REPORT 6368
SWEDISH EPA
ISBN 978-91-620-6368-9
ISSN 0282-7298
Results from the RusNIP project
The ministers of environment from the Baltic Sea States
agreed upon the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in
Krakow in November 2007.
Russia and Sweden have a joint co-operation project
which aims to strengthen the capacity for compliance
with BSAP. The project is focusing on euthrophication.
The report concentrate on discharges of nutrients
from point sources. The report shows that preliminary
obligations for the Gulf of Finland will be met by the
ongoing measures within St. Petersburg Vodokanal. For
the Baltic Proper powerful measures for phosphorus and
nitrogen treatment in bigger sewage treatment plants are
in most cases cost-effective. Anyhow this is not enough
to reach the Russian BSAP obligations.
Russia contributes to transboundary loads to the
Gulf of Riga with 114 tons. It has not been possible to
find out what the sources can be and what measures
should be taken.
Swedish EPA SE-106 48 Stockholm. Visiting address: Stockholm – Valhallavägen 195, Östersund – Forskarens väg 5 hus Ub, Kiruna – Kaserngatan 14.
Tel: +46 8-698 10 00, fax: +46 8-20 29 25, e-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se Orders Ordertel: +46 8-505 933 40,
orderfax: +46 8-505 933 99, e-post: [email protected] Adress: CM Gruppen AB, Box 110 93, SE-161 11 Bromma. Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se/bokhandeln
Report 6368
MINISTRY OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; eutrophication segment, point sources
Implementation of the Baltic
Sea Action Plan (BSAP)
in the Russian Federation;
eutrophication segment,
point sources
Effective July 1, 2011, this publication
is handled by the Swedish Agency for
Marine and Water Management.
Telephone +46 (0)10 698 60 00
[email protected]
www.havochvatten.se/publications
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
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
Order
Phone: + 46 (0)8-505 933 40
Fax: + 46 (0)8-505 933 99
E-mail: [email protected]
Address: CM gruppen AB, Box 110 93, SE-161 11 Bromma, Sweden
Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se/bokhandeln
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
Phone: + 46 (0)8-698 10 00, Fax: + 46 (0)8-20 29 25
E-mail: [email protected]
Address: Naturvårdsverket, SE-106 48 Stockholm, Sweden
Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se
ISBN 978-91-620-6368-9
ISSN 0282-7298
© Naturvårdsverket 2010
Print: CM Gruppen AB
Cover photo: Sea WiFS Project, NASA/Goddard
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
3
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
4
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Contents
FOREWORD
3
Acronyms
6
Summary
7
Introduction
Background
9
9
Measures to reduce euthrophication
The Russian Federation’s obligation
Current load and results of proposed measures
Reduce emissions from wastewater treatment plants
Gulf of Finland
Baltic proper
Reduce nutrient inputs from industry
The forest products industry
The chemical and metal industries
The Economics of nutrient load reduction
Finding the cost effective measures
Finding the optimal policy instrument
Financing required investments
Cost recovery of financial and environmental costs at Russian Sewage
treatment plants
Financial and environmental costs
Recovery of financial costs
Recovery of environmental costs
Conclusion
Economic and financial analysis
Economic analysis
Financial analysis
Annexes
Annex 1 List of Plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal, Leningrad Oblast
priorities and Kaliningrad Oblast
Annex 2 Report on sewage treatment plants
Annex 3 List of all investigated plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal,
Leningrad Oblast priorities and Kaliningrad Oblast including
estimated costs Annex 4 Report on industries
Annex 5 Economic and financial analysis
5
10
11
11
13
13
14
16
16
17
17
17
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
23
25
79
85
115
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Acronyms
BSAP
Baltic Sea Action Plan (HELCOM action plan for the
Baltic Proper, the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Riga
BaltHazAR
Baltic Hazardous waste and Agricultural releases
Reduction
EU
European Union
GIS
Geographic Information System
HELCOM
Helsinki Commission (cooperation body of the Baltic Sea
states for the Helsinki Convention)
NIP
National Implementation Plan
PLC 5
Pollution Load Compilation No. 5 (The fifth compilation
of the load of pollutants on the Baltic Sea)
WWTP
Sewage waste water treatment plants
6
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2021.
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 2010. 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 2000.
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
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 2013.
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.
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2009–2010.
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 1997–2003.
Current load and results of proposed measures
Table 1. Gulf of Finland
Nitrogen
(tonnes/year
Obligation according to preliminary
4,145
Phosphorous
(tonnes/year)
1,661
burden sharing
Average load 1997–2003 BSAP figures
Proposed measures industry downstream of Lake Ladoga *
Proposed measures (including ongoing measures) within
priority municipal waste water treatment plants downstream of Lake Ladoga *
Remaining need for action **
* Mainly based on year 2000 discharge figures.
** The reduction is bigger than the BSAP obligations.
*** The reduction is less than the BSAP obligations.
11
78,792
5,302
122–132
17–20
7,224
2,015
+ 3,200
+ 370
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 2. Baltic Proper
Nitrogen
(tonnes/year
Obligation according to preliminary burden sharing
Average load 1997–2003 BSAP figures
Proposed measures industry *
Proposed measures municipal waste water
Phosphorous
(tonnes/year)
2,821
724
10,594
1,266
0
0
1,696
361
–1,125
–363
treatment plants *
Remaining need for action ***
* 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 2013.
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 N
Ton N
Ton P
Ton N
Ton P
62,397
Ton P
4,461
76,647
Ton P
3,641
0
820
No actions
needed
1,120
6,139
887
7,773
542
0
345
No actions
needed
278
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.,
10,001–100,000 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
The conditions and assumptions for the proposals have been the following:
• Assessment of potential amounts of BOD5, phosphorus (P) and
nitrogen (N) are based on the specific pollution rates defined as
person equivalent (pe): BOD5, 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
2000.
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 BOD5, phosphorus (P) and nitrogen
(N) are based on the specific pollution rates defined as person equivalent
(pe): BOD5, 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 160–180 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
0.5–2 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 15–18 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
Upstream
Ladoga
Downstream
Ladoga
Baltic Proper
Initial amounts
Reduction
ton
N/year
ton
N/year
ton
P/year
170
45
58
14
6–30
0.5–2
Retention
ton
P/year
ton
N/year
To Gulf of
Finland
ton
P/year
ton
N/year
ton
P/year
15–18
51
19–21
119
8–9
32
7–10
0
0
26
4–6
0
0
6–30
0.5–2
Who?
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation,
the forest-products industry.
16
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
130–140 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 130–140 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
ton
N/year
ton
N/year
ton
P/year
Retention
ton
P/year
ton
N/year
To Gulf of
Finland
ton
P/year
ton
N/year
ton
P/year
~600
~160
~400
100
60
42
140
18
130–140
21
90–100
10
0
0
~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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
Load reduction
kg nutrient
Cost effective measures
Not cost effective measures
Target
Figure 1. Determining cost-effective measures.
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
Load reduction
kg nutrient
Cost effective measures
Not cost effective measures
Target
Figure 2. The cost-effectiveness of a price signal.
19
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
23
522
900
625
82
59
30
North
Central
Kolpino
Petrodvorets
Metallostroy
Without measures
ton P/year
South West
St. Petersburg City
St. Petersburg
Vodokanal
Plants within
1,768
24
53
71
440
720
460
Reduced amount
ton P/year
3,279
1,485
2,094
285
Operation and
and maintain cost
rubel/kg P
237
285
368
4,400
4,818
3,300
Without measures
ton N/year
6,246
152
200
264
730
2,800
2,100
Reduced amount
ton N/year
518
197
563
80
Operation and
maintain cost
rubel/kg N
Improvement
underway
Improvement
underway
Improvement
underway
Improvement
underway
Improvement
underway
In operation after
2000
Comments
Annex 1
Plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal, Leningrad Oblast
­priorities and Kaliningrad Oblast
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
80
47
55
64
Vyborg
Sosnoviy Bor
Kingisepp
Sertolovo
24
38
14
Gvardejsk
36,5
Zaostrovje (OKOS)
Chernjahovsk
219
Kaliningrad city
Kaliningrad oblast
57
Without measures
ton P/year
Gatchina
Leningrad Oblast
Plants within
361
13
35
33
280
247
58
49
22
71
47
Reduced amount
ton P/year
1,560
1,782
1,782
1,732
1,527
1,535
885
1,385
1,639
Operation and
and maintain cost
rubel/kg P
66
184
175
1,916
307
263
213
372
254
Without measures
ton N/year
1,696
53
145
140
1,358
978
215
184
128
285
166
Reduced amount
ton N/year
383
430
430
223
412
409
236
325
384
Operation and
maintain cost
rubel/kg N
Improvement
underway
Improvement
planned
Improvement
planned
Feasibility study
ready
Improvement
planned
Comments
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Annex 2
Appropriate technologies
for municipal wastewater
treatment plants
Primary sedimentation
PrePre-treatment
Anaerobic
reactor
Anoxic reactor
Final
sedimentation
Aerobic reactor
Sludge rere-aeration
Primary sludge to treatment
Waste activated sludge to treatment
UCT PROCESS FOR ENHANCED BIOLOGICAL
P AND N REMOVAL
Stig Morling
SWECO Environment AB
Veronika Tarbaeva
Deputy of Head of Neva-Ladoga
Water Basin Administration
Christian Nilsson
SWECO Environment AB
Vorobyeva Ekaterina
SPb PO “Ecology and Business”
BALTHAZAR project manager
25
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Contents – Annex 2
Summary
28
1 Background
30
2 Basic considerations for technical analysis
31
3 Technical options
3.1 Biological nutrient removal by the UCT process
3.2 Biological nutrient removal by the Oxidation Ditch process
3.3 Biological nutrient removal by the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) process
35
35
37
38
4 Outlines of plant selections
40
5 Major plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal
5.1 Plants sized > 100,000 and down to 50,000 pe
42
42
6 Outlines of plant selections within Leningrad Oblast
6.1 Plants sized > 50,000 pe
6.2 Plants sized > 30,000 pe to <50,000 pe
6.3 Plants sized < 30,000 pe
47
47
53
56
7 Outlines of plant selections within Kaliningrad Oblast
7.1 Plants sized > 50,000 pe
7.2 Plants sized > 30,000 pe to <50,000 pe
7.3 Plants sized < 30,000 pe
61
61
62
64
8S
ummary 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
9.1 St. Petersburg Vodokanal
9.2 Sosnoviy Bor
9.2.1 Investment costs
9.3 Kingisepp WWTP – 60,000 pe
9.3.1 Investment costs
9.3.2 Operating costs
9.4 Kaliningrad WWTP
9.5 Chernjahovsk WWTP – 42,000 ep
9.5.1 Investment costs
9.5.2 Operating costs
9.6 Gvardejsk WWTP – 15,000 pe
9.6.1 Investment costs
9.6.2 Operating costs
68
68
69
69
70
70
70
72
72
72
73
75
75
75
26
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Map over Leningrad Oblast with the presented towns
located
Figure 3-1. Simplified flow scheme of an UCT-process for biological
nutrient removal
Figure 3-2. Typical lay out of a modern Oxidation Ditch system:
Figure 3-3. Illustration of a SBR-cycle.
Figure 3-4. The Ölmanäs SBR plant in Kungsbacka on
the Swedish West coast, sized for 15,000 pe
Figure 6-1. Schematic lay-out of the Kingisepp WWTP for biological
and chemical nutrient removal
Figure 7-1. Map of Kaliningrad Oblast, from Preparatory Work
on Kaliningrad Waste Water Sector Action Programme
Figure 7-2. Simplified lay-out for the Chernyakhovsk WWTP,
Kaliningrad Oblast
Figure 7-3. Schematic lay-out for the Gvardejsk WWTP
for advanced N and P removal
27
30
35
37
38
39
51
61
63
65
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2007. The
given reductions are related to the discharge figures in year 2000. 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
4. Assessment of potential amounts of BOD5, phosphorus (P) and
nitrogen (N) are based on the following assumptions regarding
specific pollution rates defined as person equivalent (pe):
BOD5
= 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2009.
• “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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
• “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 31.12.2006, reported to
HELCOM in October 2007).
• “Business Plan, Municipality Unitary Enterprise “Vodokanal” of
Sosnovyi Bor, dated 31.03.2008.
• “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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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.
Primary sedimentation
PrePre-treatment
Anaerobic
reactor
Anoxic reactor
Final
sedimentation
Aerobic reactor
Sludge rere-aeration
Primary sludge to treatment
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 15–25 days.
4
AIR
BODR
3
CLARIFIER
AIR
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT
BODR
NO3
N
N
RAS
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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.
Fill + mixing
Decant
Settle
SBR cycle
Fill + aerate
Mixing
Aerate
Figure 3-3. Illustration of a SBR-cycle.
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 3-4.
38
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 20–25 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2000. It will be upgraded, mainly by
trimming the process, to meet HELCOM Recommendations within
the target time, well before 2016.
• 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 2016.
• 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
• 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
m3/d
Design P
load,
Concentration
Design N
load,
Concentration
Design BOD5
load,
Concentration
North WWTP,
St. Petersburg
2,000,000
1,000,000
5,000 kg/d
5 g/m3
26,000 kg/d
26.0 g/m3
120,000 kg/d
120 g/m3
Central WWTP,
St. Petersburg
2,000,000
1,100,000
5,000 kg/d
4.5 g/m3
26,000 kg/d
24.0 g/m3
120,000 kg/d
110 g/m3
Sertolovo
WWTP:
70,000
42,000
175 kg/d
4.2 g/m3
840 kg/d
20 g/m3
4,200 kg/d
100 g/m3
Sosnoviy Bor
78,000
38,000
195 kg/d
5 g/m3
936 kg/d
25 g/m3
4,860 kg/d
123 g/m3
Gatchina
100,000
60,000
250 kg/d
4.2 g/m3
1,200 kg/d
20 g/m3
6,000 kg/d
100 g/m3
Vyborg
100,000
57,000
250 kg/d
4.4 g/m3
1,200 kg/d
21 g/m3
6,000 kg/d
105 g/m3
60,000
30,000
150 kg/d
5 g/m3
720 kg/d
24 g/m3
3,600 kg/d
120 g/m3
475,000
150,000
1,190 kg/d
8 g/m3
5,700 kg/d
38 g/m3
28,500 kg/d
190 g/m3
Zaostrovje
OKOS
40,000
24,000
100 kg/d
4.2 g/m3
480 kg/d
20 g/m3
2,400 kg/d
100 g/m3
Chernyakhovsk
42,000
25,000
105 kg/d
4.2 g/m3
504 kg/d
20 g/m3
2,520 kg/d
101 g/m3
Gvardejsk
15,000
6,000
37.5 kg/d
6.3 g/m3
180 kg/d
30 g/m3
900 kg/d
150 g/m3
Kingisepp
Kaliningrad
41
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
South West
WWTP
Plant size
pe
Design water
volume,
m3/d
Option UCTprocess
Indicated
volume
Option
Oxidation Ditch
Indicated
volume
330,000
n.a.
700,000
330,000
Central WWTP
2,000,000
1,100,000
Trimming of the
plant is going on
North WWTP
2,000,000
1,000,000
Design
underway
120,000
30,000
Kolpino
Petrodvorets
65,000
Metallostroy
65,000
n.a.
Design
underway
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
27 mg N/l. The given data in Table 5-1 are based on technical studies from
2001. 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
kg/d
Discharge amounts
kg/d
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Tons/year
Phosphorus
1,430
132
460
Nitrogen
9,040
4,000
2,100
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 2015. 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
kg/d
Discharge amounts,
year 2000
kg/d
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Tons/year
Phosphorus
5,000
1,760
440
Nitrogen
2,400
12,050
730
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 2015. 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 m3/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 m3/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 2009. 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
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts,
year 2000, Flow
1,000,000 m3/d
kg/d
Current
­discharge, Flow
600,000 m3/d
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
2,466
900
490
720
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 2005.
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 m3/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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 5-5: Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Kolpino
MWWTP Kolpino
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
300
225
30
71
1,440
1,010
288
264
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
kg/d
Discharge amounts
kg/d
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Tons/year
Phosphorus
163
16
53
Nitrogen
780
234
200
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
MWWTP
Metallostroy
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Phosphorus
163
82
16
24
Nitrogen
780
650
234
152
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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,
m3/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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 6-2. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Gatchina
MWWTP
Gatchina
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
250
155
25
47
1,200
696
240
166
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
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
250
219
25
71
1,200
1,020
240
285
Inlet amounts
kg/d
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
kg/d
Discharge amounts
kg/d
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Tons/year
Phosphorus
175
17
57.5
Nitrogen
840
252
214.6
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
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
without and with
effect of
­retention in
Ladoga
Tons/year
MWWTP Tikhvin
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Phosphorus
175
131
17
42 t/ with
retention 13 t
Nitrogen
840
588
252
123 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
kg/d
Current
discharge
Discharge
amounts
Potential contribution in load
reduction
kg/d
kg/d
Phosphorus
163
129
60
22
Nitrogen
780
584
233
128
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 m3/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 m3/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 6-7.
50
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 6-7. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Kingisepp WWTP
MWWTP Kingisepp
Inlet amounts
Discharge amounts
kg/d
kg/d
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Tons/year
Phosphorus
150
15
49.4
Nitrogen
720
216
184
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
Pre treatment
Sludge treatment
• Kingisepp WWTP,
• Leningrad Oblast
• Layout 60 000 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 6-8. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Kirishi WWTP
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
without and with
effect of
­retention in
Ladoga
Tons/year
MWWTP Kirishi
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Phosphorus
150
113
15
36 t/ with
retention 11 t
Nitrogen
720
504
216
105 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
Discharge
amounts
Kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
without and with
effect of
­retention in
Ladoga
Tons/year
MWWTP Volkhov
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Phosphorus
125
100
12
32 t/ with
retention 10 t
Nitrogen
600
450
180
99 t/ with
retention 69 t
Conclusion: Volkhov WWTP would not be seen as a suitable priority project
case within the RusNIP project.
52
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 6-10.
Table 6-10. Medium sized plants within Leningrad Oblast, and tentative treatment volumes
Design water
volume,
m3/d
Option
UCT-process
Indicated
volume
Option
Oxidation Ditch
Indicated
volume
MWWTP
Plant size
pe
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 6-11. Impact of current situation and an upgrade for nutrient removal at Luga WWTP
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
MWWTP Luga
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Phosphorus
112
90
12
Current level
28 tons/year
design level
8 tons/year
Nitrogen
540
405
180
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 6-12. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Vyritsa WWTP
MWWTP Vyritsa
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Discharge amounts
kg/d
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Tons/year
Phosphorus
98/112
11/12
Current level 32 tons/
year design level
37 tons/year
Nitrogen
470/540
160/180
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 6-13. 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 6-13. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Kommunar WWTP
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
MWWTP
Kommunar
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Phosphorus
100
34
10
9
Nitrogen
480
165
144
8
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 6-14. 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 6-14. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Tosno WWTP
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
MWWTP Tosno
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Phosphorus
100
81
10
26
Nitrogen
480
360
144
79
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 6-15. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Siverskiy WWTP
MWWTP
Siverskiy
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
88
26
9
26
420
118
126
89
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 6-16.
Table 6-16. Small and medium sized plants within Leningrad Oblast, and tentative treatment
volumes
Design water
volume,
m3/d
Option
SBR-system
Indicated
volume
Option
Oxidation Ditch
Indicated
volume
MWWTP
Plant size
pe
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
7,900
9,700
5,000
6,200
7,700
Lodeynoe Pole
25,000
12,000
Nikolskoe
25,500
20,000 (?)
Otradnoe
25,000
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 6-17.
Table 6-17. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Boksitogorsk WWTP
MWWTP
Boksitogorsk
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
50
40
5
240
192
72
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
13 t/ with
retention 4 t
44 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 fol56
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
lowed by sand filtration. A balance for the impact with and without retention
is given in Table 6-18.
Table 6-18. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Pilalevo WWTP
MWWTP
Pikalevo
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
70
56
7
336
269
101
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
18 t/ with
retention 5 t
61 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 6-19.
Table 6-19. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Shlisselburg WWTP
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
MWWTP
Shlisselburg
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
37.5
31
4
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
180
140
54
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 6-20.
57
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 6-20. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Volsovo WWTP
MWWTP Volsovo
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
30
24
3
8
144
108
43
24
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 6-21.
Table 6-21. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Lodeynoe Poly WWTP
MWWTP
Lodeynoe Poly
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
63
50.4
6
300
225
90
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
16 t/ with
retention 5 t
49 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 6-22.
58
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 6-22. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Nikolskoe WWTP
MWWTP
Nikolskoe
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
64
51
6
306
230
92
16 t/ with
retention 5 t
50 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 2015. 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 6-23. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Otradnoe WWTP
MWWTP Otradnoe
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Discharge amounts
kg/d
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Tons/year
63
6
2
300
90
5
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 6-24.
Table 6-24. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Podporozhye WWTP
MWWTP Podporozhye
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Discharge amounts
kg/d
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Tons/year
53
5
17
252
76
64
59
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2015. 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 6-25.
Table 6-25. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Ivangorod WWTP
MWWTP
Ivangorod
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Current
­discharge
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
33
26
3
9
156
117
47
26
Conclusion: Ivangorod is not recommended to be included as a priority
project in the RusNIP project.
60
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2008. 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Design flow
m3/d
150,000
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
855
75
280
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,
m3/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
kg/d
Discharge amounts
kg/d
Phosphorus
100
9
33
Nitrogen
480
96
140
62
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Tons/year
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 m3/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 42 000 pe
Figure 7-2. Simplified lay-out for the Chernyakhovsk WWTP, Kaliningrad Oblast.
63
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 7-4. Impact of an upgrade for nutrient removal at Chernjahovsk WWTP
MWWTP
Chernjahovsk
Inlet amounts
Discharge amounts
kg/d
kg/d
Potential contribution
in load reduction
Phosphorus
105
10
35
Nitrogen
504
108
145
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
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Design flow
m3/d
Assumed: 6,000
Inlet amounts
kg/d
Discharge
amounts
kg/d
Potential
­contribution in
load reduction
Tons/year
37.5
3
13
180
36
53
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
PrePretreatment
SBR 1
Sludge
treatment
SBR 2
Figure 7-3. Schematic lay-out for the Gvardejsk WWTP for advanced N and P removal.
65
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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*Nox,1 + 14*Nox,2 + 100*P ox,1;
where
BOD5 = Biochemical Oxygen Demand over 5 days, in kg O2/d, in the following
this impact is neglected, as the BOD5 removal rate is assumed to be > 95% and
thereby the treatment results will have an incremental effect on the total OCP.
Nox,1 = Oxygen consumption due to nitrification of ammonia N, in kg O2/d;
Nox,2 = Oxygen consumption in the receiving water body due to algae growth
and decay caused by nitrogen; in kg O2/d;
P ox,1 = Oxygen consumption in the receiving water body due to algae growth
and decay caused by phosphorus; in kg O2/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 8-3.
66
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
South West WWTP
Phosphorus impact
Tons/year
460
Nitrogen impact
Tons/year
2,100
OCP EFFICIENCY
Tons O2/year
83,800
Central WWTP
440
730
57,140
North WWTP
720
2,800
122,400
Kolpino
71
264
11,852
Petrodvorets
53
400
12,500
Metallostroy
24
152
5,136
1,768
6,446
292,828
Total incremental impact
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 O2/year
Gatchina
47
166
7,688
Vyborg
71
285
12,230
Sertolovo
58
215
9,620
Tikhvin
13
86
2,848
Sosnoviy Bor
22
128
4,504
Kingisepp
49
184
8,212
Kirishi
11
74
2,432
Volkhov
10
69
2,242
8
57
1,826
Luga
Vyritsa
37
138
6,184
Kommunar
30
107
4,926
Tosno
26
79
4,022
Siverskiy
26
89
4,202
Boksitogorsk
4
39
1,102
Pikalevo
5
43
1,274
Shlisselburg
4
54
1,372
Volosovo
8
24
1,232
Lodeynoe Pole
5
34
1,112
Nikolskoe
5
35
1,130
Otradnoe
2
5
290
Podporozhye
Ivangorod
Total incremental impact
17
64
2,852
9
26
1,368
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
Kaliningrad
Phosphorus impact
Tons/year
Nitrogen impact
Tons/year
OCP EFFICIENCY
Tons O2/year
280
1,358
52,444
33
140
5,820
Chernjahovsk
35
145
6,110
Gvardejsk
13
53
2,254
361
1,696
66,628
Zaostrovje OKOS
Total incremental impact
67
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2009. We use the following rates when necessary: 1 SEK = 4.20 RUB =
0.098 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
4,343 M RUB;
Operation and maintenance cost
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
North WWTP
Specific investment
efficiency, RUB/kg
Specific O&M efficiency, RUB/kg
Phosphorus impact
Tons/year
Nitrogen impact
Tons/year
OCP EFFICIENCY
Tons O2/year
720
2,800
122,400
6,032
1,551
35
431
111
2.53
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.
9.2.1 Investment costs
The investment for Sosnoviy Bor is then 210 M Rubel.
69
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
9.3 Kingisepp WWTP – 60,000 pe
9.3.1 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
637,000,000
9.3.2 Operating costs
9.3.2.1 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
300,000
Administrative staff
2
20,000
480,000
Laboratory staff
2
18,000
432,000
Electrical and automation tech.
3
18,000
648,000
Mechanical workmen
5
15,000
900,000
WWTP Operator
2
15,000
360,000
Sum
15
2,820,000
70
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
9.3.2.2 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
9.3.2.3 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
7,8
1,300,000
766,8
4,500,000
Polymer
Total
9.3.2.4 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
8,300,000
9.3.2.5 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
m3/year
Biological sludge
7,100
m3/year
Total
7,500
m3/year
Cost
8,000,000
RUB /year
71
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
9.3.2.6 Laboratory costs
The laboratory costs are expected to be 5 percent of the total yearly salary
cost as follows: 141,000 RUB/year.
9.3.2.7 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
RUB/year
Specific cost, RUB/m3
Salary
2,820,000
0.30
Energy
6,200,000
0.65
Chemical
4,500,000
0.47
Maintenance
8,300,000
0.87
Sludge
8,000,000
0.84
141,000
0.01
30,000,000
3.16
Laboratory
TOTAL
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
9.5.1 Investment costs
The following table show the estimated investment cost for Chemjahovsk
WWTP.
Table 9-10. 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
9.5.2 Operating costs
9.5.2.1 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 9-11. 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 9-12. 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 9-13. Summary of annual costs for salaries at Chemjahovsk WWTP
Position
Number
RUB/month
RUB/year
Manager/Process
engineer
1
25,000
300,000
Administrative staff
2
20,000
480,000
Laboratory Staff
2
18,000
432,000
Electrical and automation tech.
3
18,000
648,000
Mechanical workmen
3
15,000
540,000
WWTP Operator
3
15,000
Sum
14
540,000
2,640,000
9.5.2.2 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 9-14. Energy cost for Chemjahovsk WWTP
2,129,000
kWh/year
3,800,000
RUB/year
9.5.2.3 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 9-15.
Table 9-15. Chemical consumption and cost at Chemjahovsk WWTP
Consumed agent
Iron, tons
Polymer, kg
tonne/year
RUB/year
730
3,066,000
6,000
900,000
Totally
3,966,000
9.5.2.4 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 9-16. Maintenance cost for Chemjahovsk WWTP
Part for maintenance
RUB/year
Civil
2,210,000
Mech/el
4,860,000
Total
7,070,000
9.5.2.5 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 9-17. Sludge handling cost at Chemjahovsk WWTP
Grit and sand
300
m3/year
Biological sludge
5,422
m3/year
Totally
5,722
m3/year
Cost
6,100,000
RUB /year
9.5.2.6 Laboratory costs
The laboratory costs are expected to be 5 percent of the total yearly salary
cost as follows: 132,000 RUB/year.
9.5.2.7 Operation and Maintenance costs summary
The following tables show a summary of all operation and maintenance costs
presented above.
74
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 9-18. Summary of Operation and Maintenance cost for the Chemjahovsk WWTP
Item
Unit cost
RUB/year
Specific cost,
RUB/m3
Salary
2,640,000
0.28
Energy
3,800,000
0.40
Chemicals
3,966,000
0.42
Maintenance
7,070,000
0.74
Sludge
6,100,000
0.64
132,000
0.01
23,700,000
2.50
Laboratory
TOTAL
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
9.6.1 Investment costs
The following tables show the estimated investment cost for Gvardejsk WWTP.
Table 9-19. 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
173,000,000
9.6.2 Operating costs
9.6.2.1 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 9-20. 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Table 9-21. 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 9-22. Summary of annual costs for salaries at Gvardejsk WWTP
Position
Number
RUB/month
Manager/Process
engineer
1
25,000
RUB/year
300,000
Administrative staff
1
20,000
240,000
Electrical and automation tech.
1
18,000
216,000
Mechanical workmen
3
15,000
540,000
WWTP Operator
1
15,000
180,000
Sum
7
1,476,000
9.6.2.2 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 9-23. Energy cost for Gvardejsk WWTP
970,000
kWh/year
1,746,000
RUB/year
9.6.2.3 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 9-24.
Table 9-24. Chemical consumption and cost at Gvardejsk WWTP
Consumed agent
Iron
Polymer
tonne/year
RUB/year
90.0
380,000
1.5
250,000
Totally
630,000
76
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
9.6.2.4 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 9-25. Maintenance cost for Gvardejsk WWTP
Part for maintenance
RUB/year
Civil
710,000
Mech/el
1,640,000
Total
2,350,000
9.6.2.5 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 9-26. Sludge handling cost at Gvardejsk WWTP.
Grit and sand
100
m3/year
Biological sludge
1,400
m3/year
Total
1,500
m3/year
Cost
1,600,000
RUB/year
9.6.2.6 Laboratory costs
The laboratory costs are expected to be 5 percent of the total yearly salary
cost as follows: 75,000 RUB/year
9.6.2.7 Operation and Maintenance costs summary
The following tables show a summary of all operation and maintenance costs
presented above.
Table 9-27. Summary of Operation and Maintenance cost for the Gvardejsk WWTP
Item
Unit cost
Specific cost, RUB/m3
Salary
1,476,000
0.67
Energy
1,746,000
0.80
630,000
0.29
Sludge
1,600,000
0.73
Maintenance
2,500,000
1.14
75,000
0.03
8,027,000
3.67
Chemical
Laboratory
Totally
Cost per kg P removed
617
RUB/kg P/year
Cost per kg N removed
151.5
RUB/kg N/year
Cost per OCP eff.
4.7
RUB/kg OCP/year
77
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
78
79
65,000
65,000
Petrodvorets
Metallostroy
120,000
2,000,000
North WWTP
Kolpino
2,000,000
not valid
663
663
1,423
4,343
not valid
not valid
2)
1)
713,000
not valid
Est investment,
Rubel *106
Plant size,
pe
Central WWTP
South West WWTP
St. Petersburg
Comment:
Name of plant
47,0
47,0
101,0
308,1
3)
Capital
cost,
Rubel
*106
31,7
31,7
47,7
310
155,3
4)
Est.
Operation
cost,
Rubel *106
78,7
78,7
148,6
618,1
440
Annual
cost,
Rubel
*106
24
53
71
720
460
5)
Phosphorus
impact
Tons/year
859
730
3,279
1,485
2,094
6)
Specific
cost
Rubel/
kg P
152
200
264
2,800
2,100
7)
Nitrogen
impact
Tons/year
518
393
563
221
8)
Specific
cost,
Rubel/kg
N
Investments annual costs and impact on nitrogen and phosphorus
Biological plant is already
operating, the planning is
underway.
Biological plant is already
operating, the planning is
underway.
Biological plant is already
operating, the planning is
underway.
Biological plant is already
operating, the planning is
underway.
The plant is already running
with discharge levels below
the adopted consent levels.
9)
Comments
Annex 3
List of all investigated plants within St. Petersburg Vodokanal,
Leningrad Oblast priorities and Kaliningrad Oblast including
estimated costs
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
80
75,000
60,000
60,000
50,000
Kingisepp
Kirishi
Volkhov
70,000
Tikhvin
Sosnoviy Bor
70,000
100,000
Vyborg
Sertolovo
100,000
Plant size,
pe
Gatchina
Leningrad Oblast
Name of plant
595
637
637
210
722
42,2
45,2
45,2
14,9
51,2
55,3
71,4
1,006
779
92,2
Capital
cost,
Rubel
*106
1,299
Est investment,
Rubel *106
26,6
30
30
32
33,3
33,3
42,2
42,2
Est.
Operation
cost,
Rubel *106
68,8
75,2
75,2
46,9
84,5
88,6
113,6
134,4
Annual
cost,
Rubel
*106
32
36
49
22
42
58
71
47
Phosphorus
impact
Tons/year
2,151
2,089
1,535
2,132
2,013
1,527
1,600
2,859
Specific
cost
Rubel/
kg P
99
105
184
128
123
215
285
166
Nitrogen
impact
Tons/year
695
716
409
366
687
412
399
809
Specific
cost,
Rubel/kg
N
Old biological treatment
plant in needs of major
refurbishment, or to be
replaced.
Biolgocial treatment plant
exists with assumed extremaly low discharge levels of
N. The results are not taken
into account in this summary
To be included into the Hot
spot list.
Proeject is underway with
chemical precipitation
installed.
The town has expressed
reluctance to improve the
plant due to needed costs.
This plant wil be included in
the Vodokanal of St.
Petersburg plan for upgrade
to meet BASP.
Half of the city is not
included to the existing
plant.
Improvements are underway,
chemical precipitation is
planned.
Comments
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
81
35,000
20,000
Boksitogorsk
40,000
Kommunar
Siverskiy
45,000
Vyritsa
40,000
45,000
Luga
Tosno
Plant size,
pe
Name of plant
not valid
498
35,3
37,7
22,9
not valid
532
24,7
40,0
Capital
cost,
Rubel
*106
not valid
564
Est investment,
Rubel *106
9,7
20,9
22,9
22,9
24,7
24,7
Est.
Operation
cost,
Rubel *106
9,7
56,2
60,6
9
32
64,7
Annual
cost,
Rubel
*106
13
26
26
not valid
772
28
Phosphorus
impact
Tons/year
746
2,163
2,333
8
113
2,311
Specific
cost
Rubel/
kg P
44
89
79
not valid
219
82
Nitrogen
impact
Tons/year
220
632
768
789
Specific
cost,
Rubel/kg
N
Biological plant with filtration exists, in this case the
performance figures are
reliable.
Biological plant exists,in this
case the performance figures
are reliable.
Biological plant exists,
though the performance
figures are in many ways
doubtful
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.
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.
Biological plant exists, the
presented discharge levels
are very low, that are not
included in the calculations!
Comments
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
82
21,000
13,000
Podporozhye
Ivangorod
25,000
Lodeynoe Pole
25,000
12,000
Volosovo
Otradnoe
15,000
Shlisselburg
25,500
28,000
Pikalevo
Nikolskoe
Plant size,
pe
Name of plant
161
205
223
226
223
155
173
not valid
Est investment,
Rubel *106
11,4
14,5
15,8
16,0
15,8
11,0
12,3
Capital
cost,
Rubel
*106
7,3
10,1
11,3
11,5
11,3
6,9
8
12,2
Est.
Operation
cost,
Rubel *106
18,7
24,6
27,1
27,5
27,1
17,9
20,3
12,2
Annual
cost,
Rubel
*106
9
17
2
16
16
10
4
18
Phosphorus
impact
Tons/year
2,080
1,450
13,561
1,721
1,695
1,790
5,069
678
Specific
cost
Rubel/
kg P
26
64
5
50
49
37
54
61
Nitrogen
impact
Tons/year
720
385
5,424
551
554
484
375
200
Specific
cost,
Rubel/kg
N
Biological plant exists,in this
case the performance figures
are reliable.
Mechanical plant exists, the
effluent figures are in fact
very doubtful.
Biological plant exists,
though the performance
figures are in many ways
doubtful
Biological plant with filtration exists, in this case the
performance figures are
reliable.
Biological plant exists, in
this case the performance
figures are reliable, nevertheless the plant does not meet
the required standards by far.
Biological plant exists,
though the performance
figures are in many ways
doubtful
An entirely new plant is
needed!
Biological plant with filtration exists, in this case the
performance figures are
reliable.
Comments
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
42,000
15,000
Chernjahovsk
Gvardejsk
221,4
37,7
38,7
12,3
532
545
173
Capital
cost,
Rubel
*106
3,120
Est investment,
Rubel *106
20,3
62,4
60,6
341,2
Annual
cost,
Rubel
*106
13
35
33
280
Phosphorus
impact
Tons/year
1,560
1,782
1,838
1,219
Specific
cost
Rubel/
kg P
53
145
140
1,358
Nitrogen
impact
Tons/year
383
430
433
251
Specific
cost,
Rubel/kg
N
An entirely new plant is
needed!
According to relevant information the situation calls for
a new plant to be installed.
An entirely new plant is
decided.
An entirely new plant is
needed!
Comments
83
Proposed plants for the specific priority project list are in bold text!
For classic biological plants the current removal impact has been adopted as follows: P removal 20–30% and N removal 25–35%.
Comments regarding the current situation are summarized.
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;
8
23,7
22,9
120
Est.
Operation
cost,
Rubel *106
Comments and assumptions regarding items presented in the Table:
40,000
475,000
Plant size,
pe
Zaostrovje (OKOS)
Kaliningrad
Kaliningrad Oblast
Name of plant
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
84
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Contents – Annex 4
1 Introduction
87
2 Kaliningrad region
2.1 Nemansky Pulp and Paper mill
2.2 Sovetsky Pulp and Paper mill
2.3 Mix-Deima
87
87
89
91
3 Leningrad region
3.1 Viborgskaya Celuloza
3.2 SPB Cardboard
3.3 International Paper Svetogorsk
3.4 Siasky PPM
3.5 Phosphorit
3.6 Volhovsky Aluminy – Metachim
3.7 Slantsi
3.8 Kirishinefteorgsintez (Kinef)
92
92
93
94
96
98
100
102
104
4 Novgorod region
4.1 Akron
106
106
5 Summary of potential impacts
108
6 Cost data
109
Attachment 1 – Short list of Industrial point sources
110
86
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 m3/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
2007
Water
~ 420 m3/ton pulp
Nitrogen
~ 0.82 kg/ton pulp
Phosphorus
No data
Water
~ 360 m3/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 Commission1 are approximately as follows, for
bleached sulphite pulp mills:
1
Nitrogen
0.15–0.5 kg N/ton
Phosphorus
0.02–0.05 kg P/ton
Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Pulp and Paper Industry.
87
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Also the water discharge can be regarded as high; the BAT level for an integrated sulphite pulp mill would be approximately 50–70 m3/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 JointStock 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)
0.05–0.25 kgN/ton
= 3–15 ton N/a
Phosphorus (BAT level)
0.003–0.015 kgP/ton
= 0.2–0.9 tonP/a
88
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
3–15 ton N/a
Phosphorus
0.15–0.9 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 2006–2007 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
m3/a
Phosphorus
ton P/a
mg P/l
Nitrogen ton
N/a
Sovetsky 1
2.163
0.45
0.2
10.1
Sovetsky 2
0.237
0.18
0.8
7.6
32
Sovetsky 3
0.682
0.12
0.2
2.1
3
Sovetsky 4
0.3
0.02
0.1
0.49
2
Total
3.4
0.8
mg N/l
2008
5
20.3
It is important to describe the emissions of water, nitrogen and phosphorus
in terms of m3/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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
30,000 tons/a
Nitrogen (BAT level)
0.05–0.25 kg N/ton for paper mill
0.02–0.25 kg N/ton for RCF pulp
Phosphorus (BAT level)
0.003–0.015 kg P/ton for paper mill
0.002–0.015 kg P/ton for RCF pulp
Nitrogen
2–15 ton N/a
Phosphorus
0.15–0.9 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 waste­
water, 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
2–15 ton N/a
Phosphorus
0.15–0.9 tonP/a
2.3 Mix-Deima
This meat processing plant has relatively low nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, around 1.2–1.7 tons N/a and 0.6–1.4 tons P/a. Therefore it has been
removed from the list.
91
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2006–2007 has been reported as
Sulphite pulp
63,000 tons/a
Paper
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 m3/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
2007
Water
240 m3/ton pulp
Nitrogen
0.2 kg N/ton pulp
Phosphorus
0.13 kg P/ton pulp
Water
250 m3/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
0.15–0.5 kg N/ton
Phosphorus
0.02–0.05 kg P/ton
BOD
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Summary Viborgskaya
If this mill continues operation as it is run today (according to the collected
data), the following emissions can be expected:
Nitrogen
12 ton N/a
Phosphorus
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 m3/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 m3/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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
0.02–0.05
0.05–0.1
kg N/ton paper
Phosphorus
0.002–0.005
0.005–0.01
kg P/ton paper
BOD
< 0.05–0.15
< 0.05–0.2
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
46 ton N/a
Phosphorus
5 ton P/a
Further nitrogen reduction is not considered technically feasible with conventional methods. A possibility would be co-treatment with a municipal waste­
water, 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 2006–2007 is still unclear, but is indicated as
Kraft pulp
500,000 tons/a
Paper
600,000 tons/a
94
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
Wastewater is treated biologically in an activated sludge plant.
It is important to describe the emissions of water, nitrogen and phosphorus
in terms of m3/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
2008
Water
~ 100 m3/ton pulp
Nitrogen
~ 0.03–0.07 kg N/ton pulp (~ 0.3–0.7 mg N/l)
Phosphorus
~ 0.05–0.06 kg P/ton pulp (~0.5 mg P/l)
Water
~ 100 m3/ton pulp
Nitrogen
–
Phosphorus
~ 0.05–0.06 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
30–50 m3/ton pulp (up to 65–75 m3/ton paper for ­integrated mills)
Nitrogen
0.1–0.25 kg N/ton
Phosphorus
0.01–0.03 kg P/ton
COD
8–23 kg/ton pulp
BOD
0.3–1.5 kg/ton pulp
The stated emissions can be commented as follows:
Water
On the high side, compared to BAT.
Nitrogen
Low, compared to BAT
Phosphorus
Higher than BAT, but nothing “alarming”
COD
Slightly above BAT range
BOD
Low, within BAT range
The wastewater treatment indicates very good removal results.
95
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
20–40 ton N/a (~ 0.3–0.7 mg/l)
Phosphorus
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
33,050 ton/a
Paper
43,800 ton/a
Lignosulphonate
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 m3/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
2007
Water
~ 600 m3/ton pulp
(~ 480 m3/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)
Water
~ 600 m /ton pulp
(~ 480 m3/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
3
96
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
BAT levels according to the BREF document of the European Commission are
approximately as follows, for bleached sulphite pulp mills:
Water
40–55 m3/ton pulp (up to 70–80 m3/ton at integrated pulp/paper mills)
Nitrogen
0.15–0.5 kg N/ton
Phosphorus
0.02–0.05 kg P/ton
COD
20–30 kg /ton pulp
BOD
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
~ 140 ton N/a
Phosphorus
~ 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
820,000 ton/a
Phosphoric acid Fertilizers
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
m3/a
Phosphorus
ton P/a
Nitrogen
mg P/l
ton N/a
mg N/l
2008
Phosphorit 1
2.3
5.0
~2
21.2
~9
Phosphorit 2
2.6
5.8
~2
24.4
~9
Total
4.9
10.8
~2
45.6
~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:
0.0075 kg P/ton NPK = G
uideline 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
~ 45 ton N/a
Phosphorus
~ 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
240,000 ton/a
Polyphosphate
Fertilizers
Sodium phosphate
125,000 ton/a
Potassium sulphate
90,000 ton/a
Potash
94,480 ton/a
Cemen
460,000 ton/a
Aluminum metal
Aluminum sulphate
40,000 ton/a
Special cement
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 m3/a
Phosphorus
ton P/a
mg P/l
Nitrogen
ton N/a
mg N/l
~ 2.2
49.5
~ 22
10.9
~5
~1.7
33.2
~ 20
8.5
~5
2007
Total
2008
Total
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
~ 9–11 ton N/a
Phosphorus
~ 30–50 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
m3/a
Phosphorus
ton P/a
mg P/l
Nitrogen
ton N/a
mg N/l
Slantsi 1-1
4.185
6.0
1.4
62.85
15.0
Slantsi 1-2
1.692
2.65
1.6
22.78
13.5
Slantsi 2
4.070
–
–
1.0
0.2
Total
9.947
8.65
0.9
86.6
8.7
Slantsi 1-1
4.85
8.78
1.8
74.65
15.4
Slantsi 1-2
1.66
1.93
1.2
20.49
12.3
Slantsi 2
4.85
–
–
0.97
0.2
Total
11.36
10.7
0.9
96.1
8.5
2006
2007
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
~ 86–96 ton N/a
Phosphorus
~ 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 m3)
2. Non-salty industrial wastewater + Domestic wastewater
Mechanical/Biological treatment
Final treatment in a Biopond (340,000 m3)
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
m3/a
Phosphorus
ton P/a
mg P/l
Nitrogen
ton N/a
mg N/l
Kinef 1
5.073
2.5
0.5
29.4
~6
Kinef 2
5.366
19.9
3.7
101.5
~ 19
Total
~ 10.5
~ 22.3
~ 131
Kinef 1
5.042
3.4
0.7
28.9
~6
Kinef 2
5.418
17.5
3.2
84.3
~ 16
Total
~ 10.5
~ 21
2007
2008
~ 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
~ 100–130 ton N/a
Phosphorus
~ 20–22 ton P/a
A potential to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus emissions by extended wastewater treatment exists.
105
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 2007
1,000 ton/a
Production 2008
1,000 ton/a
Ammonia
1,114
1,034
977
1,104
Nitrogen fertilizers (ammonia nitrate,
carbamide=urea, carbamide/ammonia)
Complex fertilizers (NPK, NP etc.)
1,190
1,104
Organic products (methanol, formaldehyde, etc.)
495
516
Inorganic products (ammonium nitrate, liq.
carbon dioxide, calcium carbonate)
517
590
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 20–40 ton/a according to another source.
Concentrations may be within 1.5–3 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
~ 480 ton N/a or 120–550 ton N/a
Phosphorus
~ 100 ton P/a or 20–40 t P/a
The most interesting option would probably be reduced nitrogen emission
through biological nitrogen removal.
107
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
Phosphorus impact
tons/year
Nemansky Pulp and paper
–
–
Sovetsky Pulp and paper
–
–
Viborgskaya Pulp and paper
–
5–7
SPB Cardboard
32
2.5
Phosphorit
30
5–7
Slantsi
60–67
7
International Paper Svetogorsk
–
15–18
Siyaski Pulp and Paper
–
–
Metachim
6–8
24–45
Kirishinefteorgsintez
70–90
14
70–350
10–60
Kaliningrad
Leningrad – Discharges to Gulf of Finland
Leningrad – Discharges to Ladoga
Novgorod – Discharge to Ladoga
AKRON
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 m3/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
approx 400 million RUB
Operation and Maintenance
approx 18 million RUB/year
Cost per kg N removed
280 RUB/kg N
Cost per kg P removed
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
110
300,000
3,382,000
22,401,000
SOVETSKY PPM
(discharge outlet 5)
SOVETSKY Tot, 2008
SOVETSKY Tot, 2006
298,248
(323,000)
682,000
SOVETSKY PPM
(discharge outlet 4)
MIX-DEIMA
237,000
SOVETSKY PPM
(discharge outlet 2)
21,127,604
(14,456,000)
NEMANSKY Total
2,163,000
19,633,400
NEMANSKY PPM
(discharge outlet 2)
SOVETSKY PPM
(discharge outlet 1)
1,494,204
Volume, m3/a
NEMANSKY PPM
(discharge outlet 1)
Kaliningrad region
INDUSTRY
0,56
(1,35)
3,4
0,77
0.02
0.12
0.18
0.45
1,19
(1,7)
82,6
20.26
0.49
2.12
7.58
10.07
36,28
(41.2)
35,28
1,28
N
P
P
N
Inflow of
­wastewater, mg/l
Discharge of substances
to water courses in
treated wastewater, t/a
1,87
~ 0,2
~ 0,2
0,07
0,15
1,5
0,11
P
4,0
~4
~6
0,8
1,85
2,92
2,43
~1,0
1,32
0,86
N
Outflow of
­wastewater, mg/l
Food
Pulp/paper
Pulp/paper
Branch
Coastal area
Neman basin
Neman basin
Receiving water body/
basin
Date in the table are valid for year 2007; data in brackets (….) are for year 2006,
if nothing else stated.
Attachment 1 – Short list of Industrial point sources
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
50,400
VIBORGSKAYA
CELULOZA PPM
111
1,692,000
4,070,000
9,947,000
5,073,000
5,366,000
SLANTSI 1-2 (2006)
SLANTSI Total, 2006
KIRISHINEFTEORGSINTEZ 1 (2007)
KIRISHINEFTEORGSINTEZ 2 (2007)
4,185,000
SLANTSI 1-1 (2006)
SLANTSI 2 (2006)
11,357,000
1,661,000
4,847,000
SLANTSI 1-2 (2007)
SLANTSI 2 (2007)
SLANTSI Total, 2007
4,849,000
4,942,000
PHOSPHORIT 2008
SLANTSI 1-1 (2007)
9,000,000
SPB CARDBOARD
POLYGR. PLANT
15,900,600
(15,145,000)
105,000
VIBORGSKAYA
CELULOZA PPM
VIBORGSKAYA Total
15,745,200
VIBORGSKAYA
CELULOZA PPM
Leningrad region
19.854
2.486
8,65
–
2.646
6.0
10.71
–
1.93
8.87
10,74
5,2
8,84
(8,12)
0,3
0,03
8,51
101.52
29.37
86,6
1.0
22.77
62.85
96.12
0.97
20.49
74.65
45,60
46,2
12,14
(11,88)
0,6
0,05
11,49
0,67
15,08
~ 3.7
~ 0,5
~ 0,9
–
~ 1,6
~ 1.4
~ 1.8
–
~ 1,2
~ 1.8
~ 2,2
~ 0,57
~ 0,55
5,9
0,3
0,54
~ 19
~ 5.8
~9
~ 0,6
~ 0.24
~ 13.5
~ 8.5
~ 0,2
~ 12
~ 15
~ 9,2
~ 5,1
~ 0,76
11,9
0,5
0,73
Petrochemical
(petr coke based)
Petrochemical
(petr coke based)
Chemical (fertilizers
etc.)
Pulp/paper
Pulp/paper
Narva basin
Narva basin
Luga
Neva basin
GUF
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
112
AKRON
57,200,000
62,800,000
INT. PAPER
SVETOGORSK, 2008
Novgorod region
57,068,000
INT. PAPER
SVETOGORSK, 2007
22,919,000
(22,869,000?)
227,000
SIASKY PPM 2
SIASKY Total
22,642,000
SIASKY PPM 1
METACHIM, 2008
VOLHOVSKY ALUMINY
1,709,000
2,198,000
VOLHOVSKY ALUMINY
METACHIM, 2007
10,460,000
5,418,000
KIRISHINEFTEORGSINTEZ 2 (2008)
KIRISHINEFTEORGSINTEZ Total, 2008
5,042,000
10,439,000
KIRISHINEFTEORGSINTEZ 1 (2008)
KIRISHINEFTEORGSINTEZ Total, 2007
103
26.68
484
–
17.66
(150,9)
27.12
140,9
(16)
–
140,84
13,81
13,81
113.22
84,33
28,89
130.89
14,6
–
14,56
33.2
49.5
20,85
17,47
3,38
22,340
1.2
1.2
3.3
3.3
~ 1,8
~ 0.4
~ 0.5
~ 0,64
0,7
~ 19
~ 22
~ 3,2
~ 0,7
~ 8,5
–
~ 0.3
~ 6,15
6,58
~5
~5
~ 15,6
~ 5.7
Chemical (fertilizers)
Pulp/paper
Chemical
(fertilizers etc.)
Petrochemical
(crude oil based)
Petrochemical
(crude oil based)
Volhov river/Ladoga
Vyoksi river/Ladoga
Ladoga
Volhov river/Ladoga
Volhov river/Ladoga
Volhov river/Ladoga
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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. m3 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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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 including price contingencies but excluding customs duties, VAT and financing charges
Investment Item
Civil works and HVAC
Mechanical installations
Electrical and PLC
Engineering
Project management
Sub-total
First
0
0
0
13 509
2 814
16 323
2001
Second
21 473
0
0
0
2 856
24 329
Total
21 473
0
0
13 509
5 671
40 652
121
First
32 688
17 632
0
0
2 899
53 219
2002
Second
0
29 825
14 664
0
2 942
47 431
Total
Grand
Total
32 688
47 457
14 664
0
5 841
100 650
54 161
47 457
14 664
13 509
11 511
141 302
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
• 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
Dis­burse­
ments
Grant
Loan
Loan
Equity
Loan
50%
10%
20%
0%
20%
2011
1
8,161
1,632
3,265
0
3,265
16,323
2011
2
12,164
2,433
4,866
0
4,866
24,329
2012
1
26,610
5,322
10,644
0
10,644
53,219
2012
2
Total
23,715
4,743
9,486
0
9,486
47,431
70,651
14,130
28,260
0
28,260
141,302
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
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
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
60 000
40 000
0
0
0
1
20 000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-20 000
-40 000
-60 000
Production Year
123
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Report 6368 • Results from the RusNIP project
124
Report 6368
SweDiSh epa
isbn 978-91-620-6368-9
issn 0282-7298
Results from the RusNIP project
The ministers of environment from the Baltic Sea S­ tates
agreed upon the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in
­Krakow in November 2007.
Russia and Sweden have a joint co-operation project
which aims to strengthen the capacity for compliance
with BSAP. The project is focusing on euthrophication.
The report concentrate on discharges of nutrients
from point sources. The report shows that preliminary
obligations for the Gulf of Finland will be met by the
ongoing measures within St. Petersburg Vodokanal. For
the Baltic Proper powerful measures for phosphorus and
nitrogen treatment in bigger sewage treatment plants are
in most cases cost-effective. Anyhow this is not enough
to reach the Russian BSAP obligations.
Russia contributes to transboundary loads to the
Gulf of Riga with 114 tons. It has not been possible to
find out what the sources can be and what measures
should be taken.
Swedish EPA SE-106 48 Stockholm. Visiting address: Stockholm – Valhallavägen 195, Östersund – Forskarens väg 5 hus Ub, Kiruna – Kaserngatan 14.
Tel: +46 8-698 10 00, fax: +46 8-20 29 25, e-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se Orders Ordertel: +46 8-505 933 40,
orderfax: +46 8-505 933 99, e-post: [email protected] Adress: CM Gruppen AB, Box 110 93, SE-161 11 Bromma. Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se/bokhandeln
Report 6368
Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment
of the Russian Federation
Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; ­eutrophication segment, point sources
Implementation of the ­Baltic
Sea Action Plan (BSAP)
in the R
­ ussian Federation;
­eutrophication ­segment,
point sources
Implementation of the B
­ altic
Sea Action Plan (BSAP)
in the ­Russian ­Federation;
­eutrophication segment,
point sources
Results from the RusNIP project
report 6368 • march 2010