| |
50 pollution point sources (hot-spots) were originally identified from the 1996 TDA as requiring capital investments. These are shown in Fig. 6.1, with further details presented in Annex 9. An assessment of the relative level of success in tackling these sources is made below in terms of the investments already made and those which are planned to be made by the end of 2015. The degree of success in tackling these sources is divided into three categories: identified capital investments completed (Section 5.1), identified capital investments started (Section 5.2) and those where further work is still required (Section 5.3). In Fig 6.1 and Annex 9, hot-spots belonging to these categories are coloured green, amber and red, respectively. Three of the originally-identified Russian hot-spots (Rostov-on-Don, Taganrog, and Azov municipal WWTPs) discharge into the Sea of Azov, not the Black Sea.
Capital investment costs to address the identified 50 hot-spots were originally estimated to be almost $400 million. By the end of 2005 at least $143 million had been spent on addressing these point sources, with a further $340 million planned by the end of 2015. |
| |
Of the 50 hot-spots originally identified 14 can be considered to have been adequately addressed in terms of required capital investments or a re-assessment of the impacts (pollution loads) discharged from the sites. Of these the construction work has either been completed or was due to have been completed by the end of 2005 at: Rosneta oil terminal WWTP, Varna Port WWTP, Burgas Port WWTP, Asparouhovo municipal WWTP, Neftochim oil refinery WWTP, Mangalia municipal WWTP, Sheskharis oil terminal WWTP and Gelendzhik municipal WWTP.
At Pivdenni municipal WWTP (Ukraine), over three times the original estimated investment costs have already been spent improving this facility, so pollution loads from this hot-spot are considered to have been addressed; however, it is planned to spend a further $37 million on reconstruction/updating of this plant by the end of 2015. Likewise, in Romania, at Constanta North, Constanta South and Eforie South WWTPs, greater sums of money have already been spent on modernisation/updating of the facilities than originally estimated, with considerable further investments to be spent by the end of 2015.
Closure and a change of use of the Fertilchim fertiliser manufacturing plant in Romania have greatly reduced its emissions, meaning that the $16,750,000 investment originally identified is no longer required. In the case of Dzhoubga municipal WWTP (Russia), a re-assessment of its pollution loads/impacts means that no updating of the plant is required – this is also included in the list of 14 hot-spots successes.
|
| |
|
| |
Figure 5.1 Location of hot-spots identified in the 1996 TDA |
|
| |
Upgrading of a further 10 of the originally-identified hot-spots can be considered to have been partially completed. The investment funds originally identified for upgrading/reconstructing the Bulgarian Sodi soda ash plant and Tsarevo municipal WWTP appear to have been spent, but construction (in 2006) had not been completed. Hence there is some confusion over upgrading of these sources. At the Petromidia petrochemical complex in Romania, capital investments have started, but the majority of modernisation/reconstruction work is planned for completion by the end of 2015. Similarly, in Russia, construction/modernization of Tuapse Port WWTP and Anapa municipal WWTP has started but will not be completed for some years yet.
In Turkey the situation is difficult to assess, since Trabzon municipal wastewater treatment plant was originally identified as being in need of upgrading, but which exact treatment works was never identified. Investments have begun at several WWTPs serving Trabzon, with further funding to complete this modernisation now identified in future capital investment plans. Work has been undertaken at Zonguldak WWTP, but the amount of money invested was considerably less than that originally estimated. A similar story to Zonguldak also emerges with regard to capital investments at Yalta and Gurzuf WWTPs in Ukraine, where the construction/upgrading of Yevpatoria WWTP has started, and is planned for completion in the future. |
| |
Upgrading/construction of the remaining 26 original hot-spots has not started and is not planned to be undertaken at Kutaisi, Chiatura, Tskhaltubo and Zugdidi municipal WWTPs, or Zestaponi industrial WWTP (Georgia). Likewise, investments at Taganrog and Azov municipal WWTPs in Russia have not been made and are not planned. In Turkey, no upgrading of the KBI and TUGSAS industrial WWTPs at Samsum, Murgul industrial WWTP or municipal WWTPs at Zonguldak and Bafra has been undertaken or planned. Similarly, no investments have been made or planned for Balaklava municipal WWTP, Sevastopol municipal WWTP, Kamish Burunski industrial WWTP or Illichevsk port WWTP (Ukraine).
Work has started and further work is planned to upgrade municipal WWTPs at Samsum and Giresun (Turkey), but the investments fall far below that originally envisaged. Biological treatment is planned for the centre district of Samsum and construction of a marine disposal system is planned for Giresun. Investments at Ordu WWTP (Turkey) are completed, with no further work planned, but again at a considerably lower cost than originally estimated. Some work has also been undertaken at Krasnoperekopsk WWTP (Ukraine), albeit at a much lower cost than originally estimated, with no further work planned.
Upgrading of Balchik municipal WWTP (Bulgaria) has started and will continue. Investments at Pivnichni municipal WWTP (Ukraine) have not started but are planned.
Finally, capital investments are planned for upgrading or construction of municipal WWTPs at Sozopol (Bulgaria), Batumi (Georgia) and Poti (Georgia), but this work had not started before 2006. |
| |
The original TDA focused heavily on municipal and industrial point source discharges to the Sea, and produced a ranking of their relative importance. However, it didn’t provide a definition of the term “hot-spot” in terms of minimum pollutant load or flow emitted. Neither was the definition strict in terms of refering only to direct discharges to the Black Sea. For example, 3 of the Russian hot-spots dicharge into the Sea of Azov, not the Black Sea, and several of the Georgian hot-spots are a lot further removed from the Sea than, say, WWTPs serving Istanbul that discharge much (orders of magnitude) higher nutrient loads than any of the other municipal hot-spots identified from the 1996 TDA.
There is a need to provide much stricter definitions of what constitutes a municipal or industrial hot-spot in terms of pollutant loads exported and geographical scope. There also a need to consider other pollutant sources as hot-spots, including agriculture and landfills. For the hot-spots list to be revised, criteria for inclusion and and exclusion from the list need to be established. |
|
|
|
|
|
