APPENDIX of

“Sea water quality assessment of PrinceIslands’ Beaches in Istanbul”,

F.Ilter Turkdogan Aydinol, Gurdal Kanat, Hurrem Bayhan. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, (2012) 184:149–160

DOI 10.1007/s10661-011-1954-5

Adalar islands are near to Istanbul city. As explained below in detail, Istanbulcity has a large population and intensive industrial activity and as a result, leads to pollution effect to the MarmaraSea. For that reason, evaluation of the pollution of the city is also important to assess water quality around the Adalar beaches. Pollution sources in the MarmaraSea are explained in detail in the following sections.

A-1. Population Increase in Istanbul in the Last Decades

Population increase of IstanbulCity for the last fifty years can be seen in Figure A-2. Population increase of the city is still greater than Turkey's overall rate of 25 per thousand and leads to water and wastewater management problems. The water demand of Istanbul is approximately 1.1 billion m3/year and is estimated to double within the next 20 years. Explosive urbanization in the 1970s and a migration rate of 14% in the early 1980s forced Istanbul to expand and renovate its water and wastewater system. During the last decade, US$ 3.6 billion were invested to improve and expand the infrastructure system (Yuksel et al., 2004; ISKI, 2006).

Figure A-2. Population increase of IstanbulCity for the last fifty years

A-2. Description of the MarmaraSea Area

The MarmaraSea is a semi-enclosed deep basin between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea in Turkey. The surface layer consists of low salinity (18–29‰) water of the Black Sea origin while lower layer (below 20–25 m) contains high salinity (38.5‰) Mediterranean Sea water (Okus et al, 2008). The MarmaraSea has been subject to very high levels of pollution due to several industrial complexes, municipal wastewater, agricultural chemicals and oil pollution (Sarikaya et al., 1997; Eroglu et al., 2001; Yuksel et al., 2004). The main important pollutants are :

(a) From Istanbul city, which is the largest city in Turkey, currently housing around 15% of the population and 30% of industrial activities in Turkey within the boundary of its metropolitan area

(b) From IzmitBay, which receives waste from Turkey’s most important industrial area as well as the domestic waste of the city of Izmit (Okay et al., 1996; Tolun et al., 2001; Pekey et al., 2004; Morkoc et al., 2008). This large city is only 40 km away from Istanbul.

(c) From Gulf of Gemlik, which receives pollution from LakeIznik as well as industrial and household waste from adjacent cities (concentrated industry and population in Bursa and Balikesir cities). The Gulf of Gemlik, a 31-km-long semi-enclosed trough located in the southeastern part of the MarmaraSea is considered to be one of Turkey’s most industrialized regions and is contaminated by persistent organic and heavy metal pollutants. The main anthropogenic sources of pollutants are industrial activities, sewage discharges, urban runoff and shipping. Heavy metal pollution in surface sediment and mussel samples in the Gulf of Gemlik (Unlu et al, 2006; Unlu et al, 2008).

(d) and from the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea by surface and deep sea currents (Yuksel et al., 2004; ISKI, 2006; Okus et al, 2008).

A-3. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Strategies in Istanbul

Historical Development of Sewerage Systems

Istanbul is currently undergoing rapid industrialization and chaotic urbanization. In the 1950s, the beginning of the migration from Anatolia led to a rapid increase in the population of Istanbul. The insufficiency of the infrastructure and the lack of environmental protection have brought the problems to a chronic state. The inadequacy of sewage disposal seems to be the most important infrastructural problem in settlement areas.

In fact, the earliest sewerage projects inIstanbul were initiated in 1920 by a French company and a Berlin Company continued the project in the 1930s (Samsunlu, 1988). However, both of these projects were achieved to a very limited extent. Between 1959 and 1966 the first master plan relating to the removal of Istanbul city waste waters was prepared by a German Professor, Dr. Dietrich Kehr.In this plan, interceptors were proposed to be installed along the Golden Horn estuary to discharge the wastewaters into the Bosphorus but these planned interceptors could not be completed until 1990s, probably due to financial and administrative problems. Moreover, the population growth was considerably faster than anticipated and land utilization more intensive. Because of this, earlier construction plans had to be changed, and project studies enlarged.

Again, a new Master Plan and Feasibility Studies were carried out by DAMOC, which is a consortium of consultant companies, on behalf of the UNDP-United Nations Development Program and WHO, between 1966 and 1970.The Metropolitan Istanbul Sewerage Project was a very big project and international technical and financial support was necessary. The MetropolitanMunicipality allotted a major part of its investment expenditures for the infrastructure.

In 1999, Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration (ISKI) has let Istanbul Master Plan Consortium (IMC) to prepare a Master Plan for solving the water supply, wastewater and storm water problems in the Istanbul Metropolitan Area (Yuksel et al., 2004; Okus et al, 2008). The Master Plan, a result of intensive engineering studies for 6 years, proposes that secondary stage biological treatment should be applied at the first phase and tertiary biological treatment at the second phase for wastewater discharges to the MarmaraSea (Figure A-1). For wastewaters discharged into the Bosphorus, preliminary treatment is required for the first stage and chemically enhanced primary treatment for the second stage. More details can be found in the literature (Okus et al., 2008; Yuksel et al., 2004; Eroglu et al., 2001).

Short-term strategies (2000–2010)

The Master Plan suggestions developed through a modeling study conducted by Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) for the Marmara Sea–Bosphorus System water quality. Some existing data and DHI Model reveals that it is possible to develop short-term wastewater disposal alternatives for Istanbul. Modeling study shows that it is adequate to apply preliminary treatment (screening and aerated grid removal unit) for large-scale facilities (Yenikapi, Baltalimani, Kadikoy) and physical treatment (screening) for small-scale facilities (Uskudar, Kucuksu, Pasabahce) before discharging into the lower layers of the Strait. For the discharges into lower layers of Marmara Sea, it is much better to treat wastewater biologically (conventional activated sludge system as an initial stage) but for especially eutrophication control. Microbiological pollution is not one of the first priorities in the plans.

Medium and long-term strategies (after 2010)

Tertiary biological treatment before discharging into Marmara will be necessary to control eutrophication in MarmaraSea, which is accepted as sensitive water body, and to decrease oxygen consumption of pretreated wastewater discharging to the MarmaraSea and Strait. The IMC Master Plan proposes upgrading of pre-treatment levels to chemically enhanced primary treatment for WWTP's using the lower flows of the Bosphorus as the final discharge environment for the medium-term.

Figure A-1. Sea discharge facilities of Istanbul according to Master Plan (Ref.: IMC, 1999; Okus et al., 2008).

In 1996, according to the Master Plan, ISKI initiated a water quality monitoring program of the receiving water bodies (Okus et al., 2008). The monitoring program has been carried out for 10 years in 28 stations in the marine environment. The results of experimental investigations conducted for parameters including dissolved oxygen, total organic carbon (TOC), particulate organic carbon (POC), Total-N, Total-P, chlorophyll a, structure of benthic community, turbidity and coliforms have been critically analyzed taking into consideration the marine outfall and surface water discharges from Istanbul’s major wastewater treatment plants together with the transboundary pollution sourced by the Black Sea. The studies reveal that the water quality in the MarmaraSea is deteriorated more than anticipated before, and it is a necessity to develop international cooperation aimed for taking more effective measures in the area. Some concluding remarks of the results and suggestions from the water quality monitoring study since 1996 in order to monitor environmental impacts of the pre-treatment and marine outfall facilities proposed in the Master Plan of ISKI on the Marmara Sea and the Bosphorus, together with current surface discharges and transboundary pollutants generated in the Black Sea, are summarized below.

• Significant upgrading for bacteriological and physical/aesthetics quality of coastal water were provided with preliminary treatment and marine outfall facilities in Istanbul, although population and wastewater flow rate have been increased in this period.

• Around 2–4 times deterioration occurred in trophic conditions in the upper layer of the Marmara Sea compared to 1990, due to preliminary treatment and marine outfall facilities proposed as short-term implementations, surface discharges on coastal waters (more than 25% of Istanbul’s population) and transboundary pollution load coming from Black Sea.

• Tuzla and Kucukcekmece marine outfall facilities where deep current velocities are low, have negative impact on the water quality and ecological life at the initial mixing zone.

• Transboundary pollution from the Black Sea down to the MarmaraSea has not increased in the past 10 years, however it still has significance. Transboundary pollution from the Black Sea source (via the upper layer flows of the Bosphorus) has great impact on the trophic state of the MarmaraSea.

• The pre-treatment facilities must be increased to tertiary biological treatment (BNR process) until 2012 inTuzla, and in other planned Ambarli, South Kucukcekmece and Atakoy wastewater treatment plants. In addition, preliminary treatment levels must be upgraded to chemically enhanced primary treatment 2020.

A-4. Problems and Constraints for Wastewater Treatment

Until 1990s, there was no biological wastewater treatment plant in Istanbul and all of wastewater was discharged into the sea surface without any treatment (no pre-, preliminary or biological treatment). Despite wastewater management was improvedin Istanbulin the last decade, there are still some problems. The well-funded municipalities and ISKI effectively organized planning and implementation of the steps of Master Plan. The Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul has currently intensified its efforts to complete sewer collectors in sub-urban areas and the number of biological wastewater treatment plants. However, biological wastewater treatment capacity is still low in the city, mainly due to financial and administrative problems.In the last decades, budgets of the municipalities have not been sufficient to complete sewer collectors. For that reason,Biological treatment rate in Istanbul is still low and around 30%.

It is obvious that biological treatment of all wastewater is not affordable in near future, because according to the World Bank, up to 3% of a country’s gross national product (GNP) can be realistically spent on environmental protection (Grau, 1994). Moreover, it is clear that developing countries are able to spend as little as 1–10% of the sum that affluent economies spend more for waste management programs (Brunner and Fellner, 2007).

As having a developing economy and deficiency of engineering capacity for new technologies in environmental protection, Turkeyand also Istanbulhave still some problems in protection of the environment. Those problems are similar to other developing countries’ issues and should be evaluated during new policy initiatives to have a sustainable wastewater management. Some of them are listed and discussed below:

  • Biological (activated sludge) wastewater treatment is not a cheap method for the developing countries (due to investment and energy cost).For that reason, the numbers of biological wastewater treatment plants in those countries are still only a few and wastewater is discharged after pretreatment (or in many cases without any treatment). Another important problem is illegal discharge of industries, which is resulting some problems for efficient treatment.
  • In Istanbul, advanced treatment of wastewater has not been one of the first priorities, probably due to high cost, although some research studies show that reuse can be done in the city (Tanik et al., 1996).However, there is no feasibility study.
  • Scientific literature shows that untreated wastewater is a risk for public health but it doesnot mean a rapid epidemic at any time. Probably for that reason, policy makers and directors do not give priority to finish all wastewater treatment plants in a short time in the developing countries.
  • It is known that there are some (or many) regulations in the developing countries. They are generally copied (translated or adopted) from developed countries or from guidelines of international organizations. It means that they contain almost all of the details. However, enforcement of existing legislation is much more important than existence of thedetailed and strict rules of theregulations (Sperling and Chernicharo, 2002; Godfrey and Nahman, 2007; OECD, 1999; Sezer, et al., 2003; Kocasoy, 2003; Alpaslan et al.,2002; Kennish, 2002; Islam andTanaka, 2004).
  • Furthermore, sustainability of efficient operation (24 hrs-365 days) of the existing plants are suspicious due to maintenance and operation cost (energy cost and high cost of imported equipments (such as pumps, etc) in those plants).
  • In the last decades, entire budget was spent for completion of sewage system and collectors before construction of the treatment plants. All of wastewater was discharged into nearest creeks until 1980s. After this time, collectors were built to transfer sewage to deep sea discharges, andfirstly to prevent foul odor of anoxic sediment of Golden Horn estuary, which is historic and touristic area in the city center (Coleman et al., 2009).
  • It is obvious that biological wastewater treatment capacity cannot be improved very much in near future in developing countries due to financial and administrative problems (Sperling and Chernicharo, 2002; Godfrey and Nahman, 2007; Sezer, et al., 2003).
  • To the best knowledge of authors, there is no report in Istanbul, which is explaining any health problem (epidemic) related to swimming activities on the beaches in the last decades. Probably, health problems such as diarrhea are evaluated with other factors (food, drinking water, etc.). Risk level is not clear but health problems related to bathing were reported (Cartwright, 2003).
  • Despiteincrease of the basic research studiesin Turkey, applied research studies are very rare. For example, studies such as relation between open sewers and public health, decreasing maintenance and operation costs, solutions for financial and administrative problems in the municipalities, and similar problems should be researched and evaluated.Universities and other research institutes are generally studying basic research subjects (in the laboratories) but collaborative studies by municipalities are very rare. Pilot studies should be done and local cost should be evaluated carefully. Pilot studies are a crucial element for full-scale studies or implementation, and also to find local cost. Conducting a pilot study does not guarantee success in the main study, but it does increase the likelihood.

(Pictures of the beaches can be seen in Appendix-2)

Added References for the Appendix :

Alpaslan MN, Dolgen D,Akyarli A 2002. Liquidwastemanagementstrategiesforcoastalareas, WaterScienceTechnology 46:8 169-175

Brunner, P.H.,Fellner, J., 2007. Settingprioritiesforwastemanagementstrategies in developingcountries. WasteManagementandResearch 25, 234–240.

Cartwright RY. 2003. Food and waterborne infections associated with package holidays. J Appl. Microbial., 94:12S–24S.

Coleman, H.M., G. Kanat and F. I. Aydinol Turkdogan, 2009. Restoration of the Golden Horn Estuary (Halic), Water Research, Volume 43, Issue 20, Pages 4989-5003.

Eroglu, V.,Sarikaya, H.Z., Aydin, A.F., 2001. Planning of wastewatertreatmentanddisposalsystems of IstanbulMetropolitanarea. WaterScienceandTechnology 44 (2), 31–38.

Godfrey L, Nahman A, 2007. Are developing countries ready for first world waste policy instruments. In: Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Italy: CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre.

Grau, P., 1994. What’snext? WaterQualityInternational 4, 29–32.

IMC (1999) Istanbul Master Plan Consortium, Master Plan and Feasibility Study on Water Supply, Sanitary and Storm Water Collection, Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for Istanbul, Final Report.

ISKI (2006). Annualreport, IstanbulMetropolitanMunicipality, IstanbulWaterandSewerageAdministration, Lale PublishingCorp.,Istanbul (in Turkish).

Islam, M.S.,Tanaka, M., 2004. Impacts of pollution on coastalandmarineecosystemsincludingcoastalandmarinefisheriesandapproachformanagement: a reviewandsynthesis. MarinePollutionBulletin 48, 624–649.

Kennish, M.J., 2002. Environmentalthreatsandenvironmentalfuture of estuaries. EnvironmentalConservation 29 (1), 78–107.

Kocasoy G, 2003. Institutional Structure Of The Solid Waste And Landfill Management In Developing Countries, Proceedings Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 6 - 10 October. Cagliari, Italy.

Morkoc, E., OS Okay, A Edinçliler, 2008. Land-based sources of pollution along the Izmit Bay and their effect on the coastal waters, Environmental Geology, 56, Number 1, 131-138.

OECD 1999. Environmental Performance Review: Turkey, OECD.

Okay, O.S., Legoviç, T., Tüfekçi, V., Egesel, L. and Morkoç, E., 1996. Environmental impact of land-based pollutants on ImagezmitBay (Turkey): short-term algal bioassays and simulation of toxicity distribution in the marine environment. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 31, pp. 459–465.

Okus, E. Ozturk, I. Sur, H. I. Yuksek. A., Tas, S. Aslan-Yilmaz, A. Altiok, H. Balkis, N. Dogan, E. Ovez, S. Aydin, A.F. (2008) Critical evaluation of wastewater treatment and disposal strategies for Istanbul with regards to water quality monitoring study results, Desalination 226, 231–248

Pekey H., Karakas D., Ayberk S., Tolun L., Bakoglu M. (2004) Ecological risk assessment using trace elements from surface sediments of İzmit Bay (Northeastern Marmara Sea) Turkey, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48 (9-10), pp. 946-953.

Samsunlu, A., 1988. Internationalco-operation on bios – the golden hornproject. turkish/gg-samsu.htm.

Sarikaya H.Z., V. Eroglu, M. F. Sevimli and I. Öztürk (1997) Pretreatment requirements and status of industrial effluents in the greater Istanbul area, Water Science and Technology Vol 36, No 2–3 pp 101-107.

Sezer S, Kocasoy G and Aruoba C, 2003. How vital is the "lack of funding" in effective environmental management in Turkey?, Waste Management, 23, 5, pp.455-461

Sperling,Marcos and CarlosAugusto de LemosChernicharo,2002, Urban wastewatertreatmenttechnologiesandtheimplementation of dischargestandards in developingcountries, Urban Water, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 105-114

Tanik, A., HZ Sarikaya, V Eroglu, D Orhon, I 1996. Potential for reuse of treated effluent in Istanbul, WATER SCI TECHNOL, 33 (10-11): 107-113.

Tolun, L.G., Okay, O.S., Gaines, A.F., Tolay, M., Tüfekçi, H. and Kıratlı, N., 2001. The pollution status and the toxicity of surface sediments in ImagezmitBay (MarmaraSea), Turkey. Environment International 26, pp. 163–168.