1.1. Goal

The goal of this project is the prioritization of the most substantial sources of pollution based on their characteristics and the impact on the environment.  International experts developed the methodology for the selection, evaluation and prioritization of the Hot Spots in the Dnipro River Basin.  Afterwards this methodology was reviewed by the national experts and revised taking into consideration their comments, recommendations and objections.

The methodology for the identification and analysis of pollution sources (Hot Spots) is part of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Regional Project “Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Dnipro River Basin and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms”.

The programme for the development of a Strategic Action Plan is aimed at the reduction of transboundary pollution of the Dnipro River basin and whereby the environmental safety of inland and international waters, namely, the Black Sea.

The Dnipro River flows into the territory of the Republic of Belarus from the territory of Smolensk Oblast in the south-eastern part of Vitebsk Oblast and then crosses Mogilevskaya and Gomelskaya Oblasts in a nearly meridian direction.  The extension of the Dnipro River in the territory of Belarus is 700 km and the drainage area is 116.4 thousand km² (22.8% of the total drainage area of the Dnipro River).

The Mereya River is the border between Russia and Belarus and Dubrovno is the first Belarus city on the Dnipro River.

The Dnipro River in the territory of Belarus can be divided into the upper part (from the river head to Zhlobin) and the lower part (from Zhlobin to Kiev).  There are no tributaries or water bodies in the sizeable floodplain in the upper part; the lower part is characterized by numerous tributaries, former riverbeds, bays and floodplain water bodies.  In Belarus, the streamside territory consists of forests and lakes.  The southern part is presented by the Belarus Polesye, which is the plain waterlogged lowland and which has to a very large extent been reclaimed.

There are numerous tributaries of the Dnipro River, which supply the territory of Belarus with water: the Pripyat, Berezina, Drut and Sozh Rivers, which in their turn constitute a rather dense water system, which forms the basis of the water supply to the Dnipro River. Despite of the fact that the drainage area within in the territory of the Republic of Belarus accounts for only one quarter of the whole the Dnipro River drainage area, the major water resources come from the territory of Belarus.

In the direction of Mogilev the Dnipro River crosses the Belarus ridge, it generates dams winding in its course through the narrow weaving relief with a steep slope, there are a lot of places with shallow water and rifts.  Not far from the cities of Mogilev and Rogachev the Dnipro River forms large scrolls and on average flows lower.  In the direction of Orsha the left bank is higher than the right bank of the river, the valley is deep, there are fluvial terraces on the bank vaults and gullies covered with forests.

Downstream of Mogilev the river reaches the vast water-logged area of Polesye lowland.  The valley of the river becomes wider, although the banks of the Dnipro River are high.  Further to the south the valley becomes more and more wider and the river forms several meandering branches and rifts.  Some branches of the river turn into the bays and some into lakes and bogs.

The Berezina River is the first large tributary of the Dnipro River.  Numerous bogs form the basis of the water supply to the Berezina River, which is full-flowing and navigable almost along its whole length.  After the convergence of the Berezina and the Dnipro Rivers, the latter becomes full.

Then the Dnipro River flows into the Sozh River; in its lower part, the Dnipro River forms the border between Belarus and Ukraine.

The Pripyat River is the largest right tributary of the Dnipro River with respect to water content and basin area (it is 750 km in length and a drainage area of 120 thousand km², with about 50% within the territory of Belarus).  Inflow from the Pripyat River doubles the Dnipro River flow in comparison to upstream of its junction with the Pripyat River.  The Pripyat River basin covers the Polesye lowland area.  The Pripyat River water has a brownish colour due to the presence of peat particles; its inflow creates a plume which stands out against the background of the Dnipro River water over a long length.

Unfortunately a considerable part of the Dnipro River stream side in the territory of Belarus (42 thousand km²) is polluted by radionuclides (according to the official data for 2001 the level of pollution was Cs-137 ³ 1 Кi/km²).

In the territory of Belarus cropland area within the Dnipro River basin is 51.4 thousand km², the reclaimed area is 2 million hectares, the area of protected territories is 3.6 thousand km².

1.2. Scope of Work

There are thousands of confirmed and potential Hot Spots within the Dnipro River basin.  The national experts used the multi-stage Hot Spots screening system in order to meet the goal in an efficient and timely manner.  The first stage of screening includes simple and widely applicable activities. As the list of potential Hot Spots grows shorter, the assessment becomes more detailed. As a result this approach gradually ensures more detailed comparative analysis.

The scope of the aforementioned activities included identification and confirmation of pollution sources, analysis of the adverse impact of contaminants loading on environment and facilitation the process of realization of Strategic Action Programme in the territory of three countries crossed by the Dnipro River. Working in close co-operation with the colleagues from the Thematic Centres (national experts) in order to identify, assess and prioritize the pollution sources (Hot Spots) as well as develop the corresponding mitigation measures, the SLE&C team took the role of International Experts.

3.1. Summary of Approach

The methodology provides a formal, systematic approach to addressing the large number of potential Hot Spots in the Dnipro River Basin recognizing the short period of time available to the National Experts to complete their tasks.  The approach is also flexible in that rules could be readily modified to ultimately obtain a manageable number of Hot Spots for detailed evaluation. 

Five steps were involved:

Step 1                Identification and Preliminary Screening of Hot Spots

Step 2               Detailed Evaluation of Hot Spots (passing Preliminary Screening)

Step 3                Prioritization of Hot Spots

Step 4                Identification of Mitigation Measures and Associated Costs

Step 5                Reporting

Each step is briefly described in the following sections. 

3.2. Step 1:  Identification and Preliminary Screening of Hot Spots

In Step 1 the NHSE compiled a full list of Hot Spots for each country based on information available and shortened this list to a manageable number of Hot Spots using the screening method.  If too few or too many Hot Spots passed through the screening method, the parameters were adjusted until a manageable number of Hot Spots were identified for further assessment (Step 2). 

For each country, the NHSE compiled a list of Hot Spots based on the guidance provided by the definition.  The Hot Spots were selected from information available in environmental monitoring records of each country and from the knowledge and experience of the NHSE.

Decreasing the number of Hot Spots to a more manageable number for detailed scrutiny was important given the constraints of the project. For the purpose of this report, the following number of Hot Spots were selected for each country:

- Belarus: 50 to 100 Hot Spots

- Russia:  50 to 100 Hot Spots

- Ukraine: 100 to 200 Hot Spots

Ukraine’s larger number of Hot Spots reflects their greater portion of the basin in terms of industry, population and land area.

Numerical criteria (such as contaminant loadings released from the Hot Spot), and the knowledge of NHSE, were used to screen the Hot Spots to arrive at a manageable number for in-depth assessment. Numerical criteria were adjusted to arrive at the appropriate number and were selected to correspond with data used in each country according to format and availability. The parameters used as indicators were selected based on their availability. For example, most municipal sewage treatment plants measure Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) in effluent discharges and therefore BOD was selected for this sector, while one of the heavy metals was selected as the indicator for the industrial sector.

For preliminary screening, the “effective mass of contaminant” methodology, which was developed for the characterization of different discharges (their quantity and toxicity), and is based on the “toxic equivalent” concept, was employed.  The “effective mass of contaminant” derived for a discharge was used for the comparative assessment of different contaminant discharges where multiple contaminants were involved.  The Hot Spots yielding the highest “effective mass of contaminant” were promoted to Step 2 for more detailed evaluation. 

The method made use of existing contaminant loading estimates available in the State Statistical Database (2TP – “Vodkhoz”), collected for most dischargers in each of the three countries during the period from 2000 to 2002. 

Calculation of the effective mass of contaminant for “Hot Spot X”(M_X) was based on two parameters: mass of discharged pollutant “i” (m_i), and relative toxicity of pollutant “i”, defined by the coefficient of toxicity, A_i.  The coefficient of toxicity, A_i, was calculated on a relative basis to the toxicity of ammonium sulphate which has a Maximum Permissible Concentration (MPC) value of 1 mg/L* :

For example,

for formaldehyde, A_i = 4  since MPC_formaldehyde = 0.25 mg/L*,

for ammonium perchlorate, A_i = 125  since MPC _{ammonium perchlorate} = 0.008 mg/L*.

Note:  * State Surface Water Quality Standards (Fishery) for all three countries.

The formula for calculating the “effective mass of contaminant i” for a discharge is given by the following:

Mi (tonnes/year)  =  A_i (dimensionless)  x m_i (tonnes/year)

Masses of discharged pollutants by individual discharger for a broad range of components (m_i) are stored in the Database “2TP – Vodkhoz”.  Values of Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC_i) for different components were found in the State Surface Water Quality Standards (Fishery).

The total effective mass of discharged contaminants for “Hot Spot X”(M_X) was calculated as the sum of the effective masses of discharged individual contaminants:

        M_X  = å M_i

Values of M_X for individual Hot Spots were used as score values for the preliminary screening and preliminary ranking of all the Hot Spots, as a basis for selecting those to go forward to Step 2.

For multi-point sources of contamination, such as those associated with large industrial or municipal complexes, the effective mass of contaminant was assessed using the following formula, which sums multiple point sources:

åⁿ M_i = M₁ +  M₂ + …. + M_n

It was at the discretion of the National Experts whether there was any merit in aggregating multiple discharges in this manner.  The decision partly depended on whether mitigation could be applied over several sources and whether a “bankable” project could be identified.

Being a simple system, the numerical screening could leave-out substantial sources of contamination known to the NHSE.  In addition to the above methodology, the preliminary screening was augmented with additional criteria designed to ensure Hot Spots associated with most of the major economic sectors were included and that there remained flexibility to promote some Hot Spots based on the professional judgement of the National Experts.  This recognized that some significant Hot Spots did not meet the preliminary screening. These additional criteria for promotion to Step 2 are provided below (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 : Hot Spot Promotion Criteria For Preliminary Screening

*        Actual numerical values were adjusted based on data availability, “watershed” defined on a country-specific basis given each country carried out screening independently.

**        Municipal Sector promoted on the basis of BOD and Total Phosphorus loading which served as surrogates for other potential contaminants in municipal discharges.  Industrial Sector used parameters for which reasonably good watershed loading inventories were available

***        Focused on livestock operations since fertilizer/pesticide issues are more readily addressed through implementation of Best Management Practices

3.3. Step 2:  Detailed Evaluation of Hot Spots

The detailed evaluation of Hot Spots was conducted using the scoring sheets attached.  A scoring sheet and a rationale document was developed for each of the categories of Hot Spot issues as follows:

- Water Quality & Human Health

- Pollution Control

- Environmental & Biodiversity

- Economics

Work sheets for each category with Rationales and Scoring Sheets are presented in the annex. The rationale documents explain why criteria were proposed and their relative importance.

The detailed evaluation was conducted using a numerical scoring methodology.  The four areas of interest, identified as Categories in the scoring methodology, were broken into Subcategories of multiple questions (Indicators). The scores were transferred to a Summary Scoring Sheet which calculated the total score of each Hot Spot after accounting for weightings. 

The initial activity required for the scoring methodology was the selection of reasonable weightings to determine the relative importance of each indicator. The weighting was undertaken at three levels (categories, subcategories and indicators). Weightings are only relative between indicators in the same subcategories, subcategories in the same categories and between categories. This approach made selecting weighting factors relatively easy to implement and revise as required. It eliminated any bias introduced between categories and/or subcategories with many indicators compared to those categories and/or subcategories with few indicators.

The range of scores was designated as 0 to 5.  The range could be altered as desired (i.e., 0 to 100) to provide greater refinement of resolution (more detailed discrimination between criteria).  It was considered that a range of 0 to 5 provided an appropriate amount of discrimination for the evaluation. 

The scoring sheets with proposed weightings were provided with the guideline.  As one of the their first tasks, the NHSE were required to review and revise the proposed weighting values. 

The NHSE completed the scoring sheets for each of the short-listed Hot Spots using data available in national and regional centres.  During this process, a data quality assessment was conducted by the NHSE for each country and used in a sensitivity analysis of the scoring methodology. 

The scores were transferred to a Summary Scoring Sheet which calculated the total score of each Hot Spot after accounting for weightings. 

3.5. Step 4:  Identification of Mitigation Measures and Associated Costs

For the selected Hot Spots, mitigation measures were proposed and costs for their implementation estimated.  This work was primarily conducted by the NHSE for Pollution Control and Economics.  Mitigation measures included the installation of treatment technologies, improvements of operating procedures and also adopting new policies, legislation and best management practices.  A cost-benefit analysis of the proposed measures was conducted for the 20 selected Hot Spots.

3.6. Step 5:  Reporting

The findings of the steps above were summarized in the National Pollution Reduction Reports for each country.  The NHSEs of each participating country produced a National Pollution Reduction Report representing a situational analysis of the country in terms of the identification and analysis of sources of pollution for the Dnipro River Basin.  The three National Pollution Reduction Reports/National Reviews will be later combined into the Final Regional Report on Pollution Reduction Measures for the Dnipro River Basin.

4.1. Sources of Information and Methodology

Preselection of Hot Spots was carried out by the national experts of the Republic of Belarus using all available information about the sources of pollution of water bodies in the basin of the Dnipro River within the territory of the Republic of Belarus.  The main sources used for the preselection of Hot Spots in the Dnipro River basin over the territory of the Republic of Belarus are as follows:

- Materials of national statistics of the Republic of Belarus (Form 2-OS (WATER) for 1990, 1991, 1999 and 2000;

- The State Water Cadastre. Water resources, use of water resources and water quality – for 1999 and 2000;

- Information bulletins reflecting the results of monitoring of geological environment and water bodies – 1999-2000;

- The report “Environmental conditions in the Dnipro River basin in the territory of the Republic of Belarus” – 2003;

- Reports and papers of non-government organizations, and the periodical press.

The preselection of Hot Spots was done using the following methodology:

1.    At the stage of preselection of Hot Spots, the National Experts used national statistics with the application of maximum allowable concentration for water bodies used for fish-farming – for the Republic of Belarus (Form N2-OC (WATER) for all reporting enterprises of the Dnipro River basin.

2.     Statistics were processed according to the agreed “Method of assessment of effective mass of pollutant with application of data of all the assessed parameters”. In their calculations the experts used maximum allowable concentration for fish-farming water bodies.

3.       Later the processed data were ranked according to the index of “effective mass of contaminants”.

4.       The assessment was based on data from 1990, 1991, 1999 and 2000, and at the time of the ranking process, the year 2000 was the latest year where statistics were available.

The Hot Spots which were selected at this stage were subject to the detailed evaluation and ranking.  These results are reflected in the subsequent chapters.

The subsequent stages of the selection of Hot Spots were aimed at:

- Lessening the likelihood of errors by using formalized methods of assessment;

- Use of a system of additional criteria in order to take into account not only quantity and characteristics if pollutants discharged, but also their impact on environmental quality;

Sound reduction of the number of Hot Spots in order to carry out their technical – economic and pre-investment assessment.

4.2. Hot Spots Subject to Quantitative Assessment

The identification and preselection of Hot Spots was conducted first of all according to the total effective mass of pollutants and then taking into consideration the factor of dilution for the years 1990, 1991, 1999 and 2000.  However, since the results of ranking of the Hot Spots for the above-mentioned four years demonstrated that the list of the Hot Spots and their ranking do not vary significantly from year to year, this report includes data only for 2000.

The report contains the results of the calculation of total effective mass of pollutants discharged by 199 enterprises in 2000.  The location of the points of industrial discharges from these enterprises to the Dnipro River basin within the territory of Belarus is given in (Figure 4.1).

The results of calculation of the effective mass of contaminants discharged enabled ranking of these enterprises according to a descending sequence in terms of amount of pollution (Table A-1, Annex A).

The calculations performed showed that in 2000, the total effective mass of contaminants discharged to the Dnipro River basin made up about 95520 tonnes.  As shown in Table A-1, 143 enterprises discharged one tonnes per year or more. Analysis of the results also shows that 48 enterprises resulted in 99 % of the effective mass of contaminants discharged to the Dnipro River basin within the territory of Belarus.

More precise specification of the preliminary list of Hot Spots for the communal sector, industry, fish-farming sector and agriculture was carried out on the basis of the application of additional criteria (see Methodology, section 3.2).  The values of factors for Hot Spots assumed as the additional criteria are as follows: M1.  Total annual mass of contaminants discharged (one tonnes per year) exceeds 1% of total annual basin load; M2.  Total annual hydraulic load (million m³ per year) exceeds 1-2% of total annual discharge to the basin.

In the communal sector the assessment was carried out on the basis of BOD, phosphorus and total annual hydraulic load criteria.  The experts identified 10 enterprises in the communal sector, where the values of the criteria exceed 1%  (Table 4.1) and three enterprises in the industrial sector, where the values of criteria exceed 2% (Table 4.2).

The assessment of fish-farming complexes identified 6 enterprises, where the total hydraulic load exceeds 1%.  At the same time, the loads of these enterprises in terms of Biological Oxygen Demand and phosphorus are slight (Table 4.3).

Analysis of agricultural enterprises shows that their indices are mainly within the established limits (Table 4.4).

Table 4.1 : Preselection of Hot Spots According to Additional Criteria - Communal Sector

Table 4.2 : Preselection of Hot Spots According to Additional Criteria - Industry

Тable 4.3 : Preselection of Hot Spots According to Additional Criteria - Fish-farming Enterprises

Тable 4.4 : Preselection of Hot Spots According to Additional Criteria - Agriculture

In addition to the above mentioned criteria M1 and M2, the analysis of industrial enterprises included criteria related to the concentration of heavy metals (iron, copper, zinc and nickel).  Following this approach, the experts identified two enterprises, where additional criteria exceed the approved limits (Table 4.5).

As a result of the analysis carried out, the experts formulated a preliminary list of Hot Spots, which included 17 enterprises (Table 4.6). Subsequently, they carried out an evaluation of the input of each enterprise within the total volume of effective mass of contaminants discharged as a whole to the Dnipro River basin within the territory of Belarus.  Table 4.6 shows that the share of input of an enterprise varies from 0.1 to 47 percent.  It was decided that the revised preliminary list of Hot Spots should include only those enterprises which discharge the largest effective mass of contaminants, in particular, more than 1% of total mass over the Dnipro River basin in the territory of Belarus.  As a result there were 15 enterprises identified, which formed the revised preliminary list of Hot Spots, given in Table 4.7.

Table 4.5 : Preselection of Hot Spots using Additional Criteria - Concentration of Heavy Metals

Table 4.6 : Preliminary List of Priority Hot Spots

Тable 4.7 : Revised Preliminary List of Hot Spots in the Dnipro River Basin in the Territory of Belarus

4.3. Hot Spots Subject to Qualitative Assessment

The preliminary screening of Hot Spots has revealed numerous sources of pollution, where for a variety of reasons there are insufficient data to describe them quantitatively.  The sources of pollution (Hot Spots) of this type were assessed qualitatively.  Another example of Hot Spots, which are subject to qualitative assessment, are sites of high risk (potential sources of pollution).  These sites cannot be considered as active Hot Spots (for example, oil pipe lines).  Qualitative (expert) evaluation of a Hot Spot was supplemented with the analysis of water quality monitoring data in the river stations located downstream of the Hot Spot.  When the appropriate data was available, the National Experts compared (according to monitoring data) the impact of point sources of pollution (those which have direct effluent discharge to the natural water body) with the impact of diffusive sources of pollution.

4.3.1. Solid Waste

Industrial and domestic waste disposal has an adverse impact on the environment.  These localities are characterized by deterioration of the quality of underground water as a result of pollution, which is caused by the presence of industrial waste disposal sites in the river basin: the storage of solid domestic waste of large cities and industrial waste. Pollution of surface water takes place as a result of leachate plumes reaching the river network.

In the Republic of Belarus, the domestic waste disposal sites are located in the large cities: Minsk, Mogilev, Gomel, Svetlogorsk, Orsha, Bobruisk and Pinsk.  The lack of waste processing is a serious problem.  Only 15% of all solid domestic waste are subject to recycling, the state enterprise “Ecores” is the only waste processing enterprise in the Republic of Belarus, which utilized only 4% of solid domestic waste.

There are unauthorized dumps of solid domestic waste as well as industrial waste sites: dumps of domestic waste of large cities, wastage of enterprises “Belaruskaliy” and “Gomelsky chemical plant”, waste disposal site for the f former military base “Ziabrovka” in Gomel Oblast.

Large industrial waste disposal sites of the Republic of Belarus include: 1) halite waste and clay-salt sludge of the enterprise “Belaruskaliy” (Soligorsk City), the total area of this disposal site is 1350 hectares; 2) waste piles of phosphogypsum of Gomelsky chemical plant - the area is more than 60 hectares.  The maximum quantity of solid domestic waste in the Dnipro River basin is located in the dumps and sludge pits of the enterprise “Belaruskaliy” (1350 hectares), waste piles of phosphogypsum of Gomelsky chemical plant (64 hectares), waste piles of hydrolytic industry (lignine) of the cities of Bobruisk and Retchitsa (20 hectares), waste piles of Svetlogorsk heat station (55 hectares).  There are 7 industrial waste disposal sites, with a total area of 1405 hectares.

There are 3 large domestic solid waste disposal sites in the Dnipro River basin within the territory of Vitebskaya Oblast:

1)        Solid waste domestic site, City of Orsha.  The domestic solid waste disposal site for the city of Orsha is situated 20 km away from the city. It is located in an open pit, the lower layer of the pit is presented by moraine drift clay.  The volume of the stored waste is 6190 thousand m³.  The annual volume of incoming waste is about 80 thousand m³, including 35 thousand m³ of industrial waste. Industrial waste includes sludge of oil removers, foundry loam, drossy saw dust, etc.

2)        Solid waste domestic site, Town of Orekhovsk (Orshansky Rayon). The disposal site for solid domestic waste site is situated 5 km from the town of Orekhovsk. It has been in operation since 1977; there was no proposed expansion or other projects for this site.  The total area of the disposal site is 2 hectares.  The disposal site is located in an area of moraines composed of till and clay sand.  Annually, about 2 thousand tonnes of domestic waste are disposed of in this disposal site.  The share of industrial waste is about 100 tonnes.

3)        Solid domestic waste disposal site, Town of Dubrovno.  The waste disposal site is located 1 km away from the town of Dubrovno.  The distance to the Dnipro River is 0.5 km.  The volume of the stored waste is 57 thousand m³.  The annual volume of incoming waste is about 8.2 thousand m³, including 4.4 thousand m³ of solid domestic waste.  The disposal site is located in an open pit in an area of fluvioglacial sands, the lower layer of the pit is presented by moraine clay and loamy sands.  The bottom of the pit is composed of mean coarse sand (0.3 – 1.3 m), semisolid loam (3.4 – 4.1 m), tight foul moraine clay sand (7.0 – 12.0 m).  Groundwater up to a depth of 12 metres is not uncovered.  Reserve operation period is about 40 years.

In Mogilev Oblast the impact of industrial and domestic waste disposal sites on the environmental condition of the Dnipro River basin is not investigated, especially in the rayon centres of this oblast, where these objects are not equipped with the network of observation wells (the towns of Bykhov, Kostiukovichy, Krichev, Kirovsk, Krasnopoliye).

In Brest Oblast the solid domestic waste disposal sites are located in the towns of Ivatsevichy, Pruzhany, Ruzhany, Gantsevichy, Mikashevichy, Drogichin, Bereza, Belozersk, Pinsk, Ivanovo, Stolin, David-Gorodok and the settlements of Telekhany and Logishin.  According to the results of analysis of groundwater taken from observation wells and mineshafts of the neighbouring villages, the above mentioned disposal sites do not have considerable impact on the condition of groundwater.

4.3.2. Sources of Diffuse Pollution

The impact of disperse (diffuse) sources of pollution on the environment of Belarus includes the impact of agricultural waste of stock-raising enterprises, drainage and irrigation waters, surface run-off from fields, sanitary water of small inhabited localities, peat extraction, mineral resource industry, surface run off, etc.

According to evaluation data, more than 60% of the total volume of pollution in the Dnipro River basin in the territory of Belarus is formed due to diffuse (disperse) sources.

The impact of rural inhabited localities on the pollution of water with biogenic matters becomes apparent in the form of surface run off from the inhabited localities and filtration of contamination and cesspools.  Most of the villages do not have sewerage systems and mainly have cesspools.  Up to 5% of nitrogen and phosphorus generated by filtration of drainage and the contents of the cesspools arrive at the river network.  The amount of pollution per head consists of: 2.7 grams per day of mineral phosphorus, or 0.48 grams per day including detergents.

Livestock waste and run-off from stock-raising enterprises are one of the primary sources of environmental pollution (including water) with nitrogen and phosphorus.  The volume of pollution arriving in water bodies is determined by the capacity of stock-raising enterprise, the output of solid and liquid waste and their composition.  There are 66 operating cattle-breeding and 58 hog-breeding enterprises in the basin of the Dnipro River and its tributaries (the Berezina, Sozh, Pripyat and Svislotch Rivers). The availability of such a high quantity of large stock-raising enterprises has resulted in an increase in the production volume of animal husbandry products but at the same time it has an adverse effect on the environmental conditions in the areas where such enterprises are located, including the territorial-administrative units in the Dnipro River basin.  In general it is caused by not inadequate capacity of the stock-raising enterprises, serious breakdowns in the process of maintenance of manure removing systems, inadequate control of environmental conditions, and non-observance of the established norms of incorporation of liquid manure into the soil.

Table A-2 (Annex A) presents information about cattle- breeding and hog-breeding enterprises operating in the basin of the Dnipro and Pripyat Rivers.

4.4. Potential Sources of an Adverse Impact (Potential Hot Spots)

The most substantial quantities of potentially hazardous substances in the territory of Belarus are accumulated at enterprises of the chemical and petroleum refining industry as well as at enterprises where mineral fertilizers are produced.  As a whole there are 350 chemically hazardous sites in the Republic of Belarus which store or use 20 kinds of virulent poisonous substances in the process of production.  There are 250 explosive sites in Belarus.  Fifteen hundred (1500) tank trucks with highly explosive and poisonous substances are transported by the railways of Belarus every month.  The occurrences of oil spills and other chemical substances, emergencies releases of liquefied gases take place as a result of various railway accidents which is resulted in the pollution of the natural environment.

Last years’ technogenic emergencies took place mostly at trunk pipelines, related to railway transport, wastewater treatment facilities, and sewerage systems.  In particular:

- leakage of diesel oil at Mozyrsky petroleum refinery (February); pipeline breaking and spill of oil in Stolinsky Rayon (August 1996);

- breaking of the gas-main pipeline “Minsk – Ivatsevichy”, which caused fire, damaging 10 hectares of forest (April 1997, Uzdensky Rayon);

- breaking of the main oil-products pipeline “Russia – Ukraine”, spill of petrol and spreading of petrol over an area of 70 hectares (June 1997);

- leakage of 300 kg of ammonia at Bobruisk meat-packing factory (June 1997);

- leakage of more than 8 m³ of petrol in the area of 0.2 hectares as a result of tank damage (February 1999, Borisovsky Rayon);

- blowout of mazut in municipal sewerage system as a result of emergency. It was caused by the overfill of municipal sewerage system after a heavy rain. Consequences: arrival of mazut in the Pripat River and formation of mazut slick over a length of 50 km (June 1999, Mozyr);

- spill of about 500 kg of oil and contamination of top-soil as a result of breaking of oil pipeline “Druzhba” (June 1999, Mozyrsky Rayon);

- contamination of soil-reclamation canal over a distance of 2.5 km as a result of breaking of oil-pipeline (May 2000, oil-pipeline “Druzhba”, Dragichinsky Rayon).

In 2000 there were 3 occurrences of emergency discharges of oil products into the water bodies of the Dnipro River basin. In particular, the Gomel oil transportation enterprise “Druzhba” discharged 51.9 m³ of oil into the soil-reclamation canal at the 257 km mark of the oil-pipeline “Mozyr – Brest” near the Berkozy village of Pinsk Rayon.  The material damage to the state amounted to 813.8 thousand roubles.  Another 4848 kg of oil was discharged into Valovelsky canal, which took place as a result of an oil spill at the 313 km mark of the oil-pipeline “Mozyr – Brest”.  The material damage to the state was 17. 200 million roubles.  Mazut (1.7 tonnes) was discharged into the Merechanka River by the Pinsk confectionery from its boiler-house mazut storage facilities.  Material damage to the state amounted to 2.802 million roubles.

In June 2002, an oil-pipeline break took place near the village of Vysokoye in Stolinsky Rayon at the 142 km mark of the pipeline “Gomeltransneft”. As a result of this accident oil arrived into the soil-reclamation canal and caused contamination over an area of 1 km.  Material damage to the state consisted of 27.829 million roubles.

5.1. Sources of Information and Control of Data Quality

In order to identify the Hot Spots and to measure the priority of the Hot Spots, the national experts used official data of State water cadastre prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection jointly with the Ministry of Health [1], data of state statistics concerning use of water (form No. 2-OC (WATER), materials submitted by Brest, Vitebsk, Gomel, Minsk and Mogilev oblast committees of natural resources and environmental protection, municipal and rayon inspections of natural resources and environmental protection of the towns of Minsk, Borisov, Bobruisk, Soligorsk, Slutsk, Pinsk, Mogilev, Orsha, Bereza, Gomel, Retchitsa, Zhlobin, Mozyr, Svetlogorsk as well as the enterprises: Production Association “Minskvodokanal”, “Retchitsavodokanal”, Communal Enterprise “Gomelvodokanal”, Mogilev plant of sediment processing, Department of Water Communal Economy of the town of Borisov, Communal Enterprise “Vodokanal” of the Town of Bobruisk, Production Association “Khimvolokno” of the Town of Svetlogorsk, Svetlogorsk heat station, “Berezovsky Vodokanal”, Joint-Stock Company “Mozyrsky petroleum refinery”, Communal Enterprise of the Town of Orsha, Pinsk Communal Enterprise, Communal enterprise “Zhlobinsk Vodokanal”, Communal enterprises of Soligorsk and Slutsk.  The experts also used research materials of the Central Research Institute and data from field observations.  The plan showing the localities of effluent discharges from wastewater treatment facilities of the above enterprises, included in the preliminary list of the Hot Spots, are provided  in Figures B1 – B14 (Annex B).

In accordance with the “Provision on the procedure of conduct of state water cadastre” approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus, all water users should keep records of water use.  The responsibility for accuracy and fullness of primary record keeping of water use is imposed on the managers of enterprises which use water or discharge their effluent to water bodies, storage ponds, filter beds, etc.

Primary record keeping of water use is conducted in accordance with the norms outlined in the document “Primary record keeping of water use. General provisions. Instruction of water inspectors” approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection on July 21, 1995.  According to this normative document, enterprises must install hydrometric equipment at all locations of water intake in order to take measurements of water intake and to determine the volume of effluent discharged in all water outlets.

The primary record of water use should be made with an error not exceeding ± 5%. It is stipulated by the Law “On the tax for the use of natural resources (environmental tax)” and the GOST 8.145-75 for commercial record: “If the instrumental record of water use is impossible, the water consumer must establish reasonable terms for the installation of measuring devices at the water intake and effluent discharge facilities.”  Determination of the volumes of discharged effluent is of special concern as the quantitative characteristics of the discharged effluent confirms the credibility of information about water use and has a direct impact on the determination of volumes of contaminants in discharged effluents.

The variants of effluent discharge can be as follows:

- the volume of effluent discharged is noticeably lesser compared to the volume of water withdrawal because of evaporation, in-process loss and other reasons;

- the volume of effluent discharge is approximately equal to the volume of water withdrawal;

- the volume of effluent discharge exceeds the volume of water withdrawal because of water infiltration to water outlets, melting of snow, atmospheric precipitation and other reasons.

As a consequence of the first and the third variants of effluent discharge, the use of calculation and non-instrumental methods for the primary record of water use leads to gross errors and prevents the establishment of reasonable limits of water use as well as prevents the sound calculation of rates of environmental taxes for the environmental pollution.  Moreover, there is an adverse impact on the reliability of the data presented by the enterprises in the statistics form 2-OC (Water), and for the data reflecting the volumes of contaminants discharged (as is presented in the records for local monitoring of environment pollution submitted by enterprises to the territorial monitoring centre attached to the committees of natural resources and environment.)

5.2. Detailed Assessment

5.2.1. Introduction

The category “Pollution Control” includes three subcategories:

1.        Overall Performance;

2.        Wastwater Characteristics;

3.        Wastwater Loadings.

The subcategory “Overall Performance” includes 10 indices:

1. Normal general disposal rate

2. The share of effluents

3. Dilution / mixing

4. Secondary pollutants

5. Method of discharge

6. Frequency of discharge

7. Frequency of monitoring of discharge

8. Frequency of tests and analysis

9. Type of sampling

10. Control of the flow of discharge

11. The subcategory “Pollutant load” includes 22 indices, the same as those included in the subcategory “Wastwater characteristics”.

12. BOD₅

13. COD

14. Total Suspended Solids

15. Total Dissolved Solids

16. Phosphorus

17. Аmmonia nitrogen

18. Nitrate nitrogen

19. Nitrite nitrogen

20. Oil products

21. Persistent Organic Pollutants

22. Phenols

23. Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons

24. Oils and fats

25. Iron

26. Copper

27. Zinc

28. Nickel

29. Chromium

30. Cadmium

31. Mercury

32. Lead

33. Radioisotopes

The discharges from communal wastewater treatment facilities as a rule have a higher volume than discharges from industrial complexes.  Therefore, two sets of data were proposed for the criteria “Normal general disposal rate”: one for communal wastewater treatment facilities, the second for industrial complexes.  The assessment of hot spots, which do not fall under any of above-mentioned categories, was based on the data reasoning from characteristics of the discharge (for example, in order to carry out an assessment of storm precipitation, snowmelt runoff, or agricultural wastewater, it would be better to use data of the assessment of communal wastewater treatment facilities).

5.2.2. Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Discharge

5.2.2.1. Normal General Disposal Rate

Communal discharges: The effluent discharges from communal wastewater treatment facilities are as a rule of greater volume than discharges from industrial enterprises. Accordingly, we increased the average rate of discharge based on the conclusions made by the experts.  The rates of discharges are fixed at the level of 1000 m³ per day.

Industrial discharges: This criterion enables a differentiation between industrial enterprises of the same sector subject to the size of the enterprise.  As a rule, the volume of the resulting wastewater is proportionate to the volume of production.  It is considered that big enterprises are those where the volume of discharge exceeds 2500 m³ per day, medium enterprises are those where the volume of discharge is above 1000 m³ per day, and small enterprises are below 50 m³ per day.

At present, only three among the 15 enterprises included in the refined preliminary list are industrial enterprises.  These are: PA “Khimvolokno” of the Town of Svetlogorsk, the Svetlogorsk heat station, and JSC “Mozyrsky petroleum refinery”. In 2000, the volume of industrial discharge of these enterprises made up 75, 15, and 53 thousand m³ per day respectively.  At the same time, it should be noted that wastewater treatment facilities of the Mozyrsky petroleum refinery are also used for the treatment of municipal discharges of the towns of Mozyr and Kalinkovichi.  Hence, the value of index 1.1b for these enterprises was qualified as 5 points (Annex B, Table B1).

Wastewater treatment facilities of Mogilev PA “Khimvolokno” and “Retchitsa experimental-industrial hydrolytic plant” also provided treatment of municipal discharges of the towns of Mogilev and Retchitsa and at present they are placed under the jurisdiction of Vodokanals of these towns.  The total average daily discharge made up 171 and 25 thousand m³.  For the scoring sheets, the enterprises were qualified as 5 and 3 points respectively (see Table 5.1).  The volume of average daily discharge of municipal treatment facilities of the cities of Minsk, Gomel, Bobruisk, Bereza, Borisov, Orsha, Pinsk, Soligorsk, Slutsk and Zhlobin amounted to 671, 153, 121, 106, 59, 48, 37, 36, 26, and 21 thousand m³ respectively.  According to index 1.1a for pollution control in the scoring sheet, the sites were given scores of 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3 and 3 respectively (see Annex B, Table B1).

5.2.2.2. The Share of Treated Effluents

This criterion was applied for the assessment of both continuous and periodic effluent discharges.  In spite of the fact that continuous discharges are subject to treatment, the spill wastewater can fall into a water body untreated and this entails serious negative consequences. For example, such a situation is quite possible in the metalworking industry, where industrial wastes are subject to treatment and discharges from sludge pits are not.

Practically at all enterprises, everyday effluent discharges are subject to treatment with the exception of the Svetlogorsk heat station (only 18% of wastewater undergo treatment there), “Gomelvodokanal” (88.5%) and Mogilev Vodokanal (96.4%).  Therefore, the values of index 1.2 are as follows: Svetlogorsk heat station – 5; “Gomelvodokanal” and Mogilev Vodokanal – 1, for the other enterprises – 0 (Annex B, Table B2).

5.2.2.3. Dilution / Mixing

In order to take into proper account the ability of rivers to assimilate contaminants, the experts compared the hydraulic disposal rate in m³ per day and river flow.  For this purpose it is necessary to determine the coefficient of mixture and dilution ratio – the ratio of the volume of river run-off to the volume of discharge.  The river run-off of summer-and-autumn mean water of the year (95% of supply) was used as the standard value of river run-off.

Data concerning river stations in the localities of discharge of industrial effluents from wastewater treatment facilities are given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 : Annual Mean Flow