Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; eutrophication segment, point sources

Transcription

1 Effective July 1, 2011, this publication is handled by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. Telephone +46 (0) Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; eutrophication segment, point sources Results from the RusNIP project REPORT 6368 MARCH 2010

2 Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; eutrophication segment, point sources Results from the RusNIP project Swedish Environmental Protection Agency International Projects Section Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation Department for International Co-operation SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

3 Order Phone: + 46 (0) Fax: + 46 (0) natur@cm.se Address: CM gruppen AB, Box , SE Bromma, Sweden Internet: The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Phone: + 46 (0) , Fax: + 46 (0) registrator@naturvardsverket.se Address: Naturvårdsverket, SE Stockholm, Sweden Internet: ISBN ISSN Naturvårdsverket 2010 Print: CM Gruppen AB Cover photo: Sea WiFS Project, NASA/Goddard

4 3

5 4

6 Contents FOREWORD 3 Acronyms 6 Summary 7 Introduction 9 Background 9 Measures to reduce euthrophication 10 The Russian Federation s obligation 11 Current load and results of proposed measures 11 Reduce emissions from wastewater treatment plants 13 Gulf of Finland 13 Baltic proper 14 Reduce nutrient inputs from industry 16 The forest products industry 16 The chemical and metal industries 17 The Economics of nutrient load reduction 17 Finding the cost effective measures 17 Finding the optimal policy instrument 19 Financing required investments 20 Cost recovery of financial and environmental costs at Russian Sewage treatment plants 20 Financial and environmental costs 20 Recovery of financial costs 20 Recovery of environmental costs 21 Conclusion 21 Economic and financial analysis 21 Economic analysis 22 Financial analysis 22 Annexes Annex 1 List of Plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal, Leningrad Oblast priorities and Kaliningrad Oblast 23 Annex 2 Report on sewage treatment plants 25 Annex 3 List of all investigated plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal, Leningrad Oblast priorities and Kaliningrad Oblast including estimated costs 79 Annex 4 Report on industries 85 Annex 5 Economic and financial analysis 115 5

7 Acronyms BSAP BaltHazAR EU GIS HELCOM NIP PLC 5 WWTP Baltic Sea Action Plan (HELCOM action plan for the Baltic Proper, the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Riga Baltic Hazardous waste and Agricultural releases Reduction European Union Geographic Information System Helsinki Commission (cooperation body of the Baltic Sea states for the Helsinki Convention) National Implementation Plan Pollution Load Compilation No. 5 (The fifth compilation of the load of pollutants on the Baltic Sea) Sewage waste water treatment plants 6

8 Summary The Ministers of the Environment from the Baltic Sea Countries and the High Representative of the European Commission in November 2007, within the framework of HELCOM, adopted the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) concerning the Baltic Proper, the Gulf of Riga and the Gulf of Finland. The goal of the action plan is to achieve good environmental status by The action plan consists of around 150 different activities in four main segments and another four sections. The main segments cover eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity and nature conservation including fisheries, and maritime activities. The other four sections concern development of assessment tools and methodologies, awareness raising and capacity building, financing and implementation and revision of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. According to the plan the Baltic Sea Countries are to develop national programmes and submit them for HELCOM assessment at a HELCOM ministerial meeting in May For euthrophication, measures are to be implemented by 2016 at the latest, with the exception of certain measures in the wastewater sector where other timetables are established in adopted recommendations. The present document is a report from a joint co-operation project between Sweden and the Russian Federation Capacity for Compliance with Baltic Sea Action Plan named RusNIP. The greatest challenge in BSAP is to reduce nutrient inputs. Under the preliminary burden sharing, the Russian Federation is to reduce its nitrogen inputs by 6,970 tonnes and its phosphorus inputs by 2,500 tonnes, based mainly on discharge figures for year The principal sources of nitrogen and phosphorus inputs are municipal wastewater treatment plants and agriculture. The industry sector, mainly the forest products industry, the chemical industry, the metal industry, singlehousehold sewage systems and forestry also contribute. Specific measures regarding euthrophication caused by discharges from major point sources are, as far as possible, discussed in this plan. Municipal waste water treatment plants (sized for more than 10,000 inhabitants) and waste water treatment in the forest, chemical and metal industry are discussed and measures to improve waste water treatment are proposed. The agricultural pollution is dealt within the EU BaltHazAR agri project managed by Project Implementation Unit, PIU established in the HELCOM secretariat aiming at improvements in manure management. The ongoing and proposed measures presented below for waste water treatment plants signify a reduction in inputs of approximately 7,200 tonnes of nitrogen and around 2,000 tonnes of phosphorus to Gulf of Finland and 1,700 tons of nitrogen and 360 tons of phosphorus to Baltic Proper. The Russian BSAP preliminary obligations for the Gulf of Finland, 4,145 tonnes of nitrogen and 1,661 tonnes of phosphorus, will be met by the on-going measures within SUE St. Petersburg Vodokanal. Nevertheless, there 7

9 are a number of plants in urgent need of either upgrading and reconstruction especially within Leningrad Oblast to meet the HELCOM Recommendations for municipal waste water treatment agreed in the BSAP. Five treatment plants located near the coastline of Gulf of Finland have been proposed as priority plants based on their potential for nutrient reductions. Those are; Kingisepp 100,000 people, Sosnovy Bor 70,000 people, Vyborg 100,000 people, Gatchina 100,000 people, and Sertolovo 70,000 people. Regarding the Baltic Proper actions in Kaliningrad oblast are needed in order to fulfil the Russian BSAP preliminary obligations, 2,821 tonnes of nitrogen and 724 tonnes of phosphorous These obligations will not be met by the proposed measures. Further actions are accordingly needed in smaller tows and/or within the agricultural sector. This has to be further investigated by Russian Federation as soon as possible. The following plants are proposed as priority plants; Kaliningrad 475,000 people, Zaostrovje 40,000 people, Chernjahovsk 42,000 people, and Gvardejsk 15,000 people. The priority measures in point sources are in the municipal waste water treatment sector as the measures within the industrial sector would give only minor reductions, In addition Russia contributes to transboundary loads. Thus, Russia has to reduce the phosphorus load to the Gulf of Riga with 114 tons by upgrading waste water treatment to meet HELCOM recommendations and other measures in Russia, which covers 1/3 of the river Daugava drainage basin. This is based on the information available regarding the size of the population living in this area at the time for the Krakow meeting. Within this project it has not been possible to identify the sources and what measures to be taken. This issue has to be further elaborated by Russia within the HELCOM work by the ministerial meeting in Due to high retention of phosphorous (ca 70%) and nitrogen (ca 30%) in Lake Ladoga and Lake Pepsi, the sources upstream of these lakes have not been proposed as priority. The measures in these would not be cost-effective in reducing pollution to the Baltic Sea. Information concerning some sewage treatment plants and industries upstream of Lake Ladoga is, however, given. Since the load will vary between years, a way to describe the loads reduction requirements is to show maximum allowable inputs for each country and basin. For Russia the maximum allowable inputs are for nitrogen 84,420 tonnes and for phosphorus 4,183 tonnes. The HELCOM expert workshop of June 2009 pointed out that the current allocation model for the country-wise nutrient reductions is in some cases based on uncertain figures for treatment levels of eg the sewage treatment plants and an update to that information would be needed since a lot of changes and improvements in waste water treatment have taken place. The maximum allowable inputs and burden sharing are under discussion within HELCOM and will be reviewed for the 2013 Ministerial Meeting.

10 Introduction Background The ministers of the environment of the countries around the Baltic Sea decided on 15 November 2007 on a joint action programme, the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). The plan consists of four main segments and other four sections. The main segments are concerned with eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity including fisheries and maritime issues (shipping, accidents, emergency services etc.). The other four segments deal with the development of assessment tools and methodologies, awareness raising and capacity building, financing and implementation/review of the plan. Under the plan, the countries accepted the description of the environmental status of the Gulf of Finland, the Gulf of Riga and the Baltic Proper and a number of formulated environmental objectives. With regard to euthrophication, a provisional distribution has been agreed for how much emissions to the various basins from each country are to be reduced by the burden sharing. The measures in the eutrophication segment are to be implemented by 2016 with some exemptions for sewage treatment plants. According to the BSAP all member countries shall have their respective National Implementation Plans (BSAP-NIP) ready before May 2010 for discussion and decisions by a ministerial meeting in May 2010 in Moscow. In order to promote the elaboration of the Russian BSAP-NIP, Sweden and Russia have included a joint co-operation project for strengthening the prerequisites this work in the bilateral Work Programme for Overall Objectives for this Project are: a) To contribute, mainly concerning euthrophication, to the implementation of BSAP and its goal to achieve good environmental status in the Baltic Sea by 2021, b) To strengthen the capacity of Russian authorities to meet the requirements of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the most effective way. Project Objective: To have Proposals for the National Implementation Plan for the Russian part of BSAP elaborated with regard to the nutrient reduction requirements and to propose institutional conditions necessary for the implementation of the NIP. Since this project, named RusNIP, was initiated an EU project (BaltHazAR) has been launched concerning pollution of the Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland by hazardous substances and nutrients. The eutrophication part deals with pollution from big animal farms especially concerning manure heaps. Due to that the RusNIP project is concentrated on point sources (municipal and industrial). Other measures such as discharges from single houses and phosphorous free detergents have not been elaborated. There is a close coordination between the work within RusNIP and BaltHazAR. The results and findings from the Russian/Finish project PRIMER have also been carefully used. The PRIMER project is focused on the catchment area the Gulf of Finland. 9

11 Measures to reduce euthrophication The greatest challenge in BSAP is to reduce the nutrient load. The principal sources of nitrogen and phosphorus load are inputs from wastewater treatment plants, the industry sector mainly the forest products industry, the chemical industry, the metal industry and agriculture. Private sewage systems and forestry also contribute to a small extent. The Russian Federation is to reduce its nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the Baltic Proper and the Gulf of Finland, while a further reduction to the Gulf of Riga only is required under the burden sharing for phosphorus. The burden sharing between the countries will be adjusted through the HELCOM activity which is in progress in the work of PLC 5 (Pollution Load Compilation). The agricultural sector is dealt with by the EU BaltHazAR agri project concerning changes in manure management. In this project wastewater treatment plants and further treatment in the pulp and paper industry and some chemical and metal industries are discussed and measures within the waste water treatment sector are proposed. The ongoing and proposed measures result in the reduction of inputs of approximately 9,000 tonnes of nitrogen and around 2,400 tonnes of phosphorus. Since the loads will vary between years, a way to describe the requirements of antropogenic load reduction is to show maximum allowable inputs for each country and basin. These numbers can be calculated from the data on loads, minus antropogenic loads reductions requirements as used in the Krakow agreement. For Russia a total load 2006 are for nitrogen 68,536 tonnes and for phosphorus 5,348 tonnes and the maximum allowable inputs are for nitrogen 84,420 tonnes and for phosphorus 4,183 tonnes. This means that no further actions are needed for nitrogen, but for phosphorus. This approach is discussed within HELCOM. In addition to these reductions, Russia contributes to transboundary loads. Thus, Russia has to reduce the phosphorus load to the Gulf of Riga with 114 tons by upgrading sewage treatment to HELCOM recommendations in installations within the Russian part which covers 1/3 of the Daugava drainage basin. This is based on the information available concerning the population living in this area at the time for the Krakow meeting. During the work with this project it has not been possible to find out which the sources can be and what measures should be taken. This issue has to be further elaborated by Russia within the HELCOM work. Due to high retention of phosphorous (ca 70%) and nitrogen (ca 30%) in Lake Ladoga and Lake Pepsi all sources upstream these lakes have not been dealt with due to that measures in these areas are not cost-effective from BSAP point of view. Information concerning some sewage treatment plants and industries upstream of Lake Ladoga is although given. 10

12 The Russian Federation s obligation The BSAP plan contains a partially new approach for eutrophication. Based on what inputs the Baltic Sea can tolerate in order to attain environmental objectives previously decided upon by HELCOM, including visibility depth and nutrient levels, burden sharing has been decided upon for the countries reduction of nutrient load (phosphorus and nitrogen). The figures are preliminary and will be adjusted based, among other things, on data from the work within PLC 5. According to the preliminary burden sharing, the Russian Federation is to reduce its nitrogen inputs by 6,970 tonnes and its phosphorus inputs by 2,500 tonnes. In the BSAP agreement, as signed in Krakow November 2007, total load reductions for each country and to each sub basin of the Baltic were given. However, the load reductions requirement of each country to each sub basin were not shown and are only given in the background document that are not easily accessible from the HELCOM web site. This document was distributed at the RusNIP meeting in September 2009 in Helsinki. The reduction requirements for Russia are: the Gulf of Finland of 4,145 tonnes of nitrogen out of a total load of 78,792 tonnes and of 1,661 tonnes of phosphorus out of a total load of 5,302 tonnes, the Gulf of Riga of 114 tonnes of phosphorus, the Baltic Proper of 2,821 tonnes of nitrogen out of a total load of 10,594 tonnes and of 724 tonnes of phosphorus out of a total load of 1,266 tonnes. These reductions are needed in order to reach a good environmental status in the sea, from those loads that occurred, as an average for the period Current load and results of proposed measures Table 1. Gulf of Finland Nitrogen (tonnes/year Phosphorous (tonnes/year) Obligation according to preliminary 4,145 1,661 burden sharing Average load BSAP figures 78,792 5,302 Proposed measures industry downstream of Lake Ladoga * Proposed measures (including ongoing measures) within 7,224 2,015 priority municipal waste water treatment plants downstream of Lake Ladoga * Remaining need for action ** + 3, * Mainly based on year 2000 discharge figures. ** The reduction is bigger than the BSAP obligations. *** The reduction is less than the BSAP obligations. 11

13 Table 2. Baltic Proper Nitrogen (tonnes/year Phosphorous (tonnes/year) Obligation according to preliminary burden sharing 2, Average load BSAP figures 10,594 1,266 Proposed measures industry * 0 0 Proposed measures municipal waste water 1, treatment plants * Remaining need for action *** 1, * Mainly based on year 2000 discharge figures. ** The reduction is bigger than the BSAP obligations. *** The reduction is less than the BSAP obligations. The consequence of table 1 and 2 is that the current actions, especially within St. Petersburg City sewage treatment plants, the BSAP obligations according to preliminary burden sharing are fulfilled for the Gulf of Finland but there are still further actions than proposed to be taken within Kaliningrad oblast in order to fulfil these obligations for the Baltic Proper. There are nevertheless a number of plants in urgent need of either improvement or reconstruction especially within Leningrad Oblast, due to either sanitation or local/regional environmental reasons. Five treatment plants near the coastline of Gulf of Finland have been selected as priority plants due to these reasons. In addition to these reductions, Russia contributes to transboundary loads. Thus, Russia has to reduce the phosphorus load to the Gulf of Riga with 114 tons by upgrading sewage treatment to HELCOM recommendation figures in installations within the Russian part which covers 1/3 of the Daugava drainage basin. This is based on the information available concerning the population living in this area at the time for the Krakow meeting. During the work with this project it has not been possible to find out what the sources can be and what measures should be taken. This issue has to be further elaborated by Russian Federation within the HELCOM work until the ministerial meeting Due to high retention of phosphorous (ca 70%) and nitrogen (ca 30%) in Lake Ladoga and Lake Pepsi all sources upstream these lakes have not been dealt with due to that measures in these areas are not cost-effective from BSAP point of view. Information concerning some sewage treatment plants and industries upstream of Lake Ladoga is given. Since the loads will vary between years, a way to describe the loads reduction requirements is to show maximum allowable inputs for each country and basin. This approach is discussed within HELCOM. For Russia total load 2006 and maximum allowable inputs are: 12

14 Table 3. Maximum allowable input to Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper Gulf of Finland Baltic Proper Total load 2006 Max. allowable input Remaining need for action Proposed actions after 2006 including ongoing measures within the sewage treatment sector. Measures within the industry sector are not included Ton N Ton P Ton N Ton P Ton N Ton P Ton N Ton P 62,397 4,461 76,647 3, No actions 1,120 needed 6, , No actions 278 needed Reduce emissions from wastewater treatment plants In Russia sewage treatment plants are the main point sources for nutrient discharges, annexes 1, 2, 3. In this project we have investigated cost-effective measure to fulfil the BSAP obligations according to preliminary burden sharing. In order to reduce nutrient inputs to the sea from the built environment, the countries have agreed, according to recommendations adopted in BSAP, to take measures at the wastewater treatment plants (more than 100,000 p.e., 10, ,000 p.e., 2,000 10,000 p.e., 300 2,200 p.e.) and on how wastewater in rural areas and small settlements is to be dealt with. Gulf of Finland Why? Powerful measures for phosphorus and nitrogen treatment in sewage treatment plants which receive wastewater from 10,000 or more population equivalents (pe) downstream of Lake Ladoga and Lake Pepsi are in most cases most cost-effective. Actions within priority sewage treatment plants selected due to their location near the coastline of Gulf of Finland are proposed even though measures in these plants not are needed to fulfil the BSAP obligations according to preliminary burden sharing but due to sanitarian and regional/local environment point of view. Information concerning some plants upstream of Lake Ladoga is given in Annex 2. How? In the case of phosphorus and nitrogen, measures are ongoing and further measures are proposed in priority waste water treatment plants downstream of Lake Ladoga and Lake Pepsi with discharges to the Gulf of Finland. This applies for 5 cities and St. Petersburg Vodokanal in the Leningrad Oblast. 13

15 The conditions and assumptions for the proposals have been the following: Assessment of potential amounts of BOD 5, phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) are based on the specific pollution rates defined as person equivalent (pe): BOD 5, 60 g/ pe/d; P, 2.5 g/ pe/d and N, 12 g/ pe/d. In some cases other specific pollution figures are known. Then these figures are used. This is indicated in the description of each plant below. In order to simplify the calculations the following assumptions are made: Unless reliable information on the plant status is given it is assumed that a new facility will be built for wastewater treatment; For plants located upstream either lake Ladoga or lake Pepsi it has been assumed that the retentions of Phosphorus and Nitrogen are 70 and 30% respectively. A potential to reduce discharges by new or/and upgrading the waste water treatment exist. The measures can reduce the discharges of phosphorus with 2,015 tonnes, whereof 1,768 tonnes from St. Petersburg Vodokanal wastewater treatment plants, and nitrogen with 7,223 tons whereof 6,246 tonnes from St. Petersburg Vodokanal wastewater treatment plants. Quite many measures are already taken in St. Petersburg waste water treatment plants after year Who? The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, the Neva-Ladoga Water Basin Authority and the municipalities Timetable As soon as possible, but no later than 2016 for most of the plants. Benefit Expansion of the treatment plants taken, under way and proposed for phosphorus and nitrogen treatment so that they meet the requirements of the HELCOM recommendations from the ministerial Krakow meeting means a reduction in inputs to the Gulf of Finland of around 2,000 tonnes of phosphorus and 7,200 of nitrogen. The obligations according to preliminary burden sharing in the BSAP are already fulfilled but there are a number of plants in urgent need of either improvement or reconstruction due to either sanitation and local/regional environmental reasons. Baltic proper Why? Powerful measures for phosphorus and nitrogen treatment in sewage treatment plants (WWTPs) which receive wastewater from 10,000 or more population equivalents (pe) are in most cases cost-effective. Anyhow this is 14

16 not enough to reach the Russian BSAP obligations according to preliminary burden sharing. Further actions are needed in smaller tows and/or within the agricultural sector. This has to be further investigated by Russian Federation as soon as possible. How? A potential to reduce discharges by new or and upgrading the waste water treatment plants exist. The conditions and assumptions for the proposals have been the following: Assessment of potential amounts of BOD 5, phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) are based on the specific pollution rates defined as person equivalent (pe): BOD 5, 60 g/ pe/d; P, 2.5 g/ pe/d and N, 12 g/ pe/d. In some cases other specific pollution figures are known. Then these figures are used. This is indicated in the description of each plant below. In order to simplify the calculations the following assumptions are made: Unless reliable information on the plant status is given it is assumed that a new facility will be built for wastewater treatment; In the case of phosphorus and nitrogen, further measures are proposed in four waste water treatment plants. The measures can reduce the discharges of phosphorus with 361 tonnes, whereof 280 tonnes from Kaliningrad WWTP and nitrogen with 1,696 tons, whereof 1,358 tonnes from Kaliningrad WWTP. Who? The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, the Neva-Ladoga Water Basin Authority and the municipalities. Timetable As soon as possible, but no later than 2016 for most plants. Benefit Expansion of the treatment plants proposed for phosphorus and nitrogen treatment so that they meet the requirements of the HELCOM recommendations from the ministerial Krakow meeting means a reduction in inputs to the Baltic Proper of around 1,700 tons of nitrogen and 360 tonnes of phosphorus. Further actions are needed for phosphorus and nitrogen removal within Kaliningrad Oblast to obtain the BSAP obligation according to preliminary burden sharing, which mean that actions also are needed in smaller cities and within the agricultural sector. No more actions are needed for nitrogen removal according to the maximum allowable inputs. 15

17 Reduce nutrient inputs from industry The industry sector is not a dominant source for nutrient load, annex 4. The forest products industry Why? Inputs from the forest-product industry within the decided catchment area of the Gulf of Finland downstream of Lake Ladoga are around 58 tonnes of nitrogen and 14 tonnes of phosphorus. Two plants upstream of Ladoga have been investigated and the inputs are around tonnes of nitrogen (without retention) and 45 tonnes of phosphorus (without retention) to the Gulf of Finland. The estimated inputs from the forest-product industry within the catchment area of the Baltic Proper are around 6 tonnes of nitrogen (2008) and tonnes of phosphorus. This assumes that the existing two pulp and paper mills in Kaliningrad have closed down their sulphite pulp production. How? Most of the pulp mills are rather small and old. The only reasonable way to reduce the discharges would for the old small mills be a radical renovation and modernization. For the small old mills a change in production pattern towards paper production could be reasonable combined with better treatment of the waste water. It is roughly estimated that a reduction is possible for phosphorus with 7 10 tonnes for the plants situated downstream of Lake Ladoga to the Gulf of Finland. The two plants upstream of Lake Ladoga a reduction is possible with around tonnes of phosphorus (without retention) to the Gulf of Finland. Reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus to the Baltic Proper are not significant. With the adopted discharge figures upstream and downstream Lake Ladoga the following analysis of the incremental impact of treatment facilities and retention factor are presented: Table 4. Potential reduction of nutrient from forest-product industry Location Initial amounts Reduction Retention To Gulf of Finland ton N/year ton P/year ton N/year ton P/year ton N/year ton P/year ton N/year ton P/year Upstream Ladoga Downstream Ladoga Baltic Proper Who? The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, the forest-products industry. 16

18 The chemical and metal industries Why? There are two chemical industries which are producing base chemicals, petrochemicals and fertilizers which lie within the decided catchment area of Gulf of Finland. Two chemical industries and one chemical and metal industry upstream of Lake Ladoga have been investigated. The inputs are around tonnes of nitrogen and 21 tonnes of phosphorus from the industries downstream of Lake Ladoga and 600 tonnes of nitrogen (without retention) and 160 tonnes of phosphorus (without retention) upstream of Lake Ladoga. How? A potential to reduce discharges by internal measures and wastewater treatment exist. The measures within the industries situated downstream of Lake Ladoga could reduce the discharges of phosphorus by 10 tonnes a year and a potential for nitrogen with tonnes yearly and upstream of Lake Ladoga with a potential of 400 tonnes of nitrogen (without retention) and 100 tonnes of phosphorus (without retention). With the adopted discharge figures upstream and downstream Lake Ladoga the following analysis of the incremental impact of treatment facilities and retention factor are presented: Table 5. Potential reduction of nutrients from chemical and metal industries Location Upstream Ladoga Downstream Ladoga Initial amounts Reduction Retention To Gulf of Finland ton N/year ton P/year ton N/year ton P/year ton N/year ton P/year ton N/year ton P/year ~600 ~160 ~ ~40 11 Who? The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, the chemical and metal industries. The Economics of nutrient load reduction Finding the cost effective measures The cost-effective measures are those measures that reach the target at lowest socio-economic cost to the society. In order to determine what are cost effective and not cost effective measures a formulated target is therefore needed, which we have from the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). Thereafter the cost of all possible measures towards the target has to be estimated, not only costs at waste water treatment plants and industry. Figure 1 below illustrates the meaning of cost-effectiveness. Costs are reflected in the y-axis while reduction 17

19 in nitrogen or phosphorus is given in the x-axis. The marginal cost curve in the figure indicates that for low reduction targets relatively cheap measures can be implemented, but as the reduction target increases more and more expansive measures have to be implemented in order to reach the target. Since the target is expressed as a certain load to the recipient, being either the Gulf of Finland, the Gulf of Riga or the Baltic proper, the marginal cost curve describes the cost of reducing an additional unit of load to the recipient of concern and not the cost at source. To obtain a marginal abatement cost curve one need to know each measures: socio-economic cost, capacity, effect on target. Cost Marginal cost Cost effective measures Not cost effective measures Target Figure 1. Determining cost-effective measures. Load reduction kg nutrient The socio-economic cost is the opportunity cost of all the resources, such as capital, labour, land etc., required to get the abatement measure implemented. The market price of a resource can in most cases be used as a good proxy for the opportunity cost of the same. However, transfers of money (taxes, subsidies, fees, grants) are merely a reallocation of resources and should not be included as a socioeconomic cost. The uncertainty related to the obtained estimate as well as any positive or negative synergies effects of the measure is also information that might be included in the analysis. In order to determine the cost to the recipient the cost at source needs to be divided by the proportion of the discharge that actually reaches the recipient of concern. In order to do this the retention of nutrients between source and the recipient of concern need to be determined. However, in this context it will be enough to obtain the marginal cost at source in order to do a ranking, especially due to the large degree of uncertainties regarding these costs as well as the retention data. Due to the limited time and problem with obtaining all the necessary data regarding the reduction potential and cost of different measures it was not possible to do a complete cost-effectiveness analysis with regard to point sources. Due to this, a number of assumptions and generalisations had to be made in order to obtain some kind of clue regarding what measures that would be cost-effective. 18

20 According the decisions taken at the WG 1,WG 2 and WG 3 meetings measures taken at industrial sources was considered to be not cost-effective in reaching the BSAP targets neither was measures taken by waste water treatment plants upstream Lake Ladoga and Lake Pepsi due to their high retention level (70% P, 30 40% N) to the final recipients of concern. That is, they are considered to be to the right of the target in Figure 1. Annex 3 gives the estimated costs per kg N and P reduced for each plant and thereby information regarding which abatement measures are cost effective for a certain target. However, in order to reach over all cost-effectiveness these abatement costs have to be compared to the cost of abatement measures within other sectors than waste water treatment plants as well. Finding the optimal policy instrument Having identified the cost effective measures for reaching the target, the next step will be to determine the optimal policy instrument in order to get those measures implemented. Dealing with point sources make the search for an efficient policy instrument a little bit easier compared to instruments towards non-point sources. Setting a price on the pollution, by a tax, fee, tradable permit, has proven to be the most cost-effective policy instruments that also generates the largest incentives for technological improvements. Figure 2 below illustrates the cost-effectiveness of a price signal. Suppose that a tax or fee is implemented so that each kg reaching the recipient is taxed at the level depicted in the picture. All measures with a marginal cost below the tax will be implemented since the cost of reduction is less than the tax/fee. In that way all cost-effective measures left of the target in Figure 2 is implemented while all measures to the right of the target, which are not cost effective will not be implemented since it is cheaper for the plants to pay the tax/fee. However, since it is the load to the recipient that is the target such a price must differ with different retention rates in order to be cost-efficient at the recipient, i.e. it will be uniform at the recipient. Any geographically uniform price will only be cost-effective at source and not to the recipient. Cost Marginal cost Tax/ Fee Cost effective measures Not cost effective measures Target Figure 2. The cost-effectiveness of a price signal. Load reduction kg nutrient 19

21 However, what is a theoretical optimal policy instrument might not always be politically feasible to implement due to existing policies, distributional effects etc. In Russia, there seems to already exist policy instruments, in the forms of water tariffs, that has the potential to generate the cost effective measures required. However, there seems to have been some barriers preventing them from generating any significant reduction of nutrient discharges. Financing required investments The total cost of meeting the target by cost effective measures are illustrated by the area under the marginal cost curve left of the target, denoted A in figure 3 below. This area consists of fixed incremental cost as well as running costs (i.e. operation and maintenance costs). Since abatement measures at waste water treatment plants are characterised by great investment costs and lower running costs, some kind of external financing (e.g. loans, funds) might be required initially. Operational and maintenance costs, however, must be financed by either public sources or users tariffs/fees. And in the case of loans, also the repayments of these needs to be financed over time. Some kind of tariff or fee are therefore necessary in the long run in order to ensure full cost recovery of these costs. Cost recovery of financial and environmental costs at Russian Sewage treatment plants Financial and environmental costs The operation of sewage treatment plants generates financial as well as environmental costs. Financial are defined as those costs necessary to construct, manage and maintain a sewage treatment plant. The deprecation of capital must be considered a financial cost since money must be set a side towards investments needed in the future Discharges of environmentally harmful substances into the water by these plants generate environmental costs, in terms of the value of the environmental degradation caused. Full cost recovery implies that the financial and environmental costs of this water use is fully reflected in the price paid by the and that the fees reflecting the financial costs shall go to the municipalities as owners of the plants. In order to assess the level of cost recovery, one has to know the total production and environmental costs and the way these costs are paid for by the different users of the water service through existing pricing and financing mechanisms. Recovery of financial costs It seems like it is hard for Russian sewage treatment plants to maintain the performance and standard of their sewage treatment plants. The revenue from collected fees is not sufficient to meet the required reinvestments in order to maintain the services of the plant, with regard to water supply to households as well as discharge abatement. This implies that financial costs are not fully 20

22 recovered by the water fees, since fully recovered financial costs would give enough financial revenue from the water fees for needed investments. Due to this, the depreciation of capital leads to reduced quality of the water supply performance well as reduced nutrient abatement capacity. Recovery of environmental costs In order to have full recovery of environmental costs, the damage costs of discharges must be internalised into the water fee paid by the consumers. As mentioned, some kind of evaluation of these damages is necessary in order to determine to correct charge. While there exists a possibility to charge the water consumers in Russia for the environmental damage caused by their consumption, the revenues from these charges cannot be used to reinvest in the plant but must go towards federal funds for environmental purposes. Since the plants do not cover their financial costs, necessary investments for operation and sewage treatment cannot be done. This might lead to even higher environmental costs since discharges are likely to increase due to decreased phosphorous and nitrogen abatement capacity and possible leakage from old and unmaintained pipes. Conclusion The lack of full financial cost recovery of Russian sewage treatment plants appears to be a more serious problem than their lack of environmental cost recovery. Since the performance of the plant decreases over time, financial as well as environmental costs that are not covered by the water charges tends to increase. If financial costs were fully covered by the charges initially, required investments for maintaining the performance could have been made, which would have avoided the degradation of the plants and avoided further increased discharges. Introducing charges that better cover the financial costs of a sewage treatment plant might therefore be a better policy instrument towards reducing nutrient discharges than only focusing on fees targeted towards covering environmental costs. Full recovery of financial costs would make it possible for the plants to do the necessary reinvestments in capital so that the performance of the plant is maintained. It would also reduce the dependency of financing from external investors. Economic and financial analysis The objective of annex 5 is to make a crib on how to present investment projects for different financiers. The document goes through in a pedagogical way, point by point, how to carry out economic and financial analyses which rank different investment options. 21

23 The analyses which are presented are Least Cost analysis and Cost-effective analysis. Some assumptions and information must be present in order to perform the analyses. Economic analysis In the economical analysis the document explains three methods for ranking investments projects: Net present value method Internal Rate of Return method Equivalent annual cost method Financial analysis In the financial analysis there are some criteria s which must be fulfilled in order to ask for external financing through loans. Among other things a feasibility study must be performed. There is a discussion about how the low degree of cost-recovery in Russian sewage treatment plants involve risks for external financiers. For the financiers it is also important that there exists a good analysis of the company/municipality which will operate the sewage treatment plant and be responsible for the investment. The document advocates that the majority of the investments in Russian sewage treatment plants shall be through national/municipal budgets due to: Big external loans means a financial burden for the Russian economy. Waste water treatment services only gives revenues in local currency. International financing institutions give loan in foreign currency and rubels. Finally the document goes through what information that is absolutely needed in a financial analysis in the feasibility study. The document presents and explains different conceptions and gives examples of how an investment and financial plan could look like. 22

24 Annex 1 Plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal, Leningrad Oblast priorities and Kaliningrad Oblast Plants within Without measures ton P/year St. Petersburg Vodokanal St. Petersburg City Reduced amount ton P/year Operation and and maintain cost rubel/kg P Without measures ton N/year Reduced amount ton N/year Operation and maintain cost rubel/kg N Comments South West ,300 2,100 In operation after 2000 North ,818 2, Improvement underway Central , Improvement underway Kolpino , Improvement underway Petrodvorets , Improvement underway Metallostroy , Improvement underway 1,768 6,246 23

25 Plants within Without measures ton P/year Leningrad Oblast Reduced amount ton P/year Operation and and maintain cost rubel/kg P Without measures ton N/year Reduced amount ton N/year Operation and maintain cost rubel/kg N Comments Gatchina , Improvement planned Vyborg , Feasibility study ready Sosnoviy Bor Improvement planned Kingisepp , Sertolovo , Improvement planned Kaliningrad oblast Kaliningrad city ,732 1,916 1, Improvement underway Zaostrovje (OKOS) 36,5 33 1, Chernjahovsk , Gvardejsk , ,696 24

26 Annex 2 Appropriate technologies for municipal wastewater treatment plants Pre-treatment Primary sedimentation Anaerobic reactor Anoxic reactor Aerobic reactor Final sedimentation Primary sludge to treatment Sludge re-aeration Waste activated sludge to treatment UCT PROCESS FOR ENHANCED BIOLOGICAL P AND N REMOVAL Stig Morling SWECO Environment AB Christian Nilsson SWECO Environment AB Veronika Tarbaeva Deputy of Head of Neva-Ladoga Water Basin Administration Vorobyeva Ekaterina SPb PO Ecology and Business BALTHAZAR project manager 25

27 Contents Annex 2 Summary 28 1 Background 30 2 Basic considerations for technical analysis 31 3 Technical options Biological nutrient removal by the UCT process Biological nutrient removal by the Oxidation Ditch process Biological nutrient removal by the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) process 38 4 Outlines of plant selections 40 5 Major plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal Plants sized > 100,000 and down to 50,000 pe 42 6 Outlines of plant selections within Leningrad Oblast Plants sized > 50,000 pe Plants sized > 30,000 pe to <50,000 pe Plants sized < 30,000 pe 56 7 Outlines of plant selections within Kaliningrad Oblast Plants sized > 50,000 pe Plants sized > 30,000 pe to <50,000 pe Plants sized < 30,000 pe 64 8 Summary on potential impact of modern WWTP:s within the area 66 9 Indicative investment and operation costs for new or upgraded WWTP:s within the areas included in the study St. Petersburg Vodokanal Sosnoviy Bor Investment costs Kingisepp WWTP 60,000 pe Investment costs Operating costs Kaliningrad WWTP Chernjahovsk WWTP 42,000 ep Investment costs Operating costs Gvardejsk WWTP 15,000 pe Investment costs Operating costs 75 26

28 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Map over Leningrad Oblast with the presented towns located 30 Figure 3-1. Simplified flow scheme of an UCT-process for biological nutrient removal 35 Figure 3-2. Typical lay out of a modern Oxidation Ditch system: 37 Figure 3-3. Illustration of a SBR-cycle. 38 Figure 3-4. The Ölmanäs SBR plant in Kungsbacka on the Swedish West coast, sized for 15,000 pe 39 Figure 6-1. Schematic lay-out of the Kingisepp WWTP for biological and chemical nutrient removal 51 Figure 7-1. Map of Kaliningrad Oblast, from Preparatory Work on Kaliningrad Waste Water Sector Action Programme 61 Figure 7-2. Simplified lay-out for the Chernyakhovsk WWTP, Kaliningrad Oblast 63 Figure 7-3. Schematic lay-out for the Gvardejsk WWTP for advanced N and P removal 65 27

29 Summary The municipal wastewater sector in Leningrad and Kaliningrad regions are analysed in light of the new agreement Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). The task adopted by the Russian side includes a reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus in accordance with the agreed levels in the Cracow meeting The given reductions are related to the discharge figures in year The agreed reduction of nitrogen inputs is 6,970 tonnes per year and its phosphorus inputs is 2,500 tonnes. A number of actions to improve the municipal discharges in Leningrad Oblast are already underway, especially within St. Petersburg. By improving the situation in St. Petersburg the Gulf of Finland will be unloaded substantially. Another aspect in this study is the retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in Lake Ladoga and Lake Pepsi. The anticipated retention levels for nitrogen and phosphorus are assumed to be 30 and 70% respectively. Based on these considerations and the fact that the major discharges from St. Petersburg are either already handled (South West WWTP), or underway for improvements (Central and North WWTP:s). The focus on needed improvement in this area are defined from other aspects than the BSAP obligations. Already decided improvements within St. Petersburg Vodokanal are based on a number of motives. The important matter in the BSAP perspective is that the requiements will be met, and thus contribute to the P and N remnoval impacts in the Gulf of Finland Improved sanitation and or regional/local improvement for plants larger than 10,000 of the water environment have been the decisive factors to select the following plants as suitable for priority projects based on treatment plants (sized for more than 10,000 inhabitants) located near the coast line of Gulf of Finland : Kingisepp WWTP: It is aimed to serve 60,000 inhabitants. The potential efficiency with respect to N and P reduction will be 184 tons N/year and 49 tons P/year. The indicated investment needs for a new WWTP is around 640 M Rubel, and an annual cost of 75.2 M Rubel. Sosnoviy Bor WWTP: It is aimed to serve 75,000 inhabitants. The potential efficiency with respect to N and P reduction will be 199 tons N/year and 22 tons P/year. Chemical precipitation is already arranged, but actions for nitrogen removal are to be fulfilled. The indicated investment needs for a new WWTP is around 210 M Rubel, and an annual cost of 47 M Rubel. Vyborg WWTP: It is aimed to serve 100,000 inhabitants. The potential efficiency with respect to N and P reduction will be 285 tons N/year and 71 tons P/year. A feasibility study has been performed, and a new WWTP is underway. This plant will however serve only around 35% of the population and meet the stipultated standards for nitrogen but not for phosphorus. According to the recent study this limited improvement will call for an investment of around 400 MRubel. The indicated investment needs for a new WWTP, covering the total needs in Vyborg is around 1,006 M Rubel, and an annual cost of 114 M Rubel. 28

30 Gatchina WWTP: It is aimed to serve 100,000 inhabitants. The potential efficiency with respect to N and P reduction will be 166 tons N/year and 47 tons P/year. A feasibility study has been performed, and an upgrade for improved treatment is underway. The indicated investment needs for a new WWTP is around 1,300 M Rubel, and an annual cost of 135 M Rubel. Sertolovo WWTP is located north of St. Petersburg, within Leningrad Oblast. The city hosts aroung 70,000 inhabitants. No detailed cific data have been delivered regarding the status of the present plant. It is assumed that a new plant following the HELCOM recommendations will provide potential reduction of phosphorus with 57 tons/year and around 215 tonnes of nitrogen. In the Kaliningrad Oblast the following plants are defined as priority projects within the BSAP perspective. This covers all sewage treatment plants with a size more than 10,000 inhabitants. Kaliningrad WWTP: It is aimed to serve around 475,000 inhabitants. The potential efficiency with respect to N and P reduction will be 1,358 tons N/ year and 280 tons P/year. The indicated investment needs for a new WWTP is around 3,120 M Rubel, and an annual cost of 341 M Rubel. Decisions on financing have been taken, and work is underway for implementation of the upgrade. Zaostrovje (OKOS): It is aimed to serve 40,000 inhabitants. The potential efficiency with respect to N and P reduction will be 140 tons N/year and 33 tons P/year. The indicated investment needs for a new WWTP is around 532 M Rubel, and an annual cost of 61 M Rubel. Chernjahovsk WWTP: It is aimed to serve 42,000 inhabitants. The potential efficiency with respect to N and P reduction will be 145 tons N/year and 35 tons P/year. The indicated investment needs for a new WWTP is around 545 M Rubel, and an annual cost of 63 M Rubel. Gvardejsk WWTP: It is aimed to serve 15,000 inhabitants. The potential efficiency with respect to N and P reduction will be 53 tons N/year and 13 tons P/year. The indicated investment needs for a new WWTP is around 173 M Rubel, and an annual cost of 21 M Rubel. 29

31 1 Background The following tentative technical presentation of relevant treatment methods for a number of treatment plants within St. Petersburg area (operated by St. Petersburg Oblast), Leningrad Oblast and Kaliningrad Oblast are based on a number of basic assumptions of pollution amounts and concentrations especially defined as nitrogen and discharges from anthropogenic origin. In all have 32 different plants been considered. The locations of the different towns and cities in St. Petersburg area and Leningrad Oblast are found in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1. Map over Leningrad Oblast with the presented towns located. As found in the following presentation are not all towns included in the different lists. The selection of the towns included has been made by the Russian side. The basis for inclusion in the list has been the size of the towns. Towns with less than 10,000 inhabitants are excluded. 30

32 2 Basic considerations for technical analysis A number of points are given to identify whether a specific treatment plant is to be included in a priority list: 1. First of all it should be underlined that a more precise definition of hot spots is used in the following. In the following the sensitive discharge point will be labelled priority projects, and be defined by the impact with respect to nitrogen and phosphorus discharges to the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper. A large number of treatment plants are in a way covered by the HELCOM recommendations included in a general priority project list, covering the Gulf of Finland and the Kaliningrad area (Baltic Proper). On the other hand are a number of these plants already under upgrade or rehabilitation with the objective to reach the Helcom standards in the recommendations. A number of plants remain that will suit the criteria for BSAP priority projects. These are identified in the following and presented as suitable objects for a project list with reference to the RusNIP project. 2. Plant size is a second criteria: Plants with less than 10,000 person equivalents (pe) are to be excluded, plants with a size between 10,001 and 100,000 person equivalents will have one effluent standard level defined below and plants with a size > 100,000 will have the most stringent standards; 3. Discharge criteria according to the HELCOM recommendations taken by the environmental ministers in Cracow 2007 are given as follows Table 2-1; Table 2-1: Summary of effluent demands in relation to the Cracow agreement: Plant size > 10,000 < 100,000 pe > 100,000 pe N removal rate > 70% > 80% N discharge level < 15 ppm < 10 ppm P removal rate > 90% > 90% P discharge level < 0.5 ppm < 0.5 ppm These demands have been used in the following as follows: Two different criteria are given for the nutrient effluents: Either a maximum permissible level, for instance < 0.5 mg P/l, or a minimum percentage removal > 90% P-removal. As a consequence it is assumed that both criteria must be satisfied. This in turn means that if the inlet concentration is very dilute, for instance for P = 4 mg/l the 90% removal results in a discharge level of 0.4 mg P/l 31

33 4. Assessment of potential amounts of BOD 5, phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) are based on the following assumptions regarding specific pollution rates defined as person equivalent (pe): BOD 5 = 60 g/ pe/d; P = 2.5 g/ pe/d; N = 12 g/pe/d. In some cases other specific pollution figures are known. Then these figures are used. This is indicated in the description of each plant below. 5. For the plants in the following analysis the given design population has been presented by the Russian side. The chosen design horizon for the presented plants is in all cases year 2015, unless other information is given. In this context it should be observed that some of the currently presented studies, ie for a number of plants within Leningrad Oblast, only presents the current population and outlines more limited treatment objectives. For the sake of simplicity this document uses the design population for year 2015, as presented from the Russian side. Furthermore the calculation of a possible positive impact of nitrogen and phosphorus removal is based on the assumptions presented above. This in turn means that the potential contribution of plant upgrades presented in this document may in some cases be higher than found in other studies, presenting similar treatment objectives. 6. In order to simplify the calculations the following assumptions are made: Unless reliable information on the plant status is given it is assumed that a new facility will be built for wastewater treatment; For plants located upstream either lake Ladoga or lake Pepsi it has been assumed that the retentions of Phosphorus and Nitrogen are 70 and 30% respectively. 7. Generally speaking are the assumed pollution concentrations in the incoming wastewater low. Normally this would be attributed to poor conditions in the sewer system (substantial leakage of ground water and storm water into the sewers). This in turn may limit the number of feasible technical alternatives to be addressed in this study. In a future work within the catchment areas for the different plants the question of sewer system rehabilitation must be addressed and evaluated. 8. The by far dominating treatment concept in the Russian Federation is mechanical treatment with primary sedimentation + a conventional activated sludge step. The list identifies even when other biological treatment methods are used normally trickling filters (or biological filters); 9. A classical treatment for municipal wastewater as used in the Russian Federation would result in the following removal efficiencies of nutrients, provided that no chemical precipitation takes place, or special anoxic or anaerobic reactors are included: 32

34 N removal 25 30% of incoming amounts; P removal 20 30% of incoming amounts 10. In the following some basic assumptions regarding the needs for upgraded treatment plants have been made. The needs for new technical solutions are apparent, but they will all be based on well-known technologies, with a worldwide acceptance. Thus the outlines are based on different updated activated sludge models. The classic activated sludge model is by far the dominating treatment model within Leningrad and Kaliningrad Oblast. For the plants within St. Petersburg area somewhat different conditions are apparent: Some of the plants have already been upgraded, such as the large South Western WWTP, or actions are underway such as in the cases of the Central WWTP and the North, WWTP. Together these three plans are serving virtually the whole St. Petersburg. According to St. Petersburg Vodokanal, all plants within the jurisdiction are to be built or are already in compliance with the Helcom recommendations. The plants are presented in chapter 5. At this very preliminary stage, and in the light of the substantial needs for upgrade of the plants, it is foreseen that in most cases entirely new plants are replacing the old ones. At a later stage, when technical-financial feasibility studies are done it is relevant to scrutinize whether parts of the existing plants may be used also in the future. The presented calculations of investment needs are strictly limited to the WWTP:s. No costs for upgrading or extensions of the sewer systems have been addressed. 11. Ten different plants will be discussed more in detail: The main Kaliningrad WWTP, sized for around 475,000 pe. The North plant in St. Petersburg, sized for around 2,000,000 pe. The Central plant in St. Petersburg, sized for 2,000,000 pe. The South West plant in St. Petersburg, sized for 700,000 pe. The Sosnoviy Bor WWTP operated with chemical precipitation and sized for around 66,000 pe. The Kingisepp WWTP, sized for around 60,000 pe. The Sertolovo WWTP with a potential connection of around 70,000 pe. Zaostrovje (OKOS): It is aimed to serve 40,000 inhabitants. The Chernyakhovsk WWTP, sized for around 40,000 pe. The Gvardejsk WWTP, sized for around 15,000 pe. 12. The following basic documents have been used for this report: Explanatory Note to the Hotspot list of Saint-Petersburg, Leningrad and Kaliningrad Regions; October NEFCO, Preparatory Work on Kaliningrad Waste Water Sector Action Programme; Kaliningrad Waste Water Investments Phase II (KWWIP II) Consolidated Summary Plan for the 20 Project Towns, August 2008, prepared by Cowi Consultants, Denmark. 33

35 NEFCO, Preparatory Work on Kaliningrad Waste Water Sector Action Programme; Kaliningrad Waste Water Investments Phase II (KWWIP II), Addendum No.1 Environmental Assessment of Priority Projects, February 2009, prepared by Cowi consultants, Denmark. Russian Federation, Government of the Kaliningrad Region, Resolution January 30, 2009 No 46. List of WWTPs in the Russian Federation, for the Leningrad, Kaliningrad and Pskov Oblasts (as for , reported to HELCOM in October 2007). Business Plan, Municipality Unitary Enterprise Vodokanal of Sosnovyi Bor, dated Leningrad Oblast Environmental Investment Program, Second Phase, Programme Implementation Plan, Participating Cities: Mga, Tosno,Volosovo, Vyborg, Gatchina, Thihkvin, Saint Petersburg XXXXXXXX 2010 Draft version. 34

36 3 Technical options In the following three different models of enhanced nutrient removing activated sludge models are presented and discussed. As the Russian experience to a very large extent is based on activated sludge we have chosen to limit the following presentation to this concept. According to the present knowledge the untreated wastewater would be characterised as diluted. The most likely reason for the wastewater dilution is referred to a very bad technical standard of the sewer system. This in turn will limit the possible and feasible treatment methods. It is also likely that the percentage requirements, rather than the effluent concentrations will become the main criteria for the plant design. 3.1 Biological nutrient removal by the UCT process One of the most acknowledged continuously working activated sludge processes aimed for biological nutrient removal based on activated sludge process is labelled the University Cape Town process in the following UCT process. The process is already accepted for the North St. Petersburg plant. A simplified process scheme is shown in Figure 3-1. Pre-treatment Primary sedimentation Anaerobic reactor Anoxic reactor Aerobic reactor Final sedimentation Primary sludge to treatment Sludge re-aeration Waste activated sludge to treatment UCT PROCESS FOR ENHANCED BIOLOGICAL P AND N REMOVAL Figure 3-1. Simplified flow scheme of an UCT-process for biological nutrient removal. Typical characterisation of the process is summarized as follows: 35

37 The system is developed from the activated sludge process and contains a number of biological reactors arranged in a continuously working treatment chain: From a conventional pre-treatment the wastewater will pass into a primary sedimentation. In the case of the Russian plants the primary sedimentation may be excluded, due to the diluted wastewater. The wastewater enters an anaerobic reactor where the wastewater is mixed with a denitrified sludge stream from the outlet end of the downstream anoxic reactor. This anaerobic reactor has multipurpose functions: 1. To release phosphorus from the activated sludge in the anaerobic environment the bacteria will use volatile fatty acids as the energy source rather than phosphates. 2. To operate as a sludge selector by suppressing filamentous bacteria growth. 3. The hydraulic retention time is normally short in the range 0.5 to 1.0 hours at design flow conditions. The mixed liquor (wastewater and return activated sludge) then passes into an anoxic reactor where the water is mixed with nitrified sludge from the final sedimentation and from the outlet of the aerobic reactor. The anoxic reactor will reduce the nitrates into nitrogen gas biologically by the work of heterotrophic bacteria (denitrification). It is essential that this reactor is kept at low or zero dissolved oxygen levels, in order to make the denitrification as efficient as possible. Finally the mixed liquor passes into the aerobic reactor, where remaining organics are oxidised and synthesized by the activated slugged. At the same time the ammonia nitrogen is oxidised into nitrates. The mixed liquor passes into the final sedimentation tanks. The settled activated sludge is recycled into the anoxic reactor, or to a sludge re-aeration basin. The sludge re-aeration basin may be used as an intermittently aerated tank controlled by the dissolved oxygen level in the reactor. The biological reactor system is normally designed for a means solids residence time (SRT) of 12 to 20 days, related to the prevailing water temperatures. For the plants within the Leningrad Oblast it is more than likely that the higher SRT would be used for design, as the water temperature would be found in the range 7 12 oc during winter and spring conditions. This treatment scheme is likely well suited for the large plants in the region, such as Kaliningrad and Vyborg. 36

38 3.2 Biological nutrient removal by the Oxidation Ditch process The following main characteristics define the Oxidation Ditch configuration from the hydraulic, process and construction viewpoints. A modern variant, but basically the same system is sometimes labelled Carousel System. The Oxidation Ditch belongs principally to the family of low-loaded activated sludge systems, often labelled extended aeration. The Ditch is constructed like a horse track, with long straight sections and steep half circular curves. The cross section was initially a typical trapezoid. In modern systems the cross section is rectangular, and the reactor depth has increased from 1.5 m to 5 6 m. The operation of the Ditch is typically an integrated, totally mixed system where aerated and anoxic conditions take place in one single reactor. The reactor is equipped with both mixers and bottom aeration devices. In modern plants a separate anaerobic reactor is located upstream the main Oxidation Ditch system. Return activated sludge from the final sedimentation tank is introduced into the main Oxidation Ditch reactor. The Oxidation Ditch is arranged in such a way that the horse track includes both anoxic and aerobic parts. From the anoxic section of the Ditch a limited stream of mixed liquor is pumped back to the anaerobic reactor. The discharge of the mixed liquor from the Ditch passes into a final sedimentation tank, as shown in Figure 3-2. The Oxidation Ditch would preferably be designed and operated without a primary sedimentation, and the system is designed for an built in aerobic stabilisation in the main aerobic/anoxic reactor. The design SRT is consequently chosen in the range days. AIR 4 3 BOD R AIR INFLUENT CLARIFIER EFFLUENT BOD R NO 3 N RAS N Figure 3-2. Typical lay out of a modern Oxidation Ditch system. The Oxidation Ditch system may be found suitable for mid sized plants, such as Chernyakhovsk or Kingisepp WWTP:s. 37

39 3.3 Biological nutrient removal by the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) process Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) is as a matter of fact the original activated sludge configuration, developed in England in the second decade of the last century. The disappearance and rebirth of the SBR is a long story that will not be presented here. In this context it is relevant and sufficient to state that the SBR technology is widely spread today, not the least as a system for biological nutrient removal. The process is based on altering the process in a single reactor. A modern process configuration is presented in Figure 3-3. Decant Fill + mixing Settle SBR cycle Fill + aerate Mixing Figure 3-3. Illustration of a SBR-cycle. Aerate The SBR system has been used extensively during the last three decades for treatment industrial and municipal wastewater, especially when biological nutrient removal is a demand. A large number of small and medium sized plants have been built in North America, in Europe, Japan and in Australia. As an illustration a photo of a Swedish plant is shown in Figure

40 Figure 3-4. The Ölmanäs SBR plant in Kungsbacka on the Swedish West coast, sized for 15,000 pe. The SBR model may be characterised as follows: The SBR belongs principally to the family of low-loaded activated sludge systems, often labelled extended aeration. The SBR configuration may be circular, rectangular or squared. The reactor depth is chosen in the range 5 8 m. The operation of the SBR is typically an integrated, plug flow system where aerated, anoxic and anaerobic conditions take place in one single reactor. The reactor is equipped with mixers and bottom aeration devices, as well as a decant system for treated wastewater and devices for sludge with drawl. The SBR would preferably be designed and operated without a primary sedimentation, and the system is designed for an built in aerobic stabilisation in the main aerobic/anoxic reactor. The design SRT is consequently chosen in the range days. For the Kaliningrad and/or Leningrad Oblast the SBR may be further analysed for the smaller and medium sized plants, such as Gvardejsk in Kaliningrad Oblast. 39

41 4 Outlines of plant selections In all ten different plants within the two areas have been selected as suitable illustrations of environmental impacts and cost effects by upgrading or new construction of nutrient removal capacities. The selected plants are described in Table 4-1. The basis for the selection of these plants is the following: a. The location of the plants is sensitive with respect to the BSAP. b. The incremental is either important, or the plant technical status is in a bad situation, such as the Kingisepp plant. c. The different plant sizes provide a typical illustration of possible technologies and costs, also useful for other plants. The illustration is focusing on the plants where an new green-field plant is deemed appropriate. These plants are presented in a separate Table, labelled Indication of investments, operation costs and specific costs for nutrient removal. The South WWTP in St. Petersburg that represents one of the major discharge points of treated wastewater. In year 2000 no treatment was implemented at the site, however, in year 2009 the discharge from around 640,000 pe satisfies the discharge levels stipulated in both HELCOM Recommendations. The Central WWTP in St. Petersburg that represents another of the major discharge points of treated wastewater. The plant has been in operation even before year It will be upgraded, mainly by trimming the process, to meet HELCOM Recommendations within the target time, well before The North WWTP in St. Petersburg that represents one of the major discharge points of treated wastewater. The plant will be upgraded to meet HELCOM Recommendations within the target time, well before Sertolovo WWTP with a design size for around 70,000 pe, where improvements are planned to meet HELCOM Recommendations. For the Vyborg WWTP in Leningrad Oblast a Feasibility study has been performed. In this presentation it is anticipated that a new WWTP will be built sized and designed to meet the HELCOM Recommendations. The plant will be sized for around 40,000 pe. However, there are needs for additional investments to meet satisfy the potential removal capacity, as the estimated population in 2015 is stated to be around 100,000 inhabitants. The Sosnoviy Bor plant is underway for an improved treatment, including inter alia chemical precipitation. As the P-removal is already installed, the additional removal of nutrients will mainly be the positive impact is based on nitrogen removal. The Kingisepp plant is since long time seen as a plant in need of upgrade or replacement. It also represents a plant of a rather typical size among those found as suitable priority plant. 40

42 The Kaliningrad WWTP upgrade has been studied in detail and comprehensive information is available. Decisions on financing have been taken, and procurement of a new plant is underway. This plant also represents one of the large facilities within the Baltic Proper and has been seen as one of the vital priority plant to handle. Three different plants in Kaliningrad Oblast that represent a critical current situation with virtually no efficient treatment; Zaostrovje OKOS, Chernyakhovsk and Gvardejsk. These plants are summarised in Table 4-1. Table 4-1. Plants selected for a closer analysis of environmental impact and cost efficiency WWTP Design Population (pe) Design flow m 3 /d Design P load, Concentration Design N load, Concentration Design BOD 5 load, Concentration North WWTP, 2,000,000 1,000,000 5,000 26, ,000 St. Petersburg 5 g/m g/m g/m 3 Central WWTP, 2,000,000 1,100,000 5,000 26, ,000 St. Petersburg 4.5 g/m g/m g/m 3 Sertolovo 70,000 42, ,200 WWTP: 4.2 g/m 3 20 g/m g/m 3 Sosnoviy Bor 78,000 38, ,860 5 g/m 3 25 g/m g/m 3 Gatchina 100,000 60, ,200 6, g/m 3 20 g/m g/m 3 Vyborg 100,000 57, ,200 6, g/m 3 21 g/m g/m 3 Kingisepp 60,000 30, ,600 5 g/m 3 24 g/m g/m 3 Kaliningrad 475, ,000 1,190 5,700 28,500 8 g/m 3 38 g/m g/m 3 Zaostrovje 40,000 24, ,400 OKOS 4.2 g/m 3 20 g/m g/m 3 Chernyakhovsk 42,000 25, , g/m 3 20 g/m g/m 3 Gvardejsk 15,000 6, g/m 3 30 g/m g/m 3 41

43 5 Major plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal 5.1 Plants sized > 100,000 and down to 50,000 pe In the following it is assumed that the UCT-process includes a primary sedimentation stage, as well as a separate anaerobic digestion of the mixed primary-and waste activated sludge from the UCT-process. This model is as a matter of fact already used or in a planning stage for the three major WWTP:s within St. Petersburg, the South West plant, the Central plant and the North plant. Of these two plants the South West WWTP has been in operation for some years and complying with the BSAP requirements; see further below in Table 5-1. The North plant is underway to be upgraded. The conceptual design phase has been done, and the final design work is underway. The design data and the expected impact of the upgraded treatment plant are shown in Table 5-2. For the other large plants different stages of fulfilment are found. The Oxidation Ditch on the other hand is assumed to have no primary sedimentation and no separate anaerobic digestion for sludge stabilization. The aerobic reactors are large enough to provide sufficient sludge stabilization. In Table 5-1 are basic data for the largest plants and a preliminary volume estimate for a new plant at each case have been presented. Table 5-1: Major plants within St. Petersburg jurisdiction, and actual or tentative treatment volumes MWWTP Plant size pe Design water volume, m 3 /d Option UCTprocess Indicated volume Option Oxidation Ditch Indicated volume South West 700, , ,000 n.a. WWTP Central WWTP 2,000,000 1,100,000 Trimming of the plant is going on North WWTP 2,000,000 1,000,000 Design n.a. underway Kolpino 120,000 30,000 Design underway Petrodvorets 65,000 Metallostroy 65,000 Comments on South West WWTP: South West WWTP is located within St. Petersburg Vodokanal jurisdiction and serves southern and western parts of St. Petersburg. In year 2000 no treatment at all took place at the site, thus untreated wastewater was discharged from around 650,000 person equivalents. The inlet concentration of phosphours is around 4.7 mg P/l and the nitrogen concentration around 42

44 27 mg N/l. The given data in Table 5-1 are based on technical studies from The contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the South West WWTP results in the following balance, using the ödesign values for year 2015; see Table 5-2. An indication of the removed nitrogen and phosphorus amounts by 2006 has been estimated and based on information derived from Vodokanal in St. Petersburg. The current pollution loads are close to the adopted design values and the plant is now operated at around 90% of its nominal capacity. Table 5-2: Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at South West WWTP in St. Petersburg South West WWTP Inlet amounts, Year 2000 Discharge amounts Phosphorus 1, Nitrogen 9,040 4,000 2,100 Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: The South West WWTP is already fulfilling the Helcom Standards, even with a margin. Thus this plant contributes already to the task undertaken by the Russian side with respect to nitrogen and phosphorus removal into the Gulf of Finland. In this context it would be mentioned that the South West WWTP was not in operation in year 2000; the actual contribution to the load reduction is as shown in Table 5-2. Comments on Central WWTP: Central WWTP is located within St. Petersburg Vodokanal jurisdiction and serves the central parts of St. Petersburg. The given data in Table 5-3 are based on the conditions in year 2000, and the anticipated situation in The main actions at the plant to arrange an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Central WWTP includes mainly trimming actions. These actions anticipated to result in the following balance; see Table 5-3: Table 5-3 Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Central WWTP in St. Petersburg Central WWTP Inlet amounts, Year 2000 Discharge amounts, year 2000 Phosphorus 5,000 1, Nitrogen 2,400 12, Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: The Central WWTP is included in the St. Petersburg Vodokanal project for upgrading of the wastewater treatment facilities. The upgrade will result in a compliance with the Baltic Sea Action Plan requirements for the discharges by Thus even if the contribution to the improvement is substantial, it is not recommended as a special priority project within the RusNIP project scheme due to that measures are already decided and ongoing. 43

45 Comments on North WWTP: North WWTP is located within St. Petersburg Vodokanal jurisdiction and serves central and northern parts of St. Petersburg. The plant capacity will increase by different investments the next few years. The decided capacity for the plant, will be 2 00,000 pe, and a corresponding design flow of 1,000,000 m 3 /d. By adding areas to the sewer system wastewater currently not treated will be treated in the future. The current daily flow into the plant is around 600,000 m 3 /d. The P discharge level is around 1.5 mg P/l. The given data in Table 5-4 are based on technical studies from The contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the North WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table 5-4. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). Table 5-4 : Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at North WWTP, St. Petersburg: North WWTP Inlet amounts, year 2000, Flow 1,000,000 m 3 /d Current discharge, Flow 600,000 m 3 /d Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus 2, Nitrogen 26,000 12,000 3,650 2,800 Conclusion: The North WWTP is by all means a hot spot case within the work on protecting the Gulf of Finland, but the necessary decisions regarding financing and technology have already been taken. Thus the plant will not be recommended for the special priority project list to be included in additional plants for upgrade. Comments on Kolpino WWTP: Kolpino is located within St. Petersburg Vodokanal jurisdiction and is by and by becoming a part of the greater St. Petersburg area. Actions for upgrade of the plant are already underway, inter alia including installations of new aeration devices in the aeration basins and pilot tests with chemical precipitation have been performed already in The given data in Table 5-1 are tentative with respect to connected population and design flows. It should be underlined that the current influent level is about 110,000 m 3 /d. The treated wastewater is discharged into the river Isgora (Neva). The potential contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Kolpino WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table 5-5. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). 44

46 Table 5-5: Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Kolpino MWWTP Kolpino Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus Nitrogen 1,440 1, Conclusion: The Kolpino WWTP is an in all respects a priority project case within the work on protecting the Gulf of Finland. However, the necessary decisions regarding financing and technology have already been taken for an upgrade of the Kolpino plant by St. Petersburg Vodokanal. Thus the plant will not be recommended for the special priority project list to be included in additional plants for upgrade. Comments on Petrodvorets WWTP: Petrodvorets is located within St. Petersburg Vodokanal jurisdiction and is by and by becoming a part of the greater St. Petersburg area. Limited actions for upgrade of the plant are already underway. The given data in Table 5-1 are tentative with respect to connected population and design flows. The potential contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Petrodvorets WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table 5-6. According to available statistical data the effluent levels of nitrogen and phosphorus are rather close to the Helcom Standards. The St. Petersburg Vodokanal has included the Petrodvorets WWTP in the tasks list on plant upgrades. In this respect it seems likely that the reduction of nutrients at this plant will contribute to the Russian undertaking according to preliminary burden sharing for Gulf of Finald. Table 5-6: Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Petrodvorets MWWTP Petrodvorets Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: The Petrodvorets WWTP is not included in the special priority project list for the RusNIP project, as a decision is already taken by St. Petersburg Vodokanal to meet the HELCOM recommendations. Comments on Metallostroy WWTP: Metallostroy is located within St. Petersburg Vodokanal jurisdiction and is by and by becoming a part of the greater St. Petersburg area. Limited actions for upgrade of the plant are already underway. The given data in Table 5-1 are tentative with respect to connected population and design flows. The potential contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Metallostroy WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table 5-7. According to the available informa- 45

47 tion the Metallostroy WWTP has recently been analysed with respect to configuration and capacity. A complete overhaul of equipment has been done. Currently studies on chemical phosphorus elimination from treated wastewater are carried out. As the plant is within the St. Petersburg Vodokanal decision on upgrading of wastewater treatment it is not recommended to the special hot spot list for the RusNIP project. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). Table 5-7: Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Metallostroy MWWTP Metallostroy Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: The Metallostroy WWTP is not included in the special priority project list for the RusNIP project, as a decision is already taken by St. Petersburg Vodokanal to meet HELCOM recommendations.. 46

48 6 Outlines of plant selections within Leningrad Oblast 6.1 Plants sized > 50,000 pe In the following it is assumed that the UCT-process includes a primary sedimentation stage, as well as a separate anaerobic digestion of the mixed primary-and waste activated sludge from the UCT-process. The Oxidation Ditch on the other hand is assumed to have no primary sedimentation and no separate anaerobic digestion for sludge stabilization. The aerobic reactors are large enough to provide sufficient sludge stabilization. In Table 6-1 are basic data for the largest plants and a preliminary volume estimate for a new plant at each case have been presented. Table 6-1. Major plants within Leningrad Oblast, and tentative treatment volumes MWWTP Plant size pe Design water volume, m 3 /d Option UCTprocess Indicated volume Option Oxidation Ditch Indicated volume Gatchina 100,000 60,000 39,863 37,903 Vyborg 100,000 57,000 38,613 37,070 Sertolovo 70,000 42,000 27,904 26,532 Tikhvin 70,000 64,000 37,071 32,644 Sosnoviy Bor 65,000 38,000 25,494 24,359 Kingisepp 60,000 30,000 21,418 21,075 Kirishi 60,000 30,000 21,418 21,075 Volkhov 50,000 26,000 18,265 17,841 Comments on Gatchina WWTP: Gatchina is located close to St. Petersburg and is by and by becoming a part of the greater St. Petersburg area. The current population is around 83,000 inhabitants, however an increase of population until 2015 has been included in the figures presented in Table 6-1. Limited actions for upgrade of the plant are already underway. Currently around 82% of the population is connected to sewers. Further connection to the sewer system must also be included in a future sanitation program. Upgrading of the plant for nutrient removal is under consideration. Thus in the following the rough cost estimates are limited to the water treatment part. The potential contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Gatchina WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table 6-2. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). 47

49 Table 6-2. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Gatchina MWWTP Gatchina Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus Nitrogen 1, Conclusion: The MWWTP Gatchina is suitable to be included in the special priority project list for the RusNIP project. Comments on Vyborg WWTP: In Vyborg only less than half of the population (currently around 80,000 inhabitants) is connected to the existing plant. Important measures are to be taken outside the treatment plant to arrange new sewers and probably also pumping stations. Thus in the following the rough cost estimates are limited to the treatment part, and exclude any works on the sewers and pumping stations. A feasibility study has been performed, focusing on a future nutrient removal plant, but the size that is forseen covers not the whole outlet from the city. The potential contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Vyborg WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table 6-3. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). In the Vyborg case it is important to underline that only half of the city is connected to a WWTP, therefore the current discharge figures are estimated to be comparatively higher than for towns with a full connection of wastewater to treatment facility. According to the an ongoing study, labelled Leningrad Oblast Environmental Investment Program, Second Phase, Programme Implementation Plan the target with respect to P removal for Vyborg is based on only around 35% of the discharge. This in turn means that further actions are needed for the discharge from the city. The Table below includes a future population growth, based on prognosis given from relevant Russian sources. In this respect the Potential contribution as presented below is still valid. Table 6-3. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Vyborg MWWTP Vyborg Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus Nitrogen 1,200 1, Conclusion: The Vyborg WWTP would be seen as a suitable priority project case within the RusNIP project. It should be underlined that the needs for investment possibly will become substantial, and additional resources must be allocated, as investments must be made on the sewer system and pumping stations, in addition to the new WWTP. 48

50 Comments on Sertolovo WWTP: No local conditions are known for this plant. Thus the following the rough cost estimates are limited to the treatment part, and exclude any works on the sewers and pumping stations. The potential contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Sertolovo WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table 6-4. Table 6-4. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Sertolovo WWTP MWWTP Sertolovo Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: The MWWTP Sertolovo would be seen as a suitable priority project within the RusNIP project. Comments on Tikhvin WWTP: The town of Tikhvin is located upstream Lake Ladoga, and has a population of around 69,000 inhabitants. According to the design figures adopted for year 2015 the town would host around 70,000 inhabitants. Around 90% of the population is currently connected to the sewer system. Some improvements have been done at the plant recently. According to relevant information additional improvements of the plant are not planned for the time being,due to financial conditions. However, further actions for upgrading the plant is deemed needed in order to comply with the HELCOM recommendation level. In this summary it is foreseen a new plant and the potential environmental impact is calculated for the discharge from the whole city, see Table 6-5. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). Table 6-5. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Tikhvin WWTP MWWTP Tikhvin Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction without and with effect of retention in Ladoga Tons/year Phosphorus t/ with retention 13 t Nitrogen t/ with retention 86 t Conclusion: With respect to its location and the rather limited incremental contribution on nitrogen and phosphorus removal the Tikhvin WWTP is recommended to be excluded from the special priority project list within the RusNIP project. 49

51 Comments on Sosnoviy Bor WWTP: The town of Sosnoviy Bor is located on the shore of the Gulf of Finland. According to the design data given for year 2015 the town will host around 75,000 inhabitants. According to the recent Business Plan for regarding the project an upgrade with chemical precipitation is proposed and recommended. The current situation as described in the Business Plan presents the WWTP. From this presentation it may be concluded that the current plant is operated with the typical results from a non-nutrient removing biological plant. The potential contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Sosnoviy Bor WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table 6-6. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30%) Table 6-6. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Sosnoviy Bor WWTP MWWTP Sosnoviy Bor Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: Sosnoviy Bor WWTP would be seen as a suitable priority project case within the RusNIP project. Especially the location on the shores of the Gulf of Finland makes this conclusion valid. Comments on Kingisepp WWTP: Population in Kingisepp town is presently 52,100 inhabitants. According to the design data for 2015 the population may increase to 60,000 inhabitants. This figure will be used in the following analysis. According to reports from SEU Vodokanal of Kingisepp city the currently treated wastewater amounts are 15,800 m 3 /d. The existing plant is in a very bad technical status according to the information provided. Furthermore, the plant capacity should in the future be increased to 26,000 m 3 /d. The current treatment does not meet the effluent demands with respect to a number of variables, such as suspended solids, BOD total, COD, ammonium nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, nitrogen total, phosphorus total, phosphate phosphorus and phenols and so forth. Based on these considerations it is found very relevant to invest in an entirely new wastewater treatment plant. The outlines for such a plant are presented in chapter 8. In this case no removal efficiency is estimated for nitrogen and phosphorus. The potential contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Kingisepp WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table

52 Table 6-7. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Kingisepp WWTP MWWTP Kingisepp Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: Kingisepp WWTP would be seen as a suitable priority project case within the RusNIP project. A very simple schematic lay-out of a possible oxidation ditch system for Kingisepp is presented in Figure 6-1. Discharge By -pass Oxidation ditch I Oxidation ditch II Sludge treatment Pre treatment Kingisepp WWTP, Leningrad Oblast Layout pe Figure 6-1. Schematic lay-out of the Kingisepp WWTP for biological and chemical nutrient removal. Comments on Kirishi WWTP: The town is located along the Volkhov River and upstream Lake Ladoga, and hosts today around 55,000 inhabitants. According to the given design figures for year 2015 the town will host around 60,000 inhabitants by that time. The present WWTP is based on biological treatment of the wastewater. The location of Kirishi means that the retention capacity in lake Ladoga will provide a substantial reduction of both nitrogen and phosphorus loads into Gulf of Finland. The potential effect on N and P removal impact by the construction of a new plant is presented in Table 6-8. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). 51

53 Table 6-8. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Kirishi WWTP MWWTP Kirishi Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction without and with effect of retention in Ladoga Tons/year Phosphorus t/ with retention 11 t Nitrogen t/ with retention 74 t Conclusion: Kirishi WWTP would not be seen as a suitable priority project within the RusNIP project. Comments on Volkhov WWTP: No recent local conditions are known for this plant. Thus the following the rough cost estimates are limited to the treatment part, and exclude any works on the sewers and pumping stations. The potential contribution of an advanced biological nutrient removal at the Volkhov WWTP will result in the following balance; see Table 6-9. The current treatment is based on a classic activated sludge system, and the plant is in need of a major upgrade or replacement. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). However, the Volkhov plant is located upstream Ladoga. By taking into account the retention in Lake Ladoga the net incremental contribution on the nitrogen and phosphorus removal into the Gulf of Finland will be very modest. Table 6-9. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Volkhov WWTP MWWTP Volkhov Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Kg/d Potential contribution in load reduction without and with effect of retention in Ladoga Tons/year Phosphorus t/ with retention 10 t Nitrogen t/ with retention 69 t Conclusion: Volkhov WWTP would not be seen as a suitable priority project case within the RusNIP project. 52

54 6.2 Plants sized > 30,000 pe to <50,000 pe With respect to plants in the range 30,000 to 50,000 pe in all five plants are identified. As a preliminary outline the same process concepts as for the larger plants are found relevant. However, for one of the plants the given design flow value is more than questionable, the Kommunar plant. The given daily flow would indicate a specific flow of only 120 l/pe and day, whereas the other plants have corresponding flows of 170 to 375 l/pe and day. A summary of the mid-sized plants within Leningrad Oblast are found in Table Table Medium sized plants within Leningrad Oblast, and tentative treatment volumes MWWTP Plant size pe Design water volume, m 3 /d Option UCT-process Indicated volume Option Oxidation Ditch Indicated volume Luga 45,000 14,700 12,900 13,700 Vyritsa 45,000 7,500 9,900 11,700 Kommunar 40,000 4,800 Tosno 40,000 15,000 12,200 12,700 Siverskiy 35,000 10,000 9,400 10,300 Comments on Luga WWTP: Population of Luga town is currently 39,200 inhabitants. The town is located as shown in Figure 1-1, at the outmost southern part of Leningrad Oblast. The receiving water body is Luga River that in turn is connected to the Gulf of Finland. As no major lakes are found between Luga and the river mouth the retention of phosphorus and nitrogen is limited. According to the available information the plant has recently been upgraded, and the provided discharge figures seem to be relevant. The chosen design population for Luga is 45,000 inhabitants. The current discharge levels, as presented in the official statistics, seem to be realistic. In Table 6-11 are given the current figures and the anticipated design figures. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). Table Impact of current situation and an upgrade for nutrient removal at Luga WWTP MWWTP Luga Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus Current level 28 tons/year design level 8 tons/year Nitrogen Current level 82 tons/year design level 57 tons/year Conclusion: Luga WWTP would not be seen as a suitable priority project case within the RusNIP project, as the actions seem to already have provided results that are more or less in compliance with the demands. 53

55 Comments on Vyritsa WWTP: The plant is currently operated at a good removal rate of nitrogen and phosphorus, thus already contributing to the improved situation in Gulf of Finland. There are no major needs to include the plant in a special priority project list for the RusNIP project. In Table 6-12 are given the actual and anticipated discharge levels at the Vyritsa WWTP, as well as the contribution to the nutrient reduction in Gulf of Finland. Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Vyritsa WWTP MWWTP Vyritsa Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus 98/112 11/12 Current level 32 tons/ year design level 37 tons/year Nitrogen 470/ /180 Current level 113 tons/year design level 138 tons/year Conclusion: Vyritsa WWTP is not s a suitable priority project within the RusNIP projects, as the objectives at this plant is more or less satisfied. Comments on Kommunar WWTP: Kommunar town is located south of St. Petersburg and discharges the wastewater into Izhora River that discharges into the Neva River. The current population is around 17,000 persons and the design population for the plant in 2015 is 40,000 inhabitants, reflecting the proximity to St. Petersburg. The current plant is a traditional biological treatment plant. A foreseeable upgrade to meet the Helcom Standards will provide the following potential load reduction into the Gulf of Finland; see Table The current load and discharge levels are small in comparison with the anticipated future loads when the design population is connected. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Kommunar WWTP MWWTP Kommunar Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: Kommunar WWTP is excluded from priority project case within the RusNIP projects, as a major increase of population is foreseen and thus a substantial increment in nutrient load may be foreseeable. 54

56 Comments on Tosno WWTP: Tosno town is located south east of St. Petersburg and has currently around 32,500 inhabitants. The chosen design capacity for 2015 is 40,000 person equivalents. The current process is based on mechanical and biological treatment. The actual discharge figures are at a level that would be expected from a traditional WWTP, with no special biological nutrient removal. In comparison with other plants in the area the Tosno WWTP will need an upgrade due to regional and sanitary reasons, but also to comply with the HELCOM recommendations. A summary of the potential contribution from an upgraded WWTP in Tosno to the improvement of the Gulf of Finland is presented in Table To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Tosno WWTP MWWTP Tosno Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: However, in the special perspective of the RusNIP project it is not seen as a specific priority project. Comments on Siverskiy WWTP: Siverskiy town is located at the south eastern part of the Leningrad Oblast. The current population is around 15,000 inhabitants. According to the presented planning the design population in 2015 is estimated to 35,000 inhabitants. The treatment plant is a mechanical biological plant. Treated wastewater is discharged into Luga river, upstream the town of Luga. In Table 6-11 are given the current figures and the anticipated design figures. To estimate the current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus are used the above mentioned reduction rates for a classic biological treatment. (N removal = 30% and P removal = 25%). In Table 6-15 is the potential contribution to the protection of the Gulf of Finland shown, not including any retention effect of nitrogen or phosphorus. Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Siverskiy WWTP MWWTP Siverskiy Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: With respect to the rather limited contribution to an improvement of the nutrient load in Gulf of Finland this plant is excluded from the special priority project list within the RusNIP project. Siverskiy WWTP it is not seen as a specific priority project in the special perspective of the RusNIP project. 55

57 6.3 Plants sized < 30,000 pe The small plants as presented in the following are all deemed to have a marginal effect on the nutrient discharge, even after an improvement of the discharges. As a general consideration the following plants within Leningrad Oblast will not be included in the special priority project list covered by the RusNIP project. A summary of the identified towns is found in Table Table Small and medium sized plants within Leningrad Oblast, and tentative treatment volumes MWWTP Plant size pe Design water volume, m 3 /d Option SBR-system Indicated volume Option Oxidation Ditch Indicated volume Boksitogorsk 20,000 10,000 6,800 7,900 Pikalevo 28,000 15,000 9,200 11,300 Shlisselburg 15,000 5,000 4,200 5,000 Volosovo 12,000 4,200 3,600 4,200 Lodeynoe Pole 25,000 12,000 7,900 9,700 Nikolskoe 25,500 20,000 (?) Otradnoe 25,000 5,000 6,200 7,700 Podporozhye 21,000 4,800 5,300 6,600 Ivangorod 13,000 6,000 4,100 5,000 Comments on Boksitogorsk WWTP: The town of Boksitogorsk is located in the south eastern part of Leningrad Oblast. The current population is 19,000 inhabitants, and no major increase in the habitation is foreseen in the next decade. The WWTP is based on mechanical and biological treatment followed by filtration. The discharge of wastewater goes into River Oredezh. A balance for the impact with and without retention is nevertheless given in Table Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Boksitogorsk WWTP MWWTP Boksitogorsk Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus t/ with retention 4 t Nitrogen t/ with retention 31 t Conclusion: With respect to its rather limited size and the potential retention of nitrogen and phosphorus is Boksitogorsk found not suitable as a priority project to be included in the RusNIP project. Comments on Pikalevo WWTP: The town of Pikalevo is located in the south eastern part of Leningrad Oblast. The current population is around 26,000 inhabitants, and no major increase in the habitation is foreseen in the next decade. The current plant is based on mechanical and biological treatment fol- 56

58 lowed by sand filtration. A balance for the impact with and without retention is given in Table Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Pilalevo WWTP MWWTP Pikalevo Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus t/ with retention 5 t Nitrogen t/ with retention 43 t Conclusion: With respect to its rather limited size and the potential retention of nitrogen and phosphorus is Pikalevo not suitable as a priority project to be included in the RusNIP project. Comments on Shlisselburg WWTP: The town of Shlisselburg is located close to St. Petersburg, with a current population of around 13,000 inhabitants. For the time being a biological treatment plant is operated, though very little of substantial information is given. The wastewater is discharged into River Neva. In this context we assume that the design level will be 15,000 inhabitants. According to Nefco has the town asked for a financial support for the upgrade or for a new WWTP. A balance for the impact with and without retention is given in Table Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Shlisselburg WWTP MWWTP Shlisselburg Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Phosphorus Phosphorus Nitrogen Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: With respect to its location and deemed urgent needs for action the Shlisselburg WWTP would be suitable for the priority project list included in the RusNIP project. However, due to the small size the incremental impact at the Shlisselburg plant in comparison with other possible actions it is concluded not to recommend this plant as a priority project. Comments on Volosovo WWTP: The town of Volosovo is located in the south western part of Leningrad oblast. The current population is around 12,000 inhabitants, and no major increase in the habitation is foreseen in the next decade. The wastewater is discharged into Luga River. According to statistical data is the current plant discharging limited amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus. However the existing plant is seriously deteriorated, and possibly a new plant would be needed. A tentative incremental impact is given in Table

59 Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Volsovo WWTP MWWTP Volsovo Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: With respect to the location and its limited contribution to the load reduction Volosovo is not to be included as a priority project in the RusNIP project. Comments on Lodeynoe Pole WWTP: The town of Lodeynoe Pole is located in the eastern part of Leningrad Oblast. Its current population is around 24,000 inhabitants, and no major increase in the habitation is foreseen in the next decade. The wastewater is discharged into Svir River that is connected to the Lake Ladoga. As the discharge is located upstream Lake Ladoga the retention in the lake with respect to nitrogen and phosphorus is important. The incremental impact on the Gulf of Finland without and with the influence of the retention is presented in Table Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Lodeynoe Poly WWTP MWWTP Lodeynoe Poly Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus t/ with retention 5 t Nitrogen t/ with retention 34 t Conclusion: With respect to the location and the foreseeable retention of nitrogen and phosphorus it is concluded that Lodeynoe Poly would not be included the priority project list included in the RusNIP project. Comments on Nikolskoe WWTP: The town of Nikolskoe is located in the eastern part of Leningrad Oblast. Its current population is around 24,000 inhabitants, and no major increase in the habitation is foreseen in the next decade. The wastewater is discharged into Svir River that is connected to the Lake Ladoga. As the discharge is located upstream Lake Ladoga the retention in the lake with respect to nitrogen and phosphorus is important. The incremental impact on the Gulf of Finland without and with the influence of the retention is presented in Table

60 Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Nikolskoe WWTP MWWTP Nikolskoe Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus t/ with retention 5 t Nitrogen t/ with retention 35 t Conclusion: With respect to the location and the foreseeable retention of nitrogen and phosphorus it is concluded that Nikolskoe would not be included as a priority project in the RusNIP project. Comments on Otradnoe WWTP: The town of Otradnoe is located south east of St. Petersburg. The current population is around 23,000 inhabitants and only a minor increase of the habitation is foreseen until The wastewater is treated in a treatment plant containing mechanical and biological treatment. Treated wastewater is discharged into River Neva. According to the statistics the effluent levels are close to the Helcom standards. In Table 6-23 is given the possible additional contribution to the improvement of nitrogen and phosphorus load on the Gulf of Finland. Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Otradnoe WWTP MWWTP Otradnoe Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: The actual situation in Otradnoe means that it will not be included as a priority project within the RusNIP project. Comments on Podporozhye WWTP: The town has around 21,000 inhabitants and no major The Podporozhye WWTP is one of the minor plants within the Leningrad Oblast area, and the incremental effect of an upgrade to the Helcom Standards and the Cracow decision will be limited. It is not recommended to be included in a priority project list covered by the RusNIP project. The incremental effect on the Gulf of Finland of the discharge is presented in Table Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Podporozhye WWTP MWWTP Podporozhye Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year 59

61 Conclusion: The actual situation in Podporozhye means that it will not be included as a priority project within the RusNIP project. Comments on Ivangorod WWTP: The town hosts around 12,000 inhabitants and no major population increase is foreseen until The Ivangorod WWTP is based on mechanical and biological treatment and is one of the minor plants within the Leningrad Oblast area. Wastewater is discharged into River Narva. The incremental effect of an upgrade to the Helcom Recommendations and the Kracow decision will be limited. The incremental impact on the Gulf of Finland without and with the influence of the retention is presented in Table Table Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Ivangorod WWTP MWWTP Ivangorod Inlet amounts Current discharge Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Conclusion: Ivangorod is not recommended to be included as a priority project in the RusNIP project. 60

62 7 Outlines of plant selections within Kaliningrad Oblast The Kaliningrad Oblast represents a more critical situation for the Russian side with respect to the BSAP agreement. The overall situation with respect to needs of wastewater treatment has been addressed in a number of studies. Preparation works are underway to improve the situation. The demands for improved or new wastewater treatment plants have been defined both for Kaliningrad and Kaliningrad Oblast. For Kaliningrad Oblast a recent study called Preparatory Work on Kaliningrad Waste Water Sector Action Programme has been presented in The study covers in all 20 towns with focus on wastewater treatment. The major towns in the study are accordingly analysed in this work. In Figure 7-1 is shown a map with locations of the different towns within the Kaliningrad region. Figure 7-1. Map of Kaliningrad Oblast, from Preparatory Work on Kaliningrad Waste Water Sector Action Programme. 7.1 Plants sized > 50,000 pe For the Kaliningrad Oblast one major point discharge is relevant with respect to municipal wastewater. This is the city of Kaliningrad, where planning of a new WWTP has been going on for a number of years. The owner of the plant has decided to finance the upgrade of the plant to meet the HELCOM and BSAP standards. The forthcoming financing will be based on participation from international stakeholders, inter alia from Sida. The tentative potential reduction of nutrients is summarised in Table 7-1. It should be observed that these figures are more stringent than those presented in 61

63 the study from 2005, when the discharge level of nitrogen was 12 mg N/l and the phosphorus level was 1.5 mg/l. Later planning and decisions for the Kaliningrad plant points out that the HELCOM standards will be met. Table 7-1. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Kaliningrad WWTP MWWTP Kaliningrad Design flow m 3 /d 150,000 Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Phosphorus Nitrogen 5,220 1,500 1,358 Conclusions: The implementation of a new modern WWTP for Kaliningrad will have a major contribution on the nutrient load reduction in the Baltic Sea. This in turn makes it a suitable priority project for the RusNIP. 7.2 Plants sized > 30,000 pe to <50,000 pe With respect to plants in the range 30,000 to 50,000 pe in all two plants are identified. As a preliminary outline the same process concepts as for the larger plants are found relevant. A summary of the mid-sized plants within Kaliningrad Oblast are found in Table 7-2. Table 7-2. Medium sized plants within Kaliningrad Oblast, and tentative treatment volumes MWWTP Plant size pe Design water volume, m 3 /d Zaostrovje (OKOS) 40,000 Assumed: 24,000 Chernjahovsk 42,000 Assumed: 25,000 Comments on Zaostrovje (OKOS) WWTP: According to current information received from the Ministry of Housing and Public Utilities of Kaliningrad region, treatment plants reconstruction is currently being implemented in Zaostrovye settlement. The needed improvement of the plant will result in a positive impact on the Proper Baltic, as shown in Table 7-3. It should also be underlined that the needs for an improved nitrogen removal may be up to 80% reduction level, in order to make it possible for the Kaliningrad total discharges to comply with the HELCOM recommendations. Table 7-3. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Zaostrovje (OKOS) WWTP MWWTP Zaostrovje (OKOS) Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year 62

64 Comment: As the situation in the Kaliningrad region is sensitive with respect to the BSAP requirements it is strongly recommended that Zaostrovje (OKOS) WWTP is included in the special priority project list within the RusNIP project Comments on Chernjahovsk WWTP: The amount of connected inhabitants to the plant is 41,105. There is a half-separated water discharge system in most of the city territory; everywhere else is the combined one. Approximately 50% of municipal water sewer systems is of German construction, and thus from the time before the Second World War. Remaining 50% were built in Soviet time. General technical conditions of sewer systems are considered bad. On the territory of the city there are found fold mechanical sewage treatment plants, WWTP:s reconstructed in the 1930s, as their efficiency was brought to 9,000 m 3 /d. Almost 60% of wastewater is being discharged directly into the river because of the lack of siphon s capacity upstream the WWTP. The plant is a mechanical plant that includes screening plants, sand traps and 3 horizontal sedimentation tanks. There is no modern sludge handling system at the WWTP. Currently the Vodokanal evacuates sludge from the primary sedimentation and transports it into the Solid Waste site. The current status of the plant is very bad and an entirely new plant is foreseen, and deemed necessary to meet the Helcom Standards. A summary of the potential contribution to the nutrient de-loading of the Baltic Sea is presented in Table 7-4. A simplified lay-out is shown in Figure 7-2 for the Chernjahovsk WWTP for advanced biological nutrient removal. Discharge Pre treatment Oxidation ditch I Oxidation ditch II Sludge treatment Chernyakhovsk WWTP, Kaliningrad Oblast Layout pe Figure 7-2. Simplified lay-out for the Chernyakhovsk WWTP, Kaliningrad Oblast. 63

65 Table 7-4. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Chernjahovsk WWTP MWWTP Chernjahovsk Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Comment: As the situation in the Kaliningrad region is sensitive with respect to the BSAP requirements it is strongly recommended that Chernjahovsk WWTP is included in the special priority project list within the RusNIP project. 7.3 Plants sized < 30,000 pe Only one plant has been identified in Kaliningrad Oblast as a potential municipal WWTP suitable for upgrading in view of the BSAP, Gvardejsk, with a population of 13,300 pe. There are several Imhoff (Emsher) sedimentation tanks, which are in poor condition and do not provide adequate purification. According to the inspection of two tanks, untreated wastewater flow directly into river through bypass canals. Besides there are biological treatment facilities built on prison territory, which treat their own wastewater. But the visual inspection hasn t given any information on their operability. Besides, there are unfinished sewage treatment plants, located directly on the river bank. But the construction hasn t been finished yet and currently it is found not possible to finish the construction of the WWTP, partly because of selected technology, which doesn t satisfy the effluent standards. As a summary: The selection of this plant as a priority project within the RusNIP project. A number of assumptions with respect to plant sizing are deemed necessary. As a tentative design connection to a forthcoming plant a population of 15,000 inhabitants is used at this stage. With respect to the more sensitive situation for the Kaliningrad region the demand on reduction for this area is higher than for the discharge into the Gulf of Finland the removal efficiency is suggested to be higher. The tentative potential reduction of nutrients is summarised in Table 7-5. Table 7-5. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Gvardejsk WWTP MWWTP Gvardejsk Design flow m 3 /d Assumed: 6,000 Inlet amounts Discharge amounts Phosphorus Nitrogen Potential contribution in load reduction Tons/year Comment: As the situation in the Kaliningrad region is sensitive with respect to the BSAP it is strongly recommended that Gvardejsk WWTP is included in the special priority project list within the RusNIP project. 64

66 In accordance with the tentative outlines of the viable treatment options a treatment facility based on the SBR system is used for the calculations in chapter 9. In Figure 7-3 is a tentative principal lay-out for the Gvardejsk WWTP shown. Technical support building Pre- treatment SBR 1 Sludge treatment SBR 2 Figure 7-3. Schematic lay-out for the Gvardejsk WWTP for advanced N and P removal. 65

67 8 Summary on potential impact of modern WWTP:s within the area A very preliminary environmental impact assessment of an installation and operation of modern municipal WWTP:s within the Baltic Sea rim is made in the following. The values in the presentation takes into account two circumstances: 1. The current discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus, normally calculated from the given outlines that the assimilative reduction in a biological treatment is 20 30% of P and 25 35% of N. Considerations have also been taken to the status of the plants, whenever possible to address this matter; 2. The retention effect in Lake Ladoga on nitrogen and phosphorus, as stated for N = 30% and for P = 70% This assessment is based on the plants described in the previous chapters. Two different assessment models are used: A. The potential reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus is summarised and compared with the total reduction demand on the Russian discharges; B. As an additional analysis is the OCP model used to assess the improvements of forthcoming WWTP:s. The model is described in the following. The Oxygen Consumption Potential is expressed by the following relation: OCP = 1*BOD + 4*N ox,1 + 14*N ox, *P ox,1 ; where BOD 5 = Biochemical Oxygen Demand over 5 days, in kg O 2 /d, in the following this impact is neglected, as the BOD 5 removal rate is assumed to be > 95% and thereby the treatment results will have an incremental effect on the total OCP. N ox,1 = Oxygen consumption due to nitrification of ammonia N, in kg O 2 /d; N ox,2 = Oxygen consumption in the receiving water body due to algae growth and decay caused by nitrogen; in kg O 2 /d; P ox,1 = Oxygen consumption in the receiving water body due to algae growth and decay caused by phosphorus; in kg O 2 /d. The OCP equation was initially suggested by Professor Halvard Ödegaard at Trondheim Technical University (personal communication) and has been used to express environmental efficiency when comparing different treatment options, not at least in the Baltic Sea rim. Summaries are found in Table 8-1 through Table

68 Table 8-1. Summary of identified WWTP:s within St. Petersburg Vodokanal and potential impact on phosphorus, nitrogen and OCP effect by upgraded treatment Name of plant Phosphorus impact Tons/year Nitrogen impact Tons/year OCP EFFICIENCY Tons O 2 /year South West WWTP 460 2,100 83,800 Central WWTP ,140 North WWTP 720 2, ,400 Kolpino ,852 Petrodvorets ,500 Metallostroy ,136 Total incremental impact 1,768 6, ,828 Table 8-2. Summary of identified WWTP:s within Leningrad Oblast and potential impact on phosphorus, nitrogen and OCP effect by upgraded treatment Name of plant Phosphorus impact Tons/year Nitrogen impact Tons/year OCP EFFICIENCY Tons O 2 /year Gatchina ,688 Vyborg ,230 Sertolovo ,620 Tikhvin ,848 Sosnoviy Bor ,504 Kingisepp ,212 Kirishi ,432 Volkhov ,242 Luga ,826 Vyritsa ,184 Kommunar ,926 Tosno ,022 Siverskiy ,202 Boksitogorsk ,102 Pikalevo ,274 Shlisselburg ,372 Volosovo ,232 Lodeynoe Pole ,112 Nikolskoe ,130 Otradnoe Podporozhye ,852 Ivangorod ,368 Total incremental impact 467 2,001 82,668 Table 8-3. Summary of identified WWTP:s within Kaliningrad Oblast and potential impact on phosphorus, nitrogen and OCP effect by upgraded treatment Name of plant Phosphorus impact Tons/year Nitrogen impact Tons/year OCP EFFICIENCY Tons O 2 /year Kaliningrad 280 1,358 52,444 Zaostrovje OKOS ,820 Chernjahovsk ,110 Gvardejsk ,254 Total incremental impact 361 1,696 66,628 67

69 9 Indicative investment and operation costs for new or upgraded WWTP:s within the areas included in the study This chapter presents costs for some of the projects and provides a basis for the calculations of the feasibility to upgrade the different plants to meet the BSAP requirements. Some general considerations are important in this perspective: The selected plants represent different local conditions, as an example the North WWTP in St. Petersburg will be upgraded during the next few years. Once this is accomplished the contribution to the unloading of the Gulf of Finland will become substantial. On the other hand will the smaller plants in Kaliningrad Oblast have only a small contribution to the de-loading of the Proper Baltic, but nevertheless the improvements are crucial from a local and regional aspect. Investment costs are either found in studies made during the last years or based on recent similar projects in the region. For capital costs a depreciation time of 25 years at 5% interest rate is used. Operating costs are based on recent studies from for instance the Petrozavodsk project in Russian Karelia. The operating cost is based on the following cost items: Salary, Energy cost, Chemical cost, Maintenance cost, Waste and sludge deposition cost, Laboratory cost. All costs are presented in RUB and based on the price and cost level in the year We use the following rates when necessary: 1 SEK = 4.20 RUB = EUR. Both investment costs and operation costs are calculated based on information from other similar and recent projects in the region. 9.1 St. Petersburg Vodokanal The St. Petersburg Vodokanal has by far the most comprehensive material with respect to costs related to the WWTP:s for the time being. The North WWTP in St. Petersburg is underway and the consultancy work on final design documents will be awarded before the end of this year. The decision on the process configuration and size of the plant has been presented already. Costs for investment and operation of the forthcoming plant have been presented in a joint project with several stakeholders, including Ministry of the Environment of Finland, Sida, Sweden and Vodokanal. The relevant 68

70 document is called Cost Effective Pollution Reduction Investments in St. Petersburg. The selected process is the UCT process, including chemical precipitation for and is estimated to about 3,470 M RUB in 2006 year cost level. The corresponding operation and maintenance cost is estimated at 245 M RUB/year in 2006 year cost level. Assuming a 25% increase of costs due to inflation and other conditions the relevant costs for the North WWTP are estimated as follows. Investment for an UCT-process at North WWTP; St. Petersburg Operation and maintenance cost 4,343 M RUB; 310 M RUB/year It should be underlined that the operation and maintenance cost does not include a number of items such as cost for the personnel, sludge management costs, laboratory costs and environmental fees. At a very preliminary level the specific investment for nitrogen and phosphorus removal at the North WWTP in St. Petersburg are found as follows; see Table 9-1. Table 9-1. Specific costs for nutrient removal at North WWTP in St. Petersburg based on feasibility study by Sweco in 2008 Name of plant Phosphorus impact Tons/year Nitrogen impact Tons/year OCP EFFICIENCY Tons O 2 /year North WWTP 720 2, ,400 Specific investment 6,032 1, efficiency, RUB/kg Specific O&M efficiency, RUB/kg It is important to underline that the given costs are related to an upgrade of an existing plant, and that the O&M costs are not really comprehensive. Nevertheless the figures give an indication on the incremental efficiency and impact from the upgrade of the North WWTP. 9.2 Sosnoviy Bor For Sosnoviy Bor has a detailed Financial Plan has been elaborated. This foresees an investment for upgrading the plant status and the inclusion of chemical precipitation for phosphorus removal. The current discharge level of nitrogen is higher than the stipulation in the HELCOM standards, but the forthcoming investment does not take into account any upgrade for nitrogen removal. The foreseen budget for the upgrade is 123 M Rubel. In order to make a complete comparison with the other possible projects an additional investment of 87 M Rubel is foreseen for nitrogen removal at Sosnoviy Bor. The comparatively low additional investment estimate is based on the fact that rather recent investments have been made within the biological treatment Investment costs The investment for Sosnoviy Bor is then 210 M Rubel. 69

71 9.3 Kingisepp WWTP 60,000 pe Investment costs The following tables show the estimated investment cost for Kingisepp WWTP. It should be underlined that for Kingisepp a new WWTP is anticipated, due to the deterioration of the existing plant. Table 9-2. Investment cost for Kingisepp WWTP Cost part RUB Civil works 259,000,000 Mechanical equipment 126,000,000 Electricity, automation 63,000,000 Ventilation, water & sanitation 30,000,000 Design and supervision 86,000,000 Contingencies 73,000,000 Total 637,000, Operating costs Salaries The calculation of the salary cost is based on the following salary including social costs for the different professions required at a wastewater treatment plant. Table 9-3: Salary for different professionals at the Kingisepp WWTP Position RUB/month Manager/Process engineer 25,000 Administrative Staff 20,000 Laboratory Staff 18,000 Electrical and automation tech. 18,000 Mechanical workmen 15,000 WWTP Operator 15,000 The manning of the WWTPs is estimated as follows for the different phases. Table 9-4. Summary of annual costs for salaries at Kingisepp WWTP Position Number RUB/month RUB/year Manager/Process engineer 1 25, ,000 Administrative staff 2 20, ,000 Laboratory staff 2 18, ,000 Electrical and automation tech. 3 18, ,000 Mechanical workmen 5 15, ,000 WWTP Operator 2 15, ,000 Sum 15 2,820,000 70

72 Energy costs The energy cost is based on a tariff of 1.8 RUB/kWh, at an installed effect of 450 kw. It should be observed that the energy costs include the electric cost for pumping the raw wastewater into the WWTP. In a modern WWTP with biological treatment, the energy cost is mainly associated with aeration of the biological reactors. Therefore, the energy consumption will be sensitive to the choice of aeration method. Table 9-5. Energy cost for Kingisepp WWTP 3,420,000 kwh/year 6,200,000 RUB/year Chemical costs Iron is used to improve sedimentation in the Oxidation Ditch process. Polymer is added to improve the degree of sludge dewatering. Yearly costs for chemical consumption are summarised in Table 9-6. Table 9-6. Chemical consumption and cost at Kingisepp WWTP Consumed agent tonne/year RUB/year Iron 759,0 3,200,000 Polymer 7,8 1,300,000 Total 766,8 4,500, Maintenance costs Maintenance costs are by convention related to the investment level of the plant. For the maintenance, the following ratios are used. Civil works 1% of investment Mechanical/electrical equipment 3% of investment Table 9-7. Maintenance cost for Kingisepp WWTP Part for maintenance RUB/year Civil 2,600,000 Mech/el 5,700,000 Total 8,300, Solid waste and sludge handling costs If sludge and waste is to be put on a properly managed land fill, handling cost are estimated in the table below. Table 9-8. Sludge handling cost at Kingisepp WWTP Grit and sand 400 m 3 /year Biological sludge 7,100 m 3 /year Total 7,500 m 3 /year Cost 8,000,000 RUB /year 71

73 Laboratory costs The laboratory costs are expected to be 5 percent of the total yearly salary cost as follows: 141,000 RUB/year Operation and Maintenance costs summary The following table shows a summary of all operation and maintenance costs presented above. Table 9-9. Summary of Operation and Maintenance cost for the Kingisepp WWTP Item Unit cost Specific cost, RUB/m 3 RUB/year Salary 2,820, Energy 6,200, Chemical 4,500, Maintenance 8,300, Sludge 8,000, Laboratory 141, TOTAL 30,000, Cost per kg P removed 612 RUB/kg P/year Cost per kg N removed 163 RUB/kg N/year Cost per OCP eff. 4 RUB/kg OCP/year 9.4 Kaliningrad WWTP According to relevant data the total investment for the Kaliningrad WWTP and the Wastewater Component within the project is foreseen to be around 106 M US$, including VAT and given as official data from the international project. For the time being the operation costs have not been identified for this project. 9.5 Chernjahovsk WWTP 42,000 ep Investment costs The following table show the estimated investment cost for Chemjahovsk WWTP. Table Investment cost for Chemjahovsk WWTP Cost part RUB Civil works 221,000,000 Mechanical equipment 108,000,000 Electricity, automation 54,000,000 Ventilation, water & sanitation 25,000,000 Design and supervision 75,000,000 Contingencies 62,000,000 Total 545,000,000 72

74 9.5.2 Operating costs Salaries The calculation of the salary cost is based on the following salary including social costs for the different professions required at a wastewater treatment plant. The level of salaries in the following is based on a Sweco project in Russian Karelia, for the city of Petrozavodsk. Table Salary for different professionals at the WWTP Position RUB/month Manager/Process engineer 25,000 Administrative Staff 20,000 Laboratory Staff 18,000 Electrical and automation tech. 18,000 Mechanical workmen 15,000 WWTP Operator 15,000 The manning of the WWTPs is estimated as follows for the different phases. Table Expected staffing at the Chemjahovsk WWTP Manager/Process engineer 1 Administrative staff 2 Laboratory Staff 2 Electrical and automation tech. 2 Mechanical workmen 3 WWTP Operator 3 Sum 14 Table Summary of annual costs for salaries at Chemjahovsk WWTP Position Number RUB/month RUB/year Manager/Process 1 25, ,000 engineer Administrative staff 2 20, ,000 Laboratory Staff 2 18, ,000 Electrical and automation 3 18, ,000 tech. Mechanical workmen 3 15, ,000 WWTP Operator 3 15, ,000 Sum 14 2,640, Energy costs The energy cost is based on a tariff of 1.8 RUB/kWh (figure derived from Sweco project in Petrozavodsk), at an installed effect of 350 kw. It should be observed that the energy costs include the electric cost for pumping the raw wastewater into the WWTP. In a modern WWTP with biological treatment, the energy cost is mainly associated with aeration of the biological reactors. Therefore, the energy consumption will be sensitive to the choice of aeration method. 73

75 Table Energy cost for Chemjahovsk WWTP 2,129,000 kwh/year 3,800,000 RUB/year Chemical costs Iron is used to improve simultaneous P removal in the Oxidation Ditch process. Polymer is added to improve the degree of sludge dewatering. Yearly costs for chemical consumption are summarised in Table Table Chemical consumption and cost at Chemjahovsk WWTP Consumed agent tonne/year RUB/year Iron, tons 730 3,066,000 Polymer, kg 6, ,000 Totally 3,966, Maintenance costs Maintenance costs are by convention related to the investment level of the plant. For the maintenance, the following ratios are used. Civil works 1% of investment Mechanical/electrical equipment 3% of investment Table Maintenance cost for Chemjahovsk WWTP Part for maintenance RUB/year Civil 2,210,000 Mech/el 4,860,000 Total 7,070, Solid waste and sludge handling costs If sludge and waste is to be put on a properly managed land fill, handling cost are estimated in the table below. Table Sludge handling cost at Chemjahovsk WWTP Grit and sand 300 m 3 /year Biological sludge 5,422 m 3 /year Totally 5,722 m 3 /year Cost 6,100,000 RUB /year Laboratory costs The laboratory costs are expected to be 5 percent of the total yearly salary cost as follows: 132,000 RUB/year Operation and Maintenance costs summary The following tables show a summary of all operation and maintenance costs presented above. 74

76 Table Summary of Operation and Maintenance cost for the Chemjahovsk WWTP Item Unit cost RUB/year Specific cost, RUB/m 3 Salary 2,640, Energy 3,800, Chemicals 3,966, Maintenance 7,070, Sludge 6,100, Laboratory 132, TOTAL 23,700, Cost per kg P removed 856 RUB/kg P/year Cost per kg N removed 207 RUB/kg N/year Cost per OCP eff 6 RUB/kg OCP/year 9.6 Gvardejsk WWTP 15,000 pe Investment costs The following tables show the estimated investment cost for Gvardejsk WWTP. Table Investment cost for Gvardejsk WWTP Cost part RUB Civil works 63,000,000 Mechanical equipment 31,500,000 Electricity, automation 21,000,000 Ventilation, water & sanitation 10,500,000 Design and supervision 25,000,000 Contingencies 22,000,000 Total 173,000, Operating costs Salaries The calculation of the salary cost is based on the following salary including social costs for the different professions required at a wastewater treatment plant. Table Salary for different professionals at the Gvardejsk WWTP Position RUB/month Manager/Process engineer 25,000 Administrative Staff 20,000 Electrical and automation tech. 18,000 Mechanical workmen 15,000 WWTP Operator 15,000 The manning of the WWTPs is estimated as follows for the different phases. 75

77 Table Expected staffing at the Gvardejsk WWTP Manager/Process engineer 1 Administrative staff 1 Electrical and automation tech. 1 Mechanical workmen 3 WWTP Operator 1 Sum 7 Table Summary of annual costs for salaries at Gvardejsk WWTP Position Number RUB/month RUB/year Manager/Process 1 25, ,000 engineer Administrative staff 1 20, ,000 Electrical and automation 1 18, ,000 tech. Mechanical workmen 3 15, ,000 WWTP Operator 1 15, ,000 Sum 7 1,476, Energy costs The energy cost is based on a tariff of 1.8 RUB/kWh, at an installed effect of 260 kw. It should be observed that the energy costs include the electric cost for pumping the raw wastewater into the WWTP. In a modern WWTP with biological treatment, the energy cost is mainly associated with aeration of the biological reactors. Therefore, the energy consumption will be sensitive to the choice of aeration method. Table Energy cost for Gvardejsk WWTP 970,000 kwh/year 1,746,000 RUB/year Chemical costs Iron is used to improve simultaneous precipitation of phosphorus in the SBR process. Polymer is added to improve the degree of sludge dewatering. Yearly costs for chemical consumption are summarised in Table Table Chemical consumption and cost at Gvardejsk WWTP Consumed agent tonne/year RUB/year Iron ,000 Polymer ,000 Totally 630,000 76

78 Maintenance costs Maintenance costs are by convention related to the investment level of the plant. For the maintenance, the following ratios are used. Civil works 1% of investment Mechanical/electrical equipment 3% of investment Table Maintenance cost for Gvardejsk WWTP Part for maintenance RUB/year Civil 710,000 Mech/el 1,640,000 Total 2,350, Solid waste and sludge handling costs If sludge and waste is to be put on a properly managed land fill, handling cost are estimated in the table below. The anticipated unit costs are based on assumptions and comparisons with specific figures used in the Petrozavodsk feasibility study. Table Sludge handling cost at Gvardejsk WWTP. Grit and sand 100 m 3 /year Biological sludge 1,400 m 3 /year Total 1,500 m 3 /year Cost 1,600,000 RUB/year Laboratory costs The laboratory costs are expected to be 5 percent of the total yearly salary cost as follows: 75,000 RUB/year Operation and Maintenance costs summary The following tables show a summary of all operation and maintenance costs presented above. Table Summary of Operation and Maintenance cost for the Gvardejsk WWTP Item Unit cost Specific cost, RUB/m 3 Salary 1,476, Energy 1,746, Chemical 630, Sludge 1,600, Maintenance 2,500, Laboratory 75, Totally 8,027, Cost per kg P removed 617 RUB/kg P/year Cost per kg N removed RUB/kg N/year Cost per OCP eff. 4.7 RUB/kg OCP/year 77

79 78

80 Annex 3 List of all investigated plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal, Leningrad Oblast priorities and Kaliningrad Oblast including estimated costs Investments annual costs and impact on nitrogen and phosphorus Name of plant Plant size, pe Est investment, Rubel *10 6 Capital cost, Rubel *10 6 Est. Operation cost, Rubel *10 6 Annual cost, Rubel *10 6 Phosphorus impact Tons/year Specific cost Rubel/ kg P Nitrogen impact Tons/year Specific cost, Rubel/kg N Comment: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) St. Petersburg South West WWTP 713,000 not valid Central WWTP 2,000,000 not valid Comments not valid 155, ,100 The plant is already running with discharge levels below the adopted consent levels. not valid North WWTP 2,000,000 4, , , , Biological plant is already operating, the planning is underway. Kolpino 120,000 1, ,0 47,7 148,6 71 2, Biological plant is already operating, the planning is underway. Petrodvorets 65, ,0 31,7 78,7 53 1, Biological plant is already operating, the planning is underway. Metallostroy 65, ,0 31,7 78,7 24 3, Biological plant is already operating, the planning is underway. 79

81 Name of plant Plant size, pe Leningrad Oblast Est investment, Rubel *10 6 Capital cost, Rubel *10 6 Est. Operation cost, Rubel *10 6 Annual cost, Rubel *10 6 Phosphorus impact Tons/year Specific cost Rubel/ kg P Nitrogen impact Tons/year Specific cost, Rubel/kg N Comments Gatchina 100,000 1,299 92,2 42,2 134,4 47 2, Improvements are underway, chemical precipitation is planned. Vyborg 100,000 1,006 71,4 42,2 113,6 71 1, Half of the city is not included to the existing plant. Sertolovo 70, ,3 33,3 88,6 58 1, This plant wil be included in the Vodokanal of St. Petersburg plan for upgrade to meet BASP. Tikhvin 70, ,2 33,3 84,5 42 2, The town has expressed reluctance to improve the plant due to needed costs. Sosnoviy Bor 75, , ,9 22 2, Proeject is underway with chemical precipitation installed. Kingisepp 60, , ,2 49 1, To be included into the Hot spot list. Kirishi 60, , ,2 36 2, Biolgocial treatment plant exists with assumed extremaly low discharge levels of N. The results are not taken into account in this summary Volkhov 50, ,2 26,6 68,8 32 2, Old biological treatment plant in needs of major refurbishment, or to be replaced. 80

82 Name of plant Plant size, pe Est investment, Rubel *10 6 Capital cost, Rubel *10 6 Est. Operation cost, Rubel *10 6 Annual cost, Rubel *10 6 Phosphorus impact Tons/year Specific cost Rubel/ kg P Nitrogen impact Tons/year Specific cost, Rubel/kg N Comments Luga 45, ,0 24,7 64,7 28 2, Biological plant exists, the presented discharge levels are very low, that are not included in the calculations! Vyritsa 45,000 not valid 24,7 24, Biological plant with polishing ponds exists, the presented discharge levels are very low, and the plant is found not relevant for the hot spot list. Kommunar 40,000 not valid 22,9 22,9 9 not valid 8 not valid Biological plant exists sized for a substantially lower connection than 40,000 inh., the presented discharge levels are contradicitive, thus costs for investment of a new plant is. Tosno 40, ,7 22,9 60,6 26 2, Biological plant exists, though the performance figures are in many ways doubtful Siverskiy 35, ,3 20,9 56,2 26 2, Biological plant exists,in this case the performance figures are reliable. Boksitogorsk 20,000 not valid 9,7 9, Biological plant with filtration exists, in this case the performance figures are reliable. 81

83 Name of plant Plant size, pe Est investment, Rubel *10 6 Capital cost, Rubel *10 6 Est. Operation cost, Rubel *10 6 Annual cost, Rubel *10 6 Phosphorus impact Tons/year Specific cost Rubel/ kg P Nitrogen impact Tons/year Specific cost, Rubel/kg N Comments Pikalevo 28,000 not valid 12,2 12, Biological plant with filtration exists, in this case the performance figures are reliable. Shlisselburg 15, ,3 8 20,3 4 5, An entirely new plant is needed! Volosovo 12, ,0 6,9 17,9 10 1, Biological plant exists, though the performance figures are in many ways doubtful Lodeynoe Pole 25, ,8 11,3 27,1 16 1, Biological plant exists, in this case the performance figures are reliable, nevertheless the plant does not meet the required standards by far. Nikolskoe 25, ,0 11,5 27,5 16 1, Biological plant with filtration exists, in this case the performance figures are reliable. Otradnoe 25, ,8 11,3 27,1 2 13, ,424 Biological plant exists, though the performance figures are in many ways doubtful Podporozhye 21, ,5 10,1 24,6 17 1, Mechanical plant exists, the effluent figures are in fact very doubtful. Ivangorod 13, ,4 7,3 18,7 9 2, Biological plant exists,in this case the performance figures are reliable. 82

84 Name of plant Plant size, pe Kaliningrad Oblast Est investment, Rubel *10 6 Capital cost, Rubel *10 6 Est. Operation cost, Rubel *10 6 Annual cost, Rubel *10 6 Phosphorus impact Tons/year Specific cost Rubel/ kg P Nitrogen impact Tons/year Specific cost, Rubel/kg N Comments Kaliningrad 475,000 3, , , ,219 1, An entirely new plant is needed! Zaostrovje (OKOS) 40, ,7 22,9 60,6 33 1, An entirely new plant is decided. Chernjahovsk 42, ,7 23,7 62,4 35 1, According to relevant information the situation calls for a new plant to be installed. Gvardejsk 15, ,3 8 20,3 13 1, An entirely new plant is needed! Comments and assumptions regarding items presented in the Table: 1) Projected size for the town, year 2015; 2) The investment costs are in all cases based on the assumption that a totally new plant will be built; 3) Capital costs are calcultated for a deprciation of 25 years at 5% interest rate; 4) The operation costs are based on three detailed calculations for three plants (Kingisepp, Chernjahovsk and Gvardejsk), and then a proportional cost figure is calculated for the other plants; 5) The impact of phosphorus removal is based on the assumption that the current effluent is not treated, and that the P-removal in all cases is > 90%; 6) The specific cost for P removal is based on only the operation costs. No capital costs are included at this level; 7) The impact of nitrogen removal is based on the assumption that the current effluent is not treated, and that the nitrogen removal is 80% for Gatchina and Vyborg plants, and > 70% for all the other plants; 8) The specific cost for N removal is based on only the operation costs. No capital costs are included at this level; Comments regarding the current situation are summarized. For classic biological plants the current removal impact has been adopted as follows: P removal 20 30% and N removal 25 35%. Proposed plants for the specific priority project list are in bold text! 83

85 84

86 Annex 4 Industrial sources listing and tentative measures Peter Ullman SWECO Environment AB Natalia Bobrova Ecological Control Unit at Department of ROSPRIRODNADZOR in NWFD Shelaev Vladimir St. Petersburg Printing Cardboard Plant Alexander Ivanov Branch of Baltic Management on Technical Maintenance of Supervision on the Sea in Kaliningrad 85

87 Contents Annex 4 1 Introduction 87 2 Kaliningrad region Nemansky Pulp and Paper mill Sovetsky Pulp and Paper mill Mix-Deima 91 3 Leningrad region Viborgskaya Celuloza SPB Cardboard International Paper Svetogorsk Siasky PPM Phosphorit Volhovsky Aluminy Metachim Slantsi Kirishinefteorgsintez (Kinef) Novgorod region Akron Summary of potential impacts Cost data 109 Attachment 1 Short list of Industrial point sources

88 1 Introduction During the meeting of WG 1 I Helsinki September 23 25, 2009, the Short list of industries, prepared by the Russian side, was discussed. The finally agreed list is presented in Annex 1. Comments and some further information of the listed industries are given below. 2 Kaliningrad region 2.1 Nemansky Pulp and Paper mill This is an integrated sulphite pulp (bleached) and paper mill. It is particularly the sulphite pulping that contributes to the emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen, while the papermaking is less significant here. The production level 2004 was approximately 69,000 tons/a of sulphite pulp, 2005 approx. 56,000 tons/a, and 2008 approx 30,000 tons/a. No data were given for 2006 and 2007, but we assume 50,000 and 40,000 tons/a, respectively. No data on the paper production have been received, but this can be assumed to be of the size as the pulp production, or higher. Reported effluent data as follows (only the annual data were reported, the daily data have been estimated based on the assumed production days 350/ annum). It is important to describe the emissions of water, nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of m 3 /ton of pulp and kg/ton of pulp, in order to evaluate the level of environmental mitigation measures at the industry. We call these specific emissions. These were as follows: 2006 Water ~ 420 m 3 /ton pulp Nitrogen ~ 0.82 kg/ton pulp Phosphorus No data 2007 Water ~ 360 m 3 /ton pulp Nitrogen ~ 0.9 kg/ton pulp Phosphorus No data These data can be characterized as high emissions. It can be assumed that also the phosphorus emission is of a high level. BAT levels according to the BREF document of the European Commission 1 are approximately as follows, for bleached sulphite pulp mills: Nitrogen Phosphorus kg N/ton kg P/ton 1 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Pulp and Paper Industry. 87

89 Also the water discharge can be regarded as high; the BAT level for an integrated sulphite pulp mill would be approximately m 3 /ton. The obvious reason for the high emissions is the fact that this is an old industry, with a low level of environmental mitigation measures. It can be assumed that this pulp mill has a relatively high loss of cooking liquor in the chemical recovery, which will result in high nitrogen as well as phosphorus emissions. Also the mill has no biological effluent treatment. Nitrogen and Phosphorus removal The method for reducing these emissions is primarily a thorough modernization and rebuild of the mill, including process measures for reduced sulphite cooking liquor losses, and water recycling, as well as biological effluent treatment, at very high investment costs. Our estimation is that such a project is not economically feasible for a pulp mill of this limited size. Concerning the future of this mill we have received two contradictory pieces of information. 1) It was mentioned at the WG 1 meeting that the Nemansky pulp mill is not in operation at present (since 2009), and that no start up is expected. This seems to be a reasonable expectation. Concerning the paper mill no information of this kind was available. Also if the paper mill is actually operating, based on purchased pulp now and in the future it will not be a hot spot in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus. 2) During the WG 1 meeting we also received an earlier presented presentation Ecological modernization of Neman Pulp and Paper Mill, given by J.M. Murashko, Deputy General Director of Joint- Stock Company North-West Timber Company. This outlines a planned modernization program for the mill, with anticipated reduced emissions of e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus. We can not judge to what extent this planning is realistic. Estimation of future nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, if the Nemansky mill is continued to be operated as a modernized non-integrated paper mill are as follows: Production, assumed 60,000 tons/a Nitrogen (BAT level) kgn/ton = 3 15 ton N/a Phosphorus (BAT level) kgp/ton = tonp/a 88

90 Summary Nemansky The most realistic scenario is that the Nemansky sulphite pulp mill will be closed down. In that case, and for the case that the mill continues to be operated as an non-integrated paper mill, Nemansky will not be a significant source of nitrogen and phosphorus. The nitrogen and phosphorus emissions are expected to be of the following levels: Nitrogen Phosphorus 3 15 ton N/a ton P/a 2.2 Sovetsky Pulp and Paper mill This is an integrated sulphite pulp (non-bleached?) and paper mill. It is particulately the sulphite pulping that contributes to the emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen, while the papermaking is less significant here. The production level of the pulp mill has not been received. The pulp mill was closed down in 2008, and is still not operating. No data on the paper production for those years have been received, but the present production 20,000 tons/a was mentioned. It was also mentioned at the WG 1 meeting that the sulphite pulping is not expected to be started up in the future, but be replaced by the production of RCF pulp (Recycled fibre pulp). This pulp has also a significant emission of nitrogen and phosphorus, but much lower than sulphite pulping. Emissions are reported as follows, by four different wastewater streams: Water million m 3 /a Phosphorus ton P/a Nitrogen ton N/a mg P/l mg N/l 2008 Sovetsky Sovetsky Sovetsky Sovetsky Total It is important to describe the emissions of water, nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of m 3 /ton of pulp and kg/ ton of pulp, in order to evaluate the level of environmental control at the industry. As we have no production data for 2008, this can not be done. The reported emission data may be a result of periods with and without sulphite pulping. 89

91 Nitrogen and Phosphorus removal The method for reducing phosphorus and nitrogen emission at an old sulphite pulp mill would primarily be a thorough modernization and rebuild of the mill, including process measures for reduced liquor losses, and water recycling, as well as biological effluent treatment, at high investment costs. Our estimation is that such a project is not economically feasible for a pulp mill of this limited size. Concerning the future of this mill we have received two following information. The pulp mill will not be started up, but the paper mill will be operated. The sulphite pulp will be replaced by RCF pulp (recycled fibre pulp). The production will be 30,000 tons/a. Estimation of the future nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, with these production conditions, are as follows: Production, assumed Nitrogen (BAT level) Phosphorus (BAT level) Nitrogen Phosphorus 30,000 tons/a kg N/ton for paper mill kg N/ton for RCF pulp kg P/ton for paper mill kg P/ton for RCF pulp 2 15 ton N/a ton P/a The nitrogen and phosphorus emissions will depend on the type of paper production. The BAT conditions, valid for the above emissions, require inter alia, that biological treatment is applied. Further reductions of these emissions can be achieved primarily in two ways: Phosphorus removal through chemical flocculation of the wastewater, after biological treatment. This is a commonly applied method for paper mill effluents. The expected low phosphorus emission does not motivate this treatment. Nitrogen removal through converting the biological treatment to a nitrogen removal process, using the principle of nitrification denitrification. This process is commonly used in municipal wastewater treatment, but not in pulp and paper mill effluent treatment. One reason of this is that P&P mill effluents normally contain a deficit of nitrogen for biological treatment, which means that a certain dosage of nitrogen compounds (for instance urea) is normally required for biological treatment. The municipal wastewater, on the other hand, contains an excess of nitrogen, which makes the process more feasible. The normally applied method for minimizing nitrogen emissions in these cases i.e. when biological treatment of P&P mill effluents is applied is to optimize/minimize the dosage of nitrogen. A possibility could be co-treatment of the biologically pre-treated 90

92 wastewater with a raw municipal wastewater in a nitrogen removal process. This provides suitable proportions between the two wastewater types. As far as we know such a process has not been applied in practice, so an extensive test program would be required. Summary Sovetsky We assume that the Sovetsky mill will be converted to a paper mill, integrated with RCF pulp production. This mill will not be a significant source of nitrogen and phosphorus emissions. No further actions to reduce these emissions seem to be urgent. The nitrogen and phosphorus emissions are expected to be of the following levels: Nitrogen Phosphorus 2 15 ton N/a tonp/a 2.3 Mix-Deima This meat processing plant has relatively low nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, around tons N/a and tons P/a. Therefore it has been removed from the list. 91

93 3 Leningrad region 3.1 Viborgskaya Celuloza This is an integrated sulphite pulp (non-bleached) and paper mill. It is located at Viborg. It is particularly the sulphite pulping that contributes to the emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen, while the papermaking is less significant here. The production level of the pulp mill has been reported as Sulphite pulp Paper 63,000 tons/a 66,000 tons/a Wastewater is treated biologically in an activated sludge plant. It is important to describe the emissions of water, nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of m 3 /ton of pulp and kg/ ton of pulp, in order to evaluate the level of environmental control the industry. Assuming the production data as above, we estimate as follows: 2006 Water 240 m 3 /ton pulp Nitrogen 0.2 kg N/ton pulp Phosphorus 0.13 kg P/ton pulp 2007 Water 250 m 3 /ton pulp Nitrogen 0.2 kg N/ton pulp (~ 0.8 mg N/l) Phosphorus 0.14 kg P/ton pulp (~ 0.6 mg P/l) BOD 1.24 kg/ton pulp (78 ton/a, 0.22 ton/d, 5 mg/l) The BOD removal in the biological treatment is stated as 85%, which means that the BOD emission ahead of treatment is about 1.5 tons/d, or about 8.3 kg/ton pulp. BAT levels according to the BREF document of the European Commission are approximately as follows, for bleached sulphite pulp mills: Nitrogen Phosphorus BOD kg N/ton kg P/ton 1 2 kg/ton For unbleached pulp, the figures should be slightly lower. The nitrogen and BOD emissions can be regarded as relatively low for this type of mill, while the phosphorus and water emissions are on the high side. 92

94 Summary Viborgskaya If this mill continues operation as it is run today (according to the collected data), the following emissions can be expected: Nitrogen Phosphorus 12 ton N/a 8 9 ton P/a Further nitrogen reduction is not considered feasible at reasonable costs. Further phosphorus reduction could be feasible, provided that the wastewater flow is significantly reduced, or that a main part of the phosphorus emission is found in a small part of the total wastewater flow. The method to be applied would be chemical flocculation, followed by sedimentation or flotation, of the effluent from the biological treatment. This is presently a conventional type of treatment in the pulp and paper industry. A phosphorus removal of 60 80% could be expected. 3.2 SPB Cardboard This is an integrated paper board mill, based on RCF pulp (recycled fibre) and purchased pulp. It is located some 40 km south of St. Petersburg, near the border between Leningrad region and St. Petersburg city. The RCF part is 90%, so this pulping contributes significantly to the nitrogen and phosphorus emissions. The production level of the mill in 2006 has been given as Paper board 235,000 ton/a The RCF pulp production can be estimated as 90% of the paper production, or 212,000 ton/a. Wastewater is treated biologically in an activated sludge plant, followed by a physical-chemical treatment. The latter is probably of the chemical flocculation type. It is important to describe the emissions of water, nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of m 3 /ton of pulp and kg/ ton of pulp, in order to evaluate the level of environmental mitigation measures at the industry. Assuming the production data as above, we estimate as follows: 2006/07 Water 38 m 3 /ton paper Nitrogen 0.2 kg N/ton pulp (~ 5 mg N/l) Phosphorus 0.02 kg P/ton pulp (~0.6 mg P/l) BOD 0.2 kg/ton pulp (47 ton/a, 0.14 ton/d, 5 mg/l) These data can be characterized as low emissions. 93

95 BAT levels according to the BREF document of the European Commission are approximately as follows, for integrated RCF based paper mills, without and with deinking of the pulp: Without deinking With deinking Nitrogen kg N/ton paper Phosphorus kg P/ton paper BOD < < kg/ton paper We assume this mill is operated without deinking. The stated emissions are slightly above the BAT levels, but can still be regarded as low. The rather low BOD emission indicates a well working biological treatment. Data from the biological treatment indicate removal rates for nitrogen of 40% and for phosphorus of 20%. This is a good result for nitrogen, but a poor result for phosphorus, if chemical flocculation is applied. Summary SPB Cardboard If this mill continues operation as it is run today (or according to the collected data), the following emissions can be expected: Nitrogen Phosphorus 46 ton N/a 5 ton P/a Further nitrogen reduction is not considered technically feasible with conventional methods. A possibility would be co-treatment with a municipal wastewater, applying biological nitrogen removal (see discussion under 2.2 Sovetsky). Further phosphorus reduction could be feasible within the existing treatment plant. The method would be an optimization of the physical-chemical treatment. By this, up to 75% reduction of the phosphorus emission would be possible, giving 1 2 ton P/a. 3.3 International Paper Svetogorsk This is an integrated kraft pulp (bleached) and paper mill. Svetogorsk is located some 40 km north of Viborg, close to the border of Finland, and close to the Vyoksi river. It is particularly the kraft pulping that contributes to the emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen, while the papermaking is less significant here. The production level of the pulp mill is still unclear, but is indicated as Kraft pulp Paper 500,000 tons/a 600,000 tons/a 94

96 Wastewater is treated biologically in an activated sludge plant. It is important to describe the emissions of water, nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of m 3 /ton of pulp and kg/ ton of pulp, in order to evaluate the level of environmental control at the industry. Assuming the production data as above, we estimate as follows: 2007 Water ~ 100 m 3 /ton pulp Nitrogen ~ kg N/ton pulp (~ mg N/l) Phosphorus ~ kg P/ton pulp (~0.5 mg P/l) 2008 Water ~ 100 m 3 /ton pulp Nitrogen Phosphorus ~ kg P/ton pulp (~0.5 mg P/l) COD ~ 30 kg/ton pulp BOD ~ 1 kg/ton pulp Removal rates in the biological treatment are stated as: Nitrogen ~ 85% Phosphorus ~ 46 55% COD ~ 80 85% BOD ~ 97 98% BAT levels according to the BREF document of the European Commission are approximately as follows, for bleached kraft pulp mills: Water Nitrogen Phosphorus COD BOD m 3 /ton pulp (up to m 3 /ton paper for integrated mills) kg N/ton kg P/ton 8 23 kg/ton pulp kg/ton pulp The stated emissions can be commented as follows: Water Nitrogen Phosphorus COD BOD On the high side, compared to BAT. Low, compared to BAT Higher than BAT, but nothing alarming Slightly above BAT range Low, within BAT range The wastewater treatment indicates very good removal results. 95

97 Summary Svetogorsk The emission data indicate that this is a modern mill with a well functioning environmental control. If this mill continues operation as it is run today (according to the collected data), the following emissions can be expected: Nitrogen Phosphorus ton N/a (~ mg/l) 30 ton P/a (~ 0.5 mg/l) Further nitrogen reduction is not considered feasible with conventional technology. Further phosphorus reduction could be feasible. The method to be applied would be chemical flocculation, followed by sedimentation or flotation, of the effluent from the biological treatment. This is presently a conventional type of treatment in the pulp and paper industry. A reduction of the phosphorus emission by approximately 50 60% would be expected. At the same time a minor reduction of the nitrogen emission would be expected, by approximately 10%. A pre-requisite would preferably by a reduced water consumption, i.e. reduced wastewater flow. 3.4 Siasky PPM This is an integrated sulphite pulp (bleached) and paper mill. Siasky is situated at the southeast shore of Ladoga. It is particularly the sulphite pulping that contributes to the emissions of phosphorus and nitrogen, while the papermaking is less significant here. The production level of the mill 2006 has been given as: Sulphite pulp Paper Lignosulphonate 33,050 ton/a 43,800 ton/a 80,000 ton/a (a by-product from the sulphite pulping) Wastewater is treated biologically in an activated sludge pant. It is important to describe the emissions of water, nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of m 3 /ton of pulp and kg/ ton of pulp, in order to evaluate the level of environmental mitigation measures at the industry. Assuming the production data as above, we estimate as follows: 2006 Water ~ 600 m 3 /ton pulp (~ 480 m 3 /t paper) Nitrogen ~ 4.4 kg N/ton pulp (~ 7 mg N/l) Phosphorus ~ 0.5 kg P/ton pulp (~ 0.8 mg P/l) 2007 Water ~ 600 m 3 /ton pulp (~ 480 m 3 /t paper) Nitrogen ~ 4.2 kg N/ton pulp (~ 6.7 mg N/l) Phosphorus ~ 0.44 kg P/ton pulp (~ 0.7 mg P/l) COD ~ 540 kg/ton pulp 17,850 ton/a BOD ~ 15 kg/ton pulp 485 ton/a 96

98 BAT levels according to the BREF document of the European Commission are approximately as follows, for bleached sulphite pulp mills: Water Nitrogen Phosphorus COD BOD m 3 /ton pulp (up to m 3 /ton at integrated pulp/paper mills) kg N/ton kg P/ton kg /ton pulp 1 2 kg/ton pulp Obviously this mill has very high water emissions. This is not unexpected, if the mill is an old mill, with a low grade of environmental mitigation measures taken. The high emissions of COD and BOD, and of nitrogen and phosphorus, indicate that the mill has rather high losses of cooking liquor. Nitrogen and Phosphorus removal The only reasonable type of mitigation measure at this mill, to reduce the high nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, would be a radical renovation and modernization of the mill, primarily aiming at reducing the liquor losses from the pulping. Just improving the wastewater treatment would not be a solution. This renovation project would primarily reduce the emission of organics COD and BOD but at the same time also the nitrogen and phosphorus emissions. It is doubtful if a mill of this size could bear the very high costs for such a project. Definitely such a project would never be implemented for the mere purpose of reducing the nitrogen and phosphorus emissions. The above is said with the reservation that we have for the moment no information at all about the process conditions at the Siasky mill. Summary Siasky If this mill continues operation as it is run today (according to the collected data), the following emissions can be expected: Nitrogen Phosphorus ~ 140 ton N/a ~ 15 ton P/a Improving or extending the wastewater treatment would not be a solution for reducing these emissions. A radical modernization of the sulphite pulp mill would be required, at rather high investments. An option would be a closed down of the pulp mill, and finding external sources of pulp for the paper mill. 97

99 3.5 Phosphorit This is a chemical industry, manufacturing base chemicals and fertlilizers. It is located at Kingisepp. A base activity is the excavation of locally found phosphoric ore. Some production data 2007 were as follows: Sulphuric acid Phosphoric acid Fertilizers 820,000 ton/a 565,000 ton/a The produced fertilizers are, inter alia, superphosphate and various forms of NPK fertilizers, i.e. fertilizers containing phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium. Wastewater treatment exists, as follows: Biological treatment of household wastewater Mechanical treatment of rainwater Physical-chemical fluorine treatment of industrial wastewater, which we assume is a chemical precipitation, for instance with lime, to remove fluoride originating from the ore. There does not seem to be any particular treatment for removal of nitrogen and phosphorus. However, if the fluorine treatment is a lime precipitation, it is most likely that also phosphorus (as phosphate) is removed. Emissions are reported as follows, by four different wastewater streams: Water million Phosphorus Nitrogen m 3 /a ton P/a mg P/l ton N/a mg N/l 2008 Phosphorit ~ ~ 9 Phosphorit ~ ~ 9 Total ~ ~ 9 It would be of interest to describe the emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of kg/ton fertilizer, in order to evaluate the level of environmental control at the industry. This would require the comparison with BAT levels or other benchmarks. Only few such data have been found, for the moment only this value: kg P/ton NPK = Guideline value according to IFC/WB s new Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Phosphate Fertilizers Manufacturing If this factor is calculated with the reported data, and Fertilizers are assumed to be NPK fertilizers, we obtain 0.02 kg P/ton NPK which is much above the mentioned guideline value. This indicated that there is a potential to reduce the phosphorus emission. 98

100 Phosphorus removal We can anticipate two methods for this: Internal recovery/recycling of more phosphorus chemicals inside the factory (raw materials and products). We can, however, not judge the practical possibilities for this or the potential effect. Upgrading the wastewater treatment the fluorine treatment of the industrial wastewater to more efficient precipitation of phosphate; at least a 50 60% improvement should be possible. Nitrogen removal We can anticipate two methods for this: Internal recovery/recycling of more nitrogen chemicals inside the factory. We can, however, not judge the practical possibilities for this or the potential effect. Treating the industrial wastewater with biological nitrogen removal, although no conventional method exists for this type of wastewater. A possibility would be co-treatment with a municipal wastewater, applying biological nitrogen removal (see discussion under 2.2 Sovetsky). An extensive test program would be required. The potential would be 70% nitrogen removal, or higher. Summary Phosphorit If this factory continues operation as it is run today (according to the collected data), the following emissions can be expected: Nitrogen Phosphorus ~ 45 ton N/a ~ 11 ton P/a A potential to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus emissions by internal measures in the factory may exist. Improved wastewater treatment has a potential to reduce the phosphorus emission by 50 60%. A non-tested biological nitrogen removal process together with municipal wastewater has a potential to reduce the nitrogen emission by 70% or higher. 99

101 3.6 Volhovsky Aluminy Metachim This is a chemical and metal industry, manufacturing base chemicals, fertlilizers, cement and aluminium products. It is located at Volhov. Some production data 2007 were as follows: Sulphuric acid Polyphosphate Fertilizers Sodium phosphate Potassium sulphate Potash Cemen Aluminum metal Aluminum sulphate Special cement 240,000 ton/a 125,000 ton/a 90,000 ton/a 94,480 ton/a 460,000 ton/a 40,000 ton/a Wastewater treatment of the industrial wastewater exists, including: Mechanical + Physical-Chemical treatment It is a likely assumption that the physical-chemical inter alia is used for phosphorus removal. Domestic wastewater from the industries is separately treated by: Mechanical + Biological + Physical-Chemical treatment. Emissions from the industry are reported as follows: Water million m 3 /a Phosphorus ton P/a Nitrogen ton N/a mg P/l mg N/l 2007 Total ~ ~ ~ Total ~ ~ ~ 5 We do not have any relevant production data, by which we can calculate specific emissions. If we compare this factory with Phosphorit, however, we find significantly higher phosphorus and significantly lower nitrogen emissions. With more detailed production data for Metachim, this comparison could be more interesting. 100

102 Phosphorus removal We can anticipate two methods for this: Internal recovery/recycling of more phosphorus chemicals (raw materials and products) inside the factory. We can, however, not judge the practical possibilities for this, or the potential effect. Upgrading the wastewater treatment of the industrial wastewater to more efficient precipitation of phosphate. Such could be rather efficient, as the incoming phosphorus concentration is high, on average ~37 mg/l. A 90% removal would not be unlikely, assuming that the phosphorus is mainly available as phosphate. Nitrogen removal We can anticipate two methods for this: Internal recovery/recycling of more nitrogen chemicals inside the factory. We can, however, not judge the practical possibilities for this or the potential effect. Treating the industrial wastewater with biological nitrogen removal, although no conventional method exists for this type of wastewater. A possibility would be co-treatment with domestic (municipal) wastewater, applying biological nitrogen removal (see discussion under 2.2 Sovetsky). An extensive test program would be required. The potential would be 70% nitrogen removal, or higher. Summary Metachim If this factory continues operation as it is run today (according to the collected data), the following emissions can be expected: Nitrogen Phosphorus ~ 9 11 ton N/a ~ ton P/a A potential to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus emissions by internal measures in the factory may exist. Improved wastewater treatment has a potential to reduce the phosphorus emission by 90%. A non-tested biological nitrogen removal process together with municipal wastewater has a potential to reduce the nitrogen emission. An action towards phosphorus seems to be more relevant than towards nitrogen. 101

103 3.7 Slantsi This is a petrochemical industry, based on petroleum coke as the raw material. Slantsi is located near the southwest corned of Leningrad region. No details of the production size have been received. The raw material consumption has been stated as: Petroleum coke 20,000 ton/month ~ 7,300,000 ton/a Wastewater treatment of the industrial wastewater, together with municipal (domestic) wastewater exists, including: Mechanical + Biological (activated sludge) treatment Two parallel plants exist (no. 1-1 and 1-2). One third plant (no. 2) treats rain water, mine water etc. This is a Mechanical treatment. Wastewaters from some other industries are also included, i.e. a cement plant and another similar type of industry (petrochemical or alike). Emissions are reported as follows, by three different wastewater streams; the data refer to treated wastewater: Water million m 3 /a Phosphorus ton P/a Nitrogen ton N/a mg P/l mg N/l 2006 Slantsi Slantsi Slantsi Total Slantsi Slantsi Slantsi Total There are also reported BOD values in the treated wastewater; these are in the range of 7 14 mg/. This indicates a moderate high efficiency in the Biological treatment. Obviously the main nitrogen and phosphorus emissions are with the Slantsi 1-1 and 1-2 streams, i.e. the combined industrial and domestic wastewater. No data are available that indicate the distribution of the wastewater as industrial and domestic. So we do not know if the domestic wastewater, treated together with industrial wastewaters, originates only from the industry, or from a main part of the city of Slantsi. 102

104 It would be of interest to describe the emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of kg/ton raw material or kg/ton product, in order to evaluate the level of environmental control at the industry. This is not possible, however, as we have no production data and no separate data of the industrial emissions. Phosphorus removal We can anticipate primarily one method this: Upgrading the wastewater treatment of Slantsi 1-1 and 1-2 by addition of a chemical flocculation stage, aiming at precipitation and mechanical removal of phosphorus. Such could be only moderately efficient, as the incoming phosphorus concentration is rather low, only 1 2 mg/l. A 50 60% removal would be a reasonable assumption, assuming that the phosphorus is mainly available as phosphate. Nitrogen removal We can anticipate primarily one method for this: Upgrading the biological treatment of the industrial/domestic wastewater with biological nitrogen removal. An extensive test program would be required, to find out the feasibility of this. The potential would be 70% nitrogen removal, or higher. Summary Slantsi If this industry continues operation as it is run today (according to the collected data), the following emissions can be expected: Nitrogen Phosphorus ~ ton N/a ~ 9 11 ton P/a A potential to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus emissions by extended wastewater treatment exists. Extended wastewater treatment has a potential to reduce the phosphorus emission by 50 60% and the nitrogen emission by 70% or higher. 103

105 3.8 Kirishinefteorgsintez (Kinef) This is a petrochemical industry, based on crude oil as the raw material. No details of the production size have been received. The raw material consumption has been stated as: Crude oil 18.3 million tons in 1995 Products have been stated as Heavy fuel oil, gasoline Liquified hydrocarbon gases ( = LPG) Aromatic hydrocarbons Alkyl benzene Roofing materials Wastewater is treated in two parallel lines: 1. Salty industrial wastewater Mechanical/Biological/Physico-chemical treatment Final treatment in a large Biopond (10.5 million m 3 ) 2. Non-salty industrial wastewater + Domestic wastewater Mechanical/Biological treatment Final treatment in a Biopond (340,000 m 3 ) Overflow from Biopond 2 to Biopond 1 occurs; frequency is not stated. Emissions are reported as follows, by two different wastewater streams; the data refer to treated wastewater: Water million m 3 /a Phosphorus ton P/a Nitrogen ton N/a mg P/l mg N/l 2007 Kinef ~ 6 Kinef ~ 19 Total ~ 10.5 ~ 22.3 ~ Kinef ~ 6 Kinef ~ 16 Total ~ 10.5 ~ 21 ~ 113 There are also reported BOD values in the treated wastewater; these are in the range of 5 15 mg/. This indicates a moderate high efficiency in the Biological treatment. Obviously a larger part of the nitrogen and phosphorus emissions are with the Kinef 2 stream, i.e. the combined industrial and domestic wastewater. No data are available that indicate the distribution of the wastewater as industrial and domestic. So we do not know if the domestic wastewater, treated together with industrial wastewaters, originates only from the industry, or from a main part of the city of Kirishi. 104

106 It would be of interest to describe the emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus in terms of kg/ton raw material or kg/ton product, in order to evaluate the level of environmental control at the industry. This is not possible, however, as we have no production data and no separate data of the industrial emissions. Phosphorus removal We can anticipate primarily one method this: Upgrading the wastewater treatment of Kinef 2 by addition of a chemical flocculation stage, aiming at precipitation and mechanical removal of phosphorus. Such could be moderately efficient, as the incoming phosphorus concentration is around 3 mg/l. A 70 80% removal would be a reasonable assumption, assuming that the phosphorus is mainly available as phosphate. Nitrogen removal We can anticipate primarily one method for this: Upgrading the biological treatment of the Kinef 2 with biological nitrogen removal. An extensive test program would be required, to find out the feasibility of this. The potential would be 70% nitrogen removal, or higher. Summary Kirishinefteorgsintez If this industry continues operation as it is run today (according to the collected data), the following emissions can be expected: Nitrogen Phosphorus ~ ton N/a ~ ton P/a A potential to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus emissions by extended wastewater treatment exists. 105

107 4 Novgorod region 4.1 Akron This is a chemical industry, manufacturing mainly fertilizers, and also some other products. It is located in Novgorod city, in Novgorod region. Wastewater is discharged Volhov river, and further to Ladoga. Some production data: Product Production ,000 ton/a Ammonia 1,114 1,034 Nitrogen fertilizers (ammonia nitrate, 977 1,104 carbamide=urea, carbamide/ammonia) Complex fertilizers (NPK, NP etc.) 1,190 1,104 Organic products (methanol, formaldehyde, etc.) Inorganic products (ammonium nitrate, liq. carbon dioxide, calcium carbonate) Production ,000 ton/a Treatment of the industrial wastewater, together with domestic wastewater, exists, in three different plants. The exact configuration of the treatment sequence is still unclear. But obviously biological treatment is involved; this is indicated by high BOD values in untreated wastewater, followed by low values in treated water. Also high ammonia values in untreated wastewater, followed by high nitrate values in treated water. Emissions from the industry are also not yet clear; some confusing figures exist in the received data material. Phosphorus emissions are around 100 ton P/a according to one source, and within approximately ton/a according to another source. Concentrations may be within mg P/l. Nitrogen emissions are 484 ton P/a according to one source, and between 120 and 550 ton N/a according to another source. Concentrations may be within 5 25 mg N/l. The Akron data have to be further clarified and elaborated. Phosphorus removal We can anticipate two methods for this: Internal recovery/recycling of more phosphorus chemicals (raw materials and products) inside the factory. We can, however, not judge the practical possibilities for this, or the potential effect. Upgrading the wastewater treatment by addition of a chemical flocculation stage, aiming at precipitation and mechanical removal of phosphorus. Such could be moderately efficient, as the incoming phosphorus concentration is around 3 mg/l. A 70 80% removal would be a reasonable assumption, assuming that the phosphorus is mainly available as phosphate. 106

108 Nitrogen removal We can anticipate primarily two methods for this: Internal recovery/recycling of more nitrogen chemicals inside the factory. We can, however, not judge the practical possibilities for this, or the potential effect. Upgrading the existing biological treatment with biological nitrogen removal. An extensive test program would be required, to find out the feasibility of this. The potential would be 70% nitrogen removal, or higher. More clarified data about the present situation are required for a better estimation. Summary Akron Existing data are confusing and must be clarified. Present emissions area as follows: Nitrogen Phosphorus ~ 480 ton N/a or ton N/a ~ 100 ton P/a or t P/a The most interesting option would probably be reduced nitrogen emission through biological nitrogen removal. 107

109 5 Summary of potential impacts The possible reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges, which are estimated for the different plants according to the previous sections, are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. Potential impacts on nitrogen and phosphorus Industry Nitrogen impact tons/year Kaliningrad Nemansky Pulp and paper Sovetsky Pulp and paper Leningrad Discharges to Gulf of Finland Viborgskaya Pulp and paper 5 7 SPB Cardboard Phosphorit Slantsi Leningrad Discharges to Ladoga International Paper Svetogorsk Siyaski Pulp and Paper Metachim Kirishinefteorgsintez Novgorod Discharge to Ladoga AKRON Phosphorus impact tons/year For the pulp and paper mills in Kaliningrad we have given no values, as we have assumed that the heavily polluting sulphite mills now closed will not be started up again. For the Siasky pulp and paper mill, with rather high discharges particularly of nitrogen, we have given no values, as we assume that the only reasonable measure to reduce these discharges are a radical modernization of the mill, and we have no information of any plans in that direction. Note that the data for the industries, discharging to Ladoga, do not take into account the retention in Ladoga. The impacts, as regards the discharges to the Baltic, will be reduced with the percentages of the retention, which are 70% for phosphorus and 30 40% for nitrogen. The data for AKRON show a great span, due to the fact that the basic data, which have been received, are uncertain. A closer analysis of these data will be required for more certain values of the impacts. 108

110 6 Cost data We have considered cost calculations for some of these industries and the suggested measures. For that purpose only the industries discharging directly to the Baltic have been considered. We have compared the impacts with the impacts for the municipal wastewater treatment plants, presented in Sweco s report TENTATIVE OUTLINES OF APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS WITHIN THE RusNIP PROJECT. We find then that only the Slantsi industry is comparable with the plants presented in that report the other industries indicate significantly lower impacts. Thus we make a cost estimation only for Slantsi. We assume for Slantsi that the existing biological treatment is rebuilt for biological nitrogen removal, and for improved phosphorus removal. The load on the rebuilt Slantsi treatment plant will then be: Flow 17,000 m 3 /d Nitrogen 250 kg N/d Phosphorus 30 kg P/d Cost data have been taken from the above mentioned Sweco report, for treatment plants of similar sizes. Estimated costs for the Slantsi plant are: Investment Operation and Maintenance Cost per kg N removed Cost per kg P removed approx 400 million RUB approx 18 million RUB/year 280 RUB/kg N 2,600 RUB/kg P The costs per kg removed N and P are significantly higher than the corresponding costs in the mentioned Sweco report, particularly for P. The reason is that the concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in the wastewater are relatively low in the Slantsi case. One thing that may have led to an overestimation of these costs is the fact that there is an existing treatment plant at Slantsi, but we have had no possibility to check the dimensions and status of this plant. Thus we have assumed the installation of a new plant. 109

111 Attachment 1 Short list of Industrial point sources Date in the table are valid for year 2007; data in brackets (.) are for year 2006, if nothing else stated. INDUSTRY Volume, m 3 /a Discharge of substances to water courses in treated wastewater, t/a Kaliningrad region NEMANSKY PPM (discharge outlet 1) NEMANSKY PPM (discharge outlet 2) NEMANSKY Total 21,127,604 (14,456,000) SOVETSKY PPM (discharge outlet 1) SOVETSKY PPM (discharge outlet 2) SOVETSKY PPM (discharge outlet 4) SOVETSKY PPM (discharge outlet 5) Inflow of wastewater, mg/l Outflow of wastewater, mg/l P N P N P N 1,494,204 1,28 0,86 19,633,400 35,28 1,32 36,28 (41.2) 2,163, ,11 2,43 237, ,5 2,92 682, ,15 1,85 300, ,07 0,8 Branch Receiving water body/ basin ~1,0 Pulp/paper Neman basin SOVETSKY Tot, ,382,000 0, ~ 0,2 ~ 6 Pulp/paper Neman basin SOVETSKY Tot, ,401,000 3,4 82,6 ~ 0,2 ~ 4 1,87 4,0 Food Coastal area MIX-DEIMA 298,248 (323,000) 0,56 (1,35) 1,19 (1,7) 110

112 Leningrad region VIBORGSKAYA CELULOZA PPM 15,745,200 8,51 11,49 0,54 0,73 VIBORGSKAYA CELULOZA PPM VIBORGSKAYA CELULOZA PPM VIBORGSKAYA Total 15,900,600 (15,145,000) SPB CARDBOARD POLYGR. PLANT 105,000 0,03 0,05 0,3 0,5 50,400 0,3 0,6 5,9 11,9 8,84 (8,12) 12,14 (11,88) ~ 0,55 ~ 0,76 Pulp/paper GUF 9,000,000 5,2 46,2 0,67 15,08 ~ 0,57 ~ 5,1 Pulp/paper Neva basin PHOSPHORIT ,942,000 10,74 45,60 ~ 2,2 ~ 9,2 Chemical (fertilizers etc.) SLANTSI 1-1 (2007) 4,849, ~ 1.8 ~ 15 SLANTSI 1-2 (2007) 1,661, ~ 1,2 ~ 12 SLANTSI 2 (2007) 4,847, ~ 0,2 SLANTSI Total, ,357, ~ 1.8 ~ 8.5 Petrochemical (petr coke based) SLANTSI 1-1 (2006) 4,185, ~ 1.4 ~ 13.5 SLANTSI 1-2 (2006) 1,692, ~ 1,6 ~ 0.24 SLANTSI 2 (2006) 4,070, ~ 0,6 SLANTSI Total, ,947,000 8,65 86,6 ~ 0,9 ~ 9 Petrochemical (petr coke based) KIRISHINEFTE- ORGSINTEZ 1 (2007) KIRISHINEFTE- ORGSINTEZ 2 (2007) 5,073, ~ 0,5 ~ 5.8 5,366, ~ 3.7 ~ 19 Luga Narva basin Narva basin 111

113 KIRISHINEFTE- ORGSINTEZ Total, 2007 KIRISHINEFTE- ORGSINTEZ 1 (2008) KIRISHINEFTE- ORGSINTEZ 2 (2008) KIRISHINEFTE- ORGSINTEZ Total, ,439,000 22, Petrochemical (crude oil based) 5,042,000 3,38 28,89 ~ 0,7 ~ 5.7 5,418,000 17,47 84,33 ~ 3,2 ~ 15,6 10,460,000 20, Petrochemical (crude oil based) Volhov river/ladoga Volhov river/ladoga VOLHOVSKY ALUMINY 2,198, ,81 ~ 22 ~ 5 Chemical Volhov river/ladoga METACHIM, 2007 (fertilizers etc.) VOLHOVSKY ALUMINY 1,709, ,81 ~ 19 ~ 5 METACHIM, 2008 SIASKY PPM 1 22,642,000 14,56 140,84 0,7 6,58 SIASKY PPM 2 227,000 SIASKY Total 22,919,000 14,6 140,9 ~ 0,64 ~ 6,15 Ladoga (22,869,000?) (16) (150,9) INT. PAPER 57,068, ~ 0.5 ~ 0.3 Pulp/paper Vyoksi river/ladoga SVETOGORSK, 2007 INT. PAPER 62,800, ~ 0.4 SVETOGORSK, 2008 Novgorod region AKRON 57,200, ~ 1,8 ~ 8,5 Chemical (fertilizers) Volhov river/ladoga 112

114 Annex 5 Economic and financial analysis 1 Introduction The number of point sources in Russia which add to the pollution of the Baltic Sea, in combination with limited resources to deal with these problems, makes it necessary to prioritise between alternative investment projects and solutions. The approach generally adopted by international experts and financiers is to analyse and rank investment alternatives from an economic point of view. This is referred to as the least-cost analysis (LCA) or sometimes as the costeffectiveness analysis (CEA). The bearing principle is that scarce resources are to be used to reach a certain well-defined result in the most economic way, i.e. the lowest cost. This method secures in principle the most economic use of financial and other resources. However, it should be noted that a number of assumptions are to be made and conditions be met, which in real life may not always be easy to comply with. Projected annual wastewater volume. Projected annual (inflow) concentration of BOD, phosphorus/nitrogen compounds, etc. Definition of timetable for meeting post-treatment target levels for emissions. Analysis of current treatment facilities, including their status, remaining lifetime, operating and maintenance costs, compliance with future demands, etc. Analysis and justification of supplementary or in some cases even greenfield treatment facilities, including treatment technology, design, capacity, additional land requirement, civil works, equipment and other inputs for implementation. Estimated investment cost, investment plan and lifetime of key equipment. Projected annual operating and maintenance costs throughout the plant s lifetime. The great number of variables implies that projections need to be based on thorough analysis and realistic estimates and assumptions. Only then can alternative solutions, sites and projects be compared and ranked with a reasonable degree of accuracy. 113

115 It is therefore essential that critical assumptions are presented and justified in a transparent way, in order to avoid decision-making based on wishful thinking and unrealistic scenarios. Realistic projections of the dynamics of treatment volumes must e.g. be based on forecasts of population (including births, deaths, migration), specific water consumption, connection rates, annual wastewater volume, storm-water volume, construction of new housing areas, expansion of commercial areas, budget institutions, new industries and in some cases closing of old factories. The consideration of existing facilities is quite important. The decision to be made concerns only future costs (and benefits), but existing treatment facilities can be used, in combination with supplementary investments, if the least-cost analysis will confirm this to be the most economic solution to meet the targeted emission levels. The highest ranked investment project consequently represent the most economic solution, the lowest per unit (of pollutant) cost alternative, to meet the defined target levels over the projection period. Any funding agency would like to know if the preferred option has been verified as the least-cost alternative, or be convinced why deviation from this principle is justified. The project alternatives will also subject to other considerations before final decision-making and presentation to financiers. Risk assessment and uncertainties. Environmental, socio-economic and fiscal consequences if the target levels are not met. Social aspects. Political considerations, necessary licenses and permits. Possibilities to finance the investment in question. Each of these factors requires careful analysis and assessment. The risk assessment may e.g. address technical, environmental, institutional, economic and financial factors which may be of such importance that they can influence decision-making. 114

116 2 Economic least-cost analysis The approach to optimise the use of scarce resources from an economic point of view, which is the logic of using the least-cost approach when comparing mutually exclusive investment options, should in theory comprise all sorts of resources: technical, natural, financial and human. In practice only resources which can be expressed in monetary terms are part of the quantitative analysis, while other aspects are considered in a qualitative analysis. It is important that all inputs are expressed in economic values rather than financial. This means that e.g. the cost of damaging natural resources could be low in financial terms, but the economic cost should reflect the long-term value of alternative use (the so-called opportunity cost). The economic perspective reflects the interest of the society and hence adopts a much broader perspective than the strictly financial/commercial. The cost of electricity, oil, gas, chemicals, etc. should consequently not be based on subsidised or politically controlled low prices but instead reflect the value in the best possible alternative use. In the case of natural gas or oil this could be the export price. All values are to be expressed in real terms, i.e. excluding inflation. The economic least-cost approach is a comparative analysis of alternative options, which requires the following inputs to be determined for each alternative: Investment cost (updated estimate, specification of key components, relevant currency, including contingencies) of identified measures to deliver the same benefits, in this case meet the defined emission targets. Lifetime (depreciation period) of key equipment and constructions, realistic timetable and values for replacement investments during the lifetime of the treatment plant. Annual operating and maintenance costs. These costs should as far as possible reflect estimated actual costs, taking into consideration changes in volumes and projected load, instead of just expressing an average percentage of the initial investment cost. Discount rate. This rate reflects the opportunity cost of capital, the expected return on invested capital in its best alternative use. It is expressed in real terms and must not be confused with the (nominal) interest rate on a loan. NEFCO, one of the Nordic financing institutions and one of the participants in the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP), is using 5% as discount rate in its project assessments. When comparing and ranking alternative projects it is essential to apply the same conditions, e.g. projection period and post-treatment emission levels, in order to make the comparison fair and relevant. This means e.g. that replacement investments and residue values have to be scheduled. 115

117 There are three different and in fact supplementary ways of calculating the least-cost solution: 1) The Net Present Value (NPV) Method: All incremental values (investments, operating and maintenance costs, possible revenues) from a project are discounted back (with the discount rate referred to above) to a present value and summed to get the net present value. The project with the highest NPV should be accepted. A high discount rate favours projects with high annual O&M costs (since the discounted value of those future costs will be comparatively smaller). A low discount rate works in the other direction and favours projects with lower future annual costs. 2) The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Method: IRR is technically the discount rate which gives a NPV of zero for a specific project. The project with the highest IRR is the least-cost solution. This method should in principle give the same ranking as the NPV method, but is often preferred by decision-makers since the perception of an IRR expressed as a percentage is easier than a NPV in discounted monetary terms. The following diagram is an example on how the sensitivity of IRR for different variables can be displayed. 3) The Equivalent Annual Cost Method: This method discounts all incremental values back to net present value and then converts them (via an annuity factor) to equivalent annual costs. The annuity cost can be related to the delivered benefits (e.g. m 3 of treated wastewater or units of BOD, phosphorus or nitrogen being removed). The project alternative with the lowest annuity cost per unit is the leastcost solution. An advantage with this method is that it can be used for comparison of alternatives with different lifespan. 116

118 3 Financial analysis and financing 3.1 General funding aspects General criteria for external loan financing of a specific project include the following aspects: Has the project been justified as the least-cost solution of delivering defined benefits? Has a recent and bankable feasibility study been carried out for the project? Is the project part of the public or the private sector? Possible collateral/security for a potential loan? Risks and uncertainties connected with the project and its environment (in a broad sense)? Has a due-diligence been carried out of the borrower/owner/operating company, covering not only the project aspects? Commitment and co-financing of the owner, whether public or private? Debt service capacity of the borrower? Lending policy of financier? Funding agencies as a rule have the principle if prioritising projects based on verified least-cost solutions, unless very good reasons to consider other aspects are at place. Another condition is that a bankable feasibility study has been made. The word bankable actually refers to the requirement of international banks such as the World Bank, EBRD, NIB, etc. as regards format, structure and quality of a feasibility study. A feasibility study should cover technical, economic, financial, institutional and organisational aspects and verify a project s feasibility. The leading banks have published manuals as guidance for such studies and also carry out thorough in-house appraisals of all studies. Studies of high quality obviously stand a better chance of attracting finance. Public sector utilities projects such as wastewater treatment plants are obviously dependent on tariffs set by political authorities for cost-recovery and debt service of potential loans. This leaves the financier with a substantial degree of uncertainty and risk, which explains the reluctance of many international financing institutions to engage in such projects unless appropriate collateral or guarantee is available. It should be noted that even if a feasibility study analyses a specific project, it is the utility (in some cases a municipal enterprise) as such that will undertake the responsibility for the investment, the loan and future operation of the plant. This means the status of the entity and its capacity to implement the project and future services also is relevant to analyse. A due-diligence is therefore necessary to get more information about e.g. profile of accounts payable, 117

119 replacement values of assets, subsidies, non-core activities and investment plans not related to treatment. Other considerations that will be made by the financing agencies include: Realism and accuracy of cost estimates and other data and assumptions. Possible local co-financing from owner or wastewater utility. Possible loan financing/grants/equity contribution in Russia. Affordability of tariff levels required for full cost-recovery. Political commitment to increase tariff levels. Projected cash-flow (based on realistic collection rates) from consumers. Mitigation to reduce risks and uncertainties with the project and suggested loan arrangement. Constrains, obstacles and conditions for implementation (political, legislative, financial, technical, social, etc). The National Implementation Plan needs to address such issues, not least regarding mitigation and measures on how to meet these requirements and conditions for external funding. Preparation of a feasibility study is an important part of verifying a project s feasibility. The majority of investment projects to eliminate or reduce the impact of polluting sources in Russia can and should be financed through the public budget (whether federal, regional or local) system, domestic bank loans and other local sources of finance. There are two main reasons for this: 1. The amount of financial resources required, which means that huge foreign loans and guarantees would have to be arranged, representing a burden on the Russian economy. 2. Wastewater services generate revenues only in local currency, while international institutions mainly (with some exceptions) lend in foreign currency. It is therefore logical that international funding is channelled mainly to major point sources of pollution. The possibility to use international funding in combination with domestic funding is preferred. Ultimate responsibility for mobilising sufficient financing always rests with the Russian owner, in this case the public sector. Some of the institutions which are active in supporting the Russian Federation in analysing, preparing and financing public sector projects such as wastewater treatment in Northwest Russia are the European commission, the World Bank, EIB, EBRD, NIB and NEFCO. The most promising international facility for this kind of project is NDEP, the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership, which has been established by a number of donors and financing institutions to support priority environmental projects in Northwest Russia, from the Baltic Sea region to the Arctic Barents Sea region. 118

120 Bilateral donors have supported Russia and the multilateral institutions in providing technical assistance for project preparatory studies, institutional capacity building and grants for softening of credit terms for financially weak but environmentally important investment projects. The priority project list included two huge wastewater projects in St. Petersburg (north and southwest) and one in Kaliningrad. 3.2 Financial analysis in the feasibility study The main purpose of the financial analysis is to analyse whether the proposed least-cost solution also is feasible and sound from a financial point of view. Some of the key aspects relevant for a typical funding agency when making this judgement are: Whether the projected cash-flow with a reasonable safety margin will be sufficient to cover debt service payments throughout the projected period Whether the annual cash balance and even more important the accumulated cash balance will remain positive after projected cash expenditures Whether the projected operating margin will be sufficient to cover realistic depreciation, financial costs and other non-operating costs, hence securing sustainable operation. The project is hence analysed from a business /utility point of view, in contrast to the previously adopted economic perspective. This means that e.g. customs duties for imports, value-added tax, other taxes (profit, real estate, environmental, natural resources, etc) have to be considered since they represent costs and cash-flow for the utility. A financial model is usually applied for the purpose, designed for the purpose of analysis and decision-making rather than detailed budgeting or reporting. Outputs from the model are projected annual income (profit and loss statements), cash flow statements (and balance sheets when this is relevant) at a format in compliance with International Accounting Standards (IAS). Financial statements prepared according to Russian standards serve other purposes and are not suitable for project analysis and presentation to international financiers. A number of financial and economic assumptions and estimates are made and applied in the projections. Some of these assumptions are quite critical for the projected outcome, while others have less significance. Assumptions regarding future tariff levels and payment collection rates for different consumer categories are examples of critical factors that will not be self-fulfilled. Some parameters in the simulation model rather represent reasonable target levels, which have to be supported by firm policy decisions and concrete measures in order to be realised. Still, assumptions and estimates should be 119

121 made to represent reasonably realistic levels, with the purpose to produce a probable scenario for investment and financing decisions. A common approach is to simulate (as far as possible) the treatment plant as a separate accounting unit or an autonomous company, leaving collection and other possible services outside. The current financial status of the wastewater treatment services will also have to be considered: Cash and bank deposits Accounts receivable Total current assets Accounts payable Retained earnings Total equity Billed values for water and wastewater Provisions for bad debtors Operating costs for goods, materials and service Profit before tax The following assumptions and estimates need to be made for the financial analysis of an investment project: Inflation: Domestic and international inflation rates over the projection period. The sensitivity of increased prices on domestic investment items, and consequently increased investment costs, should be analysed. Nominal exchange rate RUR/EUR. Real increase of income: Estimated increase rates in real terms for the average disposable income per capita, which is used to project future average household income and the affordability of household tariffs. Household income: The average disposable income per capita and month in the service area, taking into consideration also income from self-employment, transfers and non-monetary income. Projected increase in real is needed to estimate the household affordability of increased tariffs for water and wastewater services. Population and households: The future change due to births and deaths, plus migration needs to be projected. Realistic forecasts will also have to relate to employment opportunities and housing standards (among other factors). Optimistic scenarios will generate additional wastewater volumes, which the treatment plant has to cope with. The average family size per household will be used to estimate the number of households in the service area. Affordability of tariffs: A generally applied rule of thumb principle in this sort of project analysis is that total household charges for water and wastewater services should not exceed 4% of the average disposable household income. Charges will depend on consumption 120

122 levels (whether metered or estimated according to norm) and tariffs per cubic meter. It is important to remember that this is just a rough indication according to international practice. Determination of user charges will in practice obviously have to be based on consideration of income levels and distribution patterns in the specific area, actual level of living expenditures (including costs of other municipal services), cost efficiency of services being provided, quality of services being provided and willingness to pay for services. Wastewater volumes billed: Future volumes of billed volumes per consumer category (households, industries, other commercial customers, budget institutions) should try to take into consideration the expected effects of additional connection,, reduced per capita consumption of water due to installation of modern sanitary facilities in the households, improved cost awareness when tariffs are increased and reduced non-accounted for volumes when the collection and treatment system is modernised. Only billed volumes are of relevance in the financial analysis. Storm water needs to be treated but will not be billed. Tariff projections: The need for tariff increases is to a great extent cost related. Future cost changes should therefore be carefully monitored and targeted measures should be launched to reduce important costs. Wages, salaries, social charges, electricity tariffs and pollution charges that partly are under influence of authorities Costs of chemicals, sludge transport and maintenance materials Efficiency in payment collection in order to reduce non-payment Policies regarding taxation, retained earnings and accumulated cash that can be utilised for coming expenditures Capital costs due to depreciation and interest cost from new investments Investment cost: A typical investment plan is shown below. Investment Plan (1,000, nominal) Note: Values includin g price contingencies but excluding customs duties, VAT and financing charges Investment Item Grand First Second Total First Second Total Total Civil works and HVAC Mechanical installations Electrical and PLC Engineering Project management Sub-total

123 Financing plan: A typical disbursement plan is shown below. Disbursement plan, Base Case (1,000, nominal) Incl. price contingencies but excl. customs duties, VAT and financing charges Year Sources of Funds X Y Z Y W Total Grant Loan Loan Equity Loan Dis bursements 50% 10% 20% 0% 20% ,161 1,632 3, ,265 16, ,164 2,433 4, ,866 24, ,610 5,322 10, ,644 53, ,715 4,743 9, ,486 47,431 Total 70,651 14,130 28, , ,302 The financial model will produce the following tables and statements: Summary of key outputs Input investments Key ratios Wastewater volumes billed Affordability of household tariffs (proportion of household income) Nominal tariff projections Billed revenues per consumer category in nominal terms Disbursement plan in nominal terms Debt service plan for loan Depreciation of new and remaining fixed assets Breakdown of operating costs in real terms Breakdown of operating costs in nominal terms Income statement in nominal terms Cash flow statement in nominal terms Working capital requirement in nominal terms Key Financial Ratios: Selected financial indicators comprise operating ratio (two different definitions), gross profit margin and current ratio. Most of these have been referred to in the previous comments of this analysis and are displayed in the projections in appendix. Three ratios are considered to be essential: Debt Service Cover Ratio (DSCR): This ratio is defined as the internal cash flow after operating expenditures in relation to debt service payments. It does not take into consideration the financial flow, i.e. disbursements, short term and long term replacement investments and variations in working capital. It reflects a conservative approach of judging a project s capacity to service its debt obligations. The ratio referred to in this analysis reflects the annual bal- 122

124 ance. The ratio must never be less than 1 and most lenders would request 1.3 as a sustainable minimum level. Annual Cash Balance: This value reflects the total annual cash balance after internal cash flow, financial flow, short term and replacement investments, debt service, changes in working capital (and potential profit tax payments and dividends). This balance should be sufficiently positive to represent a safety margin from a liquidity point of view. The Accumulated Cash Balance takes into consideration cash generated during previous years as well and is also calculated in the projections. A condition is of course that this accumulated balance would be at the disposal of the company. The following diagrams can serve as examples on how the result may look like. Accumulated Cash Balance Production Year 123