being rebuilt and do not meet the requirements of modern treatment technologies. In 1990, 304 wastewater treatment plants functioned in the country, and currently less than 50 of

them are operating. According to the Academy of Sciences of Moldova (2010), in the localities within the watershed of rivers Dniester and Prut, there was not a wastewater treatment plant operating under the normal regime. Generally, wastewater treatment refers to the treatment of sewage and water used by residences, business, and industry to a sufficient level that it can be safely returned to the environment. It is important to treat wastewater to remove bacteria, pathogens, organic matter and chemical pollutants that may harm human health, deplete natural oxygen levels in receiving waters, and pose risks to animals and wildlife. Wastewater discharge quality in Moldova is regulated by the Government Decree Nr.950 dated 25.11.2013, with regard on the Requirements towards the collection, treatment and discharge of wastewaters into the sewerage system and/or into the natural water bodies for the cities and village localities, published on 06.12.2013 in the Official Monitor of the Republic of Moldova Nr. 284- 289, art. 1061. This Decree partially uses the stipulations of the EU Directive № 91/271/СЕЕ of 21 May 1991 on the wastewater treatment. Maximal allowable pollutants load in the wastewaters discharged into the water bodies, is envisaged in the Annex 2 to this Document, and is applied to all the wastewater categories, whether they have been or have not been formed at the treatment plants. They are summarized in the Table 21. At the operating wastewater treatment plants in Moldova, as a rule, mainly two treatment levels are applied: Primary treatment including screens, sedimentation and grit removal. The treatment methods applied include: filtering wastewater through fine screens to remove items such as paper, cotton tips and plastic; removing sand and grit that has fallen to the bottom of aerated grit tanks; removing solids that have settled to the bottom of sedimentation tanks; removing oil and grease that floats to the top of tanks using scrapers. Secondary treatment which removes nutrients and other impurities dissolved in water. This treatment is provided using the biological reactor system, which creates different environments for microorganisms to treat pollutants in wastewater. There are five key stages: Fermentation tank. Solids from the sedimentation tanks are broken down to produce a better carbon supply for microorganisms in the anoxic and aerobic zones. This makes it easier to remove phosphorus. Anaerobic zone. Water from primary treatment is pumped into the anaerobic zones. Microorganisms absorb carbon into their cells and release phosphates. Anoxic zone. No oxygen is available for microorganisms. They use carbon in the organic matter as a food source, converting nitrates to nitrogen gas which is released to the atmosphere. Aeration zone. The air works with microorganisms in the tank to further break down the wastewater. The microorganisms also take up phosphorus from the wastewater. This results in phosphorus-rich solids that are used to make biosolids. Secondary clarifiers. Remaining solids are settled in a tank. The settled solids can be returned to the anaerobic zone and the clear wastewater maybe sent on for tertiary treatment.

Table 21: Maximum allowable pollutants loads of wastewaters discharged into natural water bodies. Nr. Indicator Units Limiting Method of analysis Admissible Values 1. Temperature C0 30 2. pH 6.5-8.5 SR ISO 10523-97 3. Suspended Solids (SS) mg/l 35.0 STAS 6953-81

4. (BOD 5) mgO2/l 25.0 SR EN 1899-2/2002 5. (CCO Cr ) mgO2/l 125.0 SR ISO 6060-96

+ 6. Ammonia nitrogen (NH 4 ) mg/l 2.0 SR ISO 5664:2001 SR ISO 7150-1/2001 7. Total nitrogen Kjeldahl (TKN) mg/l 10.0 SR EN ISO 13395:2002 - 8. Nitrates (NO 3 ) mg/l 25.0 SR ISO 7890-2:2000; SR ISO 7890-3:2000 STAS 12999-91 - 9. Nitrites (NO 2 ) mg/l 1.0 SR EN 26777:2002 10. Hydrogen sulphide and mg/l 0.5 SR ISO 10530-97 SR 7510-97 sulphide (S 2-) 2- 11. Sulphites (SO 3) mg/l 1.0 STAS 7661-89 2- 12. Sulphates (SO 4 ) mg/l 400.0 or STAS 8601-70 concentration in potable water

13. Phenols (C 6H5OH) mg/l 0.3 SR ISO 6439:2001; SR ISO 8165/1/00 14. Extractable substances with mg/l 10.0 SR 7587-96 organic solvents (fats) 15. Oil products mg/l 0.5 SR 7877/1-95; SR 7877/2-95 16. Total phosphorus (P) mg/l 2.0 SR EN 1189-2000 17. Active anionic synthetic mg/l 0.5 SR EN 903: 2003; SR ISO 7875/2-1996 washing means, biodegradable 18. Total cyanides (CN) mg/l 0.4 SR ISO 6703/1/2-98/00

19. Free residual chlorine (Cl 2) mg/l 0.2 SR EN ISO 7393-1:2002;SR EN ISO 7393- 2:2002;SR EN ISO 7393-3:2002 20. Chlorides (Cl -) mg/l 300.0 STAS 8663-70 21. Ftorides (F -) mg/l 1.5 SR ISO 10359-1:2001; SR ISO 10359-2:2001 22. Dry residue mg/l 1500.0 STAS 9187-84 23. Arsenic (As +)2) mg/l 0.1 SR ISO 10566:2001 24. Аluminum (Al 3+ ) mg/l 5.0 STAS 9411-83 25. Calcium (Ca 2+ ) mg/l 300.0 STAS 3662-90 SR ISO 7980-97 26. Lead (Pb 2+ ) mg/l 0.12 STAS 8637-79. 27. Cadmium (Cd 2+ ) mg/l 0.1 SR ISO 8288:2002 SR EN ISO 5961:2002 28. Total chromium (Cr 3+ +Cr 6+ ) mg/l 1.0 SR EN 1233:2003; SR ISO 9174-98 29. Chromium (Cr 3) mg/l 0.9 SR EN 1233:2003; SR ISO 9174-98 30. Chromium hexavalent (Cr 6+ ) mg/l 0.1 SR EN 1233:2003; SR ISO 11083-98 31. Total iron (Fe 2+ ,Fe 3+ ) mg/l 5.0 SR EN 1233:2003; SR ISO 6332-96 32. Copper (Cu 2+ ) mg/l 0.1 STAS 7795-80; SR ISO 8288:2001 33. Nickel (Ni 2+ ) mg/l 0.5 STAS 7987-67; SR ISO 8288:2001 34. Zinc (Zn 2+ ) mg/l 0.5 STAS 8314-87; SR ISO 8288:2001 35. Hydrargium (Hg 2+ ) mg/l 0.05 SR EN 1483:2003; SR EN 12338:2003 36. Silver (Ag+) mg/l 0.1 STAS 8190-68 37. Мlibdenum (Mo 2+ ) mg/l 0.1 STAS 11422-84 38. Selenium (Se 2+ ) mg/l 0.1 STAS 12663-88 39. Total manganese (Mn) mg/l 1.0 STAS 8662/1-96; SR ISO 6333-96 40. Маgnesium (Mg 2+ ) mg/l 100.0 STAS 6674-77; SR ISO 7980-97 41. Cobalt (Co 2+ ) mg/l 1.0 SR ISO 8288:2001

For the secondary stage, aerobic treatment is mainly applied using the biological filters (trickling filters) or aeration basins. As wastewater contains nutrient-rich solids, the attempt is made in the Chisinau wastewater treatment plant to treat these solids so they can be re-used as biosolids to improve soil for agriculture and gardens. For this scope the solids are collected from the primary and secondary treatment tanks. Then the technology of “Geotubes” is applied , aimings to remove water from solids. The matter left behind is known as biosolids. Biosolids are ready for reuse in agriculture, forestry, land rehabilitation and landscaping. Tertiary treatment , as a rule, only consists in disinfection of treated water most often with chlorine (Cl 2), or less often, with sodium chloride (NaOCl) or calcium chloride (CaCl 2). Then, in the small towns, rayonal (county) centers, water flows to the biologic ponds before discharging into the water bodies. In some small communities and villages the constructed wetlands, recently constructed, are used to treat the wastewater, but they do not represent a tertiary stage of treatment, acting as a one-stage treatment. However, the design is critical to their performance, more than for other systems, and they are subject to space limitation. Another problem for NTS construction in Moldova is lack of centralized water supply and mainly sewerage systems in small localities.

5.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN MOLDOVA Сurrently, the following types of natural treatment of municipal waste waters systems are operated in Moldova:

5.3.1 Biological ponds with artificial aeration This treatment type has been planned according to the Construction Norms and Rules СНП 2.04.03-85 and previous construction design norms and was intended for the advanced treatment of wastewaters following the complete biological treatment. The norms have envisaged the reducing of

BOD total , as well as the proportional reduction of suspended solids during the advanced treatment. This type of bioponds was designed as two-three consecutively arranged water bodies with depth of 1.5 m (most often 3 m) up to 3.5 m (less often 3.7-4 m). Their specifics was the presence of point outlets and inlets, emptying system, walls covering above and below the water level up to 0.3-0.5 m with the concrete iron plates, concrete coupler or rock dumping, which reduced the probability of dams washout. To ensure the mixing of treated water and reach the calculated conditions on the contents in dissolved oxygen, the aerated bioponds are equipped with the aeration system: either the mechanical aerators – each one per each section, or the pneumatic aeration system, with air ejection from the aerotank distribution system, or in an autonomous way, from the additional compressors. The mechanical aerators which were previously operated, have been rejected, due to their insignificant operational resource, lack of the possibility to repair them and pollution of treated water with mineral oil, flowing from the geared motor because of the wear of gaskets and shaft (however, removing of oil from gear results in instantaneous failure of equipment). The aeration systems with feeding from the stationary compressors were in operation up to the year 2005, and mainly ceased their existence, except of some isolated cases. Therefore, it should be considered that this type of treatment plants currently has disappeared. At the same time, the flow-through reservoirs-bioponds have remained. Among the existing objects the following are to be mentioned: Anenii Noi, treatment capacity 7,500 m3/day, effluents amount – 117,000 m3/year (2012) - 3 sections of bioponds with dimensions 120 40 m and average depth of 3.2 m; Causeni, treatment capacity 5,700 m3/day, effluents amount - 137,300 m3/year (2012) - 2 sections of bioponds with dimensions 75 85 m and average depth of 3.7 m; Ciadir-Lunga, treatment capacity 7,000 m3/day, effluents amount - 135,300 m3/year (2012) - 3 sections of bioponds with pneumatic aeration, operating periodically up to now, therefore in the year 2013 this treatment plant was considered to ensure all the formed wastewaters up to the norms; Comrat treatment capacity 5,700 m3/day, effluents amount - 485,700 m3, 3 sections of bioponds with dimensions 75 30 m and depth of 3.5 m (in which during the operation above 1 m of sludge have been accumulated), etc. It has to be mentioned that more or less significant treatment effect has been observed at the new treatment plants, on condition of a stable operation of biological treatment plants. In these cases the BOD was reduced by 10-20%, and in some cases as the bioponds, living fish existed in the ponds (Calaras, Leova, Ciadir-Lunga). In some periods the decrease in the ammonia nitrogen was

registered. The dissolved oxygen contents were at the level of its solubility for the appropriate temperature. The proposed ways to improve the situation involve the rehabilitation of biological treatment plants and their appropriate operation, repair of bioponds and their equipping with the new aeration systems from isolate compressors.

5.3.2 Biological ponds with natural aeration This type of treatment plants was designed for the advanced treatment of wastewaters with the entering BOD values of 15-20 mg/l. The designed depth of bioponds was 0.8 – 1.2 m. These treatment plants were designed mainly for the village localities (no less than 400 bjects), and in some cases – for the towns (Hincesti, Falesti, Nisporeni, Floresti, Singerei, Drochia). The designed BOD of treated wastewaters should have been 3-5 mg/l, however, it was not reached under any conditions. The presence of the higher water vegetation in the ponds did not ensure the significant enhancing of treatment degree in the biological ponds, but the aesthetic image of treatment plants was improved. It should be noted that some biological ponds up to present are operating rather successfully, even in the absence of aerobic biological treatment or its inefficient operation and periodically the water treatment norms for towns are reached, in accordance with ruling Directive (the towns of Drochia, Hincesti, Floresti). In the town of Falesti the bioponds have been completely covered with reeds and cane, however, water treatment is ensured up to the established norms. The ways to improve their operation: rehabilitation of treatment plants and their appropriate operation, modernization of bioponds, with their re-equipment in bio-engineering plants (when necessary).

5.3.3 Constructed Wetlands There is a series of Constructed Wetlands designed and constructed with the involvement of foreign experts and with the financing of international agencies (such as Apasan, Switzerland; SKAT, Austria; EBRD, etc.). Meantime, there are no officially approved design norms for CWs. The evidence of their stable operation and technological efficiency should be studied further, based on the experience of their work in Moldova. According to Moldovan’s experts, the first treatment plant using the constructed wetlands in the country have been constructed near the Capriani monastery (Hincesti region) in 2006, where it was designed as an advanced treatment stage, following the biological treatment. Further on (during 2007-2012), several more treatment plants of this type have been constructed for isolated objects in the villages of Bratuleni, Lurceni, Cristesti, Negrea, Sarata Galbena, Draguseni Noi (see photo on Figure 46 below), Rusca (prison). The conventional scheme of these treatment plants involve the pumping (if the relief allows – by gravity), filtration (a layer of gravel), settling reservoirs, one to four sections of basic facility, and outlet of treated waters. As an example, the treatment plant in Rusca involves a septic tank (as a first treatment stage) constructed in 2007. The second stage is a CW with 4 horizontal beds 300 m² each, filled with gravel, which surface is plant ed with reed. Treatment capacity is 40 m³/day. In this particular case, a 700 -m canalization system was additionally constructed, which allowed to connect 50 private houses in Rusca village to the treatment plant.

It is to be noted that, as a rule, only a part of these localities (typically, a school, children’s garden, local administration and eventually a part of private houses connected to centralized supply and sewage) were connected to treatment plant.

In September 2013, in the town of Orhei the new treatment plant using the Constructed Wetllands has been put in operation. Its location is shown in Figure 47. It is one of the largest among this type plants in Europe, and its cost (financed by EBRD, WB, Ecological Foundation of Moldova) is about 4.8 million Euros. Designed at the capacity of 10,000 m 3/day the main WWTP in Orhei consists of the following treatment units: grit chamber; primary sedimentation tanks; biological Figure 46: Constructed Wetland in the village of filtration (filtrate material gravel); secondary Dragusenii Noi (Photo Apasan Agency) sedimentation; sludge handling in sludge drying beds; contact stabilization for effluent wastewater (chemical adding is not in use); sludge pumping stations; and chlorination plant.

The CW is designed as a tertiary treatment stage. Its main components of are: Inlet arrival chamber and diversion chamber; Pre-treatment unit composed by two mechanical screw screens working in parallel an d Grit removal chamber; Equalization tank equipped by 4 flow-jet, 4 mixer and 8 submergible electrical pumps for the feeding of the 1st stage RBF; 1st Stage RBF, composed by four lines working in parallel: each line is divided in three sectors, that are alternatively feeding by motorized valves controlled by a PLC; 4 pumping stations for the feeding of the 2nd stage VF: each pumping station contains 4 centrifugal submergible pumps. 2nd stage VF, composed by four lines working in parallel: each line is divided in 4 sectors, that are alternatively feeding by pumps; Disinfection by Chlorination system; Pumping system for discharge into Raut river. Figure 47: Location of Orhei CWTP The experience of this plant operation needs to be thoroughly examined. It is expected that in autumn the Orhei cannery will be operating, as well as the grapes processing alcohol producing industries will be functioning, therefore, it is important to study the effect of their wastewaters on the CW operation. The experts from Moldova especially recommend the construction of NTS, specifically, CWs in the localities/small communities (300-500 inhabitants), where there is a centralized hot water supply, stable cold water supply and sewerage system for all the objects. For example, CWs could be constructed in the suburbs of Chisinau, towns of Vulcanesti, Causeni or other localities. One of the serious problems in Moldova that may delay the introduction

of NTS in the country, is the lack or deteriorated condition of centralized water supply and sewerage systems in a great number of localities. According to the official statistical data, only 16% of Moldova’s citizens have access to centralized water supply, and just 5% – to the sewerage system. Accordingly, 84% of population has no tap water in their homes, whereas 95% – do not have restroom facilities.

5.3.4 Other types of natural treatment systems such as filtration fields, septic tanks, anaerobic accumulation ponds are maintained in some localities, functioning as the only one treatment system, instead of the mechanical, biological and advanced steps.

5.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN MOLDOVA The construction of a CW treatment Plant could be recommended for a number of localities in Moldova, among them Riscani (Figure 48). This is a small town located in the north-western part of the country, along the Copaceanca river (a tributary of Raut), at 166 km distance from Chisinau, 22 km from the Drochia rail station and 45 km from Balti Municipality. Two villages are administered by the city, Balanul Nou and Rămăzan.

Figure 48: Riscani town position on the map of Moldova Figure 49: Hydrographic and relief features of Riscani The town is situated on latitude 47.9572°, longitude 27.5539°, 137m above the sea level. The hydrographic and relief features are given on Figure 49. The town is located between the rivers of Dniester and Prut, on the Moldovan plateau. The landscape is generally represented by the plains intersected with ravines. The slopes of the small hills are consisted of limestone, sandstone, alumina, therefore there are often the landslides and sloughing taking place. The winters are rather short and mild, the summers are warm. In average there are 1,950 sunny hours per year, the hours with sun irradiation are 70 in December and up to 300 in June. The average annual temperature is positive, at 9.10 oC. The annual amplitude of average monthly temperatures is 250. The average amount of precipitates per year is 400-620 mm being unstable in time. The major natural water resources are few springs, 322 shallow dug wells and one lake which is a major place for recreation. Green areas represented by parks with different coniferous species comprise an area of 23.5 hectares. The population in Riscani town was estimated at 13,800 inhabitants in urban area. Education system of the town is formed of general medium school, two high schools, a vocational training school and an agro-industrial college. Public health system is ensured by a preventive medical Centre, town hospital, a clinic and 6 pharmacies. After a very difficult recession, Riscani seems to recover, street light, water and other municipal services operate again and industry can function normally. This has lead to steady growth in the last 2 years. This small town could be proposed for CW TP construction rather than a small village, as soon as the most of its population are dealing with agricultural activities, either cultivating the vegetables and fruit, or processing the agricultural crops, and there is a centralized water supply and sanitation system in this locality. The absence of sewerage system will make the project of WWTP design and construction 2-4 times more expensive, by the assessment of Moldovan experts. A long-term spatial assessment of urbanization in Riscani reveals that the new small settlements appeared in the north-eastern part from the town centre. This is primarily linked with the development of industrial buildings in 1980’s and increasing number of population. Presently most of the large industrial facilities are not operating or operate on a small portion of their

capability. The main attractive historical place in Riscani is the church “Adormirea Maicii Domnului” which was built in XIX century. Water intake is carried out from seventeen deep wells, out of which nine wells are under renovation or taken out of use while only eight wells are in operation. Water storage consists of three water towers and one underground water tank. Seven deep wells out of eight operated wells are used to supply water to water towers and underground reservoir, while one deep well is connected directly to the network. Water is supplied via one main water supply network, having length of approximately 35 km. Only some 3,130 inhabitants out of 14,800 are currently connected to the water supply network, while more than 11,600 inhabitants are dependable on private wells (in total 322). Water pumped from deep wells has no treatment at all. Due to good bacteriological indices, water is chlorinated only once per month. Chlorination is done manually by dozing chlorine solution directly to the water reservoir or directly to the network. The total length of main sewerage network is 17 km. Sewerage network has two pumping stations out of which one is the inlet pumping station for the WWTP, which is located approximately 1 km south from the city centre. Only 1,070 inhabitants out of 14,800 are connected to sewerage network while the rest are using septic tank system or dry lavatories. However, the number of septic tank users is not known. At present, the quality of water from the most of deep wells does not correspond to Moldovan Normative on Potable Water, as main reason being the high levels of ammonia (2.0-2.4 mg/l) and particulate matter (1,000-1,200 mg/l). According to Moldavian standards the quality of the shallow dug wells is very poor. The depth of most dug wells is 10-20 meters, sometimes even less than 5-10 meters which makes the shallow water vulnerable to many anthropogenic pollution sources. Since there is no natural barrier between the aquifers and the pollution sources at the surface, it can be safely assumed that contamination of the open freatic aquifers by anthropogenic sources of pollution may occur at any place where these sources occur unprotected. In many cases the groundwater quality in the urban areas situated in the valleys may be affected by the diffuse pollution from the arable lands surrounding the town at higher topographical levels. Polluted water infiltrates and joins the groundwater flows on their way towards the discharge areas (Copaceanca river). The level of chemical substances in the groundwater will accumulate in the direction of flow as more polluted locations are passed. Approximately in all shallow well there is high level of nitrite and chloride. The following two major sources of nitrate can be mentioned: local pollution from leaking toilets, pit privies, uncontrolled open and leaking sewerage systems, etc.; NO 3 from an overdose of fertilisers and/or manure gifts used in the past on agricultural fields surrounding a town. The high

NO 3 contents in the shallow wells are obviously related to leaking toilets, leaking sewers and other waste disposals (non-authorized garbage sites). It is a common situation in most areas where there is no central water supply. At the moment the treated wastewater is discharged into Copaceanca river and after that in Raut and Nistru. However, the quality of treated wastewater is a very low. The capacity of WWTP is low because there is no developed industry. The WWTP, based on the conventional biological treatment, is situated at 3 km distance at the western part of the town. Only 50% of the population is connected to the wastewater treatment network. There is a high potential of pollution of the environment, in particular for both, underground and surface water.

6. COUNTRY- SPECIFIC REPORT - ROMANIA

6.1 ROMANIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT Romania has transposed the WFD and UWWD (91/271/EEC, 98/15/EC) into national legislation (HG nr.210/2007, HG nr.188/2002, HG 352/2005). The Objective of the Directive is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of discharges of urban wastewater and of wastewater from certain industrial sectors (mainly processing and food industry). The Directive sets out a number of Requirements Concerning collection systems, and Treatment discharge of wastewater from urban agglomerations, as well as of the biodegradable waste discharge from certain industrial sectors. Member States must ensure that urban wastewater from agglomerations of more than 2,000 p.e. is collected and treated prior to discharge according to the specific standards and deadlines. As regards the treatment objectives, secondary (i.e., biological) treatment is the general rule for the agglomerations of less than 10,000 p.e., with additional nutrient removal in sensitive areas. A regionalization process in the institutional arrangement of the Romanian water and wastewater sector is in progress which is important for small communities to reach technical and financial capacity for implementing wastewater treatment measures. The NTS and CWs technologies are recommended solutions on this plan.

6.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN ROMANIA From the administrative point of view, Romania is divided in 41 counties and Bucharest municipality. The area of the Romanian territory is 238,391 km with 265 cities and towns, 2,686 communes and 13,092 villages. The total population reported in 2013 is 18,683,211 inhabitants, out of which in urban areas 55.2 % and 44.8 % in rural area. Infrastructure for wastewater collecting and treatment in Romania reveals that 644 localities (265 cities and towns and 378 rural localities) have public collecting systems. The total length of wastewater collecting network is 16,812 km, out of which 15,738 km are in urban area. In urban area, the length of the streets with wastewater collecting network represents 51.8% from total length of the streets. A comparison between the streets with water supply systems and those with wastewater collecting networks shows that only 73% of the first category has wastewater sewage networks. Water supply is ensured for 4,313,803 dwellings (representing 53.2 %) and the sewage networks in public or private system are ensured for 4,146,814 dwellings (representing 51.1 %). Water supply is ensured for 87.6 % of the dwellings within urban areas and for 15.1 % of the dwellings within rural areas, while the sewage is ensured for 85.6% within the urban areas and 12.9% within the rural areas. In the existing wastewater treatment plants, only 77% of the total discharged wastewater flow is treated in the urban collecting networks; in 47 urban localities, with more than 150,000 the waste water is discharged without a preliminary treatment. The population benefiting from public sewage services is more numerous in urban area - 90% of the total sewage services in urban area than in rural area 10% of the total population. In Romania 2.1 million live in villages with less than 2,000 inhabitants, which usually do not collect treats wastewater and are not forced to do it by DEAUU in the near future (Wendland, 2010). These settlements are often based on local groundwater for drinking water supply, but these sources are not protected and are affected by human activities. For this reason they are covered by the WFD and daughter directives. However, in 2000 these local PE, the measures outlined in the river basin management plans do not cover fully the problems related to lack of sanitation and wastewater treatment. The quality of freshwater is influenced by the wastewater discharged. The wastewater is either not preliminary treated or insufficiently treated before the discharge into receiving waters. The biggest volume of untreated water comes from the sewage systems of localities (over 89%) and the industrial sectors (chemical and petrochemical industry - 3%, energy sector - 8%). The large urban agglomerations of more than 150,000 p.e. are responsible for significant pollution with organic substances. Other major polluters of freshwater are the industrial activities (chemical and petrochemical industry, mining activities, metallurgical industry, food industry and livestock). As regards the regulatory bodies in the field of environmental protection, the Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) were established at county level and 8 Regional Environmental Protection Agencies (REPAs) were established at regional level, being subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. At the same time, the local structures of the County Commissariats of the National Environmental Guard are responsible for the inspection and control of compliance to environmental regulations, in collaboration with EPAs. The Water Directorates subordinated to the National Administration “Romanian Waters " functio n on each hydrographical basin. Their responsibilities are described in detail in the action plan for Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatment.

6.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN ROMANIA Implementation of NTS in Romania is at beginning and only two examples we could found one in Vrata village and the other one in Viscri village. In the village of Vrata, southern Romania, the population has no centralized water supply network but has private or public wells (Wendland, 2010). As a sanitary option most people use outdoor toilets. For local school with 200 students was built a new toilet and sink attached. The cabins are equipped with urine diversion toilets. Urine collected and stored separately is used in gardens and in agriculture as fertilizer rich in nitrogen. Feces are stored and sanitized in separate rooms located in the basement and can be used for soil improvement. This reuse of nutrients is not covered by EU legislation, but there are provisions of OMS14 and built in Sweden. The project was carried out according to WHO requirements (Wendland, 2010): The toilet consists of two cabins for girls, one for boys plus two urinals and a cabin for people with disabilities. Urine from public places must be stored for at least six months to eliminate as many pathogens. Two tanks were installed for urine, with a volume of 2 m 3 each. Rooms are double basement faces (2 m 3 per toilet) and ventilated with fans triggered by wind energy. The NTS in Viscri village is a Free Water Surface (FWS) systems consisting of three settlement basins summing 1.5 ha (Figure 50) that will be planted with reed.

Figure 50: CWs in Viscri village Romania.

6.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN ROMANIA A GIS methodology (Figure 51) was applied in order to assess the potential of integrated natural wastewater treatment systems for small localities (< 2,100 inhabitants) in Romania. Administrative unites NUTs I-III levels and census data were intersected and processed in ARC VIEW environment in order to assess the NTS potential at district, communes and villages level and to estimate the cost of implementation. Total number of communes with less of 2,100 inhabitants (Figure 52) in Romania is 862 and total number of villages within communes is 3,608 (Figure 53). Their district distribution is shown on Figure 54.

Figure 51: Methodological schema for deriving NTS potential sites

Figure 52: Spatial distribution of communes with les of 2,100 inhabitants.

Figure 53: Total number of villages within communes.

Figure 54: District distribution of villages.

Figure 55: Classification of the villages. C1 to C5, from insulated to belonging to agglomeration of villages network within a distance of 500 m.

Number of villages within communes form single one to more than 16 has been grouped from C1 to C5 in order to prioritize the needs for implementing NTS/CWs technologies (Figure 55). The nearby villages (less than 500 m distance) were unified and classified in 5 classes as mentioned above. Insulated villages, class C1, counting 1207 (Figure 56) are considered to be of the first priority in implementing NTS/CWs technologies, as their low local budget cannot afford the implementation of conventional wastewater treatment systems.

Figure 56: Distribution of insulated villages with less than 2,100 inhabitants and corresponding to a total (1,207) needs of NTS/CWs systems

6.5 INVESTMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR NTS IN SMALL COMMUNITIES In France the investment costs are estimated in Euro/p.e. at 190 ± 35% , 130 ± 50% and 120 ± 60% according to the treatment processes, as Imhoff tank + Constructed wetland, Aerated pond, Waste stabilization pond, respectively (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water- urbanwaste/info/pdf/waterguide_en.pdf ). Annual operational costs estimated in Euro/p.e. accordingly are 5.5, 6.5, 4.5, while in Germany (Halbach 2000) investment costs for aerated pond waste stabilization pond is 320. For Romania we estimate an implementation cost for NTS or CWs of about 200 Euro/p.e.. The total amount for insulated villages, class C1, counting 1,207, first priority, is 171.55 million Euro (Figure 57) and total area needed for the construction is estimated to be 429 ha (Figure 58) (5 sqm/p.e.).

Figure 57: Estimated total cost for implementation of NTS/CWs technologies in insulated villages.

Figure 58: Estimated construction area for implementation of NTS/CWs technologies in insulated villages.

6.6 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES 1. Claudia Wendland, Andrea Albold, Lübeck, 2010. Sisteme de epurare durabilã i eficientã a apelor reziduale din comunitãile rurale i suburbane cu pânã la 10,000 PE. www.wecf.eu 2. Implementation Plan for Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment, as amended by GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA. October 2004. 3. Technical and scientific support documentation for the transposition of Directive 91/271/EEC by the National Institute of Research and Development for Environmental Protection – Bucharest (ICIM - Bucharest) in cooperation with the National Administratio n “Romanian Waters” (NARW)

7. COUNTRY-SPECIFIC REPORT - TURKEY

7.1 TURKISH LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT Turkey, as of the current situation, harmonized itself to EU directives to a large extent in the water sector. There are two regulations regulating urban wastewater discharge and treatment in Turkey in accordance with the European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive dated May 21 1991 and with number 91/271/EEC. Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulation determines the technical and administrative principles regarding the collection, purification, discharge, observation of wastewater discharge, reporting and auditing in urban treatment facilities of the wastewater arising from the urban and industrial sectors and discharged in sewage system and regulates the issues of environment protection against the negative effects of wastewater discharges. Water Pollution Control Regulation (WPRC) determines the required legal and technical principles in order to realize the prevention of water pollution with the maintainable development objectives to protect the groundwater and surface water resources and use them in the best manner possible, and regulates quality classification of water environment and purposes of use, planning principles and prohibition related to protection of water quality, wastewater discharge principles and discharge permission principles, principles on wastewater substructure facilities and observation and auditing method to be executed for preventing water pollution. Methods and principles to be followed at the stages of design, construction and maintenance of the urban wastewater treatment facilities are regulated in the Regulation (Article 6a) in the light of appropriate criteria under normal local climate conditions in organic and hydraulic loads. This regulation also refers to the methods and principles of discharges for 2,000-10,000 p.e. and 10,000 p.e. and over equivalent population areas. Some other matters included in the scope of the regulation are the follow-up of treatment sludge, treated wastewater discharge requirements, location of urban wastewater discharge point at the river mouth and along the shore waters. Water Pollution Control Regulation refers to all kinds of water discharge, including urban wastewater. With this regulation, protection of the surface and groundwater against pollution arising from the domestic and industrial discharge is aimed. The regulation also presents the rules to be conformed to during the periodical analysis to be conducted by authorized bodies, responsible for the collection and analysis of samples taken from wastewater treatment discharge points and industrial discharges with or without pre-treatment. In this sense, the general duties and responsibilities are as follows: * The Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF): The duties of the Ministry in the environment sector include drafting laws, preparing rules and internal regulations, creating institutions (such as village environment associations and commissions to manage waste), supervising and planning environmental designs, interventions and actions as appropriate, creating environmental policies and strategies, coordinating environmental activities at international and national levels, conducting research, applying measurements, monitoring compliance, collecting data, managing finances, and carrying out staff training. The Ministry also issues permits for installations and enforcement of environmental legislation. In rural areas, this authority grants its duties to the Provincial Environment and Forestry Directorate.

Figure 59: Legal and Organizational Framework on Water Pollution Control.

* Within the framework of Environment Law, Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry is responsible for the monitoring activities in the water basins from which potable water is supplied to settlements outside Metropolitan Municipality. * In case the municipality requests it, Iller Bank (an initiative that undertakes the responsibilities in the reconstruction and construction of city and towns) takes the responsibility of project-design, tender and construction works regarding the wastewater treatment facilities. Iller Bank also provides loan and grants to municipalities to construct, expand or upgrade their wastewater treatment facilities. * Metropolitan and other municipalities are responsible for establishment of sewage systems and wastewater treatment systems, their maintenance, improvement/reclamation works and of their operation. * Metropolitan and other municipalities are responsible for the approval, license/permission processes, checking and follow-up regarding the wastewater discharges, to be carried out in sewage systems, and approval the of wastewater treatment projects. Duties and responsibilities of the municipalities regarding the industrial discharges in their own sewage are as follows: - Municipalities gather the analysis data from the measurements regarding industrial discharges done to their sewage systems. - Municipalities control the compliance of the wastewater with Water Pollution Control Regulation and Sewage Discharge Regulation. - Municipalities carry out regular monitoring at discharge points. - Municipalities make required changes on the licenses.

7.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN TURKEY In Turkey, wastewater treatment facilities or natural treatment methods are used for treatment of wastewater. In places where both population and flow rate is high, activated sludge, activated sludge with extended aeration activated system, stabilization pool, sequential batch reactor, trickling filter and membrane systems are used in wastewater treatment facilities as treatment methods. Constructed wetlands, which are one of the natural wastewater treatment methods, are used in settlements with low population. Using treated wastewater in irrigation is also a common method in countries with water scarcity. Treated wastewater obtained by applying advanced treatment and disinfected with extended aeration activated sludge method in some of the wastewater treatment projects done by Iller Bank in Turkey, are discharged to dams serving the purposes of irrigation or to irrigation ponds and then the collected water collected is used for irrigation. All organizations (Industrial Organizations, Organized Industrial Zones and Municipalities etc.), which generate and treat their wastewater in their territory, have the obligation of providing a discharge limit to the receiving waters, as indicated in Water Pollution Control Regulation. Within this scope, Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urbanization located in each province oversee the compliance of wastewater treatment facilities which discharge into the receiving waters, to the discharge limits, provide the taking of required precautions in case of unexpected conditions.

Table 22: Discharge Standards of Mixed Industrial Wastewater to Receiving Waters (Appearing in Water Pollution Control Regulation under Table 19) PARAMETER UNIT COMPOSITE SAMPLE COMPOSITE SAMPLE 2 HOURS 24 HOURS COD (mg/L) 400 300 SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS) (mg/L) 200 100 OIL AND GREASE (mg/L) 20 10 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (mg/L) 2 1 TOTAL CHROMIUM (mg/L) 2 1 CHROMIUM (Cr +6 ) (mg/L) 0.5 0.5 LEAD (Pb) (mg/L) 2 1 TOTAL CYANIDE (CN¯) (mg/L) 1 0.5 CADMIUM (Cd) (mg/L) 0.1 - IRON (Fe) (mg/L) 10 - FLUORIDE (F¯) (mg/L) 15 - COPPER (Cu) (mg/L) 3 - ZINC (Zn) (mg/L) 5 - MERCURY (Hg) (mg/L) - 0.05

SULFATE (SO 4) (mg/L) 1500 1500 TKN (*) (mg/L) 20 15 FISH BIOEXPERIMENT - 10 10 (ZFS) pH - 6-9 6-9 (added line:RG - (Pt -Co) 280 260 24/4/2011-27914) Color

Table 23: Average Discharge Standards of Domestic Wastewater to Receiving Waters (Class 1: Pollution Load as untreated, BOD between 5-120 kg/day, population 84-2,000) PARAMETER UNIT COMPOSITE SAMPLE COMPOSITE SAMPLE 2 HOURS 24 HOURS

BOD 5 (mg/L) 50 45 COD (mg/L) 180 120 SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS) (mg/L) 70 45 pH - 6-9 6-9

Table 24: Average Discharge Standards of Domestic Wastewater to Receiving Waters (Class 2: Pollution Load as untreated, BOD between 120-600 kg/day, population 2,000-10,000) PARAMETER UNIT COMPOSITE SAMPLE COMPOSITE 2 HOURS SAMPLE 24 HOURS

BOD 5 (mg/L) 50 45 COD (mg/L) 160 110 SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS) (mg/L) 60 30 pH - 6-9 6-9

Table 25: Average Discharge Standards of Domestic Wastewater to Receiving Waters (Class 3: Pollution Load as untreated, BOD between 600-6,000 kg/day, population 10,000-100,000) PARAMETER UNIT COMPOSITE SAMPLE COMPOSITE SAMPLE 2 HOURS 24 HOURS

BOD 5 (mg/L) 50 45 COD (mg/L) 140 100 SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS) (mg/L) 45 30 pH - 6-9 6-9

Table 26: Average Discharge Standards of Domestic Wastewater to Receiving Waters (Class 4: Pollution Load as untreated, BOD more than 6,000 kg/day, Population >100,000) PARAMETER UNIT COMPOSITE SAMPLE COMPOSITE SAMPLE 2 HOURS 24 HOURS BOD5 (mg/L) 40 35 COD (mg/L) 120 90 SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS) (mg/L) 40 25 pH - 6-9 6-9 According to the Results of the Turkish Statistical Institute in 2010 entitled “Address-based Population Registration System ”, the proportion of the total population serviced with sewage system to the municipality population reached 92%. Of 2,950 municipalities, about 2,300 were serviced with sewage system, meaning that 4.072 billion m 3 of wastewater was discharged from the sewage system and 3.257 billion m 3 was treated in wastewater treatment plants. In 32.94% of the wastewater biological treatment is applied, in 28.54% only physical treatment takes place, in 38.25% advanced treatment is carried out and only in 0.27% natural treatment is applied. Performance monitoring of the urban wastewater treatment plants is done by the municipalities that are associated with. The matter of compliance of water discharged from urban wastewater treatment facilities to discharge standards, for each sector, is given in Water Pollution Control Regulation which came into force after published in the Official Gazette, dated December 31, 2004, issue number 25,687.

7.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN TURKEY In Turkey, generally, wastewater treatment plants which treat wastewater in extended aeration activated sludge process are used. For the places where there is low population and large empty land (if adequate for a treatment plant), stabilization ponds, natural treatment with constructed wetland and modular wastewater treatment systems with activated sludge system principle are used. Natural treatment methods, such as leaking the untreated wastewater directly towards the groundwater, letting it into slanted land or evaporating techniques are not used in Turkey. Stabilization ponds are the simplest of all the wastewater treatment methods, and provide an advantage of not having any energy expenditure, high reliability, ease in maintenance and operation. Natural treatment systems are easy and economical to construct, compared to conventional treatment systems; have low energy requirements and operation costs; are in harmony with the environment; and do not require skilled workforce in the operation. The only disadvantage is the fact that the plant occupies a large area of land.

Table 27: An Outlook of Turkey Wastewater Statistics.

In Turkey, constructed wetlands with sub-surface flow are preferred, in general, to minimize odor and fly problems, which are the main problems of this constructed wetlands type. Constructed wetlands with sub-surface flow are further divided into systems of vertical and horizontal runoff. In domestic wastewater treatment with different wetlands systems having different types of plants and runoffs, removal of about 80-99% in BOD 5, COD and bacteria, about 92-95% in suspended solids, and about 30-80% in total nitrogen and 20-70% in total phosphorus is achieved. In recent years, constructed wetland applications in smaller settlement areas were constructed and operated in projects by TUBITAK MAM and the Republic of Turkey Village Services General Directorate. After the Village Services General Directorate was closed down, natural treatment projects have been applied in villages and their operation is continued under Provincial Special Administrations and Local Administrations. A common method used abroad is feeding the aquifer with treated wastewater and using the water received from the aquifer in irrigation. In Turkey, feeding groundwater with artificially treated water was prohibited by the Groundwater Law adopted in 1960, with the idea that this process may cause the pollution of the groundwater; however, in case a wastewater treatment plant is constructed at a location and there is no surface recipient water body for advance-treated and disinfected wastewater, then treated wastewater may be allowed to be disposed in the open land by obtaining a special permit from the State Water Works Department. In Turkey, 89 natural wastewater treatment plants are active, as constructed wetland in small settlement areas and are operated by the Provincial Special Administrations and the Local Administrations. In the selection of wetland systems, their site of installation and in their design, characteristics as topography, soil, flood risks, and other ground and terrain features, including areas climate, must be taken into consideration. Therefore, natural treatment systems in local areas in Turkey vary. Existing natural treatments in the country are in operation most of the year, even though some problems are faced due to the prevailing climate conditions.

7.4 INVESTMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS FOR NTS IN SMALL COMMUNITIES

7.4.1 Balçık Village The village is 9 km to the n orth of Gebze. It is surrounded by ekerpınar town in the west, Gebze District in the south, Pelitli and Mollafenari towns in the east, Istanbul province in the North. It is surrounded by Organized Industrial Zones and factories.

Table 28: Population change of Balçık Village. Year Population 2012 2000 2007 1450 2000 1396 1997 1074

Table 29: Balçık Village Geographical Location Information Distance to Province Distance to District Altitude (m) Latitude Longitude Center (Km) Center (Km) 50 9 190 40.874469 29.431078

Vegetation: Olive groves and forestation, which were widespread, previously were wiped out for the purpose of urban expansion and development of industrial area. Forests destroyed are covered in steppe plants and scrubs. Climate: Climate of the village is under the effect area of the Black Sea climate. In summer generally Mediterranean climate is prevalent. Summers are hot with little rain; winters are rainy, sometimes with snow and cold. The number of the snowy days is on average 12 days. The highest

temperature measured is 44.1 °C (July 13th 2000), lowest temperature is -8.3°C (February 23 1985), annual average temperature is 14.8°C. Annual averag e rain received exceeds 1,000 mm. Winds blow from north and northeast in winter and from northeast in summer. Economy: Village economy is based on agriculture, stockbreeding and factory workmanship. Substructure: Village has potable water network and sewage network. Sewage network is connected to Balçık Wastewater Natural Treatment Plant. Wastewater Discharge in Sewage System: Domestic and ιndustrial wastewater located in Kocaeli province should not exceed the discharge limits indicated by the Wastewater Sewage Discharge Regulation in order to be discharged in sewage system. Wastewater limits in various parameters are indicated in Table 30. Wastewater must be pre-treated and its content lowered below the discharge limits or must be disposed in firms which obtained the Industrial and Domestic Wastewater treatment license, before discharging in the sewage system, and such disposal must be proven to Izmit Water and Sewage Administration with the disposal documents (Pre-treatment cost belongs to the wastewater source owner).

Table 30: Limit values, which must be complied with Izmit Water and Sewage Administration Collector System in Wastewater discharges PARAMETETERS IN TWO HOUR COMPOSITE SAMPLE ALLOWED VALUE COD (mg/l) (a) 800 SS (mg/l) 350 Total Nitrogen (mg/l) 100 Total Phosphorus (mg/l) 10 Oil and Grease (mg/l) 50 Anionic Surface Active Material (Detergent) (mg/l) 10 (The discharge of the material which do not comply with TSE and their biological decomposition.) Arsenic (As) (mg/l) 3 Antimony (Sb) (mg/l) 3 Tin (Sn) (mg/l) 5 Iron (Fe) (mg/l) 5 Boron (B) (mg/l) 3 Cadmium (Cd) (mg/l) 2 Total Chromium (Cr) (mg/l) 5 Copper (Cu) (mg/l) 2 Lead (Pb) (mg/l) 3 Nickel (mg/l) 5 Zinc (Zn) (mg/l) 5 Mercury (Hg) (mg/l) 0.2 Silver (Ag) (mg/l) 5 Total Cyanide (CN) (mg/l) 10 Phenol (mg/l) 20 Total Sulfur (mg/l) 2 Free Chlorine (mg/l) 5

Sulfate (SO 4) (mg/l) ( c ) 1,700 Temperature ( 0 °C)(b) 40 pH(b) 6-10 Color (RES Unit) 436 nm: 20, 525 nm: 17, 620 nm: 11 Aluminum (Al) (mg/l) 3 Note : In spot samples limit value, only 20% more than the value allowed for two hours composite sample can be allowed.

7.4.2 Balçık Waste water Natural Treatment Plant “Balçık Wastewater Natural Treatment Plant” was designed and built as a Research and Development Project with the financial support of TUBITAK. The project, which is within the scope of TARAL (Turkey Research Area), was done to apply low cost treatment technologies in Marmara Region. The project was carried out for the Ministry of Environment and Forestry by TUBITAK MAM (Marmara Research Center) and Istanbul Technical University, Environmental Engineering Department and the results were presented to the Ministry. The project, which contained an example implementation for Marmara region, was aimed to be implemented in appropriate regions in Turkey in general. The project was started in July 2006 and completed in February 2011. After the pilot scale studies, a land-scaled Wastewater Treatment Plant was established in Gebze Balçık Village in Marmara region. In December 2007 with a protocol signed between Kocaeli Metropolitan Municipality ISU General Directorate, TUBITAK MAM President's Office and Ministry of Environment and Forestry, it was decided to transfer the plant to ISU at the end of the project. Plant Information - Plant is established over an area of 7,500 m 2. - It serves a population of 3,000 people. - Its average flow is 400 m 3/day - Treatment process in the plant is carried out with natural plants taken from Sapanca flora (Straws). - Horizontal subsurface runoff system at the 1st stage: 3 filled pond beds 15 x 45 x 0.8 (m) - Vertical subsurface runoff system at the 2nd stage: 4 filled pond beds 25 x 30 x 0.8 (m) Plant Units: Entrance Structure Grate Sand Filter Supply Station Pre-Treatment Anaerobic Sludge Bed Reactor (ASBR) Surface Flow System Main Distribution Structure Surface Flow System (SFS)(3 Units) Vertical Flow System Main Distribution Structure Vertical Flow System (VFS)(3 Units) Exit Structure In Balçık Wastewater Natural Treatment Plant, as opposed to the classical wetlands, tiny particulate matter in wastewater is prevented from entering the system with sand filter and, clogging of SFS Pool, VFS pool and pumps are prevented. Biological treatment is performed by anaerobic bacteria in the ASBR pool designed in the plant as pretreatment and the load of SFS and VFS units are reduced. The effluent of Balçık Waste Water Natural Treatment Plant, whic h meets the requirements of Water Pollution Control Regulation-Table 21.5 (Sector: Water treated to be under the discharge limits indicated in Domestic Wastewater), is discharged to Balık River crossing by the plant.

Table 31: Water Pollution Control Regulation Table 21.5: Sector: Wastewater with Domestic Quality. PARAMETER UNIT COMPOSITE SAMPLE COMPOSITE SAMPLE 2 HOURS 24 HOURS

BOD 5 (DISSOLVED) (mg/L) 75 50 COD (mg/L) 180 120 SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS) (mg/L) 200 150 pH - 6-9 6-9

DERE T B A Ç Y H R-13 I - L K P İ Y I A S E S R-12 B Y K.T.P R-14 R-8 R-9 - R-10 R-11 GİRİ IZGARA P KUM A TUTUCU S T.P.- S T.P.-A S DAS-1 DAS-2 DAS-3 DAS-4

VANA

DAS1.P DAS2.P DAS3.P DAS4.P Çamur R-4- R-5- D.A.S. Ana Dağıtım R-6- R-7- Kurutma Yapısı

R-1-A R-1-B R-1-C R-2-A R-2-B R-2-C R-3-A R-3-B R-3-C

HÇRY YAS - 1 YAS - 2 YAS - 3

By - Pass

Y.A.S. Y.A.S -1 R-1 Ana Y.A.S -2 R-2 Dağıtım Y.A.S -3 Yapısı R-3

POMPALAR ATIKSU HATLARI Figure 60: Balçık Wastewater Natural Treatment Plant Flow Chart (DAS:VFS, YAS:SFS).

Table 32: Balçık Wastewater Natural Treatment Plant Discharge Water Analysis. Sample Analysis results dated 02.08.2012 WPRC PARAMETER METHOD UNIT INFLOW OUTFLOW (TABLE: 21:2) SS Standard Method 2540-D mg/L 72 35 60 COD Merck Method 14895-14555 mg/L 150 100 160 *BOD Merck Method 687 mg/L 130 35 50 *TKN Merck Method 14537 mg/L 40 31 - pH Standard Method 4500H-B - 7,50 7.50 6-9 pH value is given for 25 0C, the temperature value declared shows the temperature of the sample. Experiments marked with * are not included in the scope of the accreditation. Sample Analysis Results dated 06.09.2012 WPRC PARAMETER METHOD UNIT INFLOW OUTFLOW (TABLE: 21:2) SS Standard Method 2540 -D mg/L 60 35 60 COD Merck Method 14895 -14555 mg/L 145 98 160 *BOD Merck Method 687 mg/L 115 32 50 *TKN Merck Method 14537 mg/L 45 32 - pH Standard Method 4500H -B - 7,60 7.50 6-9 pH value is given for 25 0C, the temperature value declared shows the temperature of the sample. Experiments marked with * are not included in the scope of the accreditation. Sample Analysis Results dated 05.07.2012

INFLOW OUTFLOW SKKY PARAMETER METHOD UNIT (TABLE: 21:2) SS Standard Method 2540 -D mg/L 70 33 60 COD Merck Method 14895 -14555 mg/L 165 108 160 *BOD Merck Method 687 mg/L 105 30 50 *TKN Merck Method 14537 mg/L 41 30 - pH Standard Method 4500H -B - 7,60 7.50 6-9 pH value is given for 25 0C, the temperature value declared shows the temperature of the sample. Experiments marked with * are not included in the scope of the accreditation. Note: Samples analyzed are 2 hours composite sample.

Table 33: Balçık Wastewater Natural Treatment Plant Operation Cost. Monthly (TL) Annual (TL) Energy Cost 3,250 39,000 Personnel Cost 5,800 69,600 Repair Maintenance Cost 3,000 36,000 Other Costs 2,000 24,000 TOTAL (TL) 14,050 168,600

Table 34: Balçık Wastewater Natural Treatment Plant Establishment Cost. DESCRIPTION OF WORK ESTIMATED COST (TL) CONSTRUCTION WORKS 331,990.00 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTATION 35,665.32 ELECTRICITY WORKS 4,411.40 TOTAL 372,066.72 TRANSPORTATION (8%) 29,765.34 VAT (18%) 72,329.77 GENERAL TOTAL 444,396.49 * Note: Construction cost increased, due to the reason that the anaerobic sludge bed reactor (which was designed as pretreatment) was constructed as concrete.

100

8. COUNTRY- SPECIFIC REPORT - UKRAINE

8.1 UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT Question of the wastewater is regulated by the Law of Ukraine “On drinking water and water supply” from 10.01.2002 № N 2918 -III (as amended) and the Water Code of Ukraine from 06.06.1995 № 214/95 -VR (as amended). Entities (enterprises water users) must operate within the current legislation to comply with Articles 29, 44, 48 of the Water Code of Ukraine, resolution “On approval of the endorsement and issuance of permits for special water use and making changes to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine from 10.08.1992 № 459” from 13.03.2002 № 321. Entities whose activities are connected with the discharge of wastewaters to surface water objects, must comply with the requirements of Articles 48, 70 of the Water Code of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers resolution “On approval of rules for protection of surface waters against pollution return waters” from 25.03.1999 number 465, the resolution “On Approval of the Rules of internal sea waters and territorial sea against pollution and contamination” from 29.02.1996 № 269, the resolution “On the Procedure for the development and adoption of standards for maximum allowable discharge of pollutants and the list of pollutants discharge which normalized” from 11.09.1996 № 1100.

101

8.2 PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT LEVELS IN UKRAINE According to the figures provided by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources of Odessa regional state administration in the Odessa region, there are 110 enterprises that carry the discharge of wastewaters into surface water bodies, including projects approved norms of maximum permissible discharge (MPD) of pollutants into surface water bodies are about 58% of business entities. In 2012 wastewater discharge decreased to 39.9 million m3 due to a decrease in the use of water for household, domestic and industrial needs. Polluted wastewater into water bodies is 102.62 million m 3, including inadequately treated - 56.89 million m 3, without purification 45.73 million m 3. Compared with 2011, discharge of inadequately treated sewage decreased by 3.34 million m 3 while normative - treated sewage increased to 1.92 million m 3. As of 01.01.2014 in the Odessa region there are 203 centers of sewage treatment plants with a total design capacity of 1,576.145 thousand m 3/day, of which 75 are located in the in the recreational area of Belgorod-Dniester, Kominternivskyi and Ovidiopolskiy areas. From the total number of treatment facilities, around 28.6% are in the poor sanitary condition, namely the sewage treatment plant of Artsyz, Berezovsky, Saratskiy, Ananevskij, Krasnooknyanskoho, Tatarbunary areas. Furthermore, there is a need to reconstruct the sewage treatment plants of Ovidiopolskiy District, Kotovskogo, Rozdilnjansky areas and many others. Centralized sewerage system with wastewater treatment in their own treatment plants are in Odessa, Belgorod-Dniester, Kodyma, Kotovsk, Renee, Ananyiv, Artsiz, Tatarbunary, Rozdilna, Berezivka, Kiel, Teplodar, townships Zatoka and Ivanivka. Wastewater of the cities such as Ismil, Illichivsk, Balta, Yuzhny and townships Tarutine come for cleaning on departmental sewage treatment plants. In settlements such as Savran, Frunzovka, Shiryaevo, Velikomihaylovka, Mykolayivka treatment facilities are absent at all. Much of the water and sewer facilities of the region, sewage pumping stations and pumping units, wastewater treatment plants and networks are processed the normative lifetime, in consequence resulting in increased power consumption thus increasing the cost of pumping water and sewage. Sewage treatment plants and sewerages were built in 70s-80s of the last century, for today they are simply obsolete and do not meet modern requirements. Moreover, obligations on their reconstruction are transferred to the balance of rural councils that do not have funds to repair facilities, thus current and capital repairs are not conducted, accidents on the lines of drainage networks not promptly eliminated, there is no permanent control over their work, leading to contamination of land and groundwater aquifers. The total length of sewer networks is 1.42 sq km, of which 0.49 thousand kilometers networks have to be reconstructed (more than 34% of their total length), the origins of which are in addition to the secondary pollution of water by sewage causing flooding of populated areas. However, treatment facilities which are in a satisfactory condition, in violation of wastewater treatment technologies, do not reach the designed parameters. In recent years, a trend of increasing concentrations of pollutants (particularly nitrogen group, phosphates, surfactants) at the input of sewage treatment plants above design parameters, leading to excess concentrations of standard indicators at the output of treatment plant.

102

Table 35: Sewerage system condition in Odessa Region as of 1.01.2014 The length of sewer Capacity of sewage treatment № networks Sewage pumping plants (km) stations (units) (cubic meters per day)

Methods and treatment rate of Place discharge sewage Name of the administrative - territorial Technical condition of sewage water settlement after treatment units, settlement Incl. treatment plants plants total emergency units

working working working emergency emergency emergency

2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Ananyivsky District : The Kuyalnik River

- Ananyiv 4.5 2.3 - 1 - Without treatment * 700

2. Artsyzsky District:

- Artsyz 4.0 2.0 1 - 2,000 - Biological The Koghilnyk River

- Pavlivka 1.0 1.0 - 1 - 150 Without treatment * - // -

- Delen’ 1.0 1.0 - 1 - 150 Without treatment * - // -

3. Baltsky District: The Kodyma River

- Balta 16.0 6.8 1 - - 3,000 Mechanical *

4. Berezivsky District: The Tiligul

- Berezivka 6.0 - - 2 - 700 Without treatment * River

- Rauhivka 16.0 1.5 - 1 - 400 Without treatment * Accumulating pond

103

5. Belgorod -Dnistrovsky Distritc:

- Belgorod-Dnistrovsky 79.8 34.3 10 1 10,000 - Biological Dnistrovskyi estuary

- Zatoka 12.5 - 2 - 200 - - // - - // -

- Sergiivka 17.8 7.2 2 - 700 - - // - The Black Sea

6. Bilyaivsky District:

- Bilyaivka 18.0 8.0 1 - - - - Treatment plants of

- Mayaky 5.0 2.0 1 - - - - Teplodar

- Nerubajske 12.0 3.0 1 - - - - Khadzhybeysky estuary

- Avgustovka 7.0 4.0 1 - - - -

- Khlibodarske 5.0 4.0 - 1 - 700 Without treatment * Accumulating pond

7. Bolgradsky District: The Yalpug lake

- Bolgrad 5.6 1.7 - 1 - 600 Filtration fields **

8. Velykomykhailivky District:

- Velyka Mykhailivka 2.5 2.0 - - - - Without treatment ** Accumulating pond

9. Ivanivsky District:

- Ivanivka 6.0 2.3 1 - 100 - Biological Without treatment * Velykyi Kuyalnic River

- Petrivka 4.0 2.5 - 1 - 400

104

10. Izmailsky District: The Danube River

- Izmail 67.9 8.5 3 - 42,000 - Biological Without treatment * Accumulating pond

- Kamyanka 3.7 - - 1 - 100

11. Kiliysky District:

- Kiliya 10.0 0.3 2 2 - 3,150 Biological * The Danube River

- Vylkove 2.2 1.0 2 1 - 1,000 Filtration fields ** Danube floodplains

12. Kodymsky District:

- Kodyma 18.5 5.2 1 1 - 2,240 Mechanical * Accumulating ponds

- Slobidka 12.0 2.0 - 1 - 200 Without treatment *

13. Kominternivsky District:

- Chornomorske 8.7 4.9 2 - - - - treatment plants of Odessa Port Plant - Fontanka 6.0 6.0 1 - - - - Accumulating pond - Serbka 3.0 3.0 - - - - -

- Petrivka 3.0 3.0 - 1 - 80 Without treatment *

14. Kotovsky District: The Kuyalnik and Tiligul 7,000 Rivers - Kotovsk 83.7 31.2 7 - - Biological * - - - // - // - // - // - - - 2 - 7,500 Biological The Yagorlyk River 15 Krasnooknyansky District: 1,500 - Krasni Okny 7.2 - 1 1 - Without treatment *

105

16. Lyubashivsky District: - Accumulating ponds 300 - Lyubashivka 2.9 0.9 - - - Without treatment **

- Zelenogirske 2.7 0.7 - - - Filtration fields *

17. Mykolaivsky District: The Chechekliya and Tiligul 150 Rivers - Mykolaivka 6.0 6.0 - 1 - Without treatment * 50 - Skosarivka 3.9 2.4 - 1 - Without treatment * Ovidiopolsky District: 18. - Ovidiopol 12.5 - 1 - - - The treatment plans of - Velykodolynske 10.5 - 3 - - - - Illichivsk - Tairove 7.5 4.0 1 - - 700 - Accumulating pond - Avangard 5.9 - 1 - 250 - Biological * Accumulating pond - Molodizhne 5.0 - 2 - - - Biological Illichivsk - Nadlymanske 1.0 1.0 - 1 - 200 - - Novogradkivka 7.2 0.5 - 3 - 200 Without treatment * Accumulating pond - Petrodolyna 5.0 3.0 1 1 - 200 Without treatment * Accumulating pond - Karolino-Bugaz 4.5 1.0 - 1 - 600 Without treatment * Accumulating pond Mechanical * Dnistrovskyi estuary

19. Reniysky District: 2,000 - - The Danube River - Reni 25.0 11.0 3 2 - Filtration fields **

- Novosilske 8.0 - 2 - 425 Biological

20. Rozdilnyansky District: 2,000 Kuchurhanske reservoir 200 - Rozdilna 12.0 6.0 1 - - Mechanical *

- Lymanske 25.0 20.0 - 1 - Without treatment * Accumulating pond 21. Savransky District: -

- Savran 0.7 - - - - Without treatment **

106

The Sarata River 22. Saratsky District: 200

- Sarata 8.2 2.2 1 - - Mechanical* The Bakhmutka River 23. Tarutynsky Ditrict: -

- Tarutyne 4.9 - 1 - 700 Biological

The Sasyk lake 24. Tatarbunarsky District: -

- Tatarbunary 23.7 7.8 1 1 1,100 Biological Accumulating pond 25. Frunzivsky District: -

- Frunzivka 0.6 0.5 - - - Without treatment ** Accumulating pond 26. Shiryaivsky District: -

- Shiraive 0,5 0,5 - - - Without treatment ** - The Black Sea 27. Illichivsk 79.6 0.2 1 - 24,000 Biological

- Dnistrovskyi estuary 28. Teplodar 24.5 8.2 2 - 17,000 Biological

- The Black Sea 29. Yuzhne 44.0 7.8 2 - 13,000 Biological

200,000 - The Black Sea 30. Odessa 647.0 252 27 - 400,000 - Biological The Black Sea Biological - 16 units 29 units 718975 28870 Total: 1,427.9 486.7 92 30 - cubic meters per cubic meters day per day

* sewage treatment plants requiring reconstruction - 26 units ** priority need for the construction of sewage treatment plants - 8 units

107

8.3 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING NTS APPLICATIONS IN UKRAINE Wastewater generated in rural areas in the life of people (domestic sewage) and in the operation of livestock farms and complexes (industrial wastewater). These differ in terms of wastewater as the formation and concentration of pollutants. Because rural areas are not provided with sewerage system, the best solution is to create a local treatment plant. Furthermore, the choice of the method of the domestic wastewater local treatment depends on the quality of the soil on the site. If soils at the site act as proper filters, such as sandy loam or sand, it is possible to use an underground filter system or septic tank. Lots of underground filtration also is the final link in the autonomous system of sewage wastewater into the soil after pre-treatment in septic tanks. Thus, the groundwater should be at a depth of 2.5-3 m and within 25 m from the site should not be wells from which water is used for drinking. Irrigation and distribution pipelines are installed with asbestos or non-pressurized plastic pipes. When a pipe is assumed and adding a layer of 200 mm and width of 250 mm of crushed stone, gravel or slag sintered, herewith the tube is immersed in and adding half the diameter. Field filtering device does not require any significant financial expenditures, thus if the nature of the soil and the groundwater level on the area allows to build such device, it will be the best solution for a private developer. In addition to its main purpose – the filter of wastewater, underground filtration field good irrigated land and partly fertilize them. Hardware filtering area is recommended before beginning work on the construction site. This is the easiest and cheapest way to clean wastewater, but requires regular maintenance: about once every 5-8 years (depending on usage) must dig and make replacement/cleaning of the gravel. It is also necessary to change the soil which adjacent to the gravel and has lost filtering properties. Above is a network of irrigation canals, at the bottom is drainage channels of the network, which is the same as it outlines, in between is a layer of filter sand and gravel. The simplest option is sand and gravel filter, which can be completed along the fence area. The length of the trench line filter will depend on the amount of water consumed (1 meter of trench is 100 gallons per day). Purified water from a drainage pipe going to the storage well, it does not pose any danger as a source of infection, and it can be taken away to the surface. If the soil is clay on the site and the groundwater level is high enough, then the installation of sewage treatment have to be used, and after use also an underground filtration. Septic tank is a watertight container made of metal or concrete. Depending on the size of the tank and the size of the house, which is served by this reservoir, the latter may collect wastewater from all sources for the period from semidiurnal to three days. During this time the solid waste deposited at the bottom of the tank, which decompose under the action of microorganisms. The liquid phase is directed at post-treatment on the area of filtration. The classic method of sewage treatment, organic pollutants are aerobic purification, it is used in the local sewage treatment plants BIOTAL. The quality of treated water is shown in the table.

Table 36: The quality of domestic wastewater treatment in plants BIOTAL

BOD 5, COD, suspended NH 4 mg/l Circle Index mg O2/l mg O2/l solids, mg/l Household and domestic waste 390 480 20 220 >М0 5 water Requirements for municipal 15 80 - 15 - wastewater treatment plants Water quality after installing 5-7 <50 <1 <5-8 <1000 BIOTAL

Watering (including the subsoil) З0 500 5 50-60 -

In order to get the best result in cleaning drains and increase the capacity of treatment plants, the work of anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms has to be well combined, thus 2- phasic clearance is required. Step number 1-anaerobic - stocks decomposed into elementary components. This process can occur in a standard septic tank and in a more complex system (anaerobic bio- reactor) in which there is at least 90% conversion of organic contaminants in the biogas. Biogas after cleaning of traces of hydrogen sulfide is a valuable source of energy and can be used to generate heat/steam or converted into electricity in a gas generator. The liquid phase of anaerobic reactor containing not more than 10% of the initial content of COD, also nitrogen and phosphorus in mineralized form, can be used as an effective liquid fertilizer or fed to the post-treatment. Step number 2-aerobic - used for purification of the liquid phase to the (N, P, etc.) discharge of wastewater into open waters using oxygen. The benefits of combined technologies in comparison with traditional aerobic purification: •Fundamental reduce in energy co nsumption for aeration, as previous anaerobic treatment of concentrated wastewater requires high energy costs for aeration, while removing 90% or more COD pollution; electricity in an anaerobic stage is needed only for pumping sewage, usually no more than 0,02-0,06 kW h./m 3 . • Organic pollution of wastewater for at least 90% are converted into valuable energy source - methane and outs of the latter is quite high - 0.35 m 3/1 kg withdrawn COD; • Increase the excess of biomass in dry matter is in 5 -10 times less than the purely aerobic purification. Excess biomass is stable, does not rot in the storage. •For purification of concentrated wastewater, anaerobic systems are usually much more efficient than aerobic. This is due to the fact that in anaerobic reactors the achievement of concentration of biomass is very high - 30-50 g/dm 3 and more, while in aerobic facilities the concentration of biomass severely limited of opportunities of governors devices (usually no more than 4-8 g/dm 3). As a result, productivity of today's high- performance anaerobic reactors (such as UASB) is 15-20 kg COD/m per day (for example: oxidative capacity of aerobic biofilters and aero tanks not exceed 5 U kg COD/m per day, and in most cases - 2-3 COD/m 3 kg per day). The latter construction of anaerobic digesters (EGSB, IC -UASB reactors with a fluidized bed, etc.) are able to work effectively on an industrial scale performance, the order exceeds the maximum for aerobic systems (up to 30-60 kg COD/m 3 day). •Anaerobic reactors are resistant to prolonged interruptions in feeding wastewater that makes good use of seasonal sewage treatment plants.

109

• The design of anaerobic digesters can be completely sealed, preventing the spread of substances that smell bad and microbial aerosols around the treatment plant. As a consequence, can be greatly reduced sanitary - protective zone. • Compact and sanitary - hygienic safety of contemporary anaerobic bioreactors allow their widespread use for local cleaning of concentrated industrial wastewater of livestock farms. Surplus biomass from anaerobic bioreactors may periodically export to farmland as fertilizer or for sale to run other anaerobic reactors. • The minimum amount of anaerobic digesters is unlimited. Unlike aerobic cleaning, maintenance of small units (20 - 50 m 3) is not difficult. Particular interest lays in the use of bioplato for cleaning wastewater in settlements of rural areas. For the construction of bioplato usually used local materials and no need in skilled labor, specialized machinery and adaptations. In Ukraine have been built several dozen of bioplato that operate even more efficiently than with conventional treatment technology. The main advantage of bioplato is low cost, lack of demand, ease of construction, extremely low cost of construction and operation. The main disadvantage of bioplato is the need for large areas compared to the buildings of mechanical and chemical- biological treatments. There are superficial infiltration and floating structures bioplato. As superficial infiltration bioplato used engineering structures or natural wetlands. For floating structures bioplato filled to a height of 0.6 m from the bottom of the vegetable soil on the surface of which grows aquatic vegetation. The water level is maintained slightly higher than the surface of plant soil. Infiltration bioplato are earthen structures of filtering with loading gravel, expanded clay, sand and other materials. Filtration of waste liquids can be performed in horizontal and vertical directions. On the surface, the most stable boot planted trees and shrubs, or herbal plants. Wastewater treatment happens with the expense of life amphibious plants, microorganisms and biofilms and rhizosphere fungi and actinomycetes in roots and humus layer gradually formed. Floating bioplato is essentially artificial alloys. On the surface of the water floating mats that are made from synthetic fibers, grass planted perennial plants that form a well-developed root system. Floating bioplato worked well in clearing water from floating impurities (foam, flakes, etc).

110

8.4 POTENTIAL REGIONAL/LOCAL RURAL SITES FOR NTS APPLICATION IN UKRAINE According to the district administrations and city councils of regional significance information, Lyubashevsky State Administration proposes to amend the project construction of sewage treatment plants in Lyubashevka town and consider the construction of natural wastewater treatment systems at a distance of 2.2 km from the projected treatment plants on the river bed of shrinking Chychikliya, further implementation of the project “WASTnet - Black Sea network promoting joint management of natural wastewater treatment systems ” in the Lyubashivka village council. Population – 9,475 people, the climate is temperate – continental, air temperature in summer - up to +37 oC in winter -25 oC. The wind direction in the summer originates from the southeast, in the winter from the northeast; the average wind speed is 15 m/s. In Lyubashevka there is drainage system stretching 2.2 km with diameters of collectors 150 and 200 mm.

111

9. CONCLUSIONS

In general, according to the aforementioned, NTS technology is at a premature stage in several countries around Black Sea basin. Specifically, in Greece are observed the most of NTS applications and the last decades a general trend is noted towards these environmental friendly technologies. In the second place follows Turkey, while the rest countries round Black Sea basin are still behind in this field. Although the NTS applications are few or even none yet, there is much potential in the future and the scientific community has turned its interest towards this technology. Overall, natural systems have proven to be wellsuited, costeffective, and env ironmentally friendly treatment alternative to conventional systems. They are a reliable wastewater treatment technology especially for small, isolated or periurban communities where land cost is low and availability is high. They represent a suitable solution for treatment of many types of wastewater. In the future, constructed wetland technology could be focused on the following (Vymazal 2011): combination of various types of constructed wetlands in hybrid systems to achieve better treatment performance, especially for nitrogen; treatment of specific compounds present in wastewaters; search for suitable media with high capacity for phosphorus removal in subsurface flow constructed wetlands; identification of bacteria which assist in treatment processes; modeling of hydraulics and pollution removal in various types of constructed wetlands.

112

10. REFERENCES 1. Brix H., 1994, Use of constructed wetlands in water pollution control: historical development, present status, and future perspectives, Water Science Technology , 30 (8): 209-223. 2. Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (91/271/EEC). 3. Dialynas G.E., Kefalakis N., Dialynas E.G. and Angelakis A.N. 2002. Performance of the first free water surface constructed wetland in Crete, Greece. Proceedings at IWA Regional Symposium on Water Recycling in Mediterranean region, Iraklio, 26-29 September 2002. 4. Garcia J., Rousseau D.P.L., Morato J., Lesage E., Matamoros V., Bayona J.M., 2010, Contaminant removal processes in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands: a review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology , 40: 561-661. 5. Gemitzi A., Tsihrintzis V.A., Christou O., Petalas C. 2007. Use of GIS in siting stabilization pond facilities for domestic wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Management 82, 155 –166. 6. Gratziou M., Chalatsi M. 2011. Use of waste stabilization ponds’ systems in Mediterranean Europe, Proceedings of the 3rd International CEMEPE & SECOTOX Conference Skiathos, June 19-24. 7. Kivaisi A.K., 2001, The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries: a review, Ecological Engineering , 16: 545-560. 8. Papadopoulos A., Parisopoulos G., Papadopoulos F., Karteris A. 2003. Sludge accumulation pattern in an anaerobic pond under Mediterranean climatic conditions, Water research, Vol 37, 634-644. 9. Seventh Report on the Implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) – COM (2013) 574. 10. Tsalkatidou M., Gratziou M., Kotsovinos N. 2009. Combined stabilization ponds –constructed wetland system. Desalination, Vol 248, 988-997. 11. Tsihrintzis V.A. and Gikas G.D., 2010. Constructed wetlands for wastewater and activated sludge treatment in north Greece: a review. Water science and technology: a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research. Vol 61 (10), 2653-2672. 12. WASTE WATER TREATMENT IMPROVEMENT AND EFFICIENCY IN SMALL COMMUNITIES, SHORT GUIDE TO IMPROVE SMALL WWTP EFFICIENCY, DELIVERABLE TASK 7, LIFE ENVIRONMENT DG DEMONSTRATION PROJECT (LIFE04 ENV/PT/000687), July 2006. 13. WASTE-WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES: A GENERAL REVIEW, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR WESTERN ASIA, United Nations, New York, 2003. 14. Zdragas Μ., Zalidis G.C., Takavakoglou V., Katsavouni S., Anastasiadis E.T., Eskridge K., Panoras A. 2002. The Effect of Environmental Conditions on the Ability of a Constructed Wetland to Disinfect Municipal Wastewaters. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 29 (4), 510 –515. 15. Παρισόπουλο̋ Γ., Παπαδόπουλο̋ Φ., Σαπουντζάκη̋ Γ., Παπαγιαννοπούλου Α., Γιαούρη Μ. Σύγχρονε̋ προσεγγίσει̋ σχεδιασού Τεχνητών Υγροτόπων. Εφαρογή σε δύο έργα στι̋ Πρέσπε̋. Πρακτικά στο συνέδριο «∆ιαχείριση Υγρών Αποβλήτων ε αποκεντρωένα Συστήατα Επεξεργασία», Καρδίτσα, 14 -15 Οκτωβρίου, 2005.

113

114

Partnership Water and Sewage Applicant Municipal Enterprise of Kavala, Greece Democritus University ENPI Partner 1 of Thrace, Greece

American University of ENPI Partner 2 Armenia, Armenia

Ilia State University, ENPI Partner 3 Georgia

Eco-TIRAS International ENPI Partner 4 Environmental Association of River Keepers, Moldova Danube Delta National Institute for Research ENPI Partner 5 and Development,

Romania Odessa Regional State ENPI Partner 6 Administration, Ukraine

Kocaeli Water and IPA FLB Sewerage Administration, Turkey

Yalova University, IPA Partner 1 Turkey www.waste-net.info

A Black Sea network promoting integrated natural WAStewater Treatment systEms – WASTEnet Developed by Democritus University of Thrace. Printed in English by Odessa Regional State Administration. Date of publication - September 2014. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of WASTEnet partnership and can in no way reflect the views of the European Union.

115