E852
v 3
Public Disclosure Authorized
Department for International
Development
Reduction of Nutrient Discharges and Methane
Emissions in Rostov-on-Don
Environmental Impact Assessment
Public Disclosure Authorized
Halcrow Group Limited
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Department for International
Development
Reduction of Nutrient Discharges and Methane
Emissions in Rostov-on-Don
Environmental Impact Assessment
August 2001
Halcrow Group Limited
Halcrow Group Limited
Burderop Park Swindon Wiltshire SN4 0QD
Tel +44 (0)1793 812479 Fax +44 (0)1793 812089
www.Halcrow.com
Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with
the instructions of their client, DFID, for their sole and specific use.
Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so
at their own risk.
© Halcrow Group Limited 2001
Halcrow Group Limited
Burderop Park Swindon Wiltshire SN4 0QD
Tel +44 (0)1793 812479 Fax +44 (0)1793 812089
www.Halcrow.com
Department for International
Development
Reduction of Nutrient Discharges and Methane
Emissions in Rostov-on-Don
Environmental Impact Assessment
August 2001
Contents Amendment Record
This report has been issued and amended as follows:
Issu
Revisio
Description Date
Signed
e
n
0
Draft April
2001
1
1
Final with amandments
August
added from reviewers
2001
Contents
Executive Summary
1
1
Introduction 8
1.1 Background
8
1.2
Context and Need for Improvements
8
1.2.1 Introduction
8
1.2.2 Regional Projects
9
1.2.3 Specific Scheme Development
11
1.3 Study
Area
13
1.4
Scope and Approach
13
1.5
Structure of the Report
14
2
Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework
15
2.1 Introduction
15
2.2 Institutional
Framework
15
2.2.1 Protection and Management of Natural Resources
15
2.2.2 Management of Water Resources
16
2.3
Russian Legislation (Federal, Oblast and City)
18
2.3.1 Environmental Impact Assessment
18
2.3.2 Environmental Protection
18
2.3.3 Water Resources Management
19
2.3.4 Waste Management
19
2.4 International
Agreements
19
3
Methodology 21
3.1 Introduction
21
3.2 Baseline
Data
Col ection
21
3.3
Evaluation of the Environmental Impacts
22
3.4 Consultation
23
4
Description of the Project
24
4.1 Introduction
24
4.2 Existing
Treatment
Process
24
4.3
Outline description of proposed process improvements
28
4.3.1 Component 1: Upgrading of screening and grit removal 28
4.3.2 Component 2: Renovation of the primary settlement tanks28
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
ii
4.3.3 Component 3: Modification and extension of the secondary aeration tanks (6)
28
4.3.4 Component 4: Incorporation of lamella settlers (7)
28
4.3.5 Component 5: Chemical Phosphorus stripping
29
4.3.6 Component 6: Sludge digestion
29
4.3.7 Component 7: Sludge dewatering (31)
29
4.3.8 Component 8: Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant Methane use 29
4.4 Nutrient
Reduction
29
4.4.1 Concept
29
4.4.2 Upgrading of screening and grit removal, renovation of primary treatment
tanks (Components 1 and 2)
31
4.4.3 Biological nutrient removal (Components 3 and 4)
31
4.4.4 Phosphorus stripping (Component 5)
32
4.5
Sludge Processing and Methane Utilisation
33
4.5.1 Introduction
33
4.5.2 Sludge digestion (Component 6)
39
4.5.3 Sludge Dewatering (Component 7)
39
4.5.4 CHP plant Methane Use (Component 8)
40
4.6
Sludge Quantities and Quality
41
4.7 Construction
Programme
42
5
Existing Environmental Conditions
43
5.1 Introduction
43
5.2 Physical
Environment
43
5.2.1 Topography, Geology and Soils
43
5.2.2 Climate
44
5.2.3 Hydrology
44
5.2.4 Hydrogeology
47
5.3 Natural
Environment
48
5.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology
48
5.3.2 Aquatic and Wetland Ecology
50
5.4 Human
Environment
53
5.4.1 Population, Employment and Income Distribution
53
5.4.2 Water Resources, Supply and Sanitation
54
5.4.3 Public Health
57
5.4.4 Land Use, Industry and Agriculture
64
5.4.5 Fisheries
67
5.4.6 Energy Production and Consumption
69
5.4.7 Transport Infrastructure
71
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
iii
5.4.8 Solid Waste Disposal
72
5.4.9 Tourism and Recreation
85
5.4.10 Cultural Heritage
86
5.5 Environmental
Quality
86
5.5.1 Surface Water Quality
86
5.5.2 Groundwater Quality
107
5.5.3 Sediment Quality
108
5.5.4 Air Quality
120
6
Environmental Impacts of the Scheme
124
6.1 Introduction
124
6.2
Environmental Impact Matrices
124
6.3
Impacts during Construction
131
6.3.1 Introduction
131
6.3.2 Components 1 and 2
132
6.3.3 Component 3
132
6.3.4 Component 4
133
6.3.5 Component 5 Chemical Phosphorus removal
133
6.3.6 Component 6 Sludge digestion
133
6.3.7 Component 8 CHP Methane use
133
6.4
Impacts during Operation
133
6.4.1 Introduction
133
6.4.2 Components 1 - 4
134
6.4.3 Component 5 Chemical P removal
135
6.4.4 Component 6 Sludge digestion
138
6.4.5 Component 8 CHP
140
7
Overview of Alternative Schemes
142
7.1 Introduction
142
7.2
Options for Reduction of Nutrient Discharges
142
7.3 Options
analysis
143
7.3.1 Preferred Option
147
7.3.2 Other proposals
147
8
Environmental Management Plan
149
8.1 Introduction
149
8.2 Mitigation
Plan
149
8.3 Monitoring
Plan
153
8.3.1 Introduction
153
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
iv
8.3.2 Monitoring during Construction
157
8.3.3 Monitoring during Operation
157
8.4
Training and Capacity Building Requirements
157
9
Conclusions 159
9.1 Introduction
159
9.2
Key Environmental Effects
159
9.3 Residual
Adverse
Impacts
160
9.4
Key Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
161
9.5
Recommendations for Future Studies
162
9.5.1 Introduction
162
9.5.2 Development of a Sludge Disposal Strategy
162
9.5.3 Chemical stripping of return liquors from sludge treatment163
9.5.4 Energy consumption audit
163
9.5.5 Audit of WWTW chlorination programme
163
9.5.6 Don Delta and Sea of Azov Biodiversity Studies (non-RVK)
164
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
v
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Photographs
Appendix B:
List of relevant environmental legislation
Appendix C:
Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Fisheries and Drinking Water
Appendix D:
Water Quality Data and Figures
Appendix E:
The Environmental Assessment Team
Appendix F:
EIA workshop
Appendix G:
References
FIGURES
1.1
The Rostov Oblast, showing the Lower Don River
1.2
The Greater Rostov area, showing the location of the WWTW
2.1
Water Resources Management in Rostov: Organisation chart
4.1
Site Map showing existing and proposed GEF-funded improvements
4.2
Existing Wastewater Treatment Process (in text)
4.3
Site Map showing location of sludge lagoon
4.4
Schematic of proposed modified biological treatment process (in text)
4.5
Proposed process line incorporating sludge treatment and methane use (in text)
4.6
Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions without methane use (in text)
4.7
Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions with methane use (in text)
5.1
Major abstractions and discharges on the Lower Don
5.2
Natural ecosystems of the Rostov Oblast
5.3
Protected areas within the Lower Don area
5.4
Land Use map for Rostov City
5.5
The Lower Don Recreation Area
5.6
Archaeological sites of the Lower Don
5.7
Exceedance of Fisheries Maximum Allowable Concentrations along the Lower Don (in text)
5.8
Exceedance of Drinking Water Maximum Allowable Concentrations along the Lower Don (in
text)
5.9
Typical seasonality in the contribution of point and non-point sources to phosphorus
concentrations in the river (in text)
5.10
Air pollution in Rostov City
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
vi
GLOSSARY
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand (an indirect measure of the level of biologically available
organic material used as a measure of pollution)
CHP
Combined Heat and Power
CPPI
Centre for the Preparation and Implementation of International Project (North Caucasus
branch)
CSIP
Community
Social
Infrastructure
Project
DBWMA
Don Basin Water Management Authority
DFID
Department for International Development (British Government)
Ecology
Note to translators: Ecology should be translated into Russian as Biology
EIA
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
EMP
Environmental
Management
Plan
EPC
Equilibrium
Phosphorus
Concentration
EQO
Environmental
Quality
Objective
EQS
Environmental
Quality
Standard
GEF
Global
Environment
Fund
(World
Bank)
GRESAP
Greater Rostov Environment Strategic Action Plan
Lumbricidae
Family of Annelid worms, including the earthworm
MAC
Maximum
Allowable
Concentration
MNR
Ministry of Natural Resources
MSW
Municipal
Solid
Waste
OCP
Organochlorine
pesticides
RVK
Rostov
Vodokanal
SPS
Sewerage
Pumping
Station
SRP
Soluble
Reactive
Phosphate
VOC
Volatile
Organic
Compound
WHO
World
Health
Organisation
WPA
Water
Protection
Area
WWTW Wastewater
Treatment
Works
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
vii
Executive Summary
1. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of two Global
Environment Fund grants aimed at improving nutrient removal and reducing the amount of
methane emitted from the Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) in Rostov City. The long-
term objective of the improvements is to reduce pollution loads (especially the nutrients
causing eutrophication) to the River Don, Sea of Azov and Black Sea, and to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The work was commissioned by the British
Government (Department for International Development, DFID) as part of a collaborative
approach to the delivery of technical and financial assistance to the region.
Water and wastewater services are under the jurisdiction of Rostov Vodokanal (RVK), which
is a unitary enterprise of the Rostov Municipality. Rostov is a city of approximately 1.3
million people, situated in the south of the Rostov Oblast in south western Russia. The city
lies on the right bank of the River Don, approximately 30km from the Azov Sea. The
discharge of poorly treated effluent from the WWTW has been identified as one of the
principal sources of pollution of the Lower Don River and particularly as a source of
phosphorus and nitrogen substances that contribute to eutrophication of the river and
Azov/Black Sea. This project is part of a number of regional and local initiatives aimed at
reducing the pollution of the Black Sea, including the Black Sea Environment Programme and
the Greater Rostov Environmental Strategic Action Plan (GRESAP). It also forms part of an
ongoing programme of improvements to the Rostov WWTW funded by the Municipality and
the Community Social Infrastructure Project (CSIP).
The EIA was conducted according to World Bank guidelines, and is also intended to comply
with Russian EIA legislation. Public consultation was not conducted as part of the study as it
was agreed with the World Bank that this will be conducted as part of a larger study
examining the socio-economic and environmental effects of RVK's entire improvements
programme.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The WWTW is located on the left bank of the River Don, in an established industrial complex
to the south west of the city. It currently receives approximately 390,000m3/day from the
city's wastewater collector system. The wastewater undergoes screening and grit removal,
primary settlement, biological treatment and chlorination before discharge to the River Don
6km downstream of the works (and outside the city). Dilution at this point in the river is
approximately 1:100 or better. Sludge generated from the settlement stages is consolidated in
gravity thickening units and stored in drying beds or lagoons on site. The lagoons are large,
unlined and bunded. They represent a significant environmental risk through uncontrolled
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
1
leakage to groundwater and potentially during a large flooding event in the River Don when
they could be inundated. All proposed improvements to the WWTW will be constructed
within the boundary of the existing works.
2.1 Nutrient Reduction
The proposed project is designed to achieve a 60% reduction in phosphorus and a 50%
reduction in nitrogen load in the effluent. Nitrogen reduction and some of the phosphorus
reduction is achieved through process changes to the existing biological treatment tank,
allowing the wastewater to pass through three treatment stages: anaerobic (to prepare bacteria
for phosphorus removal later in the process), anoxic (where nitrates are reduced) and aerobic
(where ammonia and phosphorus are uptaken by bacteria). The project also involves
construction of a new 20,000m3 aeration tank. This increased capacity will further reduce the
nutrient content of the effluent by allowing increased duration of biological treatment. Further
phosphorus removal will be achieved by chemical dosing, the details of which have not yet
been decided. Additional process improvements include replacement of existing screens, grit
traps and primary settlement tank scrapers.
2.2 Sludge Processing
The aim of this component is to reduce the volume and BOD of sludge produced, and thus the
volume requiring disposal.. These components are still under design, but the concept involves
digestion of thickened sludge in six new digesters, sludge settlement in existing settlement
tanks and finally sludge dewatering in three new centrifuges. Sludge liquors will be returned
to the head of the works, and sludge, until a suitable disposal strategy is in place sludge will
be stored in the drying beds and lagoon on site. The centrifuges are already in place (funded
by CSIP) and will be commissioned in the near future. They are designed to produce a sludge
cake of 35% solids. the likely final sludge volume depends on the digester design and
operation regime chosen, but could be up to 50% less than the existing situation.
2.3 Methane Use
Bacterial digestion of sludge produces large quantities of methane, which is known to be a
potent greenhouse gas. The aim of this component is to use methane captured in the sludge
digesters to produce energy and heat. This on-site energy generation will significantly reduce
emissions to the atmosphere (following current national and international policy) as well as
representing a major cost saving to RVK. It will involve construction of a new Combined
Heat and Power (CHP) Plant and purchase of equipment. It is currently planned that the
energy produced will be used to power sludge digestion and dewatering (both energy-
intensive processes). Heat from the exhaust gases will be converted to steam to heat the
sludge, and cooling waters will be diverted directly into the central heating system of nearby
buildings.
3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
2
The report contains a description of the existing environment in terms of:
· Physical Environment: topography; geology and soils; climate; hydrology; hydrogeology;
· Natural Environment: terrestrial ecology; aquatic and wetland ecology;
· Human Environment: population, employment and income distribution; water resources,
supply and sanitation; public health; land use, industry and agriculture; fisheries; energy
production and consumption; transport infrastructure; solid waste disposal; tourism and
recreation; cultural heritage; and
· Environmental Quality: surface water quality; groundwater quality; sediment quality; air
quality.
Of particular relevance to this scheme are:
· Aquatic and wetland ecology: the Don Delta area is high in biodiversity. The area is
particularly important to migrating birds. There are a number of regionally protected
areas, but the Don Delta is not yet protected at the national level. Key threats to
biodiversity include pollution (both point and diffuse sources), overexploitation and
habitat destruction.
· Water resources: the Lower Don's water flow is regulated at the Tsimylansk reservoir,
approximately 300km upstream of Rostov city. Water resources are limiting in most
years, with heavy demands placed on them for industrial, agricultural (especially
irrigation) and municipal uses. Rostov depends on the Don for its supply of domestic
water.
· Public health: pollution of the river, both by the Rostov WWTW and by other sources,
has a negative impact on downstream uses including drinking water supply, fisheries and
recreation. Given the fact that WWTW effluent is chlorinated and then diluted in the river
by 1:100, it is considered unlikely that the effluent has major negative health impacts on
downstream users. The potential negative effects of waste water chlorination are discussed
in the Initial Environmental Evaluation of the Water Supply and Waste Water Strategy
(Halcrow 2001).
· Land use, industry and agriculture: land use in the region is predominantly agricultural.
Diffuse sources such as fertilisers and pesticides are therefore likely to have major
impacts on the water quality. Industrial discharges are also known to have a significant
impact, and sediments are known to be high in heavy metals as a result of the previous
intensive industrial activity in the area.
· Fisheries: fish continue to be an important sector of the economy, despite the catastrophic
collapse of stocks after the construction of the Tsimylansk dam in 1956. The fishery is
threatened by overexploitation, pollution and the water regulation regime which precludes
upstream migration for spawning. Heavy metals and pesticides are detected in fish tissues,
but are not above legal limits.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
3
· Energy production and consumption: the majority of the region's energy is produced at
the Novocherkassk power station through the burning of low quality coal with high
sulphur content. RVK's energy consumption represents a significant cost. The WWTW
used approximately 29 million kWh during 2000.
· Tourism and recreation: the area downstream of Rostov is a popular regional tourist
destination, and has become more important as a seaside destination since the break up of
the Soviet Union. There are public beaches along the river and at the Azov Sea (Rostov,
Azov and Taganrog), and swimming is a popular activity. Swimming is banned by the
SANEPID at times due to poor water quality.
· Surface water quality: both the Lower Don and the Azov Sea suffer from eutrophication
and frequent algal blooms in spring and autumn as well as summer. The fisheries
Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) limits for river water quality are exceeded by
over 600% for nitrogen, BOD by approximately 50% and petroleum products by 250%
downstream of Rostov. Phosphate levels at this point are just over the MAC. The river
water is compliant with the majority of drinking water MACs downstream of Rostov.
Illegal industrial discharges to the sewers and directly to the river are identified as a
problem affecting both the efficacy of the wastewater treatment process and river water
quality.
· River sediment quality: the sediment contains high concentrations of heavy metals,
especially downstream of existing or historical industrial discharges. Phosphate levels are
also high, as phosphorus is absorbed into the sediment.
· Air quality: this is a major problem within the city, with the majority of pollutants
coming from vehicles.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
Likely impacts of the scheme are judged as far as possible (given the status of the designs and
the available data) for each of the baseline areas, both during construction and during
operation. The major impacts are summarised below:
4.1 Impacts during construction
All construction activities pose a potential risk to health and safety and to surface water
quality through accidental spillage and careless waste disposal. It is recommended that
existing norms and manuals on construction practice and health and safety are followed
carefully. Training of staff may be needed. If the recommendations are followed, it is
envisaged that there will be no major negative environmental impacts during construction.
4.2 Environmental improvements (benefits of the project)
Examination of the baseline data indicates that the environmental improvements associated
with the operation of the new components will be:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
4
· An overall 7.6% reduction of inorganic nitrogen loading of the Lower Don downstream of
the Rostov WWTW. The annual average transport of total inorganic nitrogen downstream
of Azov City after the improvements is predicted to be approximately 10,000 tonnes/year,
which is a net reduction of approximately 900 tonnes/year compared to the existing
situation;
· An overall 10% reduction of phosphorus load of the Lower Don downstream of the
WWTW. The annual average transport of phosphate downstream of Azov City after the
improvements is predicted to be approximately 3,800 tonnes/year, which is a net reduction
of approximately 250 tonnes/year compared to the existing situation;
· An estimated 70% reduction in emissions of methane and 60% reduction in CO2
equivalent (note: these figures depend to a certain extent on the final design and residence
period chosen for the sludge digesters).
It is proposed that these changes will:
· Cause a steady decline in the levels of concentration of dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus
in the Don river directly downstream of Rostov-on-Don during the first year;
· Cause an decline in the Don river eutrophication downstream no sooner than 3 years after
the reconstruction;
· Have a positive impact on surface water quality of the River Don, thus contributing to
reducing the eutrophication of both the river and the Azov Sea;
· Have subsequent positive impacts on river sediment quality, aquatic ecology, public
health, fisheries, tourism and recreation in the Lower Don and potentially the Azov Sea;
· Have a positive impact on groundwater quality through disposal of a lower volume of
sludge to the on-site lagoon in the short term (until a suitable sludge disposal strategy has
been agreed); and
· Have a positive impact on climate and air quality through a reduction in emissions of
methane and volatile organic compounds.
4.3 Residual Adverse Impacts
If the mitigation and monitoring plans, training and capacity building are implemented as
recommended, no major residual negative impacts are envisaged during operation. Minor
impacts are likely to be
· The only major negative environmental effect as the designs currently stand is the
increased energy requirements for the sludge digestion (and dewatering processes,
completed under the CSIP project). This impact will, however, be offset by the major
improvement to climate through reduction of methane emissions.
· Increased health and safety risk during operation of sludge digesters due to the potential
presence of an explosive air/gas mixture. If the recommended mitigation measure of
zoning and careful choice of machinery is implemented, this risk will be minor;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
5
· Increased energy consumption for the sludge digestion. This impact is considered to be
minor because energy will be supplied through methane use at the CHP plant,
representing a comprehensive cost saving and a cleaner fuel supply than the low quality
coal burnt at the Novocherkassk power station which is the current source. This impact
can be partially mitigated through monitoring of sludge quality, sludge volume and energy
consumption to ensure that the equipment works to full efficiency; and
· Minor impact on transport infrastructure through necessity for transporting the reagent for
chemical phosphorus removal to the site. This impact will depend on the reagent chosen
and its source. It is recommended that the adjacent railway be used if possible.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The purpose of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is to ensure that the adverse
impacts of the project are mitigated where possible, through implementation of the mitigation
and monitoring plans, taking account of complementary institutional strengthening and social
aspects.
5.1 Key Mitigation Measures
It is envisaged that compliance to existing norms and manuals during construction, will be
sufficient to manage environmental risks during construction.
The major mitigation measures during operation relate to monitoring and training. Both are
important as they serve to minimise the health and safety risks associated with operation of
the new processes, and to optimise the efficiency at which the processes are operated to
reduce the use of resources and to minimise pollution to air and surface water (i.e.
maximising environmental benefit). In summary, the key mitigation recommended is:
· Regular monitoring of flow and phosphorus levels to ensure optimum dosing of
phosphorus stripping reagent (at least three times daily);
· Use of CHP exhaust gases and cooling water for energy supply to hot water system,
digesters and centrifuges wherever possible to minimise air quality impacts of operating a
supplementary boiler;
· Regular monitoring of sludge volume, sludge quality and energy consumption at digestion
(and dewatering) to maximise efficiency in order to minimise energy consumption;
· Implementation of zoning and careful choice of equipment in the vicinity of the digesters
to minimise the health and safety risks associated with the potential presence of an
explosive air/gas mixture; and
· `Hands on' training of operating staff in order to reduce health and safety risks and
maximise efficiency of new processes.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
6
5.2 Key Monitoring Measures
Monitoring measures recommended, other than those discussed with the mitigation measures,
include:
· Regular monitoring of water quality at effluent to ensure that the nutrient reduction targets
are met, and that pollution of the river by toxic substances does not occur; and
· Increased monitoring of water quality between processes within the works to maximise
the efficiency of processes.
The importance of using the monitoring data to feedback immediately to process operation is
emphasised. There are training and capacity building requirements associated with the above,
which are discussed in the main report.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, this project will result in reduced nitrogen, phosphate and BOD loadings to the
River Don and the Azov Sea. This will provide a significant contribution to the ongoing
programmes of pollution control for the Black Sea. It will also considerably reduce the
volume of sludge produced by the works and emissions of greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere.
Recommendations are given for further improvements to the works, including:
· Separate phosphate stripping of sludge return liquors, which would assist in achieving the
objective for phosphate reduction;
· Monitoring of energy use throughout the works; and
· Further progress towards reducing polluting industrial discharges to the sewer network.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
7
Introduction
%DFNJURXQG
Rostov is a city of approximately 1.3 million people, situated in the south of the
Rostov Oblast in south western Russia. The city lies on the right bank of the River
Don, approximately 30km from the Azov Sea. The discharge of poorly treated
effluent from the city's wastewater treatment works (WWTW) has been identified
as one of the principal sources of pollution of the Lower Don River and
particularly as a source of phosphorus and nitrogen substances that contribute to
eutrophication of the river and Azov/Black Sea (Greater Rostov Environmental
Strategic Action Plan, World Bank, 1998).
This EIA report documents the environmental assessment of two separate GEF
grants aimed at improving nutrient removal and reducing the amount of methane
emitted at Rostov's WWTW. The long term objective of the treatment process
improvements at Rostov WWTW is to reduce pollution loads to the River Don,
Sea of Azov and Black Sea and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The
former objective is in line with the aims of the Black Sea and Danube
Environmental Programmes. In the short term, with the assistance planned
through GEF, the stated aim is to obtain some improvement to wastewater
treatment at an affordable cost. Although the EIA addresses GEF granted projects
the work has been funded by the British Government's Department for
International Development (DFID) as part of a collaborative approach to
delivering financial and technical assistance to the region.
Water and wastewater services are under the jurisdiction of Rostov Vodokanal
(RVK), which is a unitary enterprise of the Rostov Municipality. Technical designs
are completed by Giprokommunvodokanal, hereafter referred to as the Design
Institute.
&RQWH[W DQG1HHG IRU ,PSURYHPHQWV
Introduction
The wastewater treatment facilities in Rostov are in need of repair and
refurbishment, and are currently insufficient to treat existing domestic and
industrial loads, both in terms of volume and quality. As a consequence, 72% of
the industrial and wastewater load is discharged to the River Don without
sufficient treatment and 18% is discharged without any treatment. Less than 10%
(largely cooling water) complies with the severe Russian Standards. This results in
pollution of the River, exacerbating the pollution situation in the Azov Sea and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
8
Black Sea. The importance of the Black Sea environment and the need for
improvement in the quality of rivers draining to it has been identified in the
formulation of the Black Sea Environmental Programme and the Danube
Environmental Programme.
This project is one of a number of projects both locally and regionally aimed at
improving municipal infrastructure and at reducing pollution loading to the Black
Sea. The major driver for this project is reduction of pollution in the Don River
entering the Azov Sea, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as part of
the international effort to combat global warming.
A brief description of the most relevant projects is given below.
Regional Projects
A number of regional projects and plans provide objectives which have
contributed to the development of this project:
The Black Sea Environment Programme and the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and
Protection of the Black Sea
The Black Sea Environment Programme was launched in 1993, after the signing of
the Bucharest Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against pollution in
1992. The programme comprises a range of measures aimed at rehabilitating the
Black Sea basin. Its major achievements have been the establishment of Regional
Activity Centres in all the Black Sea, countries, strengthening of NGO and public
support for conservation, completion of Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses, and
development of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
The Black Sea Strategic Action Plan was agreed between all Black Sea Basin
countries in 1996. It calls for progressive reduction of nutrient loads in the Black
Sea Basin until the water quality objectives for the Black Sea are met. Each country
has obligations (amongst others) to:
· Harmonise procedure for monitoring effluent discharges;
· Develop and implement environmentally sound waste management policies,
giving due consideration to waste minimisation, recycling and reuse; and
· Rehabilitate the coastal and estuarine areas required for the recovery of Black
Sea fish stocks.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
9
The Plan also proposes to widen the existing Convention by including a new
Protocol on Biological Diversity and Landscape Protection. The Protocol is
currently draft, but it calls for enhanced protection of existing marine and coastal
conservation areas, and the designation of new protected areas.
North Caucasus Water Resources Management Project
The North Caucasus Water Resources Management Project is being undertaken
under the Russian Federation Environmental Management project and wil be a
model for similar future projects throughout the Federation. The study is funded
through the World Bank, implemented by CPPI, Halcrow and partners and will
take four years to complete at a cost of 4 million. It is focussed on the water
resource problems of the Lower Don Basin, and involves the following
components:
· Establish and test an Integrated Information Management System (IIMS) for the
Lower Don water resources and management;
· Develop a prototype of an improved cost-effective system of monitoring the
status and use of Lower Don water resources for planning and management
purposes;
· Develop a sustainable planning and management plan for a small catchment
demonstration area;
· Develop recommendations for restructuring basin water resource management
policy, including all the necessary legislative reforms, strengthening of
institutional mechanisms, necessity to educate and train;
· Develop a computerised Decision Making Support System for Lower Don basin
water resource management and a mechanism for regulating pollution; and
· Develop a strategic (20 year) perspective plan for integrated sustainable water
resources use and protection in the Lower Don.
A large proportion of the study has already been completed, and more details can
be found in World Bank (1996).
GRESAP
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
10
The Greater Rostov Environmental Strategic Action Plan was prepared in 1998 as
part of the Black Sea Environmental Program. It contains an analysis of the
current state of the environment in the Rostov area, and of the problems related to
pollution, resource use, management and regulation.
The report contains strategic objectives for improving the environment of the
Rostov area in the short, medium and long-term. The objectives of relevance to
this project are:
· Improvement of wastewater treatment in Rostov City to remove the threat to
drinking water supplies for Azov and Taganrog;
· Safely manage all industrial hazardous wastes so as to minimise pollution of
surface and groundwater, reduce waste volumes and minimise promiscuous
dumping at uncontrolled sites;
· Minimise toxic pollutants in wastewater treatment sludge by reclaiming heavy
metals and stabilising and safely disposing of accumulated sludges; and
· Sanitary management of all municipal solid waste so as to minimise pollution
of surface and groundwater, minimise disease vectors and reduce waste
volume.
Specific Scheme Development
A number of other projects involve upgrading of the municipal water facilities in
Rostov are of relevance to this EIA:
Existing local investments
RVK and the Rostov Municipality are implementing a programme of
improvements, which includes a number of improvements to the WWTW (see
Figure 4.1). Discussions with the Design Institute indicate that works on Phase 1
(lines 1-4, the northernmost lines of the works) are ongoing, and include
refurbishment of the screens, grit traps, sand cyclones and aeration tanks. It is
understood that works on the primary tank of line 3 and on the aeration tank of
line 2 are almost complete.
Community Social Infrastructure Project (CSIP)
The CSIP is funded by a World Bank loan, and has the objective of addressing an
urgent need for investment to rehabilitate deteriorated municipal infrastructures,
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
11
including the upgrade of health, education, water and sanitation infrastructure. The
loan has included approximately $30 million to Rostov Oblast for water supply and
sanitation, with $24.4 million to water and wastewater facilities in the city of
Rostov-on-Don. Of relevance to this EIA are:
·Construction of sludge centrifuge dryers at the WWTW (see Section 4 and
Figure 4.1 for more detail);
·Completion of construction of the No.68 sewer line from the sewerage pump
station (SPS) "Severnaya-1" to the underwater crossing of the Don River
(Subproject No.62), which will eliminate the current discharge of up to
10,000m3/day of untreated sewage to the Temernik River; and
·Construction of a High-pressure Pumping Station at the WWTW to pump
wastewater directly to the processing units.
Strategic Plan and Short-term Investment Plan for the Municipal Water Services of the City of Rostov-on-
Don
This DFID-funded Plan is currently under development (Halcrow, 2001, in prep.).
The objective of the strategic plan is to prepare a long term (15 year) investment
programme for the city's water supply and sewerage system. A key aim of the
strategic plan will be to achieve environmental improvements and manage or
mitigate potentially adverse impacts. Investment will cover refurbishment of
existing facilities as well as development of necessary new works and completion
of priority studies. The plan will include a Short-term (5 year) Plan of priority
improvements and investments to be developed and implemented within the
framework of the longer term Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is being
developed by Halcrow in consultation with Rostov Vodokanal (RVK), and is
referred to hereafter as the RVK Strategic Plan
Rehabilitation of the River Temernik
A draft "Environmental programme on rehabilitation of the Temernik river basin"
has been developed by the institute `Rostov Vodokanalprojekt' and was approved
in 2000. It consists of a set of engineering options aimed at rehabilitating the
Temernik river basin (within the Rostov City limits), including:
· Dredging of the Temernik river bed with extraction, partial decontamination and
disposal of bottom sediments to a specially constructed landfill;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
12
· Construction of three two-section concrete settlement tanks within the river bed
for retention of coarse material transported by the river flow;
· Construction of three biological modules with water vegetation for biological
water treatment in the river;
· Construction of a drainage sewer (diameter 200 mm and 500 m long) in the area
of the Severny cemetery to prevent penetration of the polluted ground water
to the river bed;
· Construction of a new collector (tunnel) along the Temernik river (diameter
2000 mm and 6.5 km long) to collect untreated discharges (Project No.68, as
discussed in CSIP section above); and
· Construction of a drainage storm-water collector (sewer) (diameter 1500 mm and
3 km long) in the Bezymyanaya gully.
The activities are proposed to be implemented in three phases over 7 years.
6WXG\ $UHD
The Study Area for this EIA is defined as the service area for Rostov Vodokanal,
i.e. the city of Rostov and its satellite towns of Aksai and Bataisk (Figure 1.1). For
the purposes of river quality and use, this is extended to include the River Don and
surroundings upstream of Rostov to the Tsimlyansk Dam, and downstream of
Rostov through the Don Delta to the Azov Sea (Figure 1.2).
6FRSH DQG $SSURDFK This EIA is based on the requirements of Russia's Environmental Impact
Assessment regulations (State Environmental Committee Decree 372, May 16th,
2000) and Operational Directive 4.01 and guidelines presented by the World Bank
(1991). It is proposed that this EIA report serves to meet the World Bank's
requirement for the EIA as specified in the ToR, as well as meeting Russian
requirements. It is anticipated that Vodokanal will arrange submission of this
report to obtain the necessary permissions under Russian legislation.
A number of different improvements to the WWTW have been proposed and
discussed in existing reports, but the scope of this EIA has been limited to the
improvements proposed to be funded by the GEF (according to Halcrow's Terms
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
13
of Reference). These are the reduction of nutrient discharges, sludge treatment and
reduction of methane emissions.
It should be noted at this stage that socio-economic aspects of the project have not
been investigated in detail. This was agreed in discussions with the World Bank
and CPPI, and is because an EIA and Environmental Awareness programme of
Vodokanal's new works (including those funded by GEF), which will involve
detailed socio-economic analysis and public consultation, wil be conducted in the
near future (Rostov Vodokanal and Rostov Oblast administration, 2001).
6WUXFWXUH RI WKH 5HSRUWThis report is structured according to World Bank Environmental Assessment
Guidelines. Chapter 2 contains a discussion of the Russian and international policy,
legal and institutional framework within which this EIA is conducted. Chapter 3
describes the methodology used, and Chapter 4 contains a description of the
proposed project. Existing environmental conditions are described in Chapter 5 in
terms of physical environment, natural environment, human environment and
environmental quality. Chapter 6 provides an assessment of the environmental
impacts of the scheme on the baseline environment as described in Chapter 5.
Both negative and positive impacts are discussed and where possible quantified.
Chapter 7 contains a brief review of alternative schemes that were considered
during development of this proposed scheme. The Environmental Management
Plan is presented in chapter 8, and includes Mitigation and Monitoring Plans and
requirements for training and capacity building. Chapter 9 draws conclusions on
the major environmental benefits, likely residual impacts and future studies
required. Appendix E contains a team list, and Appendix G a full reference list.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
14
Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework
,QWURGXFWLRQ
This Chapter identifies national and international legislation and policies of
relevance to this project , with a brief commentary on their requirements and
importance.
,QVWLWXWLRQDO )UDPHZRUN
Protection and Management of Natural Resources
In the Russian Federation, natural resources and environment protection are under
the jurisdiction of the State and Subjects of the Federation. The Ministry of
Natural Resources recently (2000) took over responsibility for environmental
protection from the Ministry for Environment and Protection of Natural
Resources. Its responsibilities are to monitor, inspect and supervise the condition
of the environment and efficient use of natural resources; to co-ordinate activity
of different departments, businesses and institutions; and to introduce a state
system of environmental monitoring. Government Decree No. 1229 (1993) on an
Integrated State System of Environmental Monitoring (ISSEM) determines the
functions and duties of various branches and departments with respect to
collecting and analysing of information on state of the natural environment, and
exchanging data.
State management of natural resource use and protection lies under the jurisdiction
of: the Ministry of Agriculture, the Committee of Land (Use and Protection of
Land Resources), the Ministry of Forestry (Use and Protection of Forest
Resources), the Ministry of Geology (Prospecting, Use and Conservation of
Mineral Resources), the Committee for Water Management (Use and Protection of
Water Resources), the State Committee for Fisheries (Use and Protection of the
Fish Stock). The State Committee for Hydrometeorology and Environmental
Monitoring performs monitoring of the atmosphere and hydrosphere. Monitoring
and supervision of sanitary and epidemiological conditions of the human
environment and public health is done by the bodies of the State Committee for
Sanitary Epidemiological Control (SANEPID). Departments work according to
independent programmes, co-ordinated by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Each department has regional, Oblast, and local divisions, and their work is
supported and facilitated by local state authorities.
In the Rostov Region the main decisions on environment protection and use of
natural resources are determined by the Rostov Oblast Environment Committee.
Management, protection and efficient use of the Lower Don are under the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
15
jurisdiction of the Don Basin Water Management Association (DBWMA) and the
MNR. Both function according to Federal Laws applicable to the regional level.
Management of Water Resources
Figure 2.1 shows the institutional framework within which water resources are
managed in the Rostov area. Licences for major water abstraction and use are
issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Local water abstraction licences are
issued by the Oblast Environment Committee. Wastewater discharges to Rostov's
sewer network are licensed by RVK. The license stipulates the allowed type of
water use, water intake and effluent discharge limits, water discharge, and quality
standards. SANEPID monitors water abstractions and discharges in terms of
public health. If conditions or requirements of the licences are violated, the Oblast
Environment Committee and SANEPID both have the right to fine a legal entity
or person for the violation. Payments for use of natural resources (including
discharges of pollutants) do not excuse the user from the responsibility to take
measures for environmental protection and for compensation for the damage
caused by transgressions. The legislation gives the MNR and its bodies the right to
suspend an activity in the case of a serious damage to the environment. Vodokanal
currently pays for the water it abstracts, and pays fines to the Environment
Committee for its polluting discharge to the Don and its storage of sludge on site.
The fines for 2000 stood at approximately 14.7 Rb million. More detail is given in
the financial section of the RVK Strategic Plan.
The use of water resources in the catchment is managed by the State Committee
for Water Management, through 19 Basin Water Management Associations
(BWMA). Each BMWA has regional and territorial committees (boards) for
integrated use and protection of water resources, Offices in small river basins, and
Boards in charge of operation of water reservoirs. The basin associations:
· Plan the efficient use of water resources, including setting water use limits (water
consumption and water discharge);
· Monitoring of water bodies, and collation of records from other monitoring
organisations;
· Perform federal appraisals of draft and design documentation for construction
and reconstruction of the sites which may affect conditions of water resources;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
16
· Perform monitoring of use and protection of water bodies and check
compliance with the water protection zones;
· Co-operate with MNR and Oblast Environment Committees on licensing in the
field of protection and use of water bodies; and
· Prepare and implement agreements on joint use and protection of water
resources;
· Perform routine management of use and protection of water resources, establish
measures against hazardous effects on water and preventive measures against
negative consequences of hazardous situations.
The State management of water resources of the Don basin is carried out by the
DBWMA located in Rostov. A number of problems related to the current water
management system were identified in the North Caucasus Region Integrated
Water Resources Conservation and Management Project (World Bank, 1996),
including:
· The existing system of water resource state and use monitoring involves a large
number of organisations;
· Multiple drawbacks exist in the regulatory and legislative documents relevant to
the water resource management system;
· Trans-boundary water use problems;
· A system for truly integrated water resource management is not available; the
decision support systems feature multiple drawbacks.
· Processes of water resource formation and their properties are poorly known;
· An integrated system for data acquisition, processing and transfer to facilitate
water resource management is not available;
· State institutions and authorities in charge of water resource management and
protection are poorly equipped with technical facilities.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
17
A number of recent initiatives working towards Integrated Water Resources
Management, including the establishment of a water quality database for the Lower
Don by the DBWMA (World Bank, 1996).
5XVVLDQ /HJLVODWLRQ)HGHUDO 2EODVW DQG&LW\
Legislation of relevance to this project exists at both Federal and Oblast (regional)
levels (see Appendix B for full list).
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment is regulated in Russia by State Environmental
Committee Decree 372, 2000. This was developed in order to comply with the
Decree on Environmental Expertise, 174, 1995, which is aimed at
implementation of the Russian citizen's constitutional right for favourable
environment through mitigation of the negative impacts of economic or other
activity on environment.
Environmental Protection
The major Federal environmental law is Decree 2062-1, 1991 `Environmental
Protection' (amended 1993). It defines the objectives, systems and principles of
environment protection, the jurisdiction of environmental agencies, environmental
rights (liabilities), economic mechanisms of environment protection, principles of
environmental quality standards and environmental requirements for construction
and operation of the bodies and international co-operation.
Environmental monitoring is regulated by the Decrees "On development of a
Unified state system of environmental monitoring", 1993 and "Regulations on
state monitoring of water bodies", 1997. These Decrees define the goals, objectives
and responsibilities for environmental monitoring.
Regulation of environmental issues related to public health is done through Decree
3912-85 "Guidelines for sanitary and epidemiological agencies and institutes
involved in sanitary supervision on control of implementation of activities on
sanitary protection of environment from pollution by solid and liquid toxic
industrial waste". The Decree defines goals and objectives of industrial enterprises,
Sanitary agencies and federal agencies on environment protection in terms of
organisation and control on liquid and solid hazardous wastes storage and disposal.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
18
Water Resources Management
Water resources are regulated through the Water Code, Decree 167, 1995. The
Decree aims to achieve the citizens rights to clean water and a favourable water
environment; to support favourable conditions of water use; to guarantee that
surface and ground water quality meet sanitary and environmental requirements;
and to protect water bodies.
The quality of water resources is protected by a range of Decrees and norms (see
Appendix B) and is also protected according to Federal Regulations establishing
Water Protection Areas (WPA). These mostly relate to restricting activities on land
within 500m of the river. Restrictions are tighter around water abstraction points.
The Rostov WWTW is situated within a WPA, and pays fines to the Rostov Oblast
Environment Committee for the pol ution it causes.
The Oblast has passed a Decree `on payments for wastewater and pollutants
discharged to a sewage system of the Rostov Oblast settlements' ( 268, 1997)
aimed at increasing the role of economic incentives in improving the quality of
waste water discharged to the sewage system. This means that RVK is obliged to
pay fines to the Oblast Environment Committee for discharges which fail to meet
the norms for Maximum Al owable Concentrations for wastewater discharged
from Municipal WWTW. The MAC for Rostov RVK are set in conjunction with
the City Decree `Acceptance conditions of wastewater pollutants discharged to the
sewage system of Rostov-on-Don' ( 1285, 1996).
Waste Management
Waste management (except for the radioactive, air emissions and effluents
discharged to the water bodies) is regulated by the Waste Decree ( 89-FL, 1998)
which sets waste management regulatory powers, establishes inventory order,
reporting and standards, and establishes principles of economic regulation and
control.
,QWHUQDWLRQDO$JUH PHQWV
Russia is signatory to a number of International and Regional agreements:
· Bazel Convention on trans-boundary transfer of wastes and their elimination.
Bazel, March 20-22, 1989;
· Convention on trans-boundary EIA, 1991;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
19
· Bucharest Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, April
1992;
· RF Government Resolution 670 dated July 1st, 1995 On priority measures
aimed on execution of the Federal law "On ratification of the Bazel
Convention on control of trans-boundary transfer of wastes and their
elimination ";
· State regulation of trans-boundary transfer of hazardous wastes. RF Government
Resolution 766, July 1st, 1996;
· Concept of the Russian Federation transition to sustainable development. RF
President Decree, 1996;
· Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea,
1996;
· Charter "On joining the Russian Federation to the Ocean Charter". RF
Government Resolution 13, January 4th, 1999; and
· The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, 1997.
In terms of water quality, the most relevant of these are the 1992 Bucharest
Convention, and the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of
the Black Sea, which was developed as a result of the Convention. The Convention
states that "...Contracting Parties shall prevent, reduce and control pollution of
the marine environment of the Black Sea from land based sources...". The
Strategic Action Plan more specifically calls for progressive reduction of nutrient
loads in the Black Sea Basin until the water quality objectives for the Black Sea are
met (article 29), and for the development and implementation environmentally
sound waste management policies, giving due consideration to waste minimisation,
recycling and reuse (46). The Bucharest Convention and Strategic Action Plan are
therefore strong international drivers for the completion of this project.
The Kyoto Protocol, although not yet ratified, has been signed up to by the
Russian government. At the Third Conference of the Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (1999), the government went further
by agreeing a target of achieving no increase in greenhouse gas emissions over
1990s levels by 2008-12.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
20
Methodology
,QWURGXFWLRQ
The approach taken to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed
scheme has been based on the following steps:
·
Assessment of existing conditions;
·
Review of proposed scheme;
·
Identification and evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed
scheme;
·
Preparation of Mitigation and Monitoring plans to address the adverse
impacts;
·
Consideration of training and capacity building requirements; and
·
Preparation of an environmental management plan to ensure that the
proposals are implemented adequately.
%DVHOLQH 'DWD &RO HFWLRQ
Baseline data was collected through a series of meetings with relevant parties, and
through assessment of existing reports and data. The major organisations
consulted were:
· Rostov Vodokanal (RVK);
· Gipprokommunvodokanal (Design Institute);
· Centre for Preparation and Implementation of International Projects North
Caucasus Branch (CPPI);
· Rostov Oblast Environment Committee;
· Research Institute of Azov Sea Fishery Problems;
· Don Basin Water Management Authority (DBWMA);
· Institute of Parasitology; and
· SANEPID.
The main sources of baseline information are listed below, and full list of
references can be found in Appendix C:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
21
· State of the Environment in Rostov Oblast, 1999 (Rostov Oblast Administration
and Rostov Environment Committee, 2000);
· Assessment of the Cost of Environmental Degradation and the Benefits of
Environmental Initiatives Pilot Study in Rostov-on-Don, Russia. Prepared
for the World Bank by Elektronowatt-Ekono Oy Consulting, Finland (World
Bank, 2000a);
· Socio-economic status of Rostov-on-Don in 1999 (Rostov City Department of
Statistics);
· State of the Environment in Rostov Oblast, 1998 (Rostov Oblast Administration
and Rostov Environment Committee, 1999);
· Comparative parameters of the socio-economic status of Rostov Oblast towns
and districts. Statistical review for 1998. Rostov-on-Don, 1999 (Rostov City
Department of Statistics, 1999);
· Greater Rostov Environmental Strategic Action Plan (GRESAP), Prepared for
the World Bank by Hagler Bailly, USA (World Bank, 1998); and
· North Caucasus Region Integrated Water Resources Conservation and
Management Project: Inception Report. Prepared by Halcrow and CPPI for
the World Bank (World Bank, 1996).
The baseline information is presented in Section 5.
(YDOXDWLRQ RI WKH (QYLURQPHQWDO ,PSDFWV
The World Bank gives guidance on the potential negative environmental impacts
of wastewater construction projects. The potential environmental impacts of each
component on each environmental receptor (as identified in the baseline) both
during construction and operation are considered in Section 6. Impacts were
evaluated using, as relevant, some of the following qualitative attributes:
· Probability: low, moderate, high
· Avoidable or unavoidable
· Magnitude: not significant (NS), low (L), moderate (M) or high (H)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
22
· Duration: temporary or permanent
· Direct or indirect
· Type: beneficial, adverse or no impact (+, - or 0)
Impacts are assessed in as much detail as possible (given the incomplete nature of
some of the designs) and presented in Section 6. Modelling was used to estimate
the impact of the proposed project in terms of nutrient levels in the River Don and
emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The results of the modelling
were then used to make qualitative value judgements on the likely impacts of each
component. For components where the designs are not yet complete, the process
has been treated as a `black box' and the influent, effluent and by-products
assessed. Where details exist, the potential impact of different options is discussed.
&RQVXOWDWLRQ
Russian legislation and World Bank guidelines require that public consultation
must be conducted as part of an EIA. However, discussions with the Environment
Committee, the World Bank and CPPI confirmed that consultation would not be
necessary for this EIA as an extensive public consultation on this and other
projects being undertaken by Rostov Vodokanal is planned as part of another
project (see Section 1.4). Consultation has therefore been limited to organisations
with relevant information or obvious interests in the WWTW improvements.
The Draft EIA was presented to RVK and other relevant bodies at a workshop
held on 5 April 2001. A Russian Executive Summary was circulated before the
meeting, and comments have been included in the report. A summary of the
outcomes of the workshop and list of participants is given in Appendix F.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
23
Description of the Project
,QWURGXFWLRQ
Proposals for nutrient reduction, sludge processing and methane use were
prepared by the Design Institute on behalf of the Vodokanal, are recorded in the
reports listed below. The situation has changed somewhat since the publishing of
these reports, and up to date information on the design options was therefore
obtained through discussions with the Design Institute. The description below is
therefore based on both reports and discussions.
· Rostov Wastewater Treatment Works Reconstruction (First and Second levels):
Giprokommunvodokanal (Design Institute), 1998;
· Russia Social Community Infrastructure Project (Water and Sanitation
Component) Rostov Oblast - Appraisal Report for Subproject No. 64,
Completion of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation.
· CPPI, 2000. North Caucasus Water Resource Study: Rostov-on-Don WWTW
Task 6.3: Draft Report. Prepared for CPPI by Halcrow; and
· Study Report: Reductions of Nutrient Discharges and Methane Emissions in
Rostov-on-Don: World Bank, 2000.
([LVWLQJ 7UHDWPHQW 3URFHVV
The works is located on the left bank of the River Don, in an established industrial
complex to the south west of the city. It is designed to treat 460,000 m3/day of
wastewater and on average receives 390,000 m3/day. Wastewater is col ected from
Rostov City via two main tunnelled interceptors, one serving the eastern district of
Rostov and the other serving the northern and central districts. Wastewater is
transferred across the River Don to the East Bank via a syphon to the Main
Pumping Station which pumps wastewater to the WWTW. The estimated loads of
pollutants entering treatment from the sewer network are given below in Table 4.1
Table 4.1
Estimations of loads of nutrients entering wastewater
treatment works
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
24
Parameter Current
loads
BOD 61,035
kg/day
Total suspended solids
53,074 kg/day
Ammoniacal Nitrogen
4,830 kg/day
Total Phosphorus
1,173 kg/day
The existing wastewater treatment process is outlined in Figure 4.2, and is
described below. Site maps are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.3. There are eight
treatment lines, which were built in two phases: Phase 1 (the 4 northern lines) and
Phase 2 (the 4 southern lines). The numbers in brackets refer to buildings as
shown in Figure 4.1.
1. Screening: Crude wastewater is screened (2) and then enters a grit trap (3).
Screenings are manually raked and sent to the Rostov landfill site;
2. Primary settlement (5);
3. Biological treatment (6,7): Including aeration and recirculation of biologically
activated sludge and it is currently during this step that most of the nutrient
reduction occurs. Sludge generated during secondary settlement is recirculated
to the primary settlement tanks (5) and removed automatically by sludge
scrapers;
4. Chlorination: chlorine is added to the effluent in the final tanks of Phase 1 (8)
before it is piped to the outfall into the river. Chlorination is carried out in
order to comply with norms set by SANEPID.
The current total hydraulic residence time at design full flow to treatment is 4.7
hours and is insufficient for full nutrient removal.
Sludge generated from settlement is consolidated in gravity thickening units (28)
and then stored in sludge drying beds (23, Photograph 1) or in on-site lagoons
(Figure 4.3). Dried sludge is removed from the drying beds and stored on site. A
small amount is used on site and in City parks. The sludge drying beds are
underdrained. Pipework for removal of the drainage liquor and recirculation to the
inlet of the works is in place but at least some of it is currently non operational.
Similarly systems exist to remove supernatant liquor from the sludge storage
lagoon but are also currently non operational.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
25
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
26
Screenings and grit
Return Activated Sludge
Preliminary
Primary
Aerobic Biological Reactor
Chlorination
screenings and grit
Settlement
l
Settled Sludge
Return Liquors
Gravity Thickening
Sludge Storage
Lagoon
(non-operational)
Key:
Wastewater flow
Sludge flow
Sludge Drying Beds
Site generated liquors flow
Return activated sludge flow
Figure 4.2
Existing wastewater treatment process
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
27
2XWOLQH GHVFULSWLRQ RI SURSRVHG SURFHV LPSURYHPHQWV
The proposed improvements can be divided into eight components. Final designs
are in place for Components 1-4 and are described in Giprokommunvodokanal
(1998). These components apply to Phase 2 treatment lines only (at the south of
the works). A number of options exist for Components 5, 6 and 8, which are
discussed in Halcrow (2000). Component 7 has already been constructed (funded
by the World Bank CSIP), but is included in this assessment for completeness as it
is an important part of the process. Components 5-8 apply to sludge and liquor
from all eight lines at the works. Figure 4.1 shows the location of works to be
included in the GEF grants, and those already funded by CSIP.
The eight components are summarised below, and discussed in more detail in
subsequent sections. Buildings 29, 38, 39 and the solo tank 6 are not yet in place
and will be built as part of the scheme. The major pipelines required are included
for completeness, but it is understood that some pipeline connections already exist.
Component 1: Upgrading of screening and grit removal
· Replacement of manually raked 16mm screens with automatically raked, tiered 3-
5mm screens (2); and
· Replacement of grit removal system and supporting structures (3).
Component 2: Renovation of the primary settlement tanks
· Replacement of bottom scrapers, drive mechanisms and support gantries (5).
Component 3: Modification and extension of the secondary aeration tanks (6)
· Extension of central partition walls to full depth;
· Provision of forced mixing within and between anaerobic and anoxic zones;
· Removal of air distribution system from anaerobic and anoxic chambers; and
· Provision of additional aeration tank of capacity 20,000 m3.
Component 4: Incorporation of lamella settlers (7)
· Conversion of final tanks to incorporate lamella settlers to increase efficiency of
settlement of activated sludge for return to the primary settlement tanks (5).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
28
Component 5: Chemical Phosphorus stripping
· Dosing of liquors with lime or iron sulphate in existing storage tanks (32) or
between aeration tank and lamellae (6 & 7), details yet to be finalised; and
· Construction of new pipelines from primary settlement tank (5) to sludge
settlement tanks (28), from sludge settlement tanks to sludge digesters (29
for sludge) and to head of works (5 for supernatant), and from sludge
digesters to phosphorus settlement tanks (32)
Component 6: Sludge digestion
· Construction of six new sludge digesters (29) (existing digesters cannot be
renovated); and
· Construction of new pipelines from phosphorus settlement tanks (see
component 4) to centrifuges (31 for sludge) and head of line (5 for
supernatant); and
· renovation and extension of hot water/steam raising plant (for digester heating)
based on imported natural gas (26).
Component 7: Sludge dewatering (31)
·
Construction of three new sludge centrifuges and associated storage
capacity (funded by CSIP, almost complete).
Component 8: Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Plant Methane use
· Construction of new Combined Heat and Power Plant (39);
· Construction of heating circuit for administration and laboratory facilities (27),
based on use of the engine cooling water; and
· Construction of steam raising plant (for digester heating) based on heat recovery
from engine exhaust (39).
1XWULHQW 5HGXFWLRQ
Concept
The concept proposed by Vodokanal and the Design Institute for improving the
nutrient removal process is based on renovation and expansion of existing assets,
consistent with the stated aim of minimising capital and operating costs. The
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
29
objective for nutrient removal is to reduce nutrient levels in the effluent by the
following:
· Total phosphorus
60% reduction
· Nitrogen 50
%
reduction
The assumptions made during design included:
· Yearly average compliance for phosphorus and nitrogen; and
· Relaxed standards for nitrogen and phosphorus when the effluent temperature
drops below 12oC.
In the long-term the works will eventually need to be improved, to ensure
compliance with the following stringent Russian Discharge Consent: Standards
from EC Urban wastewater directive 91/271/EEC in brackets.
· BOD
3
mg/l
(25)
· Suspended solids
3 mg/l (35)
· Total Nitrogen
9 mg/l (1)
· Phosphorus
0.3
mg/l
(10)
Halcrow (2000) ascertains that the phosphorus target of 60% reduction is unlikely
to be achieved through the proposed biological treatment process alone, and
recommends the implementation of phosphorus stripping (see Section 7 for more
discussion on options development). Although the designs are not yet completed,
if the chemical dosing is done correctly, the likely reductions in nutrient levels are
summarised in Table 4.2 below.
Table 0.2:
Estimated nutrient removal rates of the existing and
proposed wastewater treatment
N
P removal BOD
removal
removal
Existing Situation
30 to 40%
10 to 20%
60 to 70%
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
30
Proposed Modified
40 to 50 %
50 to 60%
60 to 70%
Treatment
Source: modified from Halcrow (2000)
Upgrading of screening and grit removal, renovation of primary treatment tanks (Components 1 and 2)
These two components consist of the removal and replacement of old equipment
(Photograph 2) and automation of existing equipment. No major construction
works are involved. The Design Institute estimate that the volume of screened
material will increase from the present 8-10m3/day to up to 30m3/day, depending
on the fineness of the mesh. The use of finer screens will result in a slightly higher
overall volume of solid waste emitted from the works as some of this material
would otherwise be digested during secondary treatment. The benefits of removing
more material at the screens are great, however, in terms of maintenance and
lifespan of equipment such as pumps.
Full screenings containers will be transported to landfill without screening pressing
or dewatering. Grit will be dewatered using a cyclone and further drained on a
sand bed with cyclone effluent. Drained liquors will be returned to the head of the
works.
Biological nutrient removal (Components 3 and 4)
Components 3 and 4 involve conversion of the existing secondary treatment tanks
and construction of a new 20,000 m3 aeration tank. Construction works to the
existing tanks will be fairly minor. Lines will be worked on one at a time so that
sufficient capacity to treat the wastewater flow is maintained at all times.
Construction of the new tank will involve more major works, including excavation
of up to 20,000m3 of soil (depending on the depth to which the tank is buried).
The tank will be approximately 5m deep, 130m long and 30m wide and wil be
partially buried. Excavated soil piled up against the edges and used elsewhere on
site.
The process alterations allow for wastewater to pass through three stages of
treatment:
·An anaerobic reactor that is essential for preparing bacteria for phosphorus
removal in later stages of the process;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
31
·An anoxic stage in which nitrates are reduced; and
·An aerobic reactor which is responsible for the removal of ammonia and
phosphorus uptake. Air is supplied by two duty 1,250 kW blowers which
generate 1,500 m3/hour. Phosphorus is thus removed in the waste sludge.
Each lane shall adopt a serpentine flow, with four lanes. These would be arranged
as follows and as shown in Figure 4.4:
Figure 0.4: Schematic of proposed modified biological treatment process
Aerobic Zone
Aerobic Zone
Anoxic Zone
Anaerobic Zone
The construction of the new aeration tank will extend capacity to
110,000m3 and provide a hydraulic residence time of 6 hours at full flow
(the peak theoretical flow calculated from Rostov's population estimate
and the condition of the sewer network (after improvements) and 8 hours
at average flow.
The provision of lamella separators requires only minor construction works to
attach the separators, which are provided as packaged units (Photograph 3).
Phosphorus stripping (Component 5)
The necessity of including phosphorus stripping in order to achieve the nutrient
reduction targets was described in Halcrow (2000). Discussions with the Design
Institute indicate that the design for phosphorus stripping has not yet been
decided, but that it will involve chemical precipitation. The options for the reagent
to be used include:
· Ferrous sulphate (in solution); or
· Lime (solid or as a colloid).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
32
The reagent would be stored in an existing building (37) and added either between
the aeration tank and the lamellae (6 & 7) or directly to the phosphate settlement
tanks (32). The dosing point would be chosen so as to ensure removal of sufficient
phosphorus to meet the targets, and would depend on temperature and phosphate
load.
Chemical dosing wil increase the quantity of sludge produced. Table 4.3. gives a
rough indication of the sludge volumes that may be expected, but it should be
emphasised that volumes depend largely on the type of reagent used and the
dosing level. The values given are volumes as removed from the main treatment
process, prior to any processing.
Table 4.3 : Likely volumes of sludge arising with and without chemical
dosing for phosphorus removal
Type of Sludge
With Chemicals for P
Without Chemicals
Removal
for P removal
m3/d %
DS m3/d %
DS
Primary
sludge 1,220 3.0 1,220 3.0
Waste
Activated 4,550 0.7 3,641 0.7
Totals 5,770
1.3
4,861
1.3
Source: Halcrow (2000)
6OXGJH 3URFHVVLQJ DQG 0HWKDQH 8WLOLVDWLRQ
Introduction
One of the main drivers of this project is to minimise the greenhouse gas
emissions associated with re-development of the WWTW. In particular this
comprises the beneficial use of biogas generated in the digestion process. The
emission of greenhouse gases will be minimised through combustion of all
methane produced in the digesters to form carbon dioxide.
At present there are no facilities for the proper processing of sludge and it is
discharged in a wet state, after gravity thickening to either sludge drying beds or to
lagoons at the rear of the site. A small but unknown quantity of sludge removed
from the drying beds is used in City parks. Development of sludge processing and
methane utilisation is planned based on:
· Methane generation by mesophilic digestion;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
33
· Heat and electricity generation through combustion of the biogas from
digestion; and
· Installation of the Baker Hughes Centri Dry process.
The incorporation of these projects into the modified process line are shown
diagrammatically in Figure 4.5 Additionally an outline of the process flow rates
and associated estimates in reductions in green house gases are displayed in Figures
4.6 and 4.7.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
34
Screenings and
Return Activated Sludge
Preliminary
Primary
Anaerobic
Anoxic Biological
Aerobic Biological
Chlorinatio
screenings and grit
Settlement
Biological Reactor
Reactor
Reactor
n
Settled
Sludge
Return Liquors
Chemical Polishing
of Phosphorus
Gravity
Thickening
Key:
Wastewater flow
Sludge Digestion
CHP Plant
Sludge flow
Site generated liquors flow
Return activated sludge flow
Sludge
Dewatering
Methane gas
Sludge Storage
Figure 4.5
Proposed process line incorporating sludge treatment and methane use
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
35
GAS FROM BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
CO = 9,004 kg/day
2
CH = 0 kg/day
4
o
1 Settlement
Biological Treatment
o
2 Settlement
GAS FROM TREATMENT
CO = 37,142 kg/day
2
ENERGY REQUIRMENT =2,300 kW
CH = 14,348 kg/day
4
GAS FROM SLUDGE
TREATMENT
CO = 25,068 kg/day
2
GAS FROM DIGESTION
GAS FROM SECONDARY
GAS FROM SLUDGE
CH = 14,348 kg/day
4
DIGESTION
STORAGE
CO = 14,916 kg/day
CO = 1,865 kg/day
CO = 8,287 kg/day
2
2
2
CH = 10,074 kg/day
CH = 1,260 kg/day
CH = 3,014 kg/day
4
4
4
Sludge Storage
Digestion
2nd Digestion
ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 400 kW
ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 20 kW
ENERGY REQUIRMENT FROM DEWAT ERING = 400 kW
T OT AL ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 3,120 kW
GAS FROM BURNING COAL
TO GENERATE ENERGY
CO = 3,070 kg/day
2
CH = 0 kg/day
4
Figure 4.6
Estimation of green house gas emissions without methane use
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
36
GAS FROM BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
CO = 9,004 kg/day
2
CH = 0 kg/day
4
o
1 Settlement
Biological Treatment
o
2 Settlement
GAS FROM TREATMENT
CO = 46,862 kg/day
2
ENERGY REQUIRMENT =2,300 kW
CH = 4,274 kg/day
4
GAS FROM SLUDGE
TREATMENT
CO = 10,152 kg/day
2
GAS FROM SECONDARY
GAS FROM SLUDGE
CH = 4,274 kg/day
4
DIGESTION
STORAGE
CO = 1,865 kg/day
CO = 8,287 kg/day
2
2
CH = 1,260 kg/day
CH = 3,014 kg/day
4
4
Sludge Storage
Digestion
2nd Digestion
ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 400 kW
ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 20 kW
ENERGY REQUIRMENT FROM DEWAT ERING = 400 kW
GAS FROM DIGESTION
T OT AL ENERGY REQUIRMENT = 3,120 kW
CO = 14,916 kg/day
EST IMAT ED ENERGY FROM CHP = 3,200 kW
2
CH = 10,074 kg/day
4
GAS FROM CHP
CO = 27,706 kg/day
2
CHP
CHP
CH = 0 kg/day
4
Figure 4.7
Estimation of green house gas emissions with methane use
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
37
Sludge digestion (Component 6)
Proposals for sludge processing and disposal are still at the preliminary stage, with
various options still being considered. However following discussions with the
Design Institute and RVK the preferred scheme, to cater for future sludge
produced from the wastewater treatment streams is likely to include:
· Thickening of blended or co-settled primary and waste activated sludges to 5 or
6% dry matter in existing gravity thickeners (28)
· Mesophilic digestion at 350C and 15 to 21 days retention time. Digestion would
be carried out either in the existing digesters after renovation or in six newly
constructed units (29)
· Gas storage in purpose built vessels(30)
· Digester heating by steam and hot water
According to the most recent design calculations, 2/3 of the heat required for
digestion will be produced by the CHP. The remaining energy will be produced in
an ancillary heating circuit. It is proposed that this circuit will require the
renovation or replacement of a boiler fired by a supply of natural gas.
Previous proposals for use of two existing tanks with capacity each of 4,700 m3
(32) for secondary digestion have now been amended . It is now suggested that
these tanks be used for chemical dosing, phosphorus removal and thickening of
the sludge. Supernatant liquor from thickening is led to (4) The sludge produced
with lime of ferric sulphate addition wil contain slightly more dry matter but be
less dense and occupy some 15% more volume.
Sludge Dewatering (Component 7)
Thickened digested sludge (32) will be passed to three centrifuges located in
building (31). These units have been installed and are currently being
commissioned.
The centrifuges installed will produce a sludge of 30 to 35% dry matter in a
granular form. Previous plans to produce a drier sludge of 55% dry matter content
have recently been postponed.
After centrifuging the centrate will be returned to the primary settlement tanks (4)
and the sludge held in hoppers which are emptied into Kamaz trucks of 6m3
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
39
capacity. The trucks shuttle the sludge to disposal. During night-time or when
other disposal routes are unavailable the dried sludge wil be stored temporarily on
site in a purpose built silo. The silo is constructed of asphalt coated concrete and
uncovered. A sloped entrance to the silo provides access for a front end loader.
The loader will remove the sludge via a conveyor system to the Kamaz trucks for
ultimate disposal.
The centrifuges are designed to work one duty (continuous), one standby and one
approximately half time. However this pattern may change if sludge currently
stored is removed and added to the process line at (32), (1) or elsewhere. The
centrifuges and associated pumps consume approximately 200kW on full load and
produce approximately 10m3 of dried sludge per hour.
CHP plant Methane Use (Component 8)
It is currently proposed to utilise the digester gas from the gas storage vessels as a
fuel in Caterpillar engined CHP units which will be installed as stand alone
packages. Engine start up will be achieved using natural gas. The biogas
distribution main linking the gas storage vessels and the CHP unit will also
comprise a condensate removal system.
The engines will be compression ignition converted to spark ignition provided in
soundproof enclosures. Engine cooling water will be utilised for building heating
(as a replacement for the natural gas currently used). It is not known if this cooling
water will be able to be used for preheating sludge prior to digestion when the
ambient temperature is high enough that building heating is not required.
Additionally in high ambient temperatures a heat dump may be required to
maintain optimum engine performance.
Engine exhaust gasses will be used to provide the base load of digester heating
through a steam boiler. The combination of exhaust gas and natural gas fired
steam heaters will ensure that sufficiently high digester temperatures can be
maintained. Depending on the design and operation standard chosen, this may be
sufficient to ensure stabilisation of the sludge.
The use of sludge dryers will also preclude the formation of methane (on site)
from the digested sludge, although some methane may be produced if the dried
sludge is subsequently disposed of to a wet anaerobic environment.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
40
Electricity produced from the CHP unit will be used on site as a substitute for that
currently imported. This will result in further reductions of greenhouse gasses
emissions as less coal is required to be combusted at the Novocherkassk power
station.
In the absence of final designs, it is difficult to estimate accurately the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions that will be associated with this project. Estimations
based on the figures given in Figures 4.6 and 4.7 are shown in Table 4.4. It is
understood, however, that current designs do not include secondary digestion.
This is unlikely to have an impact on the total methane generated, as methane
which would have been generated in the secondary digesters will be generated in
the lagoon anyway (albeit over a longer timescale). The estimated reductions in
methane emissions are given in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4 Estimated greenhouse gas emissions with and without methane
use.
Gas Emission
without
Emission with methane
methane use (kg/day)
use (kg/day)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
37,142 46,862
Methane (CH4)
14,348 4,274
CO2 equivalent 388,668
151,575
Source: updated from calculations in Halcrow (2000)
6OXGJH 4XDQWLWLHV DQG 4XDOLW\
An estimate of the quantities of sludge that can be expected after completion of
this project is shown in Table 4.5.
Table 0.5:
Estimated sludge quantities produced from the nutrient
removal process
Type of Sludge
With Chemicals for P
Without Chemicals for P
Removal
removal
m3/d %
DS m3/d %
DS
Primary sludge
1,220
2.5
1,220
3.0
Waste Activated
4,550
1.2
3,641
0.7
Totals 5,770
1.5
4,861
1.3
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
41
Source: Halcrow, 2000
The disposal route of sludge has been considered in outline by several of the
concerned authorities but to date no specific plans or budget lines have been
developed. To accelerate the process the terms of reference for developing a
comprehensive sludge disposal strategy have been provided as a component for
high priority consideration in the RVK Strategy Plan. The project would include a
full analysis of the chemical, biological and physical characteristics of the stored
sludges, an environmental assessment of the existing sludge storage, pilot studies
on disposal methods and market studies on sludge uses.
As well as a change in the sludge volume, density and quantity of volatile organic
material a further small decline in the metals content is anticipated due to the
decline in industry. However the loss of dry matter through sludge digestion means
that whilst the total contamination level remains constant, in the immediate future,
the concentration of these contaminants in the dried sludge will increase. The
composition of the sludge currently produced is shown in Table 5.23 and the
quality of that stored on site is discussed in Section 5.4.7.
In the future it will be important as industry is revitalised to ensure adequate pre-
treatment prior to discharge to sewer and strict controls are introduced. This
subject is discussed in more detail in the Strategy Study.
&RQVWUXFWLRQ 3URJUDPPH
The construction programme is stil to be confirmed, and will depend on the
specific designs chosen. The Design Institute have indicated that works on the
aeration tanks will be conducted one line at a time, and that this will allow for the
renovation of two lines per year. The works will therefore take a minimum of two
years to complete.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
42
Existing Environmental Conditions
,QWURGXFWLRQ
This chapter presents information on the environmental features of the study area
that are relevant to the scheme. As discussed in Section 1.3, the study area is
defined for different factors as either Greater Rostov, or the Lower Don from
Tsimlyansk to the Azov Sea depending on the feature under consideration.
Rostov City was founded in 1749 and is now a large industrial, agricultural,
scientific and cultural centre. Greater Rostov includes the satellite towns of Aksai
and Bataisk, and has a combined area of 7,900km2 and a population of
approximately 1.3 million (Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000).
3K\VLFDO (QYLURQPHQW
Topography, Geology and Soils
Rostov city is situated on the North PriAzov plain, which is a rolling plain broken
up by the valleys of the Don, its main tributaries (the Seversky Donets, the Sal, and
the Manych), and a large number of small rivers and lowland valleys (Figure 1.2).
The northern part of the city is located on a plateau 80 - 100m above sea level,
which slopes down to 25 30 m in the south of the city. The left bank of the Don
river is only 1 10 m above sea level. The city territory is divided by large gullies
and small flat-bottomed valleys, most of which are connected to the Temernik
river valley and the right bank of the Don.
The Lower Don basin contains carboniferous, cretaceous, palaeogene, neogene
and quaternary deposits. The northern half of the Rostov Oblast consists mainly of
sands, sandstones, clays, and palaeogene and neogene carbonate rocks. The
southern half of the Rostov Oblast is composed of quaternary sands, clays and
loess loams. The Donetsk mountain-ridge of the Seversky Donets river basin
contains carboniferous rocks (mudstone and sandstone with the dissemination of
lime-stone. The lowland valleys slopes to the north of the Donetsk mountain ridge
consist of Upper Cretaceous marls, sands and sandstone.
The main soil-forming rocks of the Rostov Oblast are quaternary deposits (yellow-
brown loess loam, yellow-brown and red-brown clays) underlain by more ancient
deposits of different geological age and lithological structure, from carboniferous
coal limestone, sands and shale to sandstone, chalks, marls and saliferous clays of
Cretaceous and Tertiary geological age. Soils are mainly clays, sands and loams of
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
43
thickness is from 0.7 to 4 m. The relief forming rocks are Neogene and Palaeogene
sediments.
In places, the city suffers from erosion, accumulation, sliding and suffusion
processes. Changes in groundwater levels have led to flooding of some city
districts. In 1997, approximately 530 hectares were flooded within the city area.
Climate
Rostov has a continental climate with moderately hot dry summers and unstable
winters with frequent thaws. Average temperatures range from +22.8
in July to
5.7
in January. The prevailing winds are easterly, and often turn into hot dry
winds bringing dust storms. Westerly winds prevail in June and July.
The average annual precipitation is 555 mm, consisting of rain (70%), snow (8%)
and sleet (22%). The majority of precipitation occurs during the warm period of
the year.
Hydrology
The Don river basin has a catchment area of 422,000 km2, and occupies
approximately 60% of the Azov Sea basin. The basin covers 12 regions, including
two Krays, one autonomous republic of the Russian Federation and three regions
of Ukraine. The river is 1870 km long, and has over 5,000 km of tributaries. The
river has a well-developed flood-plain with a width of 10-12 km, and in some
places up to 20-25 km.
The Lower Don is defined as the 327 km stretch from the Tsimlyansk reservoir to
the Bay of Taganrog. The river channel of the Lower Don is 200-600m wide, and
meanders freely, with a great number of bends and crossovers. Depth ranges from
4-6 m, decreasing to 0.7-1.0 m on the crossovers. The current velocity during the
low-water period is 0.5-1.0 m/s, and in snow melt flood period this increases to 2.0
m/s.
River flow has been regulated since the construction of the Tsimylansk dam in
1952. The major source of water is the spring snow-melt, which takes place in
March and lasts 3 - 4 weeks (compared to 2 - 2.5 months before the dam was
constructed). Fluctuations of water level have decreased greatly as a result of flow
regulation, and during low-water years the spring flood no longer occurs.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
44
Due to the low tidal range of the Azov Sea, the water level changes little at the
river mouth. The water level regime here is influenced mainly by the wind (the so-
called pile-up pile-down phenomenon). Ice is formed on the Don in the second
half of December and generally persists until to the middle of March.
The Tsimlyansk reservoir is one of the largest in the steppe zone and extends for
281km in a north-easterly direction. It is used for annual and long-term regulation
of the Don river flow in order to improve navigation conditions, develop
irrigation, and meet requirements of different economy sectors (especially
fisheries). Efforts are being made to improve the management of the dam to
maximise benefit to all downstream river users, including development of a
Reservoir Management Plan as part of the World Bank's North Caucasus Water
Resources Management Project (World Bank, 1997).
The largest tributary in the lower part of the Don is the Seversky Donets river,
which rises in Ukraine and flows for about 200km through the Rostov Oblast to
its confluence with the Don approximately 160 km upstream of Rostov city. The
width of the river-bed varies from 150 to 350m, and the depth from 2-6 m.
Current velocity during the low-water period is 0.2-04 m/s. Of significant
historical and cultural interest to Rostov city is the River Temernik, whose valley
runs north south, dividing the city into two parts. The Temernik was, and stil is to
a certain extent, an important feature of the city, and is used for recreational
purposes. The river and its sediments are heavily polluted and in parts foul
smelling, even in winter. This means that despite its low flow (0.06 km3/yr), it still
has an impact on the quality of the main river. This is because a large amount of
untreated industrial and domestic wastewater was discharged into the Temernik
historically. Approximately 20,000m3 of untreated domestic sewage is still
discharged into the river daily, but will soon cease as a new collector is under
construction.
It is estimated that abstractions decrease the water resources of the Lower Don in
an average year from 28.7 to 21.5 km3. During low-water periods, this figure can
drop as low as 17.8 km3. The main causes are: industry, agriculture, domestic use,
irrigation and evaporation from the reservoir surface (2.5 km3). Anthropogenic
abstraction of the water in the Lower Don system is estimated at 6.5 - 10.6 km3 per
year (23-37% of the natural flow).
Water balances of a number of medium and small rivers of the Lower Don basin
are deficient in medium-dry (75 %) and low-hydraulicity (95 %) years. Water
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
45
resources have been practically exhausted in the rivers Seversky Donets, Sal,
Manych, Bolshoy Yegorlyk, Sredny Yegorlyk, as well as in a number of rivers north
of from the Azov Sea (Mius, Mokry Yelantchik, Sambek, Yeya, Kagalnik Azovsky).
This is because of intensive water intake, highly controlled flow and violation of
economical activity rules in water protection zones and flood plains. Data on
catchment area and flow volumes for the Don and tributaries are summarised in
Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Water Resources of Lower Don Basin Rivers
Rivers flowing into Rostov Oblast
Rivers rising within the Oblast
River A
Source
Catchment
nnual
inflow
volume
Catchment
Annual flow volume
area
(km3)
area
(km3)
(`000s km2)
(`000s km2)
Average
Exceedence
Average Exceedence
75%
95%
75% 95%
Don Voronezh
region
101.00
10.10
7.92
5.68
Don tributaries
Voronezh region
135.22
11.34
8.03
4.78
Seversky Donets Lugansk
region
72.64
4.65 3.13 1.98
1.50
0.13 0.07
0.03
Bolshaya
Lugansk
region
1.45
0.13 0.07 0.03 16.00
0.30 0.08
0.01
Kamenka
Sal Kalmytskaya
3.43 0.05
0.02
0.01
republic.
Manych Kalmytskaya 5.48 0.05
0.02
0.01
republic.
Bolshoi Egorlyk Stavropolsky kray
11.00 0.07
0.03
0.01
Tchir
5.28 0.24
0.13
0.04
Tsimla
2.80 0.10
0.05
0.02
Kundryuchiya
2.10 0.11
0.05
0.02
Kalitva
11.00 0.55
0.27
0.10
Derkul
5.10 0.22
0.11
0.05
Others
48.50 1.46
0.73
0.29
TOTAL DON
330.22 26.39
19.22 12.50 92.28 3.11
1.49
0.56
Source: World Bank, 1996 (data provided by the North Caucasus Hydromet Service)
The Don is one of two major rivers flowing into the north eastern Azov Sea (the
other being the River Kuban). The Azov Sea has a surface area of 38,700 km2, a
volume of 290 km3 and a mean depth of 8.5 m (maximum 14 m). It belongs to the
Mediterranean Sea system, and is bordered by Russia and Ukraine. The Azov Sea
catchment is 556,000 km2 and includes south-eastern Ukraine and south-western
Russia with a population of about 33 million people. Irrigation is very well
developed in the basin and is the largest water-consuming component of the
economy.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
46
Hydrogeology
Groundwater resources are limited within the Rostov Oblast (World Bank, 1996).
This is because the area is situated at a conjunction between artesian basins, and
therefore has only limited capability to restore natural fresh ground water
resources, and because precipitation (and hence groundwater recharge) is low. The
average long-term magnitude of groundwater flow is 0.3 m3/sec from 1 km2, and is
less than 1% of annual precipitation. It is estimated that groundwater flow
accounts for 10-20% of river flow.
The total available groundwater with salinity of less than 1.5g/l in the Rostov
Oblast (as estimated on the basis of 27 explored deposits) amounts to
approximately 860,000 m3/day. Currently only about 20% of this is being used for
domestic, industrial and agricultural needs (Table 5.2). Groundwater forms
approximately 10% of the Oblast's water supply, and is the main source of water in
smaller towns and villages. Ground water abstraction is performed mostly through
bore-holes (usually single bore-hole). 6,614 bore-holes were registered as being in
use in the Oblast in 1993. Abstraction from these bore-holes is not metered, and
since they are also used for agricultural purposes, it is difficult to determine the
exact amount.
Table 5.2 Estimated available groundwater resources and groundwater
abstraction in the Rostov Oblast
Volume abstracted in Oblast (m3/day)
Household and
Agriculture Mine
workings
Other Total
drinking water
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
138,10
211,80
242,10
264,40
87,300 679,30
735,90
0
0
0
0
0
0
Known available resources: 888,700 m3/day
Predicted available resources: 2,500,000 m3/day
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment Committee, 1999
Very little groundwater is abstracted for domestic use in the city of Rostov, and
only 38 single bore-holes (of 77 used for decentralised water supply) were
operating in 1995. It is understood that the majority of industries draw their water
supply from groundwater.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
47
1DWXUDO (QYLURQPHQW
Terrestrial Ecology
The majority of the Rostov Oblast consists of dry to moderately dry steppes. Of
particular relevance to this project are the ecosystems adjacent to the river banks,
which are classified as meadows (Figure 5.2). The majority of this land is under
agriculture.
Active transformation of the Lower Don environment began in the Middle Ages,
and increased rapidly during the 1930s-60s when large scale use of water caused
quality and quantitative transformation of natural water resources of the basin. The
major steps were:
· Agricultural development of the region, ploughing of virgin lands, and
introduction of deep ploughing (during the 1930s) caused the reducing of the
Don river annual run-off to 10%;
· Damming and diking of large and small rivers of the basin altering the natural
river run-off regime. This caused the disappearance of snow melt floods;
breaking of migration patterns, especially of anadromous and fluvial-
anadromous fish, and a fall in the productivity of the Azov Sea. The resulting
ponds and silted channels caused a complete transformation of both riverine
communities and terrestrial wildlife due to the lack of regular flooding;
· Increase in the abstraction of water for energy, industry, municipal services and
agriculture so that water resources were no longer sufficient. This caused a
number of aquatic ecosystems to dry up, and broke the fresh water balance of
the Azov Sea;
· Development of water transport, especially the use of large-capacity steamers of
the "river-sea" type;
· Dredging of sand, gravel and other building materials, changing the river's
hydrology and causing the silting up of spawning grounds, especially those of
sturgeon and fluvial-anadromous fish; and
· Development of industry, municipal services and agriculture development,
causing pollution of water bodies (see Section 5.5).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
48
To this can be added the present threats of:
· Inadequate protection, especially poor management of Protected Areas
discussed below; and
· The widespread practice of burning reeds and grass on land near the river during
spring. This affects many animals which shelter and forage in these areas, as
well as destroying habitat and nesting cover just as migrating birds arrive. It
appears that the purpose of the burning is simply to clear the land, because it is
generally not used for agriculture after the burning.
Despite the above, there are still some areas containing a number of important
species remain. There is little available data on the presence and distribution of
important species, although it is known that the area includes feather grass, Shrenk
tulip, Bibershtein tulip, dwarf iris, and Taliev cornflower. The recent collapse of
the agricultural system has allowed an increase in the number of endangered bird
species. The Red Book-listed white-tailed eagle (Haliaetus albicil a) has even recently
been observed breeding in the outskirts of the city (Lipkovich, pers.comm.). There
are a number of terrestrial protected areas in the region, none of which are in close
proximity of the river Don (Figure 5.3). Protected areas associated with the Don
Delta are discussed in Section 5.3.2 below.
Hunting is popular in the area, and controlled by the State Hunting Department,
which owns a number of reserves (Figure 5.3). Of relevance to this project is the
Azov section of the Rostov Federal Hunting Ground, which is located in the Don
Delta.
The official hunting statistics are shown below, to give an idea of the large animal
biodiversity in the region (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3
Hunting Statistics for the Rostov Oblast, 1999
Type
Estimated
Licensed shoot
Actual kill
population
Elk
246
4
3
Roe deer
2 043
111
42
Wild boar
3 044
375
226
European
674 82 63
deer
Deer
185
18
16
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
49
Type
Estimated
Licensed shoot
Actual kill
population
Fallow deer
72
11
8
Hare-
119 468
16 000
Red fox
15 153
8 200
Grey
83 615
1 674
partridge
Pheasant 11
456
2
219
Goose
22 000
150
Ducks
340 000
48 768
Marten
300
-
Beaver
480
-
Muskrat
4 105
113
Raccoon
1 347
600
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment
Committee, 2000
Aquatic and Wetland Ecology
The Lower Don
The Lower Don used to be high in biodiversity, but is now less so due to the
major changes to its ecosystem in terms of river dynamics and quality as discussed
above. Water pollution is one of the major current threats to aquatic ecology in the
River Don, and is discussed in detail in Section 5.5.1. It is understood from the
Fisheries Institute and Kimstach et al (1998) that mass fish kills occur both in the
Lower Don and the Azov Sea, and that these are linked to industrial pollution
events and toxic algal blooms. Data on the frequency or severity of these events is
not available. Algal blooms, as well as producing toxins, also have indirect effects
on river wildlife, through reducing the oxygen levels in the water, and destroying
habitat and food sources. The collapse of the turbot fishery in the Black Sea, for
example, was linked to the demise of Phyl ophora beds (the food source of turbot)
due to algal blooms (BSEP, 2001).
Eutrophication also has an impact on sediment dwellers. Data from the Black Sea
indicates that benthic fauna biomass has decreased dramatically in the last few
decades, due to eutrophication and most likely also the impact of heavy metal
pollution (BSEP, 2001). It is highly likely that the same impact has occurred on the
Don River and Azov Sea.
Other indicators of the impact of pollution on aquatic ecology are an increase in
the proportion of fish with pathological conditions, and a major decline in the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
50
crayfish population in some areas (Kimstach et al, 1998). Oil and pesticide levels
are particularly high in the river, and are damaging to biota as they bioaccumulate.
High levels of pesticides have been found in fish muscles, liver, eggs and brain
tissue. Heavy metals in fish tissue do not generally exceed the MAC for health, but
are likely to be a problem for fish physiologically e.g. affecting reproductive
capacity.
There is generally a lack of reliable data on the present status of species, but some
of the major biodiversity characteristics of the river and the delta are shown in
Table 5.4 below.
Table 5.4
Aquatic biodiversity of the Don River and Don Delta
Number
of
species
Parameters Total
Endemic
Rare
Vulnerable
Status not
&
defined
disappearin
g
River Don
High vegetation and
macrophytes of coastal
149
11
9
5
zone
Phytoplankton 1)
415
165 46
Invertebrates
355
13 2 157
Fish
62
1
8
8
8
Don Delta
High vegetation and
macrophytes of coastal
156
25
15
5
zone
Invertebrates
341
12 2 146
Fish
59
1
4
8
8
Note: 1) including the Don delta
Source: World Bank, 1996
The diversity and abundance of fish has decreased considerably since the 1930s.
The current state of the fisheries is considered in Section 5.4.5, but the impact of
the changes on biodiversity of fish in the river is considered below (Table 5.5):
Table 5.5
Changes in biodiversity of fish in the tributaries of the
Lower Don and Seversky Donetz
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
51
Tributary Observation
No. of fish species
Period
in catches
Middle Don tributaries
1944-1950
50
1955-1960
33
1984
30
Tuzlov 1982-1984
11
Grushevka 1982-1984
6
B.Nesvetay 1982-1984
12
M. Nesvetay
1982-1984
8
Karachir 1982-1984
6
Aksai 1982-1984
12
Kazimovka 1982-1984
3
Seversky Donets Basin
1954
21
Kundryuchiya
1982
12
1995
10
1954
16
Bystraya
1982
12
Kalitva 1954
12
1982
7
Likhaya
1954
10
1982
6
B. Kalitvinets
1954
17
1982
8
Source: World Bank, 1996
Without statistical analysis, it is clear that there is a trend towards reductions in
species diversity throughout the catchment. Current numbers of species are little
more than half those recorded during the 1950s.
The Don Delta
The Don Delta is recognised as an ecologically diverse area of conservation
importance with high biodiversity and a number of endemic species (Table 5.5
above). It is situated on the bird migration route connecting Russia, western
Siberia, the middle east and northern and eastern Africa. More than 70 species of
birds are known to migrate through the area, with more than 50 species nesting.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
52
Unlike the deltas of other main rivers in Europe, the Don Delta is not protected at
the national level. There are several overlapping regional protection designations
(see Figure 5.3):
· Major Ornithological Territory "The Don Delta", located in the Azov,
Myasnikovsky and Neklinovsky districts. It covers part of the cities Rostov-
on-Don, Azov and Bataisk. The total area is 53,800 hectares, including 1 km of
the Taganrog bay along the delta shore. The Territory has an administration
and security system;
· Don Fisheries Reserve , located in the Azov and Neklinovsky districts. The
total area is 68,000 hectares. The area is regulated by the Fisheries Department
of the Ministry for Agriculture. It is understood that fishing is banned within
the reserve, and that patrols are made during daylight hours to protect
sturgeon. Collective fish farms in the area were closed down, and only a few
small carp and grass carp farms still exist. The reserve has an administration
and security system;
· Rostov Federal Hunting Ground, Azov section, located in the Azov district.,
with a total area of 6000 hectares.,
· Girlovsky Federal Hunting Reserve, located in the Neklinovsky district of the
Don reserved area. The total area is 5000 hectares.
It is understood that the protection afforded by these areas is imperfect, due to
budgetary constraints and administrative overlap.
+XPDQ (QYLURQPHQW
Population, Employment and Income Distribution
Demography
The estimated population of the Oblast is 4.5 million (World Bank, 1996), and
average population density in the region is five times higher than that of Russia as
a whole and is 44/km2. The majority of the Oblast's population live within Greater
Rostov.
Both Oblast and city are currently following the national trend of decreasing
population. This is largely due to an ageing population, a decreasing birth rate and
a high level of mortality for people of an active age. Birthrate in 1999 was 6.7 per
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
53
thousand being lower that for the Oblast (7.6 per thousand). The mortality rate
was 13.4 per thousand, compared to the Oblast the rate of 15.0 thousand.
The city attracts large numbers of migrants due to its industrial nature, and the
official unemployment rate in 1999 was only 0.66%. Shadow (unregistered)
unemployment decreased in 1999 to an estimated 1.79%.
Income
The Rostov-on-Don municipality forecasts that the average monthly salary in the
city will increase to Rb1769 in 2000, compared to Rb1136 in 1999. The minimum
subsistence income for 1999 was estimated at Rb741. The City Department of
Statistics estimates that approximately 25% of the population earn less than this.
The Ministry for Economic Development and Trade forecast that economic
growth, prices and salaries will continue to rise in the next few years (Table 5.6).
Table 5.6
Economic indicators and forecasts for Russia
Index
Forecast
2000
2001 2002 2003
Change in consumer prices
20.2%
12-14%
11%
8%
Gross domestic product
7.6%
4%
4.8% 5.2%
Industry production
9%
4.5%
5%
5.5%
Municipal services
1% 0.5%
1.2%
1.4%
production
Average monthly salaries
n.a.
6-8%
6-8%
6-8%
Source: The elaborated parameters of forecast for social and economic
development of the RF for the period of up to 2003, Ministry for
Economic Development and Trade
The Ministry predicts that gross regional product per capita will have increased by
128% in 2003 compared to 1999 (from Rb 22,900 to Rb 52,400), and that the ratio
of revenue per capita:living wage will increase from 1.79 in 1999 to 2.1 in 2003.
They also predict that the percentage of the population earning below the
subsistence level will have decreased from 26.7% in 1999 to 19.3% in 2003.
Water Resources, Supply and Sanitation
Water Resources
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
54
Water resources of the Don basin are used very intensively by the municipal,
agricultural, industrial, irrigation, fisheries, transport, power generation and
recreation sectors. In a year of average flow, more than 60% of the flow is used for
economic purposes. Water deficits occur regularly in small and medium rivers
during dry years (see Section 5.2.3). The lack of available water resources is
becoming a limiting factor in some fields of regional development, and is causing
increasing salinisation of the Azov Sea (World Bank, 1996). Water flow in the Don
is regulated at the Tsimylansk dam (see Section 5.2.3 for more detail). The
Tsimlyansk reservoir provides irrigation to a total area of 200,000 hectares.
Inter-basin and in-basin river flow transfers include: 0.3-0.45 km3/year transferred
from the Don to the Vesyolovsky and Proletarsky reservoirs, and more than 0.5
km3/year transferred from the Don to the Manych reservoir, the Sal river and its
tributaries.
The consented water abstraction volume for the Oblast is 17.8 km3/ year, 90% of
which is surface water (World Bank, 1996, Figure 5.1). Irretrievable water
consumption is estimated at an average of 10 % of water abstraction, and the
majority of used water is returned into the water bodies as effluents of various
compositions.
Table 5.7 below gives a summary of the abstraction volumes and use categories for
1995 to 1999.
Table 5.7
Water consumption and water abstraction norms for the
Rostov Oblast (km3)
Note: signifies a downward trend
1995 1996 1997 1998
1999
Abstraction (km3)
Abstracted from
5.2 5.6 4.7 4.6
4.7
natural water bodies
From groundwater
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.25
0.2
Total use of fresh water
4.1 4.2 3.4 2.9
3.1
Consumption (km3)
Municipal and drinking
water purposes
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3
Industry
1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6
1.7
Irrigation
1.1 1.1 0.8 0.7
0.8
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
55
1995 1996 1997 1998
1999
Agricultural water
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1
supply
Recirculated water
1.8 1.7 0.9 0.9
0.7
Discharge (km3)
Untreated
discharges 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4
0.4
Insufficiently treated
0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.2
discharges
Discharges complying
2.2 2.2 1.9 1.6
1.7
with norms
Discharges treated to
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1
comply with norms
Total discharged to
water bodies
3.0 3.2 2.6 2.4
2.4
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment Committee, 2000
Some comments on the above table:
· Industry: The major industrial abstractor on the Lower Don is the
Novocherkassk heating power station, which abstracts 2km3/year for cooling
of heating units. Water is discharged slightly warmed, but not polluted by
chemicals..
· Agriculture and fisheries: In 1999 abstraction of water from the Lower Don
by the Department of Irrigation Systems management for fisheries and
irrigation was 1.8 km . Abstraction of water for fish ponds continues to
decrease, and in 1999 was 0.004 km less than in 1998.
· Municipal Services: Water is abstracted by the Vodokanals of a number of
cities: Rostov Vodokanal 0.2 km ; firm Istok, Kamensk-Shakhtinsky 0.2
km ; Kamensk-Shakhtinsky Vodokanal 0.008 km ; Volgodonsk Vodokanal
0.004 km ; and Salsk Vodokanal 0.004 km .
Water Supply
The majority of the Oblast's drinking water supply is drawn from surface water,
with only 10% coming from groundwater. Rostov Vodokanal is responsible for
water supply in the city of Rostov, and has two Water Treatment Works:
Alexandrovska WTW located on the eastern edge of the city, and Central WTW
located in the city centre. The city relies on the River Don as its only source of
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
56
drinking water. An estimated 98% of the population are connected to the mains,
the remainder being served by wells and other sources. There are some problems
related to the quality of drinking water arriving in the taps, and these are discussed
in more details in Section 5.4.3. The city also provides drinking water to the
satellite towns of Aksai and Bataisk and to the village of Kovalevka, and partially
treated water to the district hot water supply company. It is estimated that 7% of
the population rely on shared and private standpipes for their drinking water
supply (RVK 2001).
The continuing problems of treated water quality in Rostov has led to the setting
up of "Drinking Water Galleries" by the Municipality to sell satisfactory drinking
water in the city. These galleries use water from RVK mains and advanced small-
scale treatment processes such as ion-exchange, GAC absorption, ozonation and
UV disinfection. Treated water is sold to customers to carry home in containers to
use for drinking and cooking. The scale of these galleries is small with a combined
capacity of approximately 100 m3/d (which equates to approximately 3% of the
total water required for drinking and cooking in the city). More detail on water
supply and its problems is given in the RVK Strategic Plan.
Sanitation
The WWTW at the centre of this study is the only one in Rostov. The sewer
network is approximately 950km long, and has 236,236 domestic connections and
4,272 industrial connections. It also receives wastewater discharged from the sewer
system in Bataisk. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the city population,
and 50% of Bataisk are not connected to the wastewater collection system (World
Bank, 2000b). These people use pit latrines or septic tanks, which are emptied by
the municipal agency Rostovavtodor. This is discussed in more detail in Section
5.4.3 below.
Public Health
(a)
Summary of public health in Rostov-on-Don and in the Russian
Federation in general
Statistics for the Russian Federation suggest that health status is lower than that in
many other European countries and are summarised in Table 5.8 below.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
57
Table 5.8
Selected health indicators in the Russian Federation and
the European Region
Russian
Europe 1
Federation (1998)
(1996)
Life expectancy - average
67.2 years
72.8 years
Life expectancy men
61.4 years
68.6 years
Life expectancy - women
73.3 years
77.1 years
Infant mortality per 1000 live births
16.4
12.6
Maternal mortality per 100 000 live
44.0 19.8
births
Standardised mortality rate (SMR) for all
1334.5 1013.7
causes of death per 100 000
1 The World Health Organisations' (WHO) European Region comprises 51 member states
Source: WHO (1999).
Mortality data in most countries tends to be more reliable and complete than
morbidity (illness) data. Available mortality data for Rostov-on-Don is presented
in Table 5.9 together with comparable national data for the Russian Federation and
data for the World Health Organisation (WHO) European Region. It is not clear if
the figures for Rostov-on-Don are standardised by age, if not then some over-
estimation is possible of diseases in the most populous age groups. It would also
be better to have national data for cities for the Russian Federation and for Europe
to compare with Rostov. Given these differences, it is still possible to compare the
different sets of data.
Table 5.9
Mortality rates for Rostov-on-Don, the Russian Federation
and the WHO European Region
Rostov-on-
Russian
Europe
Don (1998) (a)
Federation
(1996) (c)
(1998) (b)
Total mortality rate per 100 000
1323.1 1334.5
1013.7
population
Mortality rate for cardiovascular
717.6 722.1
497.9
diseases per 100 000 population
Mortality rate for malignant
212.3 193.1
188.3
neoplasms per 100 000
population
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
58
Rostov-on-
Russian
Europe
Don (1998) (a)
Federation
(1996) (c)
(1998) (b)
Mortality rate for injuries and
85.7 186.0
93.1
poisoning per 100 000 population
Mortality rate for diseases of the
40.0 37.3
40.3
digestive system per 100 000
population
Mortality rate for diseases of the
19.5 56.9
65.8
respiratory system per 100 000
population
Mortality rate for infectious and
(not available)
19.7
13.7
parasitic diseases per 100 000
population
Sources: (a) Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000 (b) and (c) WHO (1999).
Morbidity (illness) data for the city for 1997 to 1998 (Rostov city statistical
department, 2000. Rostov on Don in figures) suggest that influenza, cancer and
respiratory illnesses are the most commonly reported diseases along with viral
hepatitis. Reported malignant tumours increased over the three year period while
the other illnesses listed above decreased. Reported cases of active tuberculosis
also increased over the period. The disease is strongly associated with poverty and
an increase in absolute numbers and rate suggests that for some people in the city,
living conditions are worsening.
(b)
Brief overview of health and water supply and sanitation in Rostov-on-
Don
The health risks associated with water supply and sanitation in Rostov-on-Don
mainly relate to access to services, functioning and operation and maintenance of
systems and quality of drinking water. It is estimated that most people living in
apartments have access to both in-house water supply and sanitation services.
However, people living in the older, single-storey housing in the city, may have
neither in-house water supply nor sanitation. Many of these people use pit latrines,
which are an adequate and safe form of sanitation as long as they are well
maintained and faeces are safely disposed of. The costs of having these latrines
emptied are high and some families reported not having pit latrines emptied as
often as they would like because of the cost. A further factor is the downstream
health risk of the contents of pit latrines reportedly being emptied il egally into the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
59
storm water drainage system of the city by the agency responsible for their
disposal.
Residents of many older buildings that are divided into apartments have to share
both sanitation and stand pipes. It is not known whether sufficient amounts of
water are stored for drinking supply and cooking as well as for washing and
hygiene. Stoppages in the system also reduce the quantity of water available for
drinking, cooking and washing. Poorer households are most at risk as they tend to
have lower health status and are therefore more susceptible to ill-health and less
able to afford both better services or treatment when they become ill.
Water quality in the city is known to be poor. The water treatment is likely to be
fairly effective in removing bacteria as it includes two stages of chlorination.
However, indicators of human viruses are found to be quite high in raw water and
are likely, along with protozoan parasites to be found in treated water. Both
viruses and protozoa present a risk to health. Viruses and protozoa both have very
low infective doses (very small quantities can cause infection), they are fairly
resistant to treatment and are difficult to identify. If treatment of the water supply
is sufficient (i.e. chlorination removes most bacteria) then it is likely that the
majority of the risk to health is from viruses and protozoa. If treatment is
insufficient, bacteria will also present a risk to health.
The state of the water supply network is poor and appears to lead to a significant
amount of secondary contamination of the water supply. This presents a further
risk to health.
Public health and use of river water downstream of the WWTW
There are several different uses of river water downstream of the WWTW that
could affect health. These include drinking water downstream, recreational use,
fishing and irrigation. Recreation and fishing are discussed more fully in Sections
5.4.9 and 5.4.5. Microbiological quality of surface river water is reported to be
poor, especially downstream of Rostov-on-Don (Kimstach et al, 1998). This
section contains a discussion of the impacts of current river pollution levels on
public health.
Rural communities in the Azov area living along both banks of the river
downstream are known to take river water as their drinking water supply. It is not
known whether the water is always boiled before drinking or not. If it is boiled,
bacteria will be killed but some viruses (for instance hepatitis A) may survive and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
60
present a risk. Rostov Oblast SANEPID recorded several cases of cholera 10 years
ago which were related to drinking water from the river Don. At the time they
introduced sand and gravel filtration and banned the use of river water for
drinking. The water supply for these communities is now reported to be provided
by tanker truck supply. There is still the suggestion that the older generation take
water from the river directly (for some or all of their drinking water supply), whilst
the younger generation do so to a lesser extent. The point at which river water is
drawn, the length of time for which it is stored, and the availability of alternative
sources are critical factors. Chemical contamination of water may also be
important. It is likely that heavy metals will not pose a threat as they are likely to be
contained in the sediment on the river bed. Heavy metal concentrations in fish in
the river, for example, were not found to exceed the Maximum Allowable
Concentrations. Other chemical contamination levels might be high enough, over
a sufficient period to cause health effects. These may be subject to long latency
periods and manifestations may be less obvious than the much more immediate
symptoms from drinking micro-biologically contaminated water.
Exploration of alternative sources such as ground water (if sufficient quantity is
available), or continued supply via tanker truck of sufficiently treated water from
elsewhere (if affordable) would help to prevent risk.
Recreational use of the river is described in Section 5.4.9. SANEPID col ects
information about bathing water quality at official recreation sites. If the standards
are not met, they are responsible for issuing warnings. Data on cases of ill-health
related to recreational use of the river were not available. World Bank (1998)
indicates that river beaches in Azov were closed due to outbreaks of cholera closed
every summer between 1990 and 1994. It is not known what the source of these
cases was (whether the vibrio cholera bacteria were environmentally occurring or
were related to human cases of cholera).
The population at risk is large, with seasonal exposure. From research in many
different settings, the most often and clearly identified risk to health from
swimming in polluted water is gastro-intestinal il ness. The main pathway is
immersion of the head or swallowing of water.
Effluent from the Rostov WWTW is diluted at a rate of 1:100 during low flow in
the summer, and chlorinated. It is therefore considered unlikely that it will have a
major public health impact downstream. This is especially true for bacteria, which
should be efficiently eradicated if the chlorination is done properly. Chlorination
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
61
can be less effective at destroying protozoa and viruses, which means that there
may be a risk of contamination in the current absence of sludge digestion. There
are no data on viral or protozoal levels in the effluent, but given the contamination
of the river from other sources, improvements at the WWTW alone appear
unlikely to have a very large impact on the health of downstream users. The
discharge of untreated sewage into the Temernik River does pose a risk to public
health, although it is a lesser risk as the river is not used for drinking water or for
bathing. This risk will be alleviated following completion of the No.68 sewer line
from the sewerage pump station (SPS) "Severnaya-1" to the underwater crossing
of the Don River (Subproject No.62), which will eliminate the current discharge.
Table 5.10 provides recent World Health Organisation categories of health risk
from sewage effluent in rivers receiving differing levels of treatment, with differing
degrees of dilution and differing sizes of population upstream.
Table 5.10
Risk potential to health through exposure to sewage
through riverine flow and discharge
Dilution effect
Sewage treatment level
None Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Lagoon
plus
disinfection
High population
Very high
Very high
High Low
Medium
with low river flow
Low population
Very high
High Medium Very
low
Medium
with low river flow
Medium
High Medium Low Very
low Low
population with
medium river flow
High population
High Medium Low Very
low Low
with high river
flow
Low population
High Medium
Very
low
Very
low
Very
low
with high river
flow
Source: WHO (1999a) Health-based monitoring of recreational waters. Protection of the human
environment, water, sanitation and health series. Geneva; WHO. 1999.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
62
Table 5.10 indicates that there is only a very low health risk from the WWTW,
because there is a high river flow and secondary treatment plus disinfection.
Fishing is very popular in the Rostov area and makes up a significant part of local
diet. Sources suggest that chemical contamination of fish occurs in the Lower Don
(Kimstach et al, 1998). Chemicals which most often and significantly exceed
Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) include petroleum and phenols.
These are largely associated with river transport. Heavy metals in fish muscle, in
contrast were not reported to exceed the levels set by the health authorities. Levels
of heavy metals and other chemicals produced by industry may however be
expected to increase due to re-growth of industry in the area. Bottom-feeding fish
may be the most susceptible to heavy metals poisoning. Pesticides are also
investigated, by the Fisheries Institute in Rostov-on-Don. Their use may also
increase due to local production of pesticides.
The Sanitary Epidemiological Service both take food samples for testing and
record health outcomes of food poisoning. For 1999, the most recently available
data, only 50 cases of food poisoning were reported for the whole of Rostov
Oblast. This figure is likely to represent significant under-reporting. Cases of
botulism were reported to be caused by fish contamination. However, these cases
were thought (by staff at both SANEPID and the Fisheries Institute) to be related
to poor handling and storage of fish rather than contamination of the fish at the
time they were caught. This was seen as an issue for fish caught and processed
outside of the formal fishing industry (i.e. largely at the household level). However,
predicted increases in agricultural and industrial production mean that it will be
important to continue to monitor fish as well as to try to improve food hygiene.
Use of river water for irrigation is a further area of potential risk. At present there
is considerable institutional fragmentation of agricultural and irrigation authorities.
Identifying and locating relevant information is therefore difficult. With
deregulation of crop types it appears that there wil be a move away from grain
crops towards vegetables and other more profitable crops which require more
irrigation. The type of irrigation and type of crop are both important. The region
uses mainly spray irrigation which is less of a risk to agricultural workers than is
posed by flood-irrigation techniques. Crops such as salad vegetables present the
highest risk from reuse of waste water as they are not cooked before eating. Other
crops which are cooked before consumption are generally safer. In terms of
monitoring, Escherichia coli is the best indicator to measure in terms of health risk
associated with reuse of wastewater for irrigation.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
63
There are regulations for the quality of water to be used for irrigation. However, it
is not clear when and how data are collected or used or how much the information
relates to health risk.
Land Use, Industry and Agriculture
Land Use
Rostov City is divided into residential areas, parks and a number of industrial
complexes. Land use divisions for the city are shown in Figure 5.4. The WWTW is
situated in an established industrial complex. The majority of land in the Oblast is
agricultural.
Industry
The Rostov Oblast has a highly developed industry and agriculture and is one of
the leading Oblasts in the south of Russia in terms of economic development. The
largest industrial centres of the region are Rostov, Novocherkassk, Taganrog,
Volgodonsk, Kamensk, Shakhty, and Krasny Sulin. With its Azov Sea ports, the
area has strong regional and international connections. The most important
industry in Greater Rostov is machine building, and the area produces 75% of the
country's agricultural machinery. Coal mining and power generation are also well-
developed, and constituted more than 35% of the Oblast's industrial output in
1995. Ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy accounted for another 15% of output
and food processing for about 13%. Other industries include chemicals, pulp and
paper, construction and textiles.
Industrial production in the Rostov Oblast has declined drastically since the early
1990s (1995 output was only 50% of 1991), although less so in the Greater Rostov
area (18% from 1991 to 1995). It is widely accepted that industry is now
recovering, and real growth is predicted for the ensuing years. The outlook is
particularly positive for the Rostov region, with its strong international
connections for trade between Asia and Europe, a strong banking sector and a
rapidly growing retail sector. The statistics for 1999 show a 300% increase in the
value of goods and services produced in Rostov, and a slow increase in the retail
and housing sector, as shown in Table 5.11.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
64
Table 5.11
Industrial Indicators for Rostov City, 1999
Index 1999
1999
compared to
1998
Production of goods and services (million
12,797.
300%
Roubles)
8
Physical industrial production, %
141%
New houses built (000s m2)
410.4 105%
Retail industry turnover (million Roubles)
19841.
105%
0
Catering industry turnover (million
370.1 95%
Roubles)
Number of the registered unemployed
3057 40%
people
Consumer price index for goods and
147%
services
Source: Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000
The official statistics show that the number of industries returning an overall loss
continues to decrease (Table 5.12). There is no indication as to the proportion of
profit and loss-making businesses which are private or public.
Table 5.12
Industrial profit/losses in 1999
Overall profit
Profit-making
Loss-making
from industry
enterprises
enterprises
(000s
%
Profit
%
Loss
Roubles)
of
(000s
of
(000s
total
Roubles)
tota
Roubles)
l
Rosto
4,517,000 66% 7,170,115 34
2,653,206
v
%
Oblast
Rosto
2,666,000 78% 3,360,182 22
694,308
v City
%
Source: Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
65
The relative importance of different industrial sectors in terms of value of
production is shown in Table 5.13 below. The most significant growth sectors
were the chemical and oil processing industry, timber and woodwork industry;
pulp and paper industry, and construction materials production.
Table 5.13
The relative importance of industrial sectors in Rostov
City
Industrial sector
Proportion of total in:
1998 1999
Chemical and oil processing
2.3%
2.4%
Machine building and metal working
33.5%
29.7%
Timber and woodwork; pulp and paper
1.0%
1.0%
Construction material production
3.2%
2.5%
Light industry
4.7%
5.2%
Food
44.6%
47.0%
Printing
1.5%
1.0%
Others
9.2% 11.1%
Total for the city
100%
100%
Source: Rostov City Department of Statistics, 2000
Emissions of industrial wastewater are considered in Section 5.5.
Agriculture
The Rostov Oblast is one of the main producers of agricultural products in the
Russian Federation. The region is predominantly a grain and stock-breeding area
and is also a major producer of sunflowers, vegetables and fruit. The majority of
the Oblast's 101,000 km2 are agricultural, including: ploughed fields (over 60,000
km2), pastures (22,000 km2) and hayfields (22,000 km2). In recent years arable and
horticulture has constituted 42% of the agricultural gross output.
The intensive agricultural production has lead, in places, to leaching of nutrients,
salinisation and dehumification of the soil, erosion, swamping, and chemical
pollution. Unfortunately the existing data and information on the influence of
diffuse pollution sources on the Lower Don basin water resources is very limited
(World Bank, 1998; 1996).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
66
Irrigation is an important factor affecting agricultural development. The
construction of the Tsimlyansk reservoir in the 1950s increased the area of
irrigated lands from 274 to 4330 km2. In recent years, about 18% of irrigated lands
have become unproductive due to design and operational shortages. As a result,
secondary soil salinisation, silting and overgrowth of drainage network canals are
wide spread.
Agricultural production decreased substantially during the early and mid-1990s, but
is now understood to be increasing once more. With the end of state control over
choice of crop, farmers are diversifying away from grain towards higher value
crops such as sunflowers and vegetables. In 1995, only 3% of the farms had been
decollectivised, but it is understood that a higher proportion are now under private
ownership.
Fisheries
Fishing is an important industry in the Rostov Oblast. In 1999, there were nine
Rostov commercial fishing companies exploiting the Don River in the Rostov area
and ten in the Taganrog Bay area of the Azov Sea (Rostov Oblast Administration
and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000).
Before the 1950s, fishing was a key component of the region's economy. The
Azov Sea was noted as being one of the most productive seas in the world, with
annual catches exceeding 300,000 tonnes. Fish catches in the Lower Don and
Azov Sea have decreased on average by 90% since the 1950s, but for some species
this decrease is 300-500 fold and even more. This is largely due to changes in the
hydrological regime, but also due to pollution, overfishing and increasing
salinisation of the Azov Sea due to the high volume of freshwater abstracted in its
basin. Eutrophication is a particular problem, and has a detrimental impact on the
majority of fish species of economic importance (Section 5.3.2). The pollution
issue is discussed in more detail in Sections 5.5.1 and 5.4.3.
In an attempt to tackle overfishing, the State Committee for Fisheries sets annual
commercial catch limits for sturgeon, bream, pike-perch (zander) and sea roach is
regulated in accordance with the regulation of Goskomrybolovstvo (State
Committee for Fisheries) No 44 dated March 2, 1999 (Moscow). Total catch for
these species for 1997-1999 are shown in Table 5.14.
Table 5.14
Catches of regulated fish species in the Don river and
Taganrog bay in 1997-1999 (tonnes)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
67
Total catch (tonnes)
Species
1997 1998 1999
Don Taganrog Tota
Don Taganrog Tota
Don Taganrog Tota
river
bay
l
river
bay
l
river
bay
l
Sturgeon
1.3 6.0 7.3
1.0 4.2 5.2
1.2 5.2 6.4
(Acipenser sp.)
Bream
240.
418.4 659.
378.
286.2 664.
173.
247.3 420.
(Abramis brama)
7
1
7
9
2
5
Pike-perch
4.8 570.7 575.
2.9 682.0 684.
3.4 514.9 518.
(Stizosterdion
5
9
3
lucioperca)
Sea-roach
71.4 4.3 75.7
5.0 5.6 5.6
8.3 2.2 10.5
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
Annual catch limits are set for the whole Oblast, and according to the data, were
complied with for all protected species in 1999 (Table 5.15).
Table 5.15
Catch limits and actual catches of regulated fish species in
the Rostov Oblast in 1999
Species Permitted
catch
Actual catch
% of permitted
(tonnes)
(tonnes)
catch
Sturgeon 465
421.2
91
Bream 800
649.1
81
Pike-perch 50 11.8 24
Sea-roach 33.6 24.3 72
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
There is especial concern over the state of the sturgeon population, which has
never recovered from the construction of the dam which barred the annual
upstream migration to spawning grounds. The Fisheries Institute reports that more
than 75% of sturgeon resorb their eggs and do not return to the Don to spawn. It
is understood that there are proposals in place to completely ban sturgeon fishing
in the Azov Sea.
Other important commercial species include kill (50,000t p.a.), anchovies (29,300),
and the new commercial population of introduced pelingas in Azov Sea.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
68
Aquaculture is becoming increasingly popular. Approximately 15-20,000 tonnes of
carp are produced per year in ponds. It is understood that the process is fairly
extensive and uses few chemical, mainly involving the stocking of ponds flooded
during the spring melt.
Recreational fishing both from the bank and from small boats is a popular activity
in Rostov city and in the Delta. It is understood that fishing is banned at certain
times of year in the Delta. It appears that there are no data on the size of the
recreational and for-domestic-use catch, or of the number of people involved.
Energy Production and Consumption
The majority of the energy produced in the Rostov Oblast is heat-generated (Table
5.16).
Table 5.16
Energy Production in the Rostov Oblast
Source
Energy production 1998
Energy production 1999
Amount
%
Amount
%
(million kW)
(million kW)
Heat-generated
10,283 94.7 10,778 93.9
Hydropower 580 5.3 695 6.1
Total 10,863
11,473
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
More than 70% of the region's electricity is produced at the Novocherkassk Power
Plant, 35 km to the north east of Rostov City. The plant has eight blocks and a
total capacity of 2,400 megawatts. 80% of the fuel burned is low quality coal mined
in the Donetz basin. The coal contains approximately 3% sulphur and up to 30%
ash. In 1999, coal consumption was 3 376 000 tonnes (85 million GJ), fuel oil
277 000 tonnes (9.2 million GJ) and natural gas 298 000 m3 (11 000 GJ). The air
quality impacts of the power station are discussed in Section 5.5.4.
The use of natural gas use is increasing as a substitute for other fuels in heating,
industrial production, energy production. Rostov-on-Don has two heating power
stations, both of which use natural gas. A new nuclear power station is currently
under construction at Volgodonsk, on the Tsimlyansk Reservoir. It is understood
that there may be plans to scale down coal consumption at the Novocherkassk
power station once the Volgodonsk station is operational.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
69
The region is a net energy producer, exporting approximately 3,500 million kW per
year. The different classes of energy consumption are summarised in Table 5.17
below.
Table 5.17
Energy Consumption in the Rostov Oblast
Sector
Energy consumption 1998
Energy consumption 1999
Amount
%
Amount
%
(million kW)
(million kW)
Industry 5,017
38.8
5,295
39.4
Agriculture 1,918
14.8
1,876
14.0
Construction 77
0.6
81
0.6
Transport
697 5.4 876 6.5
Others 3,214
24.8
3,185
23.7
Energy supplied to
3,496 27.0 3,581 26.7
other NIS regions
Total 12,946
13,448
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
Rostov Vodokanal has high power requirements, which are understood to account
for approximately 30% of its operational expenditure (Table 5.18).
Table 5.18
Rostov Vodokanal's energy consumption
Sector
Energy consumption (000s kWh)
1999 2000
:DWHU 6XSSO\
Alexandrovska Water Treatment
158,735 159,438
Works
Central Water Treatment Works
8,889
8,667
Pumping stations and distribution
209,233 219,182
network
:DVWHZDWHU
Wastewater treatment works
28,654
29,082
Pumping stations and sewer
34,863 36,094
network
Total 440,374
452,463
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
70
Sector
Energy consumption (000s kWh)
1999 2000
Source: RVK
Transport Infrastructure
The Rostov area lies close to the Azov Sea, Ukraine and Georgia, and hence has a
number of international and regional transport links that both support its current
role as a trading centre for predicted growth in the area.
Rail
Rostov Oblast is served by three major railroads:
· Moscow-Voronezh-Rostov-on-Don with branches to the Ukraine and the
Oblast centre (Krasny Sulin Ust-Donetsk);
· West - East line which links the Lower Don with the Ukraine and Povolzhie;
and
· Black Sea Coast - Povolzhie through Volgograd with branch to Volgodonsk and
continuing to the Caucasus.
Rail freight traffic handles over 80% of the Oblast's cargo, which amounts to
approximately 37,795 million tonnes/km/annum (Rostov City Department of
Statistics, 2000).
A railway line passes along the boundary of the works, and could be used for low-
cost transport of reagents or of sludge in the future.
Motor transport
Rostov Oblast is served by a network of highways of federal and regional
importance. Road density is 102.1 km on 1000 km2 of which 90% are hard
surfaced. The major road hub is Rostov-on-Don, from which Highway M4 links to
Moscow in a south-north direction along the western edge of the Oblast. Highway
29 running south links Rostov with Baku (federal highway "Kavkaz"). Two
highways lead west from Rostov; the M23 to Odessa and Rostov M19(E40) to
Kiev. Through these highways the Oblast centre is connected with Taganrog and
Novoshakhtinsk. From East to West the central parts of the Oblast are crossed by
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
71
highway 21 (Volgograd-Kishenev). The road links the towns of Morozovsk,
Belaya Kalitva, Kamensk-Shakhtinsky.
Air transport
Air services have been developed since 1925 and are mainly used for
passenger transportation.
Pipelines
More than a dozen major oil, gas and other products pipelines cross the
Oblast.
Navigation
15% of the Oblast cargo is transported by river. The largest river ports are:
Rostov-on-Don connected with more than 16 states through rivers and canals;
Tsimlyansk (transfer from water to railroad and visa versa grain, construction
materials, coal); Ust-Donetsk river gates of Donbass for timber and coal. 73% of
goods transported by river are minerals and construction materials. Navigation on
the Don is year-round, with a maximum from April to November (Table 5.19).
Most ships using the Don are ocean-going, and have an average of 2100 dead-
weight tonnes.
Table 5.19
Lower Don: River traffic statistics
Number of passing vessels
Cargo traffic (000s tonnes)
2005
2010
2005
River reach
2010
1997 2000 predicte
predicte
1997
2000
predicte
predicted
d
d
d
Upper Don canal
4
4
to Rostov-on-
2 070
2 150
2 520
2 990
5 300
6 280
360
530
Don
Rostov-on-Don
3
3
1 600
1 850
2 040
2 350
4 200
4 800
to the Azov Sea
370
900
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Oblast Environment Committee, 2000
Solid Waste Disposal
Waste disposal and impact on surface and ground water
More than 8.5 million tonnes of wastes are generated annually within the Rostov
Oblast, comprising 7 million tonnes of industrial and 1.5 million tonnes of
municipal solid wastes (MSW). The production of industrial waste is concentrated
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
72
within the city boundary. Outside the city the main wastes are of vegetable and
animal origin. Table 5.20 shows the pattern of waste disposal in Rostov Oblast.
Authorised landfills for hazardous wastes disposal are located in Azov and
Novocherkassk. Whilst neither landfill is operated in compliance with the
regulations the standards of operation and maintenance are improving.
MSW, industrial wastes and some hazardous wastes are mainly disposed to the
authorised MSW landfills however, fly tipping (`wild' landfill) is a common but
diminishing method of disposal of all classes of waste. None of the landfills in the
Rostov Oblast are designed for leachate and landfill gas management or are
regularly monitored although the Rostov landfill had a weighbridge installed in
1999. A system has also been installed at the Rostov landfil for collection of
leachate from new waste deposits and a monitoring system adopted. Operational
practices at most landfills have improved but poor practice such as waste burning
continue at some sites.
The Rostov City landfill is fil ed along a working face and the waste compacted by
bulldozer. Construction waste is used for haul roads and as daily cover. In the
absence of sufficient construction waste for daily cover, subsoil from a nearby
borrow pit is occasionally used. The use of daily cover prevents the waste surface
from becoming a breeding ground for disease vectors, minimises odours and
reduces litter blow.
Due to the unlined nature of most landfill sites in the Oblast they pose significant
environmental risks to the surrounding soils, surface and ground water. A number
of sites are located on highly porous soils contingent with groundwater or in water
protection zones.
The Rostov Oblast Centre for State Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision
monitors the impacts of air and drinking water quality on public health but their
remit does not extend to monitoring the effects of soil and ground water pol ution.
The Centre currently uses pollution criteria based on maximum allowable
concentrations but is developing a methodology on assessing health risks due to
wastes impact. This includes an information dissemination programme and the
development of a harmful substances inventory.
Waste management strategy for Rostov-on-Don, Azov, Aksai, Bataisk and for the rural districts of Azov,
Aksai and Kagalnitsky
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
73
In collaboration with foreign experts a specific project on developing strategies for
waste management in Rostov was undertaken during 1996-1997. The project was a
joint collaboration between Russian technical specialists, City and Oblast
Administration, City Environmental Committee, waste producers, and private
organisations (predominantly equipment suppliers). The Waste Management Plan
which resulted is being actioned, and is under continuous development, by a
variety of state and non-governmental agencies. As a result of the technology
transfer associated with the project one private company has subsequently
produced further plans including; 'Concept of waste management strategy for the
Rostov Oblast', 'Strategy of waste management in town Primorsk-Akhtarsk,
Krasnodarsky krai' and developed a ' Strategy of waste management in the Greater
Rostov area'. Key elements of the strategies developed are summarised in Tables
5.21 and 5.22 below.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
74
Table 5.20
Waste Disposal Sites in The Rostov Oblast as at January, 1st, 2000)
Facility type
Facilities
Facilities
Area
Mass
Type of wastes
meeting
(Ha)
(000s
Industrial wastes
environmental
tonnes)
(IW),
Waste
standards1
Animal wastes (AW),
class2
1.
Managed landfills for industrial wastes and MSW
11
5
128.7
9 245.7
MSW, IW, medical waste
1 - 4
2.
Authorised, unmanaged landfills
554
146
1 149.9
6 045.6
MSW, IW, medical waste,
1 - 4
AW
3.
Sludge settling lagoons
43
23
276.6
6 427.7
IW
1 - 4
4.
Mineral spoil heaps and ash dumps
149
51
1 194.1
414 915.3
IW
-
5.
Quarries and mines
26
14
84.9
2 786.2
MSW, IW,
-
6.
Graveyard of wastes
3
2
7.6
13.0
IW, AW
-
7.
Disposal at sites located at territories of enterprises
169
82
43.0
554.6
MSW, IW, medical waste
1 - 4
8.
Storage at industrial sites
175
43
58.0
148.6
IW, AW
4
9.
Unauthorised sites for wastes disposal
394
-
261.2
5 555.8
MSW, IW, AW
1 - 4
10.
Artificial collectors, bunkers, containers and other
61
52
1.2
9.4
IW, AW
1 - 4
places for wastes disposal
11.
Manure pits
559
60
374.5
1 947.5
IW, AW
-
(agricultural wastes)
12.
Filtration fields
9
9
22.6
6 485.0
AW, IW
-
1 According to Federal Law on Waste,
89-FL 1998
2 Classes of waste as defined in Sanitary Requirements for Construction and Maintenance of the Landfills for the Municipal Solid Wastes (SanPiN
2.1.7.722-98). 1 = hazardous waste, 4 = inert waste
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
75
Table 5.21
Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategy for the Greater Rostov area
Environmental
Objective, activity
Implementation
goal
period
1. Development of
Development of a programme of sanitary cleanup of the populated places in the Rostov Oblast up to the
2001-2002
an integrated MSW
year 2020
management system
2001-2008
for the Oblast
Development and implementation of a wastes management GIS
2002-2010
Development and full implementation of an integrated system of waste management in the Rostov Oblast.
2. Improvement of
Development and adoption of short-term and mid-term programmes of sanitary cleanup of specific
2001-2005
the existing system
populated places.
of sanitary cleanup
2000-2004
and disposal of
Equipping sites of MSW collection and temporary storage with containers with closing lids; providing
MSW
population with plastic bags and packages for MSW collection.
2006-2012
Organisation of specialised container sites for separate collection of secondary material resources and
provision of population with special (apartment) packing material for separate collection of secondary
material resources.
2000-2008
Provision of improved equipment for landfill management and operator training.
2000-2002
Monitoring of waste morphology , district and seasonal variations in composition.
2000-2003
Inventory of all the unauthorised dumps and dumping places in towns and districts. .
2001-2005
Preparation of plans for reducing environmental impacts of landfills and other authorised dumps.
2000-2012
Assessment of further needs for waste treatment based on comparative analysis of the best practical
environmental options. Selection of potential sites for municipal and inter-municipal landfills.
2001-2010
Design and construction of new facilities for MSW pre treatment.
2003-2008
Development of the MSW management monitoring system.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
76
Environmental
Objective, activity
Implementation
goal
period
3. Institutional, legal
Development and adoption of the Oblast programme 'Secondary material resources'.
2000-2001
and economic
assistance in
Development of institutional and economic conditions for rehabilitation in the Rostov Oblast system of
2000-2002
development of
secondary material resources collection and recycling.
market based waste
management
systems
4. Improvement of
Development of public education on legal-institutional, economic and sanitary-epidemiological issues of
environmental
MSW management, in particular:
awareness and
- to organise a programme "Environmental hour" on local TV and radio;
environmental
- to promote a section on 'City and district ecology' in local newspapers.
education of main
participants
Establishment of the Environmental Education Centre.
involved in MSW
management
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
77
Table 5.22
Strategy for WWTW sludge management in the Greater Rostov area
Objective
Activities
Duration
Decrease of sludge hazard class
Development of administrative decisions and economic measures of influence on enterprises.
2000-2001
due to improvement of the quality
of waste water from industrial
Development and implementation of measures aimed at improvement of quality of industrial
2001-2005
enterprises.
enterprises waste water discharged to the city sewage system.
Increase quality of treatment and
Reconstruction of Rostov WWTW, including:
2000-2003
development of optimal
-
reconstruction of mechanical treatment plant
2000
conditions for sludge storage at
-
installation of sludge dewatering centrifuges
2000-2002
WWTW.
-
reconstruction of drying lagoons.
2000-2002
Project development and construction of plant for mechanical sludge dewatering at Azov
2000 2005
WWTW.
2000- 2005
Completion of WWTW construction in Aksai.
Proposed development and
Completion of disposal strategy for Rostov WTW and WWTW sludges. Construction of
2000-2002
implementation of
facilities for sludge utilisation.
environmentally applicable and
economically viable options of
Integration of Rostov, Azov and Aksai into a regional sludge disposal system.
2000-2003
WWTW sludge disposal.
Development of sludge composting at Rostov, Azov, and Aksai.
2000-2003
Development of centralised
Design and construction of drain stations in district centres, large settlements.
2001-2010
system of waste water treatment
and WTP in rural districts.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
78
Disposal of WWTW to sludge lagoon and drying beds
At present sludge production comprises primary settled sludge, which receives no further
treatment, together with surplus activated sludge. The total amount of sludge produced is not
monitored and has been estimated at 1220 m3/day primary sludge and 1355 m3/day surplus
activated sludge. An unknown but minor amount of the sludge is pumped to drying beds. The
majority of the sludge is conveyed into a storage lagoon. Further details of sludge handling are
provided in the RVK Strategy Plan Terms of Reference for Sludge Disposal/Management
Strategy). Primary sludge has a moisture content of 95-96% and surplus activated sludge a
moisture content of 98-99%.
The sludge drying beds have an asphalt covered concrete base in sections which are sloped to
drain liquor via a drainage system back to the inlet of line 2. There are 31 drying beds each
approximately 90m by 40m and with a nominal depth of 1m. The bed walls are made of
uncovered concrete. On average the floor of the beds is 3.76m above the mean level of the
Don which flows through its flood plain within about 200-400m of the beds. The beds are
filled sequentially by pumps and emptied, on reaching a nominal 70% moisture content, by
front end loader. The residence time is normally under one year and 12-14 beds are emptied
each year. Where 13 beds of the above capacity are filled each year the sludge consumption
would be approximately 46800 m3. Thus some 5% of the annual production of 939875 m3 is
dried each year. Five samples of sludge being removed from the beds in 1998 and three
samples in 2000 had an average moisture content of 77%.
The sludge removed from the beds is stored on site on a designated stockpile covering some
40000 m2 and from which unknown amounts of material are periodically withdrawn for use in
City Parks. Some of the stockpile is also used for amelioration and grassing of the, sandy, soil
on site. Neither of these uses has prevented the growth of the stockpile, which is now
reported to be reaching capacity.
Sand removal associated with construction of the treatment works led to the formation of a
lake. In 1984 a dyke was created around the lake to form an enclosed lagoon for sludge
storage. The dyke was originally 2.5m above the bed level and constructed of an earth sand
mixture. The bed level is approximately that of the mean level of the Don. The lagoon design
included the provision of a clay liner but there appear to be no records of the installation. In
1994 the dyke height was raised to 3.5m above bed level and according to the design sketches,
drainage pipes were laid through this extension to allow supernatant liquor to be pumped back
to the inlet of line 2. These drains no longer function and at present the water level inside the
lagoon averages 3m above bed level. The topography of the lagoon bed is not recorded but
from the site plans the enclosed area has been estimated at 29.8 Ha of which some 30% is in
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
79
the form of islands. The lagoon capacity may therefore be estimated at 0.7 million m3.
Additionally a second, somewhat larger lagoon abuts the first lagoon. Whilst the second
lagoon was not intended to receive sludge this may be occurring through leakage across the
unengineered boundary between the lagoons.
Following the decrease in local industrial activity the pollutant load of the sludge currently
produced has decreased as shown in Table 5.23. This table may also be used to estimate
contaminant loads for current sludge disposal options. There are no data for the degree of
contamination of the lagooned sludge, but on the basis of the historical pollution loads the
lagooned sludge may be expected to be highly polluted throughout. The potential impacts of
the lagoon on groundwater quality are discussed in Section 5.5.2.
Table 5.23
Existing sludge composition from Rostov WWTW
Parameter
Composition of sludge (g/kg)
1996 1997 1998 Mean
NH4
9.7 8.0 6.6 8.1
NO2
0.14 1.46 0.19 0.60
NO3
8.3 38.0 17.6 21.3
Cl
0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
P
2.5 2.9 3.0 2.8
BOD 83.9 79.5 77.2 80.2
Fe
0.91 0.81 0.77 0.83
Cu
0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04
Zn
0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03
Cr
0.06 0.02 0.02 0.04
Mg
21.3 16.7 18.4 18.8
Pb
6.5 7.1 6.6 6.7
SO4
0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05
Source: Rostov Vodokanal
Replacement of the (currently non-operational) sludge presses with sludge dewatering
centrifuges is currently underway (see Section 4). The centrifuges are designed to produce a
handleable sludge cake of approximately 35% dry matter. Predicted volumes are given in Table
4.2, and will represent a significant decrease compared to the existing situation (data on
current sludge volumes are not available).
In the near future sludge from the WWTW will primarily be disposed of in the existing lagoon
and drying beds at the site. The lagoon currently represents an unknown pollution risk from
leaching to groundwater and the potential for contact with surface water during flooding (see
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
80
Section 5.5.2). The reduction in sludge arisings as a result of digestion will therefore lower the
risk of pollution of the Don. This risk will reduce further if and when use of the lagoon ceases
and the existing sludge are removed (see below).
In the long term, sludge will be disposed of in a more appropriate manner such as landfilling
or reuse in agriculture. The development of a sludge disposal strategy is a priority for
Vodokanal, and is discussed further in the forthcoming Strategic Plan.
Sludge Utilisation
The terminology used in the various standards for materials which may be disposed of or
added to soils is open to interpretation (Table 5.24). These materials are not exactly defined
and there is an implication that compost made from sewage sludge is included in the standards
but not necessarily sludge applied directly to soil. Additionally according to other standards
sludge for subsequent utilisation in agriculture must be digested for a minimum residence time
of 11 hours at 550C for pasteurisation and as well for 21 days at 350C for mesophilic digestion.
However it is not known which of these standards has preference. It may also be noted that
some of the standards referred to in Table 5.24 include reference to limits of certain pathogens
but it is not clear how these organisms may be translated and they are not included in the
table.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
81
Table 5.24
Comparative standards and reference data on soils, fertilisers and waste water sludge content (Rostov-on-Don)
Parameter
MAC
MAC
Concentratio
Allowable
Concentratio
Concentratio
Concentratio
MAC (in
Concentratio
standards
standards
ns of
concentratio
ns of
ns of
ns of
terms
ns of
for
for EU
elements in
n in
elements in
elements in
elements in
SanPiN
pollutants in
Russian
soils
Russian soils
compost,
"Agrovit-
Phosphorus
nitric
2.1.7.573-
sludge of
soils
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Rostov-on-
Eco" (mg/kg)
fertilisers
fertilisers
96) (mg/kg)
RVK
(mg/kg)
Don
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
WWTW for
(mg/kg)
1998 (mg/kg)
As
20
20 - 50
5 - 30
30**
20.0
2 - 1 200
2.2 - 120
20
-
Cd
5
3 - 8
0.18 - 0.58 b
25**
5.5 - 16
7 - 170
0.05 - 8.5
30
-
Hg
2.1
2 - 5
0.04 - 0.88 b
16**
0.54 - 10
0.01 - 0.12
0.3 - 2.9
15
-
Pb
32
100 - 200
12 - 52
750**
40 - 600
7 - 225
2 - 27
1 000
23.3
Zn
23*(250)*
70 - 400
9 - 77
1 500**
280 - 1 200
50 - 1 450
1 - 42
4 000
35.6
Co
*
25 - 50
0.5 - 50
100**
80**
1 - 10
5.4 - 12
-
-
Ni
5* (50)**
100
14 - 40 b
300**
30 - 250
7 - 32
7 - 34
400
-
Mo
4* (100)**
2 - 10
1.6 - 4.6 b
20**
16.0
0.1 - 60
1 - 7
-
-
Cu
5
6 - 100
16 - 60
1 000**
80 - 850
1 - 300
1 - 15
1 500
45.5
Sb
3* (250)**
5 - 10
0.05 - 4.0
16.0**
10.0**
-
-
-
-
U
4.5
50 - 100
37 - 425 b
400**
300.0
2 - 180
-
-
-
Cr
150
75 - 100
71 - 195 b
750**
110 - 600
66 - 245
3.2 - 19
1 200
20.5
Sr
6* (100)**
15003000
520 - 3500 b
1 300**
1 000**
25 - 500
-
-
-
Mn
10
-
340 - 1100 b
2 500**
2 500*
40 - 2 000
-
2 000
-
P2O5
1 500
-
5* - 45**
2.2**
2.2
P12 - P54
-
-
-
Mn + C
200
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pb + Hg
100 + 100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
120 + 1
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
82
Notes:
b - in black earth
*
- mobile forms of metals
**
- in order to comply with the EU recommendations and results of studies of
soils pollution and composts produced from waste water sludge
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
83
As a consequence of the current absence of sludge digestion at the Rostov
WWTW, and the various interpretations referred to above, the legal status of the
various sludges, which could be produced at the Rostov WWTW, is unclear. This
currently precludes the preparation of a definitive sludge disposal plan.
The main limitation on the beneficial use or disposal of waste water sludge on land
is the concentration of toxic substances and helminths. It may be noted from
Table 5.23 that the concentrations of toxic components of the sludge have
progressively decreased in Rostov in the past few years in proportion to the rate of
industrial decline. However most of the sludge currently produced in Rostov is
mixed for storage with sludge produced in the previous generation and has an
unknown composition.
Utilisation of larger quantities of (recently produced) sludge or compost made
from this sludge may be possible within the extensive agricultural, forestry and
horticultural enterprises close to Rostov but the economics of such utilisation,
even if technically and legally possible, have not yet been subjected to market
analysis.
An estimate of the quantities of sludge which may be utilised in landfill restoration
is shown in Table 5.25 However there are additional recent standards on disposal
of sludge to landfill which may preclude such uses on the grounds of excessive
helminth survival.
Further studies are also required to determine if the sludge, after drying, could be
combusted at local coal fired boiler plant such as heating stations or the
Novocherkassk power plant.
Table 5.25
Estimated quantities of sludge which may be utilised for
landfill restoration in Greater Rostov
Volume of sludge required (000s
m3)
2005
200
200
200
200
and
1
2
3
4
beyond
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
84
Volume of sludge required (000s
m3)
2005
200
200
200
200
and
1
2
3
4
beyond
2nd phase of reclamation of the
175 175
Severny district MSW landfill
Reclamation of the 1st cell of the
80
MSW landfill in the north-west
industrial zone
Daily cover of cell 2 of the MSW
10 10 10
landfill in the north-west industrial
zone
Reclamation of cell 2 of the MSW
50
landfill in the north-west industrial
zone
Covering of the new MSW landfill
5
(designed)
Total 265
185
10
50
5
Source: NPP Don
Tourism and Recreation
The Lower Don area is popular amongst regional tourists and, with the break up
of the Soviet Union, has become more important as a seaside destination. This
importance is reflected in the area's recent designation as the Lower Don
Recreational Area (Dolzhenko et al, 2000). The implications of this designation are
as yet unknown.
Tourism and recreation mostly takes place from May to September. A number of
large hotels exist in Rostov, Taganrog and Azov, but occupancy rates are low
(average 35-45%). There is a shortage of high quality hotels in the area. There are a
number of health resorts serving mostly the elderly in autumn and winter, and
children in summer. These include Rostovsky, Tsimlyansky, and Eurasia Don. It is
understood that the majority of tourists arrive in organised groups, but that
independent tourism is becoming increasingly popular.
Swimming in the river and sea is a popular activity. There are several places within
the city to swim, including the main public river beach (which is upstream of the
WWTW) and an artificial lake known as the `Rostov Sea', within the city.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
85
Downstream there are many other places along the river that people can bathe,
such as at Asov and along the Taganrog Bay. It is estimated that 400,000 people
use the area's beaches every summer (World Bank, 1998). Surface water quality is
one of the key factors affecting the development of recreation and tourism
facilities. The public health implications of recreation are discussed in Section
5.4.3.
Cultural Heritage
The main cultural centres in the area are Rostov, Taganrog, Azov and
Novocherkassk, with museums, art galleries and theatres. The major cultural and
archaeological sites in the Delta area or in close proximity to the river are listed
below and are shown in Figures 5.5 and 5.6:
· Tanais: ancient fort and town (V-III centuries BC) in the Don Delta;
· Five brothers: scythian burial mounds;
· Azov: fortress with cemetery, Pod-Azov ancient town (I-III centuries BC), ruins
of ancient Greek settlements (III-II centuries BC) and town Azaka-Tany
(XIII-XV centuries);
· Mertvy-Donetz river: several sites from Tanais to Rostov including the
Leventsovskaya fortress, Sukhochaltyrskoye ancient town;
· Kobyakovo ancient town: (II centuries BC) in Rostov-on-Don; and
· Starocherkassk: ancient Cossack settlement sites and fortress.
(QYLURQPHQWDO 4XDOLW\
Surface Water Quality
The Lower Don is classified as moderately polluted (Class 3) from the Tsimylansk
dam to upstream of Rostov city, and polluted (Class 4) from Rostov to the Azov
Sea (according to DBWMA classification, World Bank, 1996). Pol ution through
both point and diffuse sources, including industrial, agricultural and municipal.
Eutrophication is known to be a problem in the Tsimylansk reservoir, the Lower
Don and its tributaries, and the Azov Sea.
Microalgal blooms are common, especially within the more enclosed and slow-
moving water bodies. It is understood from the Institute of Fisheries and CPPI
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
86
that blooms occur every summer in the Lower Don and its tributaries (especially
the Seversky Donets and smaller streams), and that in some years they contain
toxic blue-green algae. Algal blooms also occur regularly in the Azov Sea, and this
is a well documented problem for the Black Sea as a whole (BSEP, 2001).
Kimstach et al (1998) note that blooms of blue-green algae can also occur during
the spring and autumn, and have observed a concurrent lower diversity of
bacillariophytes and chlorophytes. They note that macroalgae biomass increases on
the right bank of the Don where significant organic pollution occurs. It is
understood that macroalgae blooms are generally not perceived to be a significant
problem.
This section contains a discussion of the water quality of the Lower Don and of
the discharges that have an impact on it.
Water quality monitoring within the Lower Don basin
The Don Basin Water Management Authority (DBWMA) is responsible for the
following observation programme:
· 38 sites along the Don river;
· Main Don river tributaries: Seversky Donets; Sal river, Kagalnik river and
Egorlyk river basins; Manych river basin, including the Proletarsky,
Vesyolovsky and Ust-Manyvch reservoirs; the Temernik river;
· Pri-Azov rivers: Mius, Krynka;
· Boundary sites located at borders with the Federation regions (inter-Oblast);
· Trans-boundary water bodies, boundary sites with the Ukraine.
Water quality is monitored at frequencies ranging from annually to weekly:
· At water intake sites (drinking, irrigation, fisheries, technical);
· Downstream of waste water discharges of large towns and cities;
· At potential pollution sources; and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
87
· At small rivers for the purpose of studying effectiveness of earlier undertaken
hydrotechnical and irrigation activities on rehabilitation of small rivers.
During 1999 in the Rostov Oblast, 425 samples were taken, including
418 samples of natural water and 7 samples of waste water. 62 sites were
monitored at 15 water bodies (Rivers Don, Manych, Sal, Seversky
Donets, B. Kamenka, Kundruchiya, M. Donets, Mius, Krynka, Krepkaya,
Tuzlov, Burgusta, M. Elenchil).
Monitoring of trans-boundary water bodies is conducted by the DBWMA in
accordance with the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine
Government. Eighteen boundary sites, including eight sites at trans-boundary
water bodies (border of the Russian Federation and the Ukraine) were named in
the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine Government and
in the Rostov Oblast Basin Agreement. Water quality is monitored, entered into a
database and classified according to Guidelines on formalised integrated
assessment of surface and marine water quality in terms of hydrochemical
parameters (1988). Methodologies developed by the Hydrochemical institute were
also used ("Organisation and regime observations for surface water pollution at
Hydromet Service network", RF 52.24.309-92, 1992).
Discharges to surface water
In order to understand the water quality, it is first necessary to analyse
discharges to the river. The unstable economic situation, long breaks in
the operation of industrial enterprises, and the closure of enterprises and
mines has lead to changes in water consumption and a concurrent
decrease of waste water discharges and pollutant loadings to within the
Lower Don as shown in Tables 5.26 and 5.27, respectively. Table 5.26
shows that the quality of water discharged from Rostov city is
significantly worse than the average for the Oblast.
Table 5.26
Waste water discharge within the Lower Don during 1999
Discharged waste water (%)
Normatively
Polluted -
Polluted -
Treated to
Total
clean, no
no
insufficient
comply with
(km3)
treatment
treatment
treatment
norms
required
Rostov
145 18.1
77.9
3.8
0.2
Azov 8.9
0.0
0.0 10.9 89.1
Bataisk
0.2
0.0
100
0.0
0.0
Belaya Kalitva
7.2
9.0
67.2
0.0
23.8
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
88
Discharged waste water (%)
Normatively
Polluted -
Polluted -
Treated to
Total
clean, no
no
insufficient
comply with
(km3)
treatment
treatment
treatment
norms
required
Volgodonsk
28.2
3.9
96.1
0.0
0.0
Gukovo
20.2
0.00
45.7
0.00
54.3
Donetsk 3.5
0.0 100
0.0
0.0
Zverevo
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
Kamensk-
9.4
0.0 85.0
0.0
15.0
Shakhtinsky
Krasny Sulin
6.7
9.1
10.0
4.9
76.0
Millerovo
1.3
0.0
89.2
10.8
0.0
Novocherkassk
1,505 0.05
0.05
(98.3*)
1.6
Novoshakhtins
16.2 1.9
98.1
0.0
0.0
k
Salsk
2.3
0.0
100
0.0
0.0
Taganrog
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
Shakhty
30.7
2.4
49.4
0.0
48.2
Total for
1812
2.5%
50.7% 1.7% 28.0%
Oblast
* Cooling waters from the power station, therefore not included in the calculations
Source: Federal Data
Table 5.27
Comparative analysis of pollutants discharged into
the Lower Don for 1998-1999
1998 1999
Change
(%)
Volume of waste
0.59
0.62 5.1%
water with
pollutants, (km3)
Pollutants (tonnes)
BODtotal 8,800
6,270
-28.8%
Oil products
124
83
-33.1%
Susp. solids,
52,200
11,200
-78.5%
Dry residue
816,700
965,000
18.2%
Sulphates
347,600
431,500
24.1%
Chlorides 159,000
151,800
-4.5%
Phosphorus total
529
525
-0.8%
Ammonia-N
781
814
4.2%
Nitrates 3,176
3,681
15.9%
Nitrites 164
66.4
-59.5%
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
89
1998 1999
Change
(%)
Iron 189
222
17.5%
Lead 1.5
1.4
-6.7%
Aluminium 0.5
2.0
300.0%
Surfactants 37
41
10.8%
Nickel
ND 0.05 ND
Copper 3.0
28
833.3%
Chromium total
1.0
0.83
-17.0%
Zinc
2.7
2.7
0.0%
Manganese 0.6
0.7
16.7%
Arsenic 0.02
0.02
0.0%
Oils and grease
351
371
5.7%
Cadmium 0.4
ND
ND
Magnesium 9,931
ND
ND
ND No data available
Source: Federal data
Industrial discharges in Rostov city
Laws governing industrial discharges are imposed on federal basis, and are
implemented in Rostov by the City Decree 1285 (1996) concerning "The
Acceptable Level of Wastewaters Pollution Substances Discharged into the City
Sewage Network by Customers (Industrial Enterprises)". The decree contains a list
of the main pollutant substances and their maximum allowable concentration
defined for nine different categories of industrial enterprise:
1. Food industry (43 enterprises)
2. Machine-building and metal processing (30 enterprises)
3. Electronics industry (23 enterprises)
4. Chemical industry (22 enterprises)
5. Construction industry (24 enterprises)
6. Transport industry (38 enterprises)
7. Light industry (20 enterprises)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
90
8. Wood industry (2 enterprises)
9. Fuel-energy industry (8 enterprises)
The Water Quality Chemical-Technology Control Service of RVK controls
industrial enterprises, and has water supply and wastewater services contracts with
210 industrial enterprises. The contracts require that industrial wastewater is pre-
treated prior to disposal into the wastewater network. RVK does not control the
operation of industrial pre-treatment facilities, but they do monitor industrial waste
discharges against standards laid down by the municipality's environment
committee. Standards are enforced through a penalty system. It is understood that
monitoring is often infrequent due to limitations in monitoring equipment and
funds, and that self-reporting is often relied upon. Samples are only taken during
the day, and flow rates into the wastewater treatment works suggest that a
significant amount of industrial discharge occurs during the night. Installation of
continuous monitoring equipment at industrial facilities should therefore be
considered to be a priority, and is developed further in the RVK Strategic Plan.
Several industries discharge water defined as `non-polluted industrial wastewater'
directly into the Don or the stormwater system. This water, however, is often
polluted by oil, lubricants and detergents. Quantitative data on industrial emissions
in Rostov City is not in the public domain. However, RVK have supplied data on
the major industries and parameters for which the MAC is exceeded in their
effluent (Table 5.28).
Table 5.28 Major polluting industries in Rostov and their pre-treatment
facilities
Enterprise
Parameters exceeding
Pre-treatment facilities
Maximum Allowable
Concentration (MAC)
JSC "Rostselmach"
(agricultural machines)
· from general plant
Petroleum products,
General plant WWTW reconstruc-
WWTW ;
Chromium, Iron,
tion & de-watering unit capital
Aluminium,
repair.
Zinc, Sulphates, Surfactants
(anionic)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
91
Enterprise
Parameters exceeding
Pre-treatment facilities
Maximum Allowable
Concentration (MAC)
· from booster ;
Petroleum products, Iron,
Liquidation of industrial pollution
Zinc,
sources in WWPS.
· from "RSM"
Surfactant (anionic)
Technical Institute;
Sludge de-watering unit &
Petroleum products,
neutralization unit reconstruction.
Chromium
Iron, Aluminium,
· from aluminium
Surfactant (no ion)
castling works
Zinc
Petroleum products separator
reconstruction.
Petroleum products
Surfactants (anionic)
JSC "Krasny Aksaj"
Petroleum products, Iron,
Reconstruction of galvanic &
Copper, Zinc, Sulphates,
petroleum products sites of the
Surfactants (anionic)
WWTW.
JSC "Rostvertol"
Petroleum products,
Ion exchange treatment devices
(helicopters plant)
Cadmium, Zinc,
introduction.
Aluminium, Surfactants
Local petroleum & fat products
(anionic) Iron, Sulphates,
separators reconstruction.
Fats
Reconstruction of local WWTW &
sludge mechanical de-watering unit
129 (stipulate no ion surfactant
treatment)
Federal State Enterprise
Copper, Zinc, Nickel,
Local WWTW unit no.50 & works
"Elektroapparat"
Cadmium**, Surfactants
no.23 & 31 reconstruction.
(anionic)*, Petroleum
products Iron, Sulphates
JSC "Granit"
Sulphates, Petroleum
Development of project
products
documentation & designing of
Fluorides, Zinc, Nickel
wastewater final treatment facility.
JSC "Donskaya
Chromium, Hydrogen
Commitment of WWTW
Kozha"
sulphide,
reconstruction according to the
(leather processing)
Surfactants (anionic)*
project documents & the sludge de-
Suspended solids, Fats,
watering units arrangement.
Sulphates, Chlorides,
Aluminium
CSC "Agat"
Iron, Petroleum products,
Local WWTW reconstruction &
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
92
Enterprise
Parameters exceeding
Pre-treatment facilities
Maximum Allowable
Concentration (MAC)
Chromium, Copper, Zinc,
sludge mechanical de-watering unit
Nickel
design & installation.
JSC "10th Bearing
Petroleum products, Iron,
Commitment of WWTW
Plant"
Surfactants (anionic)*,
reconstruction with installation of
Copper
sludge treatment & de-watering
equipment.
Civil aviation
Iron, Chromium, Zinc,
Post-reconstruction WWTW
Rostov Plant
412
Cadmium**, Surfactants
introduction with sludge facility.
(anionic)*
JSC "Rostov
Petroleum products, Copper, WWTW reconstruction with sludge
Watch Producing
Nickel, Chromium 6+,
de-watering unit introduction.
Plant"
Surfactants (anionic)*
JSC "Tochpriborservis"
Petroleum products,
WWTW reconstruction
(machine workshops)
Copper, Zinc, Nickel,
Chromium 6+, Surfactants
(anionic)
Federal State
Chromium, Iron,
Re-setting of galvanic out-falls
Enterprise "Rubin"
Aluminium,
discharging non-treated water into
Petroleum products,
the sewerage networks & local
Surfactants (anionic)
WWTW reconstruction.
Federal State
Cadmium, Copper,
WWTW introduction according to
Enterprise "Almaz"
Chromium, Zinc, Petroleum the project documents (stipulate
products, Sulphates,
installation of equipment for
Surfactants (anionic)
chlorinated iron solution
regeneration)
JC "Gorizont"
Cadmium**, Copper, Iron,
Local WWTW reconstruction
Zinc, Nickel, Petroleum
products, Sulphates,
Surfactants (anionic)
Federal State
Cadmium, Chromium,
Introduction of equipment for
Enterprise
Copper, Zink, Sulphates
Copper electrical-chemical
"Rostovsky Pribor"
regeneration. WWTW reconstruction
with sludge de-watering unit.
Federal State
Cadmium**, Zinc,
Old & new local WWTW
Enterprise
Chromium, Copper,
reconstruction with mechanical
"RNI&RS"
Petroleum products,
sludge de-watering unit introduction
Surfactant (no ion), Iron
for the new WWTW
JSC "Skif"
Copper, Zinc, Iron,
Galvanic departments' out-falls to be
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
93
Enterprise
Parameters exceeding
Pre-treatment facilities
Maximum Allowable
Concentration (MAC)
Petroleum products,
set on local WWTW.
Surfactants (anionic)
WWTW reconstruction with
introduction of copper solutions &
sludge de-watering equipment.
JSC "Quant Plant"
Zinc, Nickel, Cadmium,
WWTW reconstruction with sludge
(radio-equipment)
Sulphates, Petroleum
mechanical de-watering unit
products
introduction.
JSC "Rostpishmash"
Petroleum products, Iron,
Introduction of the whole WWTW
(food industry)
Copper, Nickel, Sulphates,
complex with sludge mechanical de-
Cadmium
watering unit.
"Molot"
Petroleum products, Iron,
WWTW reconstruction.
Publishing House
Copper, Nickel, Sulphates,
Chromium, Manganese, Dry
solids.
"Ros-Ital" Co Ltd.
Iron, Zinc, Sulphates,
Stipulate wastewaters final treatment
Aluminium, Petroleum
after neutralization works,
products, Copper
improvement of wastewaters
separator functioning.
"Impuls VOS" Rostov
Iron, Zinc, Petroleum
Stipulate wastewaters final treatment
Enterprise Ltd.
products, Surfactants
& WWTW reconstruction.
(anionic), Sulphates.
JSC "Empils"
Iron, Surfactants (anionic),
WWTW reconstruction
(paints, lacquers)
Petroleum products.
Rostov Electrical
Zinc, Iron, Surfactants
Galvanic treatment unit introduction.
Equipment Plant
(anionic), Petroleum
Petroleum products separating
products,
complex improvement. WWTW
Copper.
reconstruction.
"Rostov Sevkavexpress"
Surfactant (no ion),
Arrange WWTW construction.
Petroleum products.
JSC "Don-Chakk"
Iron, Sulphates, Petroleum
Local WWTW introduction,
& MSC-3
products, Copper, Nickel,
stipulating WWTW for MSC-3.
Zinc, Chromium,
Surfactants (anionic)
JSC "PEMI"
Chromium, Copper, Zinc,
WWTW galvanic treatment unit
Nickel, Iron, Petroleum
reconstruction with sludge
products.
mechanical de-watering unit
introduction.
SC "Gefest"
Iron, Chromium,
WWTW reconstruction
Manganese, Petroleum
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
94
Enterprise
Parameters exceeding
Pre-treatment facilities
Maximum Allowable
Concentration (MAC)
products
JC "Automojka"
Chromium, Copper, Zinc ,
WWTW reconstruction &
(car washing)
Iron, Chlorides, Petroleum
introduction of chlorinated iron
products
regeneration unit.
"Polymer-Plus" Petroleum
products, WWTW reconstruction with sludge
Chromium, Copper, Zinc ,
mechanical de-watering unit
Iron
introduction
JSC
Petroleum products,
Local WWTW reconstruction
"Sevkavaccumulator-
Iron, Lead, Sulphates,
remont"
Chlorides
JC "Mjasokombinat
Petroleum products,
Local & general plant WWTWs
Rostovsky"
Chlorides, Suspended
reconstruction
(meat processing plant)
solids, H2S, Surfactants
(anionic), residual solids
JC "Tavr"
Petroleum products,
Local WWTW reconstruction
(meat packing &
Chlorides, Suspended
processing)
solids, H2S, Surfactant no
ion, residual solids
JSC "Smychka"
Petroleum products,
Local WWTW reconstruction
(canning plant)
Chlorides, Suspended
solids, residual solids, Fats,
Iron
"MP SDRSU-1"
Suspended solids,
Local WWTW reconstruction
Petroleum products, Iron
JSC "Kinoautomatika"
Zinc, Iron, Chromium,
Introduction of wastewater final
Petroleum products
treatment stage with sludge
mechanical de-watering unit
introduction
Discharges from RVK
Rostov WWTW discharges approximately 390,000m3/day into the River Don.
This represents a dilution of approximately 1:100 during low summer flows. The
effluent is chlorinated in the final settlement tanks in order to comply with
SANEPID regulations, and then discharged through a pipeline 6km downstream
of the works. The 6km pipeline was recently installed in order that WWTW
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
95
discharges are made downstream of the city. There is some concern over the
formation of harmful organochlorines in the effluent . It is not normal practice to
chlorinate effluent in the UK.
Maximum Allowable Concentrations for pollutants in the effluent are agreed
between RVK and the City Environment Committee (Rostov City Mayor Decree
1285, 1996, Acceptable conditions of wastewater pollutants discharged to the
sewage system of Rostov-on-Don). Data on effluent characteristics are given in
Table 5.29 below. Federal Russian discharge consents are very stringent, and
currently set at BOD 3mg/l; Suspended solids 3mg/l; total nitrogen 9mg/l;
phosphorus 0.3mg/l.
Table 5.29
Characteristics of the Rostov WWTW effluent discharged
to the River Don
Wastewate
1998 1999
r
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Parameter
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
Suspended
126.3 20.8 128.8 29.5
Solids
BOD
159.5 27.7 170.9 35.93
Ammonia
17.8 2.5 18.2 2.8
Nitrogen
Nitrites 0.10 0.67 0.12 0.48
Nitrates 0.43 7.01 0.34 6.3
Phosphates 5.43
4.75
5.62
4.42
Mineral
1258 1154 1108 1067
Comp.
Chlorides 238.9 202.7 200.9 188.2
Sulphates 325.2 298.7 280.1 260.1
Anionic
0.71 0.09 0.98 0.048
Surfactants
Non-anionic
0.37 0.08 0.12 0.054
Surfactants
Petroleum
0.41 0.11 1.49 0.4
Products
Phenols
No trace
No trace
No trace
No trace
Fats 10.92
5.78
9.77
4.03
Iron 1.66
0.45
1.93
0.47
Copper 0.059
0.027
0.0449
0.024
Zinc
0.113 0.029 0.115 0.024
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
96
Wastewate
1998 1999
r
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Parameter
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
Nickel
0.010
No trace
No trace
No trace
Aluminum 0.18 0.024 0.24 0.0223
Chromium
0.052 0.014 0.043 0.014
Manganese 0.009 No
trace 0.110 No
trace
Lead 0.039
0.015
0.0229
0.012
Cadmium 0.008 0.0021 0.0077 0.0008
Magnesium
48.94 48.45 44.25 43.64
Fluorides 0.45 0.36 0.40 0.35
In relation to water treatment, a localised impact on the Don river may arise
adjacent to the water treatment facilities from the current practice of disposing of
backwashed sludge directly to the river. Recently "Kaustik" enterprise of the town
of Sterlitamak started production of cationic flocculant VPK-402. Cationic
polyelectrolyte polymethyldiallylammonium chloride C8H16NCl (PMDAA or
VPK-402) is a heterocyclic cationic polymer (quaternary salt), a high-molecular
compound linear-cyclic resulting from alkaline radical polymerisation of monomer
dimethylammonium chloride. Although VPK-402 is known to be of low hazard to
human health, the impact on the environment as a result of disposal is unknown.
Water Quality of the Lower Don
In order to clearly show the historical impact of pollutants within the surface water
of the Lower Don river, water quality data were requested from the DBWMA as
an average of chemical pollutant concentrations during the last five years. Water
quality was assessed in terms of a Water Pollution Index (WPI). This is an average
arithmetical value of the multiple by which the Maximum Allowable Concentration
(MAC) was exceeded for the analysed period. MACs are set by Federal Regulation
for various river uses. The MACs which apply to the Lower Don are the fisheries
and drinking water MACs, and are given in Appendix C.
Water quality for important boundary sites within the Lower Don river,
expressed in relation to MAC values for fisheries and drinking water are
presented in Figures 5.7 and 5.8, respectively. Distances from the Azov
sea are estimated. The data are presented in Appendix D.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
97
Figure 5.7
Exceedance of Fisheries Maximum Allowable Concentrations: Lower Don River
8 Downstream Upstream of Downstream Upstream of Downstream Mouth of
Upstream of
Downstream
Upstream of
Downstream
of reserviour
S. Donets
of S. Donets
Manych
of Manych
Aksay Canal
Rostov
Rostov
Azov WWTP
of Azov
WWTP
WWTP
WWTP
7
)
1
=
C
A 6
M
i
es (
er 5
i
sh
BOD
r
F
o
Soluble Phosphate
e f
u 4
al
Ammonium Nitrogen
V
C
A 3
Iron
f
M
o
Copper
ce
n
a 2
d
Petroleum Products
xcee
Surfactants (anionic)
E 1
0
-327
-205
-202
-130
-127
-72
-62
-60
-35
-30
Distance from Azov Sea (km)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
98
Figure 5.8
Exceedance of Drinking Water Maximum Allowable Concentrations: Lower Don
River
8 Downstream Upstream of Downstream Upstream of Downstream Mouth of
Upstream of
Downstream
Upstream of
Downstream
of reserviour
S. Donets
of S. Donets
Manych
of Manych
Aksay Canal
Rostov
Rostov
Azov WWTP
of Azov
WWTP
WWTP
WWTP
)
1 7
=
C
A
M
( 6
t
er
a
g W
i
n 5
k
BOD
r
i
n
Soluble Phosphate
D
Ammonium Nitrogen
or 4
Iron
e f
l
u
Copper
a
Petroleum Products
V
C 3
Surfactants (anionic)
A
M
2
edance of
xce
E 1
0
-327
-205
-202
-130
-127
-72
-62
-60
-35
-30
Distance from Azov Sea (km)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
99
The data reveal the following pollutants of concern in the Lower Don river:
· Downstream of Tsimlyansk reservoir border of Volgogradsky and
Rostovsky Oblasts - 327km from Azov Sea: Water quality does not meet
fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (2.1 MAC) (1.4 for drinking water
MAC), ammonium nitrogen (3.8) and petroleum products (1.1) Compared to
1998 water quality class has changed from 3 (moderately polluted) to class 2
(clean) due to decrease in copper from 4.5 2.0 (MAC) to 1.0 (MAC).
· Upstream of the Seversky Donets 205 km from Azov Sea: Water quality
does not meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.8 MAC) 1.2 for
drinking water MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 3.0), Iron (MAC 2.7) and
petroleum products (MAC (2.2).
· Downstream of the Seversky Donets 202 km from Azov Sea: Water
quality does not meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.6 MAC) - (1.1
for drinking water MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 2.2), Iron (MAC 3.0),
aluminium (3.8) and petroleum products (MAC (2.2).
· Upstream of the Manych 130 km from Azov sea: Water quality does not
meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.1 MAC), ammonium nitrogen
(MAC 2.5), Iron (MAC 3.4), aluminium (9.0) and petroleum products (MAC
(2.2). Iron is registered as slightly above the drinking water MAC.
· Downstream of the Manych 127 km from Azov sea: Water quality does
not meet the fisheries MAC in terms of BOD5 (1.2 MAC), ammonium nitrogen
(MAC 2.8), Iron (MAC 3.6), aluminium (8.7) and petroleum products (MAC
(2.3). Iron is registered as slightly above the MAC for drinking water.
· Mouth of the Aksay Canal 72 km from Azov Sea: Upstream of the
Manych 130 km from Azov sea: Water quality does not meet fisheries
requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.5 MAC), ammonium nitrogen (MAC 6.3),
Iron (MAC 1.2), cooper (1.0) and petroleum products (MAC (2.1). BOD is
registered as equal to the MAC for drinking water.
· Upstream of Rostov 62 km from Azov sea: Water quality does not meet
fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.5 MAC), ammonium nitrogen
(MAC 5.0), Iron (MAC 1.8), copper (2.4) and petroleum products (MAC (1.8).
BOD is registered as equal to the MAC for drinking water.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
100
· River Temernik This is small river located centrally within Rostov, 56km
upstream of the Azov Sea. It is highly polluted, and has an impact on the Don
river water regime. It must be borne in mind that the annual flow to the River
Temernik is only 0.06 km3, which equates to a dilution factor of 3000 within
the river Don (for this reason, it has not been included in Figures 5.7 and 5.8).
The Temernik is one of the mostly polluted water course in the Rostov Oblast.
There are 5 monitoring sites at the river: near the dam of the regulation
reservoir, the upper and lower reservoirs, Zoo and river mouth. In 1999 water
quality did not meet fisheries requirements in terms of copper (9.3 MAC), iron
total (8.97 MAC), aluminium (10.9 MAC), nitrogen nitrites (5.9 MAC), nitrogen
ammonia (5.6 MAC), sulphates (7.99 MAC), manganese (3.0 MAC), oil
products (2,0 MAC), zinc (2.9 MAC), phosphates ( ) (2.1 MAC) and BOD5 (7.2
MAC). Dry residues concentration is 1948.6 mg/dm3, suspended solids 21.3
mg/dm3.
Between 1998 and 1999, MAC values increased for the following parameters:
iron total from 6.0 to 8.96 (MAC), oil products from 0.0 to 2.0 (MAC), copper
from 8.0 to 9.3 (MAC), zinc from 0.0 to 2.9 (MAC), phosphates ( ) from 0.3 to
2.1 (MAC); and decreased for: suspended solids from 32.0 mg/dm3 to 21.3
mg/dm3, sulphates from 10.6 to 7.99 (MAC), nitrogen ammonia from 25.9 to
5.6 (MAC), nitrogen nitrites from 22.0 to 5.9 (MAC).
Hydrobiological monitoring of water quality in the Temernik river mouth
indicated low population values (5,500 specimen/m3), biomass (95.80 mg/m3)
and species diversity (6 species). Sub-acute toxicity of water has been recorded,
which might be caused by low zooplankton development.
· Downstream of Rostov WWTW 60 km from Azov sea: Water quality does
not meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.4 MAC), ammonium
nitrogen (MAC 6.2), Iron (MAC 1.2), and petroleum products (MAC 2.6).
BOD and copper are registered as equal to the MAC for drinking water.
· Upstream of Azov WWTW 35 km from Azov sea: Water quality does not
meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.7 MAC), ammonium nitrogen
(MAC 5.0), Iron (MAC 1.1) and petroleum products (MAC (2.3). BOD is
registered as slightly above the MAC for drinking water.
· Downstream of Azov WWTW 30 km from Azov sea: Water quality does
not meet fisheries requirements in terms of BOD5 (1.0 MAC), ammonium
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
101
nitrogen (MAC 3.3), Iron (MAC 3.9), aluminium (MAC 4.4) and petroleum
products (MAC (1.3). Iron is registered as slightly above the MAC for drinking
water.
Pollutant loadings within the Lower Don
The environmental impact associated with the upgrading of a WWTW on the
receiving water quality can be estimated with knowledge of the expected effluent
chemical load from the works, the in-stream concentration of pollution and the
dilution capacity of the river. However, in the case of nutrient discharge, the
environmental benefits of a decrease in nutrients from a point source on the within
the Lower Don river (and the Azov Sea) must be put in the appropriate context.
Typically, the contribution of nutrients to the receiving water from diffuse sources
in an agricultural catchment area will be as much as two to three times higher than
the total sum arising from point sources. If phosphorus concentrations in the
Lower Don rivers are to be reduced to envisaged target levels, it is clear that an
integrated approach is required to controlling loads, involving proactive action on
both point and diffuse sources. However, there is no doubt that point sources are
far easier to control than diffuse sources, and that, given the nature and timing of
point source loads outlined above, a greater return for the resources invested are
likely to accrue from tackling point sources comprehensively. In any given
situation, the dominant contribution to point source loads from the WWTW may
be significantly augmented by industrial discharges, which therefore need to be
considered fully in any control programme (see Section 9.5 for recommendations).
Existing assessments of annual nutrient loads to the Azov Sea from all sources
cover a wide range: for nitrogen from 75,000 to135,000 tonnes; and for
phosphorus from 13,000 to 26,000 tonnes. Estimates of the nutrient load to the
Black Sea from the Sea of Azov via the Kerchenski Strait range from 48,000 to
62,500 tonnes N/year; and from 2,600 to 4,100 tonnes P/year.
The largest point source polluters of the Sea of Azov are the municipal waste water
treatment services ("Vodocanal") of the towns Rostov-on-Don, Taganrog, Azov,
Temriuk, Ejsk, PrimorskoAkhtarsk and Slaviansk-on-Kuban. In most towns
industrial organisations discharge their effluent to the sewage systems of
"Vodocanal", but according to existing legislation "Vodocanal" is responsible for
the quality of waste water treatment. Other important polluters include fisheries
and fishprocessing plants, as well as rice growing organisations subordinate to the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
102
In order to gain insight into the environmental impact of the proposed scheme, an
estimation of the chemical loadings to the Lower Don river from all the major
point sources has been derived from the water quality data provided by the
DBWMA (see Figure 1.2 for locations). Data (Tables D1 and D2)and figures (D1
D6) are given in Appendix D, and commentary below. The figures show the
change in concentration of pollutants between points just upstream and just
downstream of a particular point source. The impact on water quality of the
improvements at the WWTW is discussed in Section 6.
By way of summary, total inorganic nitrogen, soluble phosphate, BODtotal,
suspended solids, petroleum products, surfactants and zinc are presented together
in Figure D1 as a percentage of relative change between selected stations from
below the Tsimlyansk reservoir to 30km above the Azov Sea. It is apparent from
this data set that the greatest fluctuations in pollutants above the Manych are for
petroleum products, surfactants and zinc. At the mouth of the Aksay canal, total
inorganic nitrogen (in the form of ammonia) and suspended solids are largely
increased. Downstream of the Rostov WWTW is characterized by an increase in
phosphate, inorganic nitrogen and petroleum products. Below Azov City, increases
in BOD, phosphate and suspended solids are noted. These pollutants are discussed
separately in the sections below.
Nitrogen
Figure D2 shows the relative change in ammonium-nitrogen, nitrate and nitrite at
eight monitoring stations throughout the length of the Lower Don. The
concentration of total inorganic nitrogen is also shown, as calculated from the sum
of ammonia-N, nitrate-N and nitrite-N. The data reveal that the highest loadings
of nitrogen (above the background concentration) within the Lower Don occur
upstream of the Aksay Canal (4,584 tonnes/year) and to a lesser extent
downstream of the Rostov WWTW (2,251 tonnes/year).
In terms of nitrogen pollution within the Lower Don, no data has been found to
indicate that nitrate or nitrite concentrations are problematical within the river.
Nitrogen pollution throughout the length of the Lower Don appears to be present
in the form of ammonium which, in the unionised form, will have its greatest
impact on the fish population. Such high levels of ammonia would be expected to
cause intermittent fish kills and to be contribute to low populations and diversity.
However, in such a big river, there are generally refuges where fish can avoid
`spikes' of ammonia carried by the main channel. Based on the ammonium
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
103
nitrogen MAC, the Russian MAC for unionised ammonia (NH3) is equal to 41 g
N-1, which would be exceeded on a regular basis throughout the Lower Don river.
Phosphorus
Increases in phosphorus within the Lower Don river, are shown in Figure D3. The
first impact of phosphorus above background concentrations in the Lower Don
occurs after the confluence of the Seversky Donets (1021 tonnes/year), with
further increases above and below the confluence of the Manych of 188 and 304
tonnes/year. A dramatic reduction of phosphorus is recorded during the next 50
km, where a decrease of 1,031 tonnes/year is recorded upstream of the Aksay
Canal. A further discharge of phosphate is recorded in the 8 km stretch above
Rostov WWTW (643 tonnes/year). A further 587 tonnes/year of phosphorus
from diffuse sources would be expected to be discharged to the river Don between
Rostov and Azov.
It is important to note that the concentration of soluble (biologically available)
phosphorus increases throughout the length of the Lower Don river from 0.5
MAC downstream of the Tsimlyansk reservoir to 0.9 MAC downstream of the
Azov WWTW. The concentration of soluble phosphate (data not supplied) would
be expected to exceed the MAC within the vicinity of the confluence of the Don
and the Azov Sea as a result of intense agricultural activity within the region.
Point sources are more important than estimates of annual total phosphorus loads
suggest, since they enter the river continually through the year and are at minimum
dilution through the growing season when phosphorus concentrations in the water
column are critical. In addition, the phosphorus load in WWTW effluents is highly
bioavailable and can therefore have an immediate impact. Figure 5.9 provides a
stylised illustration of the seasonality in point source and diffuse loads, and gives
an indication of how the contribution from each type of source changes with flow
through the year. Inevitably, there will be large variation about this general pattern,
mainly depending upon the degree of urbanisation of the catchment.
It is also important to stress that there is a strong seasonality in phosphorus
behaviour within rivers. Phosphorus will tend to be taken up and retained in the
sediment and the biota (macrophytes, algae and bacteria) through the summer
months, whilst much of the accumulated load will be scoured and sorbed out
during the high flows of autumn and winter (depending upon the strength of
winter flows). Strong microbial activity in the spring can produce a significant flush
of phosphorus from the sediment in advance of strong biological uptake through
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
104
the growing season. Seasonal patterns in the phosphorus loads from different
sources add a further layer of complexity.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
105
Figure 5.9
Typical seasonality in the contribution of point and non-
point sources to phosphorus concentrations in the river.
River flow
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Total Phosphorus
loads
Point
sources
Diffuse
sources
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
Contributions to
water column
concentration
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Readily degradable organics
Figure D4 shows that the greatest single impact of organic material to the Lower
Don arises in the 50 km stretch between the Manych river and the Aksay Canal
(6,679 tonnes/year). The current nutrient reduction activity at the WWTW reduces
BODtotal downstream of the WWTW by an estimated 678 tonnes/year.
Suspended solids
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
106
Figure D5 shows that the greatest single impact of suspended solids to the Lower
Don appears within the 50 km stretch between the Manych river and the Aksay
Canal (1.35 million tonnes/year).
Other pollutants
Figure D6 shows the loading of petroleum products, anionic surfactants and zinc
throughout the Lower Don river. It is evident that all three pollutants are present
in the sections of the Lower Don between the reservoir and the Manych river. In
the section between the Manych river and Rostov, an overall decrease of
petroleum products and surfactants is calculated, with zinc remaining relatively
unchanged. It is further evident that downstream of Rostov WWTW an increase in
petroleum products would be expected probably as a result of shipping activities.
It is noteworthy that surfactants are decreased by over 300 tonnes per year
downstream of the Rostov WWTW. Since no information is available for non-
ionic or cationic surfactants, a judgement on the impact of surfactants can not
adequately be made at this stage.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater in the area is generally high in minerals, with a background level of
70-80mg/l Total Dissolved Solids, rising to 270-280mg/l in summer (Kimstach et
al, 1998). Groundwater quality is described in more detail in other reports (as listed
in Section 3.2), and is here restricted to discussion of the impact of existing sludge
lagoons and sludge beds at the Rostov WWTW as being of relevance to the
current project.
Groundwater quality around the existing sludge beds and lagoons has been
investigated by RVK. In early 1998, a total of ten boreholes were drilled to a depth
of 20m each. The boreholes were located along two lines crossing the WWTW
territory from the North to the South, located according to the groundwater flow,
across the Don river valley. Samples for chemical & bacteriological analysis were
taken from the boreholes quarterly during 1998 and 1999. The analysis was
performed by Vodokanal laboratory service of chemical-bacteriological &
technological control. In total 39 samples have been taken for complete chemical
analysis & 30 samples for bacteriological analysis. It should be noted that
groundwater in the vicinity of the works is also likely to be contaminated by other
industrial & non-industrial wastes deposition. It is understood that these results
are considered to be preliminary, and that further boreholes are required in order
to obtain good data. Sampling has therefore been temporarily suspended as new
boreholes are being dug. The preliminary results do, however, highlight a number
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
107
of areas of concern, and indicate that the lagoon is a source of pollution to the
river (Table 5.30). The need for further monitoring and action is considered in the
RVK Strategy Plan.
Table 5.30
Preliminary results from groundwater quality monitoring
at selected sites around the WWTW lagoon, for selected
parameters of concern
Parameter
Average concentration in groundwater (mg/l)
Near lagoon
Between lagoon
Rest of site
and river
BOD
348 mg/l
415 mg/l
306 mg/l
Petroleum products
5.27 mg/l
6.09 mg/l
0.8 mg/l
Iron
112.7 mg/l
10.5 mg/l
34.5 mg/l
Cadmium
0.029 mg/l
0.077 mg/l
0.03.5 mg/l
Source: RVK
Sediment Quality
The absorption of pollutants by river sediment is a complex and continually active
process, which varies according to pollutant. The most important pollutants likely
to be absorbed into the sediment are phosphates and heavy metals. There is little
available data on sediments of the Lower Don and Azov Sea. The discussion
below is based on data supplied by CPPI.
Phosphates
Once in the river, phosphorus is highly chemically and biologically active,
undergoing numerous transformations and moving between the particulate and
dissolved phases, between the sediment and water column, and between the biota
and abiotic environment. Physical deposition and resuspension of particulates are
obvious methods of phosphorus transfer between the water column and bed
sediments, but direct adsorption/desorption processes between the two
compartments are also important and will depend upon the Equilibrium
Phosphate Concentration of the sediment, SRP levels in the overlying water and
current velocity (the latter dictating the sharpness of the diffusion gradient). The
EPC is defined as the SRP concentration in the water column (or pore water) that
produces no net flux of dissolved phosphorus to or from the sediment particles.
This determinand is crucial to our understanding of fluxes between the particulate
and dissolved phases, and in particular the release of phosphorus from riverine bed
sediments.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
108
Labile phosphorus attached to suspended particulates can rapidly desorb into the
water column and become bioavailable, again depending upon the EPC of the
particles and the SRP concentration in the water column. Firmly held phosphorus
deep within the particle matrix can diffuse slowly into the water column, and is
most likely to be an important mechanism for the river once particulates have
settled as bed sediments. Soluble phosphorus can be incorporated into inorganic
phosphate minerals by precipitation, particularly in association with calcium, iron
and aluminium. Precipitation of soluble phosphorus with calcium is particularly
likely to occur below sewage treatment works in rivers with calcareous waters,
where both calcium and soluble phosphorus concentrations are very high. Col oids
of calcium phosphate minerals can be generated in the water column, whilst algal
biofilms are thought to be involved in the coprecipitation of calcite and
phosphorus onto bed sediments and plants.
Filamentous, epiphytic and planktonic algae generally take phosphorus
directly from the water column by necessity, although benthic algae
(including filamentous mats) will utilise both sources. Microbial uptake
from the water column and more particularly within the sediment can be
substantial. Decay of plant shoots and the mineralisation of organic
matter by the microbial community will lead to phosphorus release into
both sediment pore waters and the water column, offset to varying
degrees by uptake by rooted macrophytes and algae.
Judging from the little available information (Table 5.31), the rate of removal of
the mineral phosphorus from bottom sediments of the Lower Don downstream of
Rostov-on-Don should be as follows:
· With the influence of hydro-physical and hydro-chemical
processes in aerobic conditions the removal will be 210-380
mg/m2 a year;
· Additionally, 120-330 mg/m2 a year should be removed from
bottom sediments with invertebrates and vertebrates; and
· About 6.5-14 mg/m2 of nutrients will be transferred yearly from
bottom sediments to water with vegetation.
Table 5.31
Mineral phosphorus in bottom sediments of the Don
downstream of Rostov-on-Don. Average for 1988-1996
Sampling site
Type of
Concentration of min.
bottom
In mg of for kg of
sediments
bottom sediments (dry
weight)
Upstream of Rostov-on-
Loamy silts
125; 85; 153; 110; 138;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
109
Sampling site
Type of
Concentration of min.
bottom
In mg of for kg of
sediments
bottom sediments (dry
weight)
Don,
153; 90; 78; 120; 132;
1988, 1990-1993, 1995,
100; 120; 129; 119; 145
1996
Downstream of Rostov-
Loamy silts 827; 632; 920; 740; 750;
on-Don in the area of
740; 820; 660; 800; 930
Temernik river inflow,
1988, 1990-1993
Temernik River, mouth,
Black
silts
970; 1200; 1450; 3100;
1990-1993
5200
20 km downstream of
Loamy silts 284; 150; 340; 300; 270;
Rostov-on-Don,
350
1988, 1990-1993
Azov Sea coast in the area
Loamy silts 45; 630; 67; 134; 89; 250;
of the Don river delta,
95; 77; 84; 450; 120
1988, 1990-1993
Source: Zhulidov, pers. comm.
Heavy metals
Heavy metal concentrations have been reported by Zhulidov (1996) for different
environmental compartments upstream and downstream of the Rostov WWTP
and in the Azov sea coastal waters. Figures D7 D12 (Appendix D) show the
results of analysis of heavy metal (Cd, Cr6+, Cu, Hg, Pb and Zn) concentrations in
the water column, suspended solids, bottom sediment, periphyton and
Lumbricidae during 1988-1996. Figure D12 shows the concentrations of metals in
the mouth of the Temernik. Data on average concentration of metals in the Lower
Don for 1999 is presented at the end of this section, although it is only an average
for the whole 327km stretch of the river and is therefore of little practical use for
determining the impact a scheme will have at a set location. The following
observations can be made from the data set 1988-1996:
· Mercury: (Figure D7) Predominately associated with bottom sediments and
suspended matter. Major contamination occurs at the mouth of the Temernik.
Levels on suspended solids and bottom sediments have been recorded as three
and five times higher, respectively, than levels found in the Don river in the
vicinity of the Temernik. A progressive reduction of mercury in all
compartments has been shown to take place between the Rostov and the
coastal section of the Azov/Don confluence. Mercury was shown to be
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
110
present mostly in bottom sediment and Lumbricidae in both the Azov coast
and upstream o Rostov. Data was not received for the concentration of
mercury in the water column.
· Cadmium: (Figure D8) Predominately associated with biota (Lumbricidae)
and bottom sediments, and to a lesser extent suspended solids. Also present
during the 1990s in the water column but at level below a concentration
which would affect the biota. The levels of cadmium at the mouth of the
Temernik have been shown to be elevated for each environmental
compartment by a factor of 2-2.5. A progressive reduction in all environmental
compartments is demonstrated between the Rostov and the coastal section of
the Azov/Don confluence.
· Lead: (Figure D9) Present in similar concentrations in Lumbricidae, bottom
sediments and suspended solids throughout the Don river. Concentrations of
lead were shown to be two- to threefold lower upstream of Rostov city.
During the mid 1990s levels remained approximately 1.5 times higher in the
Azov Sea coastal area. At the mouth of the Temernik, there appeared to be a
sharp increase in the concentration present in Lumbricidae with a concomitant
reduction in the concentration in suspended solids and bottom sediments.
· Zinc: (Figure D10) Present in all environmental compartments from upstream
of Rostov to the Azov sea. Overall, zinc has been recorded at the highest
concentration of all metals analysed. The highest concentrations found in the
Don river are as follows: Lumbricidae > periphyton > bottom sediment >
suspended solids > water column. Elevated concentration of zinc were
recorded from the mouth of the Temernik (3-4 fold increase). Levels remained
approximately 1.5 times higher in the Azov Sea coastal area.
· Copper: (Figure D11) Present in highest concentration in : Lumbricidae and
bottom sediments throughout the Don river. Concentrations of copper in
each compartment have been shown to be approximately half those recorded
upstream of Rostov city. Levels were elevated twofold in Rostov, remaining at
a similar level in the Azov Sea coastal area. An increase in copper was recorded
at the mouth of the Temernik, primarily associated with an increase within :
Lumbricidae. The concentration of copper is significant in terms of pollution
at all locations.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
111
· Chromium: (Figure D12) A retrospective comparison for chromium is not
possible for the Don since data only received for samples at the mouth of the
Temernik. However, the data received do show that chromium levels in the
Temernik mouth were associated mostly with periphyton (890 mg/kg dry
weight) and to a lesser extent bottom sediment. A significant concentration
was also present in the water column (123 mg/l). Figure D12 provides a
comparison of all the metals analysed at the mouth of the Temernik.
The ultimate aim of the GEF funding is the protection of the Black Sea from
nutrients, organic and inorganic pollutants, with reduction of loads from the major
rivers (including the Don) entering the receiving water. In order to build a practical
legislative basis for the protection of the Black Sea, the application of
Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) has been adopted by the riparian
countries to protect the marine environment (Reynolds, 1999). EQOs represent
compliance with water or sediment quality standards for all agreed uses, in
combination with an individual classification scheme to determine actual quality.
The approach has two essential elements, the principal one being the assessment
of compliance, and the secondary consideration being the distance from
compliance in cases where water bodies are classified below an overall acceptable
quality. In most cases, the proposed water quality standards for the region have
been related to EU values thereby affording protection against the long-term
effects of pollutants. The term `critical action level' has also been adopted to
indicate the maximum level to which a parameter in the water column or sediment
can reach in the short-term without causing lethal effects on the indigenous
population or impairing the specific water use in the longer term.
Sediment quality standards for the Black Sea were adopted from those values
specified by regulatory authorities in The Netherlands. In the cases of either water
or sediment, where the need for higher (or lower) protection was deemed
necessary, due to regional specific factors, appropriate standards were proposed
after consultation with a select regional committee. Table 5.32 shows the proposed
characterisation of sediment quality (for the marine environment) for heavy
metals. Since MAC values only exist for metals in the water column, the values
presented in Table 5.32 have also been used to gain an insight into the relative
distance from compliance to normatives for heavy metals in the Don river.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
112
Table 5.32
Heavy metal classifications proposed for the Black Sea
Paramete
Concentration (mg/kg dry matter)
r
1
2
3
4
5
Critical
`High'
`Good'
`Fair' `Poor
`Bad'
level for
'
action
Compliant Non-compliant
Cadmium
<0.2
<0.8
<3.2
<12.8
>12.8
>12.8
Chromium
<25 <100
<400
<1,60
>1,60
>1,600
0
0
Copper
<9
<36
<144
<576
>576
>576
Lead
<21
<85
<340
<1,36
>1,36
>1,360
0
0
Mercury
<0.075
<0.3
<1.2
<4.8
>4.8
>4.8
Zinc <35
<140
<560
<2240
>2,24
>2,240
0
Source: Reynolds, 1999
Figures D13-D16 (Appendix D) show the relationship of heavy metals during
1988-1996 to the current MAC values (water column for fisheries and drinking
water use) and the water and sediment Environmental quality standards
(collectively termed Environmental Quality Standards EQSs) proposed for
sediment in the Black Sea. The following observations are made:
· Mercury: (Figure D13) Analysis of the data shows that the concentration of
mercury both in bottom sediments exceeded the proposed EQS by
approximately 3, 14 and 10 fold, respectively, upstream of Rostov, in the
vicinity of the Temernik, and 20 km downstream of Rostov. Levels in the
Azov sea were recorded as 6 fold higher for bottom sediments than the
proposed EQS. High levels of mercury were also associated with suspended
solids in the vicinity of the Temernik. The mouth of the Temernik river
contained mercury at concentrations 70 and 40 times the proposed EQS for
bottom sediments and suspended solids, respectively. According to the
scheme proposed for the Black Sea, these levels would exceed the `critical level
for action'.
· Cadmium: (Figure D14) Concentration of cadmium exceeded the EQS for
bottom sediments by approximately 1.5, 3 and 3 fold, respectively, upstream
of Rostov, in the vicinity of the Temernik, and 20 km downstream of Rostov.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
113
Levels in the Azov sea are 2 fold higher for bottom sediments than the
proposed EQS. High levels of cadmium were also associated with suspended
solids in the vicinity of the Temernik. The mouth of the Temernik river
contained cadmium at concentrations and 10 and 7 times the proposed EQS
for bottom sediments and suspended solids, respectively.
· Lead: (Figure D15) For all environmental compartments, lead was below the
MAC and proposed EQSs.
· Zinc: (Figure D16) Concentrations of zinc in the water column were below
the MAC and proposed EQS levels at all locations measured in the Don river.
However, exceedence of the water column Mac and EQS would have
occurred at the mouth of the Temernik (8x MAC, 2xEQS). In the Don river,
the only compartment which would have exceeded the proposed EQS is the
bottom sediment in the vicinity of the Temernik (2.5x) and in the Azov Sea
coastal area (1.3x). The mouth of the Temernik river contained zinc at
concentrations and 11 and 3 times the proposed EQS for bottom sediments
and suspended solids, respectively.
· Copper: (Figure D17) The concentration of copper would have exceeded the
MAC (and to a lesser extent the EQS) in the water column at all locations. The
concentrations upstream of Rostov and in the Azov sea was similar,
approximately 7 times the MAC. However, in the vicinity of the Temernik and
20km downstream of Rostov, the levels recorded would exceed the MAC by
25 and 10 fold, respectively (EQS at the same locations is by 5 and 2 fold).
Copper was only present at concentration of 2-3fold the proposed EQS for
bottom sediments from Rostov to, and including the Azov sea coast. The
Temernik river recorded levels of copper in surface water over 40 times the
MAC (1993 data).
· Chromium: (Figure D18) As stated above, data for chromium were only
available for samples at the mouth of the Temernik. The data reveal that
chromium levels in the Temernik mouth exceeded the MAC and EQS for the
water column by 6 and 8 times, respectively. Chromium was present at
concentrations of 6 and 3 times the proposed EQS for bottom sediments and
suspended solids, respectively. Figure D18 provides a comparison of the
relationship to MAC and proposed EQSs for each of the metals analysed at
the mouth of the Temernik.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
114
Figure D19 show the comparison between data recorded in 1999 as an average
concentration of heavy metals in the river and bottom sediment, and the data
presented above ranging from 1988 to 1996. The most striking is mercury in the
water column (i.e. soluble). The MAC and EQS are, on average, exceeded by a
factor of 43 and 4, respectively. Since no data was received for the period, 1988-
1996, it is impossible to make a comparison. The data does reveal however that the
use of the MAC ten times higher in line with the EQS may be more appropriate.
There is also one area of discrepancy: on average, copper concentrations in water
in 1999 for the whole of the river Don only slightly exceed the MAC. During the
earlier 1990s, the soluble concentration of copper was recorded at a level six times
the MAC.
Other Pollutants
During the 1998-1999 observations showed a decrease in the content of oil-
products in the water of the Lower Don (Table 5.33). In the bottom sediments the
content of oil-products in the summer and autumn period of 1999 ranged within
30 to 35,300 mg/kg of dry weight, the average being 1,190 mg/kg of dry weight.
In 1998 the average yearly concentration was somewhat lower 97 mg/kg of dry
weight.
An extremely high concentration was recorded in bottom sediments, sampled in
October downstream of Temernik river inflow 35,300 mg/kg of dry weight.
Table 5.33
Average numbers of MAC exceedence in terms of oil
products in the water of the Lower Don in 1995-1999
Times by
Average
Concentratio
% of MAC
which
Years
concentratio n range, mg/l
exceedence
MAC is
n, mg/l
exceeded
1995 0.17
0.01
0.98 70
3.4
1996 0.23
0.10
0.71
100
4.6
1997 0.12
0.02
0.33
62
2.4
1998 0.10
0.04
0.37
71
2.0
1999 0.09
0.04
0.25
87
1.8
Source: CPPI
A high level of oil-products is almost constantly recorded in the mouth area of the
Aksay channel where the fleet is repaired. In June and July the concentration of
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
115
oil-products in the ground in this area was 4,040 and 4,290 mg/kg of dry weight
accordingly.
Comparison of analytical results for 1995-1999 showed a decrease of oil-products
concentration in water, whereas in bottom sediments oil contamination built up
(Table 5.34). In the last three years (1997-1999) there was a 25% increase in the oil-
products concentration when compared to the previous years.
Table 5.34
Exceedence of background concentrations of oil-
products in bottom sediments of the Lower Don in
1995-99
Times by
Average
Concentration
% of MAC
which
Years
concentration
range, mg/l
exceedence
MAC is
, mg/l
exceeded
1995 0.78 0.04
-
4.14
48
1.5
1996 0.83 0.10
-
6.10
65
1.7
1997 1.08 0.05
-
6.99
41
2.1
1998 0.97 0.15
-
5.08
60
1.9
1999 1.19 0.03
-
35.3
56
2.4
Source: CPPI
An average yearly concentration of pesticides in the Lower Don water in 1999 was
4.9 ng/l, with a range from 0.5 to 19.2 ng/l, which is approximately 1.5 times less
than 1998 values. Seasonal variations in concentrations of organochlorine toxicants
are insignificant. Exceedence of MAC was recorded in summer in points of inflow
of Aksay channel and Temernik river, and in autumn in mouth stretches of rivers
Seversky Donets and Manych. Average level of bottom sediments contamination
during the year was 3.0 µg/kg, with a range of 0.04 to 24.6 µg/kg of dry weight
and remained at the level of last year. Maximal concentration of pesticides in
bottom sediments in 1999 was twice as high as in 1998.
Maximal contamination of bottom sediments with organochlorine toxicants was
observed in points of inflow of river Temernik (24.6 µg/kg) and Aksay channel
(20.4 µg/kg of dry weight). Metabolites of DDT group are the main contributors
to the total content of persistent OCPs. Table 5.35 shows the average
concentration of OCPs for the Lower Don.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
116
Table 5.35
Flux of Organochlorine Pesticides of the Don
Yea
River
No of
Annual average gross OCP flux,
Volume
r
discharg
sample
tonnes
of usage
J
e
s
J
-HCH,
km3
D-HCH
-
DD
DDE
tonnes
HCH
T
1988
20.9
6
0.460
0.230
0.16
0
461/593
1989
16.2
6
0.065
0.016
7
0
284
1990
16.3
6
0.065
0.065
0
0.244
30
1991
22.9
6
0
0.229
0.13
0
N.d.
1992
16.2
6
0
0
0
0
N.d.
1993
20.7
6
0
0.021
0
0
N.d.
1994
35.6
3
0
0
0
0
N.d.
1995
23.4
6
0
0
0
0
N.d.
1996
29.4
4
0.059
0.235
0
0.235
N.d.
0
0
Source: Zuhlidov, 2000, and relating OGSNK data for the period of 1988-1996
(Zhulidov, 1996)
PCBs were recorded almost everywhere in bottom sediments. The most polluted
areas are points of inflow of river Temernik and Aksay channel, as well as points
of discharge of WWTF of cities Rostov-on-Don and Aksay.
Studies of accumulation of organochlorine substances in hydrobionts revealed a
high content of pesticides (126 µg/kg of raw weight) in fatty tissues of Azov-Don
pike-perch. The concentration of pesticides in gonads of pike-perch was 30 µg/kg,
in its liver - 7 µg/kg (raw weight) and 2 µg/kg in muscles. PCBs are recorded in
all organs. Concentrations are the same as for pesticides, except for the fatty
tissues, where they are twice as high.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
117
In the Rostov Oblast, the amount of pesticides used by the agriculture is declining
rapidly within last 5 years from 3200 tons in 1995 to 1600 tons in 1999. In 1999
the decline compared to1998 was registered as by 400 tons. In 1999 total area of
lands treated with the chemical and biological substances was 1.37 mln. hectares
(compared to 2.06 mln. hectares in 1998).
In 1999 the main groups of pesticides used in agricultural production were
distributed as follows:
· Insecticides 226.7 tons;
· Treatment materials 295.3 tons;
· Fungicides 235.0 tons;
· Herbicides 811.1 tons;
· Desiccants 2.2 tons;
· Rodenticides 2.1 tons;
· Growth regulators 1.5 tons; and
· Others 26.1 tons.
In 1999 protection activities were conducted using chemical method on the area of
1312 thousand hectares; biological method on area of 61.0 thousand hectares.
Lands were treated against: pests on 734.8 thousand hectares; diseases on 94.2
thousand hectares; weeds on 520.0 thousand hectares, as well as with the purpose
of desiccation on the area of 24.0 thousand hectares.
In 1999 pesticides load on 1 hectare of agricultural lands with chemical and
biological treatment was 0.95 kg/ha (in 1998 - 0.81 kg/ha).
In 1999 forestry used about 2 tons of pesticide. Mineral fertilisers were not
applied. Regardless the fact that use of means of plants protection decreased two
times since 1995 and mineral and organic fertilisers are applied in small quantities
the soils and other environment bodies pollution, as well as damage to the wildlife
are very vital.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
118
The most acute problem is utilisation and disposal of unsuitable pesticides.
According to the undertaken inventory the amount of such a pesticides is 1.178
thousand tones. The amount of pesticides suitable for future use and stored at a
warehouse is estimated as 0.541 thousand tons. Within last years an unsatisfactory
situation with storage of mineral fertilisers and means of plants protection has
been registered on many agricultural enterprises. The demand for safe storage and
fertilisers use is 714 places with total capacity about 22,600 tons. In the Rostov
Oblast there are 456 warehouses with total capacity 17,300 tons. Only 232
warehouses with total capacity 5800 tons are suitable for pesticides storage. In
terms of warehouses number the demand is met only by 32%, in terms of volume
by 49%.
In terms of water quality, the former USSR State Committee for
Hydrometeorology and Natural Environment Control (Goskomhydromet), and
now the Federal Russian Service of Hydrometeorology and Environmental
Monitoring (Roshydromet), collected data since 1974 on organochlorine pesticides
(OCP) fluxes from the former USSR and Russian Federation. The observations
have been carried out at constant sampling stations of the State Service (Network)
of Observation of Environmental Pollution (OGSNK prior to 1992 and GSN
from 1992 onward. According to the OGSNK/GSN data, in 1988 the -HCH, -
HCH, DDT and DDE flux rates of Don were 0.46, 0.23, 0.167 and 0 tons per
annum, respectively. The most recent estimate of OCP flux to the Azov Sea show
changes over the eight year period of 0.401 (-HCH), +0.005 (-HCH), -0.167
(DDT) and +0.235 (DDE) tons per annum (Zhulidov, 1996). In general, it may be
concluded that the Don plays the major role in OCP contamination to the Azov
Sea and to a lesser extent the Black Sea.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
119
Biological indicators of pollution
In August 1999, the impact of the Don discharge on the total content in the
Taganrog Bay intensified in the result of mass development of blue-green algae.
The content of total nitrogen in the eastern part of the Taganrog Bay ranged
within 1,000-1,300 mg/m3. Mass algal bloom of blue-green algae in still hot
weather caused a dramatic deterioration of the environmental situation, sometimes
resulting in fish deaths. One study showed a decrease in dissolved oxygen content
down to a level unfavorable for fish (17-35%) in the bottom water layer 0.2 to1
km from the shore.
Previous studies have identified areas of high anthropogenic eutrophication in the
lower stream of the Don River (in points of inflow of river Sal and Aksay channel
and in Temernik river) and in the eastern part of the Taganrog Bay. An assessment
of the official hydrobiological information on the Don river mouth area
(downstream of Rostov-on-Don) may be summarised by the following general
conclusions:
· Phytoplankton: an increase in the total population of algae mostly due to the
growth of the groups of blue-green algae and diatom algae. A decrease in
biodiversity, with appearance of dominating species: Stephanodiscus hantzschii;
Melosira islandic, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae and Microcystis aeruqinosa. A decrease in
the relative number of green algae. A strengthening in the development of -
saprobic organisms of Oscil atoria and Nitzschia genera;
· Phytoperiphyton: Decreased biodiversity and an increase in the Navicula and
Nitzschia genera. A grown frequency in the occurrence of and --saprobic
organisms, mostly such as Nitzschia pelea, Oscillatoria tenius and Synedra ulna.
Oppression of the development of Cladophora glomerata;
· Zooplankton: An increase in the number of highly tolerant species such as
Euchlanic dilatata, Keratella quadrata, Brachionus Calycifloris, Eurytemora affinis; and
· Macrobenthos: an increase in the relative number of Oligochaeta, whose
active development is an indicator of organic contamination of the river.
Air Quality
The air pollution situation in Rostov is described in detail in World Bank (2000),
and so is only summarised here. Air quality in Rostov-on-Don is particularly
affected by:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
120
· High concentrations of industrial enterprises, especially in the City centre;
· High housing and traffic density resulting from narrow streets;
· Insufficient natural areas;
· An airport within the City limits; and
· A dry climate with prevailing North-eastern and Eastern steppe winds.
Figure 5.10 shows the distribution of air pollution within the city. The main
sources of air pollutants are transport, energy enterprises, machine building
enterprises and construction industry, as well as air transport (Table 5.36).
Emissions have increased on average by 64,000 tonnes annually since 1992.
Table 5.36
Sources of air pollution in Rostov city, 1998
Source Emissions
(tonnes)
Proportion
of
total
Transport
138,250 93.7%
Aircraft 1,329
0.9%
Stationary sources
8,039
5.4%
Total 147,618
100%
Source: Rostov Oblast Administration and Rostov Environment
Committee, 1999
Table 5.36 shows that the vehicles are the major source of air pollution in the city.
This is partly due to the decrease in air pollution from industry as a results of the
decrease of industrial production. Emissions to air from industry were 720 tonnes
lower in 1998 than 1997.
The main cause of the increase in air pollution is the 87% rise in the number of
vehicles since 1992. Vehicles are tested annually for compliance with government
standards for exhaust emissions, and two City Decrees were passed in 1998 aimed
at reducing air pollution from mobile sources. These Decrees were to strengthen
the control on air emissions from buses, and to strengthen quality controls on
petrol stations. At the same time, the sale of leaded petrol was banned in the city.
Further initiatives are currently underway to improve the air quality situation.
Air quality monitoring within the city is conducted by Hydromet (seven
observation stations) and SANEPID (three). According to the monitoring data, air
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
121
quality in Rostov-on-Don varies by district, but cannot be considered "good" in
any district. Table 5.37 gives the official air quality statistics for 1999.
Table 5.37
Atmospheric emissions from transport, energy production
and industries in Rostov-on-Don in 1999
Pollutant (tonnes per year)
Pollutant source group Particle
SO2
NOx
CO HC2
VOC2
Total
s
Transport
1 513 1
987 14
744
106 128 16 143
-
139 515
Energy
52
25
1 184
1 109
4.6
8.9
2 390
Industries, including:
637
154
799
3 019
1 101
528
6 346
Machine building
98 24
222 612 16 310
1
333
Chemical
12 2.2 34 87 24 109
270
Food
147 4.9 123 278 0.8 8.7 577
Construction
218 47 107 534 7.3 4.0 920
Other industries
160 76 314 1508 1
053 96 3
247
Services 2.7
1.4
1.3
13
54
6.6
86
TOTAL 2
204
1
167
16
728
110 269
17 303
543 148
337
Household heating
171.5 247.0 520.5 111.2 n.a. n.a.
(municipal housing)
Household heating
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
(private housing)
GRAND TOTAL
2 376
1 414
17 249
110 380
1 Particles include 1 495 tonnes of soot and 18 tonnes of lead compounds.
2 Hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds are reported based on the Russian official grouping of
pollutants. HCs exclude methane but include mainly substances with low boiling temperature and VOCs
include mainly evaporating substances from paints and ethanol, buthanol etc.
Source: World Bank, 2000a
Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MACs) for Total Suspended Particulates
(TSP) are exceeded at six of the seven stations and NO2 at five. MAC for soot is
exceeded at the one station where it is measured. On the average, CO
concentrations are below MAC, but peak concentrations exceed MAC by a factor
of four. In addition, the definition of MAC in terms of daily average for CO is
likely to underestimate the problems. SO2 concentrations are below MAC.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
122
Although not in the city, Novocherkassk power station is a major source of air
pollution in the area due to its burning of large quantities of poor quality coal. The
power station is located 35km north east of the city. It is not known how the
pollutants subsequently disperse. Emissions data for 1997-1998 is summarised in
Table 5.38.
Table 5.38
Emissions from Novocherkassk Power Plant in 1997/1998
Pollutant 1997
1998
SO2
79 784
66 673
NOx
23 899
24 358
Particles 46
410
37
601
CO
2 171
27 92
Source: World Bank, 2000a
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
123
Environmental Impacts of the Scheme
,QWURGXFWLRQ
This chapter contains the assessment of impacts both during construction and
operation. It was assumed that the improvements as designed will achieve the
desired reduction in nitrogen, phosphorus and BOD. Halcrow (2000) indicates
that this is likely for nitrogen and BOD, but that phosphorus may fail on
occasions. For this reason, separate phosphorus stripping of return sludge liquors
has been recommended (Section 9, Halcrow 2000).
As a first step, the baseline information was used to make a value judgement on
the impact of the scheme as a whole on the identified `potential negative impacts
of wastewater treatment works schemes' as described in the World Bank guidelines
(1991). These are summarised in Table 6.1 below. Impacts are assessed in more
detail in Section 6.2 and 6.3.
(QYLURQPHQWDO ,PSDFW 0DWULFHV
The baseline information and results presented in Table 6.1 were used to assess the
likely environmental impact in the short term (5 years) of each component on each
baseline receptor both during construction and operation. Impacts are summarised
in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 below and commentary on the likely short and long-term
impacts are discussed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. The impacts of Component 7
(already completed under the CSIP) are discussed only where relevant to the
impacts of the proposed project.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
124
Table 6.1
Summary Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Scheme
Potential negative impact
Impact
Comments and recommendations (expanded in Sections 6.2 and 6.3)
(Source: World Bank, 1991)
'LUHFW ,PSDFWV
1. Disturbance of stream channels, aquatic
0
No impact
plant and animal habitat, and spawning and
nursery areas during construction
2. Alterations in watershed hydrologic balance
0
No significant change to volume of water discharged to river
when wastewater is exported by collection in
large upstream areas and discharged downstream
3. Degradation of neighbourhoods or receiving
0
No significant change to sensitivity of biological treatment process. Duplication of
water quality from sewer overflows, treatment
digesters and treatment lines together with excess capacity should preclude minor
works bypasses, or treatment process failure
process failures.
4. Degradation of receiving water quality
High probability
In the short term (<5 years) upgrading of the WWTW will result in a localised
despite normal system operation
of permanent
reduction of nutrient and organic loading to the Don. Phosphorus levels however may
improvement
not significantly decrease in the short term due to re-equilibration of bound P in the
sediment. (see Section 5.5.3)
Low probability
Minor risk from pollution of receiving water by overdosing of phosphorus stripping
of temporary
reagent. Recommendations made for instal ation and operation of monitoring system
minor adverse
to minimise risk of overdosing
impact
5. Public health hazards in the vicinity of
High probability
No deterioration of water quality near the outfall is expected. Pathogen and odour
discharges or reuse sites during normal
of minor
levels in sludge disposed to lagoon will progressively diminish as the improvements to
operation of system
permanent
treatment lines, digester operation and centrifuges are implemented
improvement to
sludge lagoon
6. Contamination of land application sites:
0
No plans in the short term to apply sludge to land
soils and crops by toxic substances and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
125
Potential negative impact
Impact
Comments and recommendations (expanded in Sections 6.2 and 6.3)
(Source: World Bank, 1991)
pathogens; groundwater by toxic substances and
nitrogen
7. Failure to achieve desired beneficial uses of
High probability
Wil play a major role (along with other pollution reduction initiatives) in the longer
receiving waters despite normal system
of major
term towards achieving MACs for fisheries downstream of Rostov and drinking water
operation
permanent
within the Azov region (see Section 5.5.1)
improvement
8. Odours and noise from treatment process or
0
Works is sited in an established industrial area. Sludge will be less malodorous as a
sludge disposal operations
result of the improved process, but this is unlikely to affect the current levels of odour
emanating from the lagoon
9. Emissions of volatile organic compounds
High probability
Digestion of sludge will result in lower emissions of volatile organic compounds
from treatment process
of permanent
(VOCs)
minor
improvement
10. Soil, crop or groundwater contamination
High probability
Sludge disposed to lagoon wil contain lower concentrations of N, P and BOD, thus
and disease vector breeding or feeding at sludge
of minor
polluting groundwater less than current sludge (see section 5.5.3)
storage, reuse or disposal sites
improvement in
the short-term
Heavy metal binding efficiency within the sludge will also be increased during the
and major
digestion process thereby reducing the potential to leach into the groundwater after
improvement in
disposal
the long-term
Improvement of sludge quality as progressive implementation of WWTW investment
programme and subsequent removal of sludge from current storage lagoon (for co-
disposal with daily sludge arisings at landfill) would lead in time to remediation of the
lagoon site
11. Worker accidents during construction and
Low probability
Impact mitigated by complying with established norms and procedures.
operation, especially in deep trenching
of temporary and
operations
avoidable and
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
126
Potential negative impact
Impact
Comments and recommendations (expanded in Sections 6.2 and 6.3)
(Source: World Bank, 1991)
adverse impact
12. Worker accidents caused by gas
Low probability
Complying with established norms and procedures. Carry out a health and safety risk
accumulation in sewers and other confined
of temporary and assessment for bulk chemical storage and use; operation and maintenance work on
spaces or by hazardous materials discharged to
avoidable
digesters and gas storage tanks.
sewers
adverse impact
13. Serious public and worker health hazard
0
This project does not involve works on chlorination facilities
from chlorine accidents
14. Nuisances and public health hazard from
0
Duplication of digesters and treatment lines together with excess capacity should
sewer overflows and backups
preclude minor process failures.
15. Failure to achieve public health
0
No public health improvement within Rostov city. In the long term, may improve
improvement in serviced area
public health aspects of downstream recreation.
16. Dislocation of residents by plant siting
0
No impact
17. Perceived or actual nuisances and adverse
0
No impact as works located in an established industrial zone
aesthetic impacts in neighbourhood of treatment
works
18. Accidental destruction of archaeological
0
All works on existing footprint, with no archaeological sites
sites during excavation
,QGLUHFW ,PSDFWV
1. Unplanned development induced or
0
No impact
facilitated by infrastructure
2. Regional solid waste management problems
No change in
Sludge is currently stored on site. A long term sludge disposal strategy will be
exacerbated by sludge
impact in near
developed as part of the RVK Strategy Plan. Minor amounts of construction waste
term. Long term
(mostly inert) for disposal to existing landfill.
major permanent
improvement
3. Loss of fisheries productivity
High probability
Likely improvements to fishery productivity only in the longer term since effective
of medium
propagation depends not only on surface water quality but on longer term
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
127
Potential negative impact
Impact
Comments and recommendations (expanded in Sections 6.2 and 6.3)
(Source: World Bank, 1991)
improvement in improvements to sediment quality and ecological restoration (see Section 5.5.1 and
the long term
5.5.3)
4. Reduction of tourist or recreational activity
High probability
Expected minor improvement at Azov Sea resorts and Rostov city with respect to
of minor
bacteriological/viral quality as a result of upgrading of WWTW and associated
permanent
remediation of by products generated during these processes - CH (see Section 5.5.1)
improvement
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
128
Table 6.2
Environmental Impacts during Construction
Component
Environmental impact
Physical environment
Natural
Human environment
Environmental Quality
Envmt
e
i
o
n
i
t
at
l
s
i
n
c
o
m
an
oi
s
s
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
e
n
t &
ag
i
ty
ti
o
n
i
ty
i
ty
e
o
l
o
g
y
&
p
l
o
ym
p
t
i
o
n
p
o
s
a
l
r
ea
e
u
al
u
al
c
o
l
o
g
y
l
o
g
y
ec
q
r
q
e
n
t
q
u
al
l
o
g
y
co
r
e
a
l
t
h
o
n
s
u
m
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
re
e
r
i
t
ag
&
a
t
er
a
te
i
m
r
a
p
h
y
, g
e
i
a
l
E
s
h
tr
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
s
u
p
p
l
y
&
a
s
t
e
d
is
ed
og
at
r
o
l
o
g
y
r
o
g
eo
r
r
u
a
li
t
y
r
es
i
c
H
d
u
s
e
,
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
&
r
g
y
c
n
s
p
o
rt
q
op
i
m
yd
yd
er
q
u
a
t
i
c E
h
e
r
ie
o
p
u
l
a
ti
o
n
,
em
ate
u
bl
an
is
ra
li
d
w
o
u
r
i
s
m
l
t
u
r
al
r
o
u
n
d
w
i
v
e
r
s
ir
T
Cl
H
H
T
A
P
W
P
L
F
Ene
T
So
T
Cu
S
u
r
f
a
c
e w
G
R
A
1. Screening, grit removal
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
2. Primary settlement tanks
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
3. Secondary aeration tanks
0
0
0
?
0
0
+
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. Lamella settlers
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5. Chemical P stripping
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6. Sludge digestion
0
0
0
?
0
0
+
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
8. CHP methane use
0
0
0
?
0
0
+
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Key:
++ Major positive impact; + Minor positive impact; 0 No significant impact;
- Minor negative impact; -- Major negative impact; ? Insufficient information available to judge impact
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
129
Table 6.3
Environmental Impacts during Operation (during the next 5 years)
Component
Environmental impact
Physical environment
Natural
Human environment
Environmental Quality
Envmt
e
r
e
i
n
c
om
a
n
i
t
a
ti
o
n
o
i
l
s
s
&
r
i
c
u
l
tu
e
nt
ag
c
t
u
re
o
y
m
i
on
ti
o
n
i
t
y
i
t
y
e
o
l
o
g
y
& s
pl
,
s
u
p
p
l
y &
pt
s
t
ru
p
o
s
a
l
r
ea
e
u
al
u
al
t
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
l
o
g
y
m
q
q
en
c
o
l
o
g
y
r
ec
o
u
r
c
es
e
a
l
t
h
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
i
t
ag
&
a
ter
a
ter
i
m
e
h
t
r
i
a
l
E
s
e
,
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
&
i
es
a
s
t
e
d
is
ed
at
l
a
t
i
o
n, e
r
es
r
al
s
u
a
l
i
ty
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
,
g
d
u
i
m
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
d
r
o
g
e
o
l
o
g
y
r
es
e
r
g
y
c
n
s
p
o
r
t
i
n
f
ra
er
q
u
a
ti
c
E
o
pu
a
t
er
b
l
i
c
H
an
i
s
h
er
ra
li
d
w
o
u
r
i
s
m
l
tu
r
o
u
n
d
w
i
v
er
r
q
To
Cl
Hy
Hy
T
A
P
W
Pu
L
F
En
T
So
T
Cu
S
u
r
f
a
c
e w
G
R
Ai
1. Screening, grit removal
0
0
0
?
0
++
0
0
+
0
0
0
-
0
+
0
++
+
0
0
2. Primary settlement tanks
3. Secondary aeration tanks
4. Lamella settlers
5. Chemical P stripping
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
+
0
0
0
-
0
+
0
+
0
0
0
6. Sludge digestion
0
+
0
?
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
+
8. CHP methane use
0
+
0
?
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
++
Key:
++ Major positive impact; + Minor positive impact; 0 No significant impact;
- Minor negative impact; -- Major negative impact; ? Insufficient information available to judge impact
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
130
,PSDFWV GXULQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ
Introduction
This section contains a discussion of the potential environmental impacts during
construction (as summarised in Table 6.2) in as much detail as possible. Given that
designs are not complete and that the construction programme is yet to be
decided, the majority of the impacts discussed are generic to all components.
There will be no significant impact during construction on climate; hydrology;
terrestrial or aquatic ecology; water resources, supply and sanitation; public health
(apart from occupational health, discussed below); land use, industry and
agriculture; fisheries; energy consumption; transport infrastructure; tourism and
recreation; cultural heritage; groundwater quality; or sediment quality. The
construction of new buildings and tanks (components 3, 6 and 8) will have a slight
impact on topography, but this is not considered to be significant in the context of
an industrial complex. All construction work will have a slight positive impact on
`population, employment and income' through employment generation. These
receptors are therefore not considered further in this section.
The majority of the potential construction impacts can be minimised through
adherence to proper site practice and health and safety procedures. There are a
number of Russian norms (standards) for construction practices, including SNiPs
and the Manual on Labour and Construction Safety.
These avoidable impacts include:
· Health and safety: it is understood that each team of workers has a designated
health and safety officer, and it is recommended that good practice should be
followed in conducting a risk assessment and briefing with the Design
Institute and contractors (as appropriate) before each construction exercise.
This impact is recorded as a minor negative impact on (occupational) public
health. Depending on the capability of the staff, further training may be
required. Potentially dangerous excavations should be fenced off and warning
signs erected. The site is not accessible to the general public; and
· Surface water and air quality: all construction works may have minor negative
impacts on surface water and air quality through spillage of petroleum
products and operation of machinery. The former would be mitigated by spill
control procedures and the latter through correct choice of fuel and plant
maintenance.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
131
With adherence to existing norms and manuals and good site practice, it is
envisaged that these impacts will be minimal.
The construction of buildings, tanks and underground pipelines may have an
impact on the groundwater regime. This impact may be assumed to be negative (in
disruption of existing groundwater flows) but the level of impact is likely to be
marginal and no mitigation measures would be required. However borehole
monitoring should be instituted where there is likely to be groundwater diversion
or rising water tables (see Section 8).
There may be a slight decrease in effluent quality during works which require direct
interruption of process lines (components 1-4), but this is likely to be insignificant
because retention time would not decrease significantly as the works currently has
excess capacity.
All works generate construction waste. It is understood that soils excavated during
building and tank construction will be used on site. Apart from soils, it is envisaged
that the waste generated wil be relatively small and therefore have only a slight
impact on waste disposal. This impact should be mitigated by compliance with
standard procedures (city ordinances) for construction waste disposal. The
redundant equipment should not pose a particular health risk in handling but
sensible precautions should be taken. Waste should be recycled where possible.
A number of construction impacts relate to specific components, and are discussed
below.
Components 1 and 2
The construction works comprise removal of existing screens and grit removers
equipment and installation of new equipment. This will have a minor negative
impact on waste disposal. It is recommended that ferrous equipment should be
recycled wherever possible.
Component 3
The improvements concern redesign of the secondary aeration tanks and the
provision of additional aeration capacity. The construction works include minor
changes to the layout of partition walls and the installation of several mixers at
different depths. Separate works are required for the excavation and construction
of an additional aeration tank, together with feed and return sludge lines and the
installation of aeration devices on the tank floor.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
132
The excavation works are significant involving the removal of up to 20,000 m3 of
soil. The spoil will be used for construction of the tank support walls, site feeder
roads and other embankments such that offsite disposal is avoided. There may be
an impact on groundwater, as discussed in Section 6.3.1 above.
Component 4
The provision of lamella separators requires only minor construction works to
attach the separators which are provided as packaged units. There will therefore be
no significant environmental impacts during construction.
Component 5 Chemical Phosphorus removal
No specific environmental impacts during construction are envisaged as the
reagent storage building already exists and is likely to require only minor
refurbishment, depending on the choice of chemical and equipment required for
its preparation.
Component 6 Sludge digestion
This component involves extensive construction works which are likely to generate
large quantities of waste construction materials. This will be mitigated by
compliance with city ordinances on solid waste disposal, as discussed in Section
6.3.1.
Component 8 CHP Methane use
This component will involve the construction of a new building to house the CHP
plant. No specific negative impacts other than those discussed in Section 6.3.1 are
envisaged.
,PSDFWV GXULQJ 2SHUDWLRQ
Introduction
There will be no impacts during operation on topography, geology and soils;
hydrology; water resources, supply and sanitation; and cultural heritage. At this
stage, it is envisaged that there will be no significant impact on `population,
employment and income' as there will be no major changes in staff needs,
although this depends somewhat on the designs chosen. Given that this project is
grant-funded, it is considered unlikely that it will have a negative impact on the
population in terms of ability to pay for services. It should be emphasised,
however, that these socio-economic issues will be considered in detail in the
forthcoming study (Rostov Vodokanal and Rostov Oblast administration, 2001).
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
133
In the short-term (5 years), there are no impact is foreseen on `land use, industry
and agriculture' and `solid waste disposal', but in the context of a long-term sludge
disposal strategy, there may be beneficial impacts of the disposal of a lower volume
of less biologically-active sludge. This is discussed in more detail in the sections
below.
The new buildings, pipelines and tank are likely to have a minor impact on
hydrogeology due to flow diversion. Should it become apparent during
construction that mitigation is required, appropriate mitigation, such as
construction of a diversion channel, should be put in place (see Section 8).
Components 1 - 4
As each of these components form part of an integrated process, they have been
assessed as a single process unit for the purposes of this section.
The quantity of grit disposed will not change as a result of the project, but the
quantity of screenings will increase with more regular raking and the use of finer
screens. There will therefore be a slight negative impact related to increased solid
waste disposal and its transportation from WWTW to landfill site.
The implications of enhanced nitrogen removal at the WWTW are shown clearly
in Figure D2 (Appendix D) through presentation of the data as total inorganic
nitrogen before and after upgrading. The impact of a 50% removal of nitrogen at
the WWTW equates to a decrease of 1000 tonnes N per year, giving an overall
reduction of inorganic nitrogen loading at that point in the river of 7%. The annual
average transport of total inorganic nitrogen downstream of Azov City is predicted
to be approximately 10,000 tonnes/year. Given that the majority of nitrogen in the
river appears to be present as ammonium which is detrimental to fish, there may
be a minor positive impact on fisheries. Given the complexity of the factors
affecting both nitrogen levels and fisheries, however, it is difficult to estimate this
impact with any certainty. The reduction of nitrogen levels with the reduction in
phosphorus levels is likely to decrease the eutrophication of the river, thus having a
minor positive impact on aquatic ecology; and tourism and recreation. These
impacts, and the impact of phosphorus reduction are discussed in more detail in
the fol owing section.
Whilst the amount of sludge produced after completion of components 1-4 will
increase, this does not have a corresponding impact on solid waste disposal as all
sludge produced from components 1-4 will pass through a closed cycle to the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
134
sludge digesters which will significantly reduce the amount of sludge produced.
There is therefore no direct connection between the process improvements and
impact on solid waste disposal.
Sludge from primary sedimentation is expected to contain some disease pathogens
as well as parasitic eggs and cysts. Reducing the quantity of sludge carried over into
the final effluent through replacing the scraper mechanism in the primary
tanks...With less carryover of sludge into the final effluent there is also expected
to be a small positive impact on public health.
Whilst the new screening process will require less manpower to operate dosing of
ferric sulphate or lime, reagent monitoring and control will require increased
manpower. The new system could therefore be operated with no net change in
manpower. There is also unlikely to be any significant change in pumping duties
once the new system is operating hence no change in energy requirements. It is
envisaged that there will be no significant operational impacts on climate; energy
consumption; transport infrastructure; terrestrial ecology; groundwater quality;
sediment quality or air quality.
Component 5 Chemical P removal
Total phosphorus has the potential to greatly affect the growth rate of individual
algae at concentrations up to 200-300 µg/l and probably beyond. Under normal
circumstances, increases in riverine concentrations from likely background
concentrations to such levels are therefore potentially extremely important to the
ecology of the river (see Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.3).
Phosphorus is present in wastewater in three forms: orthophosphate,
polyphosphates and organic phosphorus compounds. During biological treatment
three main changes occur:
· Organic materials are decomposed and their phosphorus content is converted to
orthophosphate;
· Inorganic phosphates are utilised in forming biological flocs; and
· Most polyphosphates are converted to orthophosphates.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
135
After biological treatment, phosphorus is largely present as bioavailable
orthophosphate, an ionic compound that reacts and precipitates out of solution in
the presence of metal salts.
The critical need for phosphorus removal in the Lower Don is readily
demonstrated by monitoring data which show that the average soluble phosphorus
concentrations during the last five years ranged from 86 µg/l close to the outlet of
the Tsimlyansk reservoir, to 150 µg/l downstream of Rostov, with a further
increase to 176 µg/l downstream of Azov (Appendix D). Although total
phosphorus data is not available we must assume that the critical levels are
breached on a regular basis within the river reach between Rostov and the Azov
Sea. Figure D3 shows that the upgrading of the Rostov WWTW will result in an
overall 39% reduction of phosphorus load reaching the city of Azov. The annual
average transport of phosphate downstream of Azov City is predicted to be
approximately 3,800 tonnes/year.
Given the presence of phosphates in the sediments and the equilibrium balance of
phosphorus (Section 5.5.3), the following impacts are predicted:
· During the first year a steady decline in the levels of concentration of dissolved
nitrogen and phosphorus wil be recorded in water of the Don river directly
downstream of Rostov-on-Don; and
· An obvious decline in the Don river nutrient status downstream would be seen
no sooner than 3 years after the reconstruction.
Reduced levels of eutrophication and hence reduced algal blooms will have a
positive impact on river water quality by reducing the frequency of low oxygen and
toxin release events. This will have a beneficial impact on aquatic ecology; public
health, fisheries; tourism and recreation. Given the large phosphorus reservoir in
the riverine sediments, positive impacts on sediment quality will accrue over time.
In the short term, therefore, there will be no positive impact on sediment quality.
The use of chemical reagents for phosphorus stripping has both advantages and
disadvantages as shown in Table 6.4.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
136
Table 6.4 Advantages and disadvantages of chemical P stripping
Advantages Disadvantages
· Reliable, well-documented
· Chemical costs higher than for
technique
biological systems.
· Chemical costs can be
· Significantly more sludge
reduced substantially if
produced than waste water
waste pickle liquors (ferrous
treatment process without
chloride or ferrous sulphate
metal addition; may overload
are available and can be used
existing sludge handling
· Controls are simple and
equipment; higher sludge
straightforward - easy to
treatment and disposal costs.
maintain high P removal
efficiency by controlling
metal salt dosing rate.
· Relatively easy and
inexpensive to install at
existing facilities
· Sludge can be processed in
the same manner as in non-
P-removal systems
· Metal addition prior to
primary clarifiers can reduce
organic load to secondary
unit by 25-35%.
Chemical dosing will cause an increase in sludge volume, as shown in Table 4.3.
The actual increase depends both on reagent chosen and the level of phosphorus
in the wastewater (i.e. the dosing level). At present, however, it is envisaged that
given the sludge digestion and dewatering processes, the overall volume of sludge
will not increase compared to the existing amount. This represents a possible
unknown minor impact on groundwater quality due to the possible disposal of
larger quantities of sludge to the lagoon.
The chemical stripping process should be monitored carefully to ensure optimum
reagent dosing and to ensure that surface water is not polluted (see Section 8).
The choice of reagent should be made carefully, taking into account both potential
direct impacts on surface water quality, but also secondary impacts related to
reagent production and transport. If possible, the chemical should be brought to
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
137
the works via the adjacent railway. The necessity for large quantities of reagent for
dosing means that this component is likely to have a minor negative impact on
transport infrastructure.
Given the present state of options, it is envisaged that this component wil have no
significant impact on climate; terrestrial ecology; energy consumption; groundwater
quality and air quality.
Component 6 Sludge digestion
Sludge digestion will eventually ensure major environmental improvements as the
process leads to a significant reduction in final sludge volume see Figures in
Section 4, and allows for the capture of methane for beneficial use. In summary
digestion converts the volatile organic fraction of the sludge into a mixture of
methane and carbon dioxide. Unconfined production of these gases leads to
significant negative impacts on climate which would be the end product of the
sludge if disposed undigested to landfill. The organic load could be reduced by as
much as 50%, depending on the chosen design and operating regime for the
digesters.
Reduction of sludge volume is likely to have a positive impact on groundwater
quality and air quality as it will decrease the volume of sludge disposed to the
lagoon until a Sludge Disposal Strategy is in place. This is discussed further in the
sludge dewatering section below. The lower volume will also have a positive
impact on energy consumption by reducing energy required at the sludge
dewatering stage.
During the digestion process the elevated temperature and long residence time in
anaerobic conditions results in the destruction of pathogens thus reducing the
potential health risks from the sludge. The extent to which pathogens are
destroyed will depend on the operating conditions chosen (residence time and
temperature). There may also be a minor improvement to the quality of the
effluent as digestion represents a more effective treatment of viruses and
protozoan pathogens (if the treatment process is properly operated and
maintained) than chlorination. This represents a minor improvement to public
health.
The digestion process converts the volatile organic fraction of the sludge into a
mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. Unconfined production of these gases
leads to significant negative impacts on climate (in terms of global warming). This
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
138
is the current situation with methane emitted from sludge stored in the lagoons
and drying beds. The capture of methane in the digesters therefore represents a
significant climatic improvement, in reducing methane emissions from an
estimated 14,348kg/day to 4,274kg/day. [The remaining methane emissions come
from further decomposition of the sludge in its final destination, i.e. at present, the
sludge lagoon and drying beds.] From digestion the gases may be stored for
beneficial use, the impact of which is discussed in Section 6.4.6.
The digester design has not yet been finalised, but it is understood that the
digesters will require an additional heating circuit based on natural gas, as the CHP
system will supply on average only 2/3 of the heat required to raise and maintain
digester temperatures. This represents a potentially negative impact on energy
consumption and climate (due to release of CO2) which may be mitigated by
making use of the CHP cooling water to preheat digester feed when heat in excess
of that needed for building heating is available. It is therefore recommended that
the unit power consumption of the centrifuges be monitored to ensure optimum
performance and as an indicator of maintenance requirements (see Section 9).
The operation of digesters represents a potential risk due to the presence of areas
where explosive gas/air mixtures can be present. It will therefore be vital to
introduce the concept of "zoning". Areas where explosive mixtures may be present
should be identified, and special precautions taken within these areas. This will
include locating equipment which may cause sparks outside the danger zone, and
careful choice of mechanical and electrical plant, pipelines etc. within the zone.
Operation of digesters is a complex process, and staff will need to be given full
training and `hands on' experience. This is vital to the efficient operation of the
digestion process (see Section 8).
The WWTW currently removes 60-70% of the effluent BOD. This equates to an
estimated reduction in the total BODtotal downstream of the WWTW of 678
tons/year (Figure D4). The current action of the works decreases the loading by
14,970, which means that the annual average transport of organic material
downstream of Azov City is a predicted 75,000 tonnes/year.
Similarly, it is evident from Figure D5 that although the WWTW does reduce
suspended solids load entering the Don by approximately 15%, the proposed
improvement are unlikely to have an impact on the overall suspended solids
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
139
content in the Lower Don. The annual average transport of suspended solids
downstream of Azov City is predicted to be approximately 2.7 million tonnes/year.
It is therefore envisaged that this component will have no significant impacts on
aquatic ecology; terrestrial ecology; transport infrastructure; tourism and recreation
surface water quality; or sediment quality.
Component 8 CHP
The net result of the CHP is the conversion of methane to carbon dioxide. Carbon
dioxide has a lower negative impact on climate through global warming than
methane. Calculations suggest that a reduction in methane emissions from 14
tonnes/day to 4 tonnes/day and in CO2 equivalent emissions from 389
tonnes/day to 152 tonnes/day can be expected (Table 4.3). This amounts to a 70%
decrease in emission of methane and a 60% decrease in emissions of CO2
equivalent. This represents a major step towards the local control of climate
change. Electricity and heat generated will be used on site, thus significantly
reducing use of electricity generated by the coal fired power plant at
Novocherkassk. Table 6.4 summarises the estimated energy production and
requirements.
Table 6.4
Estimated energy requirements and production before and
after commissioning of the project
Energy
Production
Energy Consumption
(million kWh p.a.)
(million kWh p.a.)
Current situation (1999)
0
28.65
Predicted situation after completion of project
17.87
<66.93*
Net change in energy use at WWTW after
+35.28*
completion of project
* This figure does not take into account energy savings through use of cooling water and exhaust gases. Actual energy
consumption will therefore be much less, although it will depend to a certain extent on the energy requirements of the
digesters.
Source: HALCROW (2000)
Table 6.4 shows that the new facilities will need a significantly higher energy input
than the existing situation. This is mainly due to the high energy demand of the
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
140
digesters and dewatering facilities (as discussed in previous sections). In the
absence of methane use, this energy would be obtained from the Novocherkassk
power station (in the short-term, although it may be replaced by the Volgodonsk
nuclear power station in the longer-term). The significant reduction in the
WWTW's electricity requirements from the grid could therefore be considered to
be an indirect benefit to air quality and climate (in the short-term at least).
Air pollution is known to be associated with respiratory illness (both in the form of
harm to the respiratory system's defence system and to respiratory infections
directly. A reduction in air borne emissions should therefore have a positive
impact on public health.
A reduction in the production of ash is likely to be beneficial to topography, soils
and solid waste disposal, as it is understood that ash is currently disposed of to
land. The use of methane to generate power therefore has a significant positive
impact on both climate and air quality, and may have a minor positive impact on
public health, topography, soils and solid waste disposal.
At present, it is envisaged that there will be no significant impacts on terrestrial
ecology; aquatic ecology; land use, industry and agriculture; fisheries; transport
infrastructure; tourism and recreation; surface water quality and sediment quality.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
141
Overview of Alternative Schemes
,QWURGXFWLRQ
An important part of EIA is the consideration of the alternative schemes from
which the preferred option was chosen. In this case, detailed assessment of options
is not possible because:
· Some of the designs have already been finalised (Components 1-4, 7); and
· Some of the process improvements have yet to be designed or the designs are
not yet complete (Components 5, 6, 8, see Section 4); and
· The interdependency of some of the optional components increases the
complexity of the analyses.
The concept proposed by RVK and the Design Institute for improving the
performance of the treatment process to remove phosphorus and nitrogen is
described in Giprokommunvodokanal (1998). An options analysis was conducted
for the nutrient reduction programme (Halcrow, 2000). These are summarised
below.
2SWLRQV IRU 5HGXFWLRQ RI 1XWULHQW 'LVFKDUJHV
As well as the solution being considered by Vodokanal and the Design Institute,
several other options developed during the review can be considered. Each is
discussed below. The key differences in each stem from:
· The use of chemical methods for P removal; and
· the use of lamella settlers in final tanks.
For each option the approach to be taken to increasing the aeration tank
capacity is common. This involves increasing the capacity from 90,000
m3 to 110,000 m3. This additional volume could beneficially be increased
if space and funds allowed.
The main differences between the options stem from the approach taken
to final settlement and P removal. These are summarised in Table 7.1 and
discussed in the sections below.
Table 7.1
Summary of Options Considered
Option Phosphorus removal
Final settlement
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
142
No.
1a
Biological
Existing final tanks
1b
Chemically assisted
Existing final tanks
2a Biological
Use
of
lamella
settlers
2b
Chemically assisted
Use of lamella settlers
3a
Biological
New final tanks
3b
Chemically assisted
New final tanks
2SWLRQV DQDO\VLV The treatment options are described in detail in the report, and are summarised
here in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of each option (Table 7.2) and
the likely impact of each option on the quality of the final discharge (Table 7.3).
Table 7.3 therefore gives a preliminary assessment of the potential environmental
impact of each different option.
Table 7.2
Advantages and disadvantages of each nutrient removal
option
Option Advantages
Disadvantages
1a
Low capital investment
Poor final effluent quality
1b Low
capital
investment
High chemical costs
Only partial N and P removal achieved due to the under capacity of
final settlement
2a
Good effluent quality with high
High chemical costs
Capital investment required for upgrading final settlement
levels of N and P removal
Limited space required for final
settlement
2b
Limited space required for final
Ammonia in final effluent as N removal is limited by the size of
settlement
the aerobic basin.
Advanced nutrient removal processes require intensive
operational management
Capital investment required for upgrading final settlement
Phosphorus stripping required for sludge treatment liquors
3a
Good effluent quality with high
High chemical costs
Capital investment required for upgrading final settlement
levels of N and P removal
Large space required for final settlement
3b
Ammonia in final effluent as N removal is limited by the size of
the aerobic basin.
Advanced nutrient removal processes require intensive
operational management
Capital investment required for upgrading final settlement
Large space required for final settlement
Phosphorus stripping required for sludge treatment liquors
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
143
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
144
Table 7.3
Assessment of the impact of each option on nutrient removal
Option
Aeration Tanks
Settlement
Estimated Nutrient
Comments
No.
Reduction
1a
Existing
Existing final tanks
60 to 70% BOD removal
·
Existing final tanks under
·
Expand aeration basin
30 to 40% N removal
capacity
10 to 20% P removal
·
High suspended solids expected
in the final effluent.
·
Limited N and P removal
1b
Existing, modified for anoxic pockets for N removal, chemical removal of
Existing final tanks
60 to 70% BOD removal
·
Existing final tanks under
P
40 to 50% N removal
capacity
·
Expand aeration basin
50 to 60% P removal
·
High suspended solids expected
·
Upgrade aeration M&E equipment
in the final effluent.
·
Upgrade RAS return pumps a relocate return point
·
Improved N and P removal but
·
Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering
ammonia expected in the final
effluent
2a
Existing modified for anaerobic and anoxic pockets for P&N removal
Existing, with lamellas
70 to 80% BOD removal
·
Ammonia expected in the final
·
Expand aeration basin
·
Install lamellas with
50 to 60% N removal
effluent
·
Upgrade aeration M&E equipment
plate SA of 85,185m2
40 to 60% P removal
·
Chemical dosing may still be
·
Upgrade RAS return pumps and relocate return point
required to polish phosphorus
·
Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering
·
Allow for phosphorus stripping process in sludge treatment process
2b
Existing modified for anoxic pockets for N removal, chemical removal of P
Existing, with lamellas
80 to 90% BOD removal
·
Improved N and P removal
·
Expand aeration basin
·
Install lamellas with
70 to 80% N removal
·
Upgrade aeration M&E equipment
plate SA of 85,185m2
70 to 80% P removal
·
Upgrade RAS return pumps and relocate return point
·
Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering
·
Install chemical dosing equipment
3a
Existing modified for anaerobic and anoxic pockets for P&N removal
New Final tanks
70 to 80% BOD removal
·
Ammonia expected in the final
·
Expand aeration basin
·
Install 23 x 30m
50 to 60% N removal
effluent
·
Upgrade aeration M&E equipment
diameter conventional
40 to 60% P removal
·
Chemical dosing may still be
·
Upgrade RAS return pumps and relocate return point
circular, radial flow tanks
required to polish phosphorus
·
Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering
·
Upgrade RAS return
·
Allow for phosphorus stripping process in sludge treatment process
arrangement
3b
Existing modified for anoxic pockets for N removal, chemical removal for P
New final tanks
80 to 90% BOD removal
·
Improved N and P removal
·
·
Install 23 x 30m
70 to 80% N removal
Expand aeration basin
·
diameter conventional
70 to 80% P removal
Upgrade aeration M&E equipment
·
circular, radial flow tanks
Upgrade RAS return pumps and relocate return point
·
·
Upgrade RAS return
Upgrade aeration basin civil engineering
·
arrangement
Install chemical dosing equipment
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
145
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
146
Preferred Option
The options analysis (technical, financial and environmental) in Halcrow (2000)
concluded that the preferred option should be:
· Use of chemical dosing for phosphorus removal rather than adopting a
biological phosphorus removal approach (negating need for sludge liquor
treatment if sludge digestion provided), allowing the configuration of aeration
tank capacity for full nitrification / denitrification only;
· Phased extension of a Phase 3 stream to cater for balance of flows up to
design horizon above that can be catered for efficiently through Phase 1 and 2
streams, with provision of adequately sized traditional final settlement tanks
instead of lamellas; and
· Provision of sludge liquor treatment stream, to reduce load on main treatment
process.
From the option review it is clear that improvement of the works is not
straightforward and that none of the options considered by themselves, gives the
optimum solution. However based on the technical review, and taking into
account limits on performance and budget, the preferred solution will be adoption
of either Option 2a or 2b, using lamella settlers, ideally with chemical removal of
phosphorus. None of the other financially and technically feasible options will
provide significantly greater benefit than the preferred option, or have significantly
less environmental impacts.
Since submission of the report, the Design Institute has included chemical
phosphorus stripping in the proposals, which therefore now represent Option 2b.
Extension of the Phase 3 stream and provision of phosphorus stripping on the
sludge liquor treatment scheme is discussed in the Strategic Plan (Halcrow, 2001).
Other proposals
The project as prepared by RVK and the Design Institute includes certain
improvements not required to ensure the targets (discussed in Section 4) for P&N
removal are achieved. These improvements are specifically targeted at BOD and
solids removal (polishing) and pathogen control:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
147
· Relocation of chlorination dosing from the final aeration tanks on Phase 1 to the
head of the recently introduced 6 km long outfall pipeline;
· Rehabilitation of the chlorination plant; and
· Renovation / replacement of site pipelines, and buildings.
These projects are being considered for inclusion in the RVK Strategy Plan.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
148
Environmental Management Plan
,QWURGXFWLRQ
The objective of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is to ensure that the
adverse impacts are mitigated as far as possible, taking account of complementary
institutional strengthening and social aspects. It also recommends how the
mitigation and monitoring should be delivered. The EMP therefore contains:
· An environmental Mitigation plan to address the adverse impacts;
· An environmental Monitoring plan to record the impacts of the project on the
environment and where necessary to take corrective action; and
· Recommendations for training and capacity building.
0LWLJDWLRQ 3ODQ The aim of mitigation is to minimise the negative environmental impacts of the
project. Recommended mitigation measures are described in Section 6, and are
brought together presented here in the form of a plan (Table 8.1). The aim of the
plan is to clearly set out the mitigation tasks and suggested responsibilities for their
implementation. Other bodies which may have responsibilities include the Oblast
Environment Committee, Rostov Municipality and SANEPID. Their
responsibilities are specified in the laws discussed in Section 2.3. The plan also
describes the likely residual impacts, which are the impacts remaining after
implementation of mitigation. Training requirements are discussed in more detail
in Section 8.4. It is not envisaged that the mitigation measures (apart from the
training required) will incur significant extra costs.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
149
Table 8.1
Mitigation Plan
No.
Comp-
Parameter
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Residual
Responsibility
Training
onent
impacts
required
During Construction (C)
C1
All
Air quality;
Minor negative impact due to
Careful site supervision and working
Minor risk Contractor, with
None
Surface
spil age, (oil, diesel etc), careless
practices as specified in construction
site supervision
water
waste disposal or operation of
norms (SNiPs), spil control procedures,
from RVK and
quality
machinery
correct choice of fuel and plant
other bodies as
maintenance.
necessary
C2
All
Solid waste
Minor negative impact from the
Compliance with standard procedures
Minor
Contractor, with
Unknown,
disposal
works due to waste construction
(city ordinances) for construction waste
site supervision
depending on
materials produced
disposal. The construction supervisor
from RVK and
knowledge of
should ensure best practice, through re-
other bodies as
chosen staff
use of construction materials and the
necessary
removal of hazardous wastes for separate
disposal.
C3
All
Health and
Health and safety risks to
Compliance with Russian norms and
Minor
Contractor, with
Unknown,
safety
construction workers and site
Manual on Labour and Construction
RVK and Design depending on
staff during construction
Safety. Risk assessment and briefing of
Institute as
knowledge of
workers before each construction task
appropriate
chosen staff
During Operation (O)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
150
No.
Comp-
Parameter
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Residual
Responsibility
Training
onent
impacts
required
O1
6,7
Air quality
Use of natural gas to fire boiler to Use excess heat from CHP plant cooling
Minor,
RVK
None
supply energy to sludge digesters
waters whenever possible
(not
and centrifuges. Magnitude of
known
impact depends on design of
until
digesters chosen
digester
designs
complete)
O2
6, 7
Energy
Substantially increased energy
This impact is difficult to mitigate, as it is
Increased
RVK
Possibly
consumptio
requirements for sludge digestion
an unavoidable result of process changes
energy
sampling
n
designed at improving other
consumpti
methodology
environmental receptors (especial y air
on
quality). The impact can be mitigated to
compared
some extent through monitoring to
to existing
ensure that the processes are operating at
situation
optimum efficiency, thus minimising
energy consumption (see Section 8.3)
O3
6
Health and
Potential health and safety risk
Areas where explosive mixtures may be
None
RVK
Required
safety
associated with the presence of
present should be identified, and special
an explosive air/gas mixture in
precautions taken within these areas. This
the vicinity of the sludge digesters will include locating equipment which
may cause sparks outside the danger zone,
and careful choice of mechanical and
electrical plant, pipelines etc. within the
zone.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
151
No.
Comp-
Parameter
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Residual
Responsibility
Training
onent
impacts
required
O4
All
Surface
Potential impact due to
Ensure operators are trained and have
None
RVK
Training
water
inexperienced operators
practical experience of operating the new
required (see
quality,
equipment before commissioning
section 8.4)
groundwate
r quality,
energy
consumptio
n
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
152
0RQLWRULQJ 3ODQ
Introduction
A number of requirements for monitoring were identified in Section 6 and in
Table 8.1 above. The recommended monitoring schemes are summarised as a
Monitoring Plan Table 8.2 below. Further detail is given where necessary in
Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3. The aim of the Plan is to ensure that monitoring is
conducted in order to:
· Provide sufficient information so that the success of the project can be measured
in terms of meeting its nutrient and methane reduction objectives;
· Identify inefficiencies and failure to meet the targets, allowing process changes to
be made to rectify the problems;
· Enable any negative impacts of the process changes to be identified so that
process changes may be made where possible;
· Demonstrate the successes/failures of the project to allow replication, with
changes as required, in other WWTW around Russia; and
· Provide improved data on the environmental impact of the Rostov WWTW.
The Plan identifies parameters to be measured, responsibility for conducting the
monitoring and, importantly, what should be done with the data. Without
feedback, monitoring is merely a data collection exercise. It is important that the
data be recorded and analysed on a regular basis in order to detect where process
changes or improvements need to be made, or when failures have occurred. There
are training requirements related to the recommended monitoring requirements are
discussed in Section 8.4 below. Both monitoring and training will incur additional
project costs.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
153
Table 8.2
Monitoring Plan
No.
Item to be
Purpose and scenario
Parameters to be
Method
Feedback / Actions
Responsibility Training /
monitored
where required
measured
required on basis of
Equipment
results
required
During Construction (C)
C1
Groundwater
Only necessary where there
Groundwater level
Borehole dipping
If a negative impact is
RVK under
is likely to be groundwater
discovered during
supervision of
diversion or rising water
construction, take
other bodies as
tables due to construction of
appropriate mitigation
appropriate
buildings/pipelines. To
measures such as
ensure no significant
construction of
negative impact on
diversion channels
groundwater flow or level
C2
General construction
If a negative impact is
Construction
Possible,
monitoring: environment
discovered during
supervisor,
depending on
and health & safety. Role for
construction, take
nominated by
capability of
a Construction Supervisor
appropriate mitigation
RVK
existing staff
measures
During Operation (O)
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
154
No.
Item to be
Purpose and scenario
Parameters to be
Method
Feedback / Actions
Responsibility Training /
monitored
where required
measured
required on basis of
Equipment
results
required
O1
Discharge to
To ensure new process is
Standard water
Standard
Feedback to process to
RVK under
Ensure capability
river
achieving nutrient reduction
quality parameters
laboratory
make changes or
supervision of
and resourcing
targets
(to include
methods influent efficiency
other bodies as
of WWTW
ammonium-
and effluent of the
improvements as
appropriate
laboratories
nitrogen, nitrite,
works plus
necessary
nitrate,
selected points
orthophosphate,
within the process
total phosphate,
suspended solids
and BOD, plus
Escherichia coli as an
indicator of health
risk of effluent)
O2
Water quality
To ensure efficient
See Section 8.3
Expanded
Feedback of results to
RVK
Ensure capability
within works
operation of new process
monitoring
operation of process to
and resourcing
regime, as detailed
allow adjustments
of WWTW
in Section 8.3
where necessary
laboratories
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
155
No.
Item to be
Purpose and scenario
Parameters to be
Method
Feedback / Actions
Responsibility Training /
monitored
where required
measured
required on basis of
Equipment
results
required
O3
Unit power
To ensure optimum
Data collation and
Col ation of data
Implement
RVK
Appropriate
consumption
performance and as an
analysis
on sludge
maintenance. Amend
instrumentation
of digesters
indicator of maintenance
production and
maintenance schedules.
requirements. Power
moisture content;
Review actual sludge
consumption monitoring
centrate return
characteristics with
should be part of good site
flow and power
respect to design
practice for all energy-
consumption
figures and make
intensive equipment
process alterations as
necessary
O4
Sludge quality To monitor changes in
Dried sludge
Moisture content,
Process and operational WWTW/RVK
Ensure capability
sludge quality resulting from
analysis
density, chemical
changes to achieve
and resourcing
new process
composition,
design levels where
of WWTW
pathogen levels
samples show that
laboratories
design levels have not
been achieved
O5
Energy
Ensure optimum methane
Gas rate and
Digester gas
Amend process
WWTW
Hands on
production
production and utilisation
composition
production rate
conditions
operator training
from
monitoring.
and methane
(pH/temperature/dry
of similar
methane
content (from
matter in feed)
digesters and
Electricity
individual
Ensure engine
CHP systems.
generation rate
digesters)
maintenance
Particular
Power production
training in
rate
digester
performance
related to
WWTW influent
characteristics
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
156
Monitoring during Construction
If the recommended site practice and supervision is followed, little monitoring will
be required during construction. It may be appropriate to nominate a Construction
Supervisor to ensure that the required environmental and health and safety
procedures are followed during construction. Groundwater monitoring would only
be required where a problem was identified during construction of a new building,
tank or underground pipeline.
Monitoring during Operation
To facilitate the operation of the new, more complex process, the WWTW
laboratory's monitoring regime will need to be expanded (O2 in Table 8.2). An
expansion to the existing regime is detailed in Table 8.3 below. As discussed in
Section 6.4.3, the sampling of phosphorus levels at the reagent dosing point is
important to ensure that the correct dosing is applied. It is understood that some
sampling already occurs, and although continuous monitoring would be ideal, it is
recommended that sampling should be conducted at least three times per day.
Table 8.3
Proposed Expansion to Sampling Regime within the
works
New parameter to be monitored
Location
Frequency
Total phosphorus
Inlet/Outlet
1/day
Total phosphorus
Phosphate stripping
At least
reagent dosing point
3/day
Soluble ortho phosphate
Inlet/Outlet
1/day
Volatile Fatty Acids
Inlet to aeration lanes
1/week
Alkalinity
Inlet to aeration lanes
1/day
Concentration of suspended solids in Aeration lanes
1/day
aeration lanes
Total iron
Outlet
1/day
pH Aeration
lanes
1/day
Dissolved oxygen
Aeration lanes (each zone) 1/day
Nitrate Outlet
1/day
Ammoniacal Nitrogen
Outlet
1/day
7UDLQLQJ DQG &DSDFLW\ %XLOGLQJ 5HTXLUHPHQWV
Once completed, the success of the new process will be dependent on the
operational skill employed. This will include:
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
157
· Understanding of the new process and all components;
· Training in operational requirements;
· Planned maintenance;
· Safe working conditions e.g. zoning, chemical usage;
· Process monitoring;
· Laboratory upgrading; and
· Computer (IT) equipment.
It is understood that the current sampling and laboratory facilities are insufficient
for the purposes recommended. Laboratory services would need to be expanded to
provide the process the information required for ensuring the optimum operation
of the new system. This could include:
· Routine chemical tests;
· Routine efficiency calculations;
· Gas volume and composition measurements; and
· Instrumental monitoring.
It is understood that the overall budget contains funds for operation and
maintenance. It is recommended that costs for the above be included with the
overall project in order to ensure successful operation of the new equipment and
processes. Projects to upgrade RVK's laboratory services are also under
consideration for the RVK Strategic Plan.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
158
Conclusions
,QWURGXFWLRQ
This section serves to bring together the impacts and plans discussed above, by
way
of
summary.
.H\ (QYLURQPHQWDO (IIHFWV
This environmental impact assessment has shown that completion of the proposed
improvements, depending to a certain extent on the designs chosen, should have
the following environmental improvements:
· An overall 7.6% reduction of inorganic nitrogen loading of the Lower Don
downstream of the Rostov WWTW, and a reduction of 7% in the loading
downstream of the Azov WWTW. The annual average transport of total
inorganic nitrogen downstream of Azov City after the improvements is
predicted to be approximately 10,000 tonnes/year, which is a net reduction of
approximately 900 tonnes/year compared to the existing situation;
· An overall 10% reduction of phosphorus load of the Lower Don downstream
of the WWTW, and a reduction of 6.5% in the loading downstream of the
Azov WWTW. The annual average transport of phosphate downstream of
Azov City after the improvements is predicted to be approximately 3,800
tonnes/year, which is a net reduction of approximately 250 tonnes/year
compared to the existing situation;
· An estimated 70% reduction in emissions of methane and 60% reduction in CO2
equivalent (note: these figures depend to a certain extent on the final design
and residence period chosen for the sludge digesters).
It is proposed that these changes will:
· Cause a steady decline in the levels of concentration of dissolved nitrogen and
phosphorus in the Don river directly downstream of Rostov-on-Don during
the first year;
·Cause an obvious decline in the Don river eutrophication downstream no sooner
than 3 years after the reconstruction;
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
159
·Have a positive impact on surface water quality of the River Don, thus
contributing to reducing the eutrophication of both the river and the Azov
Sea;
·Have subsequent positive impacts on river sediment quality, aquatic ecology,
public health, fisheries, tourism and recreation in the Lower Don and
potentially the Azov Sea and potentially the Black Sea;
·Have a positive impact on groundwater quality through disposal of a lower
volume of sludge to the on-site lagoon in the short term (until a suitable
sludge disposal strategy has been agreed); and
·Have a positive impact on climate and air quality through a reduction in
emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds.
The only major negative environmental effect as the designs currently stand is the
increased energy requirements for the sludge digestion and dewatering processes.
This impact will, however, be offset by the major improvement to climate through
reduction of methane emissions.
5HVLGXDO$GYHUVH ,PSDFWV
If the standard norms and Health & Safety manuals are complied with, it is
envisaged that there will be no major negative impacts during construction. It is
possible, but unlikely, that the construction of new buildings, tanks and pipelines
may disrupt groundwater flow, and monitoring and mitigation is recommended
should this be found to be the case.
If the mitigation and monitoring plans, training and capacity building are
implemented as recommended, no major residual negative impacts envisaged
during operation. Minor residual impacts are likely to be:
· Increased health and safety risk during operation of sludge digesters due to the
potential presence of an explosive air/gas mixture. If the recommended
mitigation measure of zoning and careful choice of machinery is implemented,
this risk will be minor;
· Increased energy consumption for the sludge digestion and dewatering
processes. This impact is considered to be minor because energy will be
supplied through methane use at the CHP plant, representing a comprehensive
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
160
cost saving and a cleaner fuel supply than the low quality coal burnt at the
Novocherkassk power station which is the current source. This impact can be
partially mitigated through monitoring of sludge quality, sludge volume and
energy consumption to ensure that the equipment works to full efficiency; and
· Minor impact on transport infrastructure through necessity for transporting the
reagent for chemical phosphorus removal to the site. This impact will depend
on the reagent chosen and its source. It is recommended that the adjacent
railway be used if possible.
.H\ 0LWLJDWLRQ DQG 0RQLWRULQJ 0HDVXUHV
It is envisaged that with compliance to existing norms and manuals during
construction, no mitigation during construction will be necessary.
The major mitigation measures during operation relate to monitoring and training.
As discussed above, both are important as they serve to minimise the health and
safety risks associated with operation of the new processes, and to optimise the
efficiency at which the processes are operated in order to reduce the use of
resources and to minimise pol ution to air and surface water. In summary, the key
mitigation recommended is:
· Regular monitoring of flow and phosphorus levels to ensure optimum dosing of
phosphorus stripping reagent (at least three times daily);
· Use of CHP exhaust gases and cooling water for energy supply to hot water
system, digesters and centrifuges wherever possible to minimise air quality
impacts of operating a supplementary boiler;
· Regular monitoring of sludge volume, sludge quality and energy consumption at
digestion and dewatering processes to maximise efficiency in order to
minimise energy consumption;
· Implementation of zoning and careful choice of equipment in the vicinity of the
digesters to minimise the health and safety risks associated with the potential
presence of an explosive air/gas mixture; and
· `Hands on' training of operating staff in order to reduce health and safety risks
and maximise efficiency of new processes.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
161
Monitoring measures recommended, other than those discussed with the
mitigation measures, include:
· Regular monitoring of water quality at effluent to ensure that the nutrient
reduction targets are met, and that pollution of the river by toxic substances
does not occur; and
· Increased monitoring of water quality between processes within the works to
maximise the efficiency of processes.
The importance of using the monitoring data to feedback immediately to process
operation is emphasised. There are training and capacity building requirements
associated with the above, which are discussed in Section 8.4.
5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU )XWXUH 6WXGLHV
Introduction
The EIA process has also identified a number of areas of further work
requirements. These include:
· Projects which would improve the environmental performance of the WWTW
in the long term; and
· Studies which would support the decision making and design process for future
investments within the water sector (to be considered by international funding
agencies).
The former are being considered for inclusion within the RVK Strategy Plan
(Halcrow, 2001), which will set the current WWTW proposals into the context of
all other RVK responsibilities and investments.
Development of a Sludge Disposal Strategy
There is a requirement for investigation of the quality (historic, present and future)
of the sludges stored at the WWTW and appraisal of options for long term
disposal. Options might, depending on the chemical/biological quality of the
sludge, include landfill, incineration, use as a compost/soil conditioner on
agricultural, recreational or other land. A Scope of Work for development of a
Strategy for disposal of historic, present and future sludge is being developed as
part of the RVK Strategy Plan.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
162
Chemical stripping of return liquors from sludge treatment
Sludge liquors arising from the proposed sludge process, wil be potentially
particular high in phosphorus and would therefore benefit from separate treatment
prior to discharge back to the main process (see Halcrow 2000 for more detailed
discussion). This would help to ensure that the phosphorus reduction target is
achieved. It would also help limit the return of any phosphorus removed
biologically, released back to the liquors during the sludge processing cycle under
anaerobic conditions found in digesters and dewatering. This can be as high as 100
mg/l of phosphorus. It will also help limit the formation of struvite (MgNH4PO4)
crystals in the liquor pipelines that can cause blockages.
Notwithstanding this, it wil be necessary to consider if returning volatile fatty
acids, generated through the fermentation processes, could be beneficial in
increasing biological P removal if this is retained. For this purpose the liquors from
the sludge thickening process, given the short retention times (particularly if
mechanical methods are adopted) may be beneficial and should, if possible, be
kept separate.
Energy consumption audit
The WWTW is one of the major energy consumers of the RVK system, and
energy costs overall are very high. An overall energy consumption audit is being
considered as part of the RVK Strategy Plan. A specific audit of energy
consumption after WWTW plant changes is recommended here, as decreased
consumption could be rated as an environmental benefit and increased
consumption may suggest the requirement for mitigation measures, for example
the equivalent of improved emission controls of power stations to eliminate
increased emissions of SOX and NOX. This may also be integrated into the on site
electricity generation programme as an environmental driver. The incorporation of
energy management systems, controls and other energy efficiency measures,
particularly electronic variable speed controls of large pumps for energy savings,
use of off peak rates, and reduction in peak load charges (to be phased in with the
on site generation) are also recommended.
Audit of WWTW chlorination programme
Chlorination is used to protect the river in order to comply with MACs aimed at
eliminating harmful organisms remaining after treatment. There are, however,
environmental concerns over this process as it may lead to the formation of
harmful by-products such as organochlorides. For this reason, post-treatment
chlorination is generally not practiced in Europe, except in exceptional
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
163
circumstances. It is therefore recommended that a study be conducted in order to
ascertain whether chlorination is necessary after the improvements at the works.
Don Delta and Sea of Azov Biodiversity Studies (non-RVK)
There is a notable lack of documentation relating to the current status and
historic/ongoing decline of biodiversity in the Don Delta and the Sea of Azov.
Appropriate investigations (at least at the desk-study level) are required to address
this to allow assessment of the need for water quality improvement in the rivers
entering the area and of the benefits of this.
Given that similar European deltas have been recognised as being internationally
important wetlands through Ramsar designation it is recommended that the Don
Delta is assessed against these criteria to give an appropriate context to its
importance.
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
164
Doc 1, Rev 1, Aug-01
D:\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\E8520v30rev0Rostov0WWTW0EIA0Final.doc
165