Report - UNDP Russia

Box 4.6. A city at riskNovocherkassk (population 177,000)was rated by the State Environmental ExpertiseCommittee as an environmental problem zonein 2000. The city climate is characterized byfrequent periods without wind and long-lastingfogs, aggravated by temperature inversions,making Novocherkassk particularly susceptibleto air pollution. Mean annual concentrations ofthe main pollutants – formaldehyde, particulatematter, benzopyrene – have exceeded Russianmaximal allowable concentration by 3.0, 1.2 and10.1 times, respectively. Maximum short-termconcentrations were higher than allowablelevels by 8.2 times for CO, 5.4 times for NO 2 , 3.9times for H 2 S and formaldehyde, 4.4 times forparticulate matter, and 2.9 times for SO 2 andat the Ryazan and Kashira-4 CPPs. Emissions atseveral CPPs rose in 2008.Environment quality in areas where theseplants are located varies significantly. In somecases (Novocherkasskaya, Rostov-on-Don,Ryazanskaya, Tom-Usinskaya) emissions aredeclining thanks to use of coal with lower sulphurand ash content, improvement of ash traps, andintroduction of fluidized-bed combustiontechnology. This technology will also be used intwo new power units to be built at theCherepetskaya Plant (Box 4.5).Most large generating plants arelocated near small settlements and high stackssend emissions far away from localcommunities, but a number of plants arelocated inside cities, where negative impactfrom power generating is often combined withpollution by other local industrial facilities,including pollution of drinking water. This haslong been the case at Novocherkassk (RostovRegion), where high levels of pollution fromparticles and carcinogenic benzopyrene arecaused by a CPP and by the world’s largestelectrode plant (Box 4.6).Unlike CPPs, CHPs are usually locatedinside towns or cities and therefore pose aphenol. The highest registered mean monthlyconcentration of benzopyrene was 35.2 timeshigher than the permitted maximum 42 .Emissions by Novocherkassk PowerPlant will decline to some extent thanks tointroduction of circulated fluidized-bed coalburning technology. Impact of polluted air onpublic health in the city is combined with highlevels of water pollution due to merger of theSeverniy Donets river with the Don riverupstream from collectors, which supply thecity with water: the Severniy Donets is pollutedby discharges from chemical facilities inUkraine. Water supplied to households istreated with chlorine and presence ofcarcinogenic chlorine compounds is aboveallowable concentration.greater threat to local populations than theformer (Appendix 4.1). Most coal-fired CHPs arelocated in the Urals, Sverdlovsk andChelyabinsk Regions, as well as in KemerovoRegion, Perm Territory, Irkutsk, Chita Regionsand some other regions of Siberia and the FarEast. CHP-22 (Dzerzhinskiy, Moscow Region)still uses coal, but installation of newelectrostatic filters, which trap of up to 99% ofsome pollutants, reconstruction of the coalstorage area (now underway) and a number ofother environmental measures havesignificantly reduced the plant’s threat topublic health. NO 2 remains the main toxin inPlant emissions, but high levels of thiscompound are mostly localized outsideresidential areas.CHP-9 in Perm used to burn coal, but wasswitched to natural gas due to the threat posedto a city district. A court has ordered reduction ofemissions at the Kemerovskaya CHP.4.3.2. Health risks fromcoal burning in citiesThe share of coal in the fuel balance ofsmall heat & power generating facilities,42State Environmental Expertise Committee Report, February 22, 200085