1.1. Goal

As part of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) regional project entitled “Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Dnipro River Basin and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms”, methodology was developed for the identification and analysis of pollution sources (“Hot Spots”) in the Dnipro River Basin.  The goal of the Strategic Action Programme is to facilitate the reduction of transboundary pollution in the Dnipro River basin and thereby contribute to the protection of territorial and international waters, in other words, the Black Sea.

Similarly with most river basins throughout the world, which are located in densely populated areas, there are thousands of pollution sources in the basin of the Dnipro River.  The goal of this document is the identification and prioritization of the major sources of pollution based on their characteristics and impact on the environment.

The sources of pollution (referred herein as Hot Spots) are point sources of pollution, such as industrial and municipal effluents as well as non-point sources of pollution, such as runoff from agricultural lands and inhabited localities.  All of them are sources of risk for human health and contribute to the deterioration of the ecological situation, including biodiversity sensitive areas.

This report gives an analysis of the situation for the subjects of the Russian Federation located within the territory of the Dnipro River basin, in particular Smolenskaya, Brianskaya, and Kurskaya oblasts as well, in part, Belgorodskaya, Kaluzhskaya, and Orlovskaya oblasts in relation to the identification and analysis of pollution sources in the Dnipro River basin.

1.2. Scope of Activities

As there are thousands of well-known and potential Hot Spots within the Dnipro River basin, in order to achieve the identified objective in the proper time and in the most efficient way, application of a multistage screening system developed by SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc. (SLE&C) was proposed.  The initial stages of the screening are simple, easy-to-use and widely applicable.  As the number of potential hot spots decreases, the level of detailed assessment increases, gradually providing a more detailed comparative analysis.

The scope of activities has included: the identification of the sources of water pollution; the analysis of the environmental impact of contaminant loading; and, establishing, for each of the three Dnipro River countries, an administrative framework for implementing practical and cost-effective solutions, thereby facilitating the realization of Strategic Action Programmes in all three countries.

The SLE&C team has undertaken the role of International Hot Spot Experts working with its counterparts at the Thematic Centres (National Hot Spot Experts (NHSE)) to identify, assess and prioritize the sources of pollution (the Hot Spots) and propose mitigation measures.

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) * 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 sub-divided 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. 

3.4. Step 3:  Prioritization of Hot Spots

The prioritization of the Hot Spots was based on the scores determined from the previous step (Step 2) with the highest scores being promoted.  Some latitude was allowed for flexibility in developing the final list for immediate implementation of corrective actions, i.e., initial mitigation estimates and funding list.  For example, a good range of the major industries in each portion of the basin were represented.

The NHSE prioritized the short-listed Hot Spots using the results of Step 3 and identified the Hot Spots which proceeded to Step 4.  The number of Hot Spots, including water treatment plants and industrial enterprises, selected for Step 4 were as follows:

- Belarus: 5 Hot Spots

- Russia:  5 Hot Spots

- Ukraine: 10 Hot Spots

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

The preliminary screening of the Hot Spots was conducted by the National Experts, who used all of the information available regarding the pollution sources of the Dnipro River basin within the territory of the Russian Federation.  The main sources of information for the preliminary screening of Hot Spots in the Dnipro River basin within the territory of the Russian Federation are as follows:

- National statistics database (Form 2TP-“Water Industry”) for 1990, 1995, 2000-2001, Tables 8-9 “Characteristics of Pollutants”;

- National Report “On the State of Environment of the Russian Federation in 2000”;

- Reports “On the Use of Natural Resources and the State of the Environment” of Smolenskaya, Brianskaya, Kurskaya, Belgorodskaya, Kaluzhskaya and Orlovskaya oblasts for 2000;

- Information bulletins providing the results of monitoring of the geological environment and water bodies in 2000; and

- Information from reports of non-government organizations, periodical press, etc.

The above-listed activities included the identification of the sources of pollution and their extent, and the assessment of the cumulative impact of the pollutants on the environment, and particularly, on the surface water bodies within the Dnipro River basin.

In view of the limited period of time and resources available for the project, the number of Hot Spots was reduced to a manageable number in order to enable these Hot Spot to be scrutinized thoroughly. 

The screening of the Hot Spots to an appropriate number for a detailed examination was carried out through the application of numerical criteria (such as the annual volume of wastewater) in combination with information obtained from published materials and questionnaires completed by enterprises, which are the water consumers.

The list of the Hot Spots that underwent quantitative or qualitative analysis at the preliminary screening stage is given in Table 4.1 below:

Table 4.1 : Hot Spots within the Dnipro River Basin (within the Russian Federation) Subject to Preliminary Screening

Note: Preliminary selected Hot Spots are printed in bold type.

4.2. Hot Spots Subject to Quantitative Assessment

The preliminary selection of Hot Spots having direct discharge to surface water bodies was based on the method of “effective mass of pollutant” (Chapter 3, Methodology).  Hot Spots with the highest scores of “effective mass of pollutant” were subject to a subsequent evaluation (Step 2) for the purposes of a more detailed assessment.

Data with regard to the volume of discharges of pollutants specified to the individual parameters of discharge (mi) are available in the national statistics database (2TP- “Water Industry”).  The values of the maximum allowable concentration (MAC) for the various components were considered to be the normatives of the former Ministry of Fish Industry of the USSR “Combined List of Maximum Allowable Concentrations and Tentatively Safe Levels of Influence (TSLP) of Pollutants on the Water Bodies of the Fish Industry”, Moscow, 1990.  The list of parameters for calculation of the effective mass of pollutants (Table 4.2) was mutually agreed upon with the National Experts of the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

The values of effective mass of pollutants of the individual Hot Spots were used as quantitative indices for the preliminary screening and classification of the selected Hot Spots.

Table 4.2 includes the list of parameters used for the calculation of the effective mass of pollutants.

The calculation of the total effective mass of pollutants discharged was determined for 40 enterprises for the years 1995 and 2001.  The results of the calculation of the effective mass of the contaminants discharged enabled the ranking of these enterprises according to a descending sequence in terms of the amount of pollution (Table A-1, Annex A).

Table 4.2 : Parameters used for the Calculation of the Effective Mass of Pollutants

In this way, during the first stage of activity the experts identified the list of sources of pollution (Hot Spots) located in the Dnipro River basin within the territory of the Russian Federation for 2001.  During the second stage, the preliminary list of Hot Spots was reduced to fifteen (15) sites, where fourteen (14) Hot Spots had the highest effective mass of pollutants discharged for the period 1995-2001 and one (1) Hot Spot was an agricultural (mainly cattle-breeding) complex located in the basin of a transboundary water body, that is, the Vorsklitsa River.  This Hot Spot is included for detailed evaluation as a result of a systematic exceedance of the maximum allowable concentration of a number of contaminants in the Vorsklitsa River at the border of the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

The list of Hot Spots selected during the first stage, according to the highest indices of effective mass of pollutants discharged (Mx) as well as the results of expert assessment is given below in Table 4.3.

 Hot Spots Located in the Dnipro River Basin (within the Russian Federation) Selected for Detailed Analysis

The fifteen (15) Hot Spots are represented by the following types of facilities:

11- utility enterprises;

2 –chemical industry enterprises;

1 –power industry enterprise;

1 – agricultural complex.

A detailed assessment and prioritization of the Hot Spots was conducted by means of scoring in accordance with the accepted methodology (Chapter 3).  Four areas of interest were determined as categories in the estimation procedure, in particular:

- Pollution control;

- Quality of water and human health;

- Environment and biodiversity;

- Economy.

The categories are subdivided into subcategories.  In turn, the subcategories consist of numerous indices, called criteria.  The scores were carried over to the summed table of scores to calculate a total score for every Hot Spot after specification of their weighting factor.

The National Experts completed scoring sheets for every one of the selected 15 Hot Spots based on the data available at national and regional centres.

4.3. Hot Spots Subject to Qualitative Assessment

In the process of the preliminary screening the National Experts identified numerous sources of pollution, where for a variety of reasons it was impossible to obtain sufficient data for their quantitative characteristics.  The sources of pollution (Hot Spots) of this type were assessed from a qualitative position.  Another example of Hot Spots subject to qualitative assessment are the works of higher risk (potential sources of pollution), which cannot be considered as active hot spots (for instance, oil pipe lines).  Qualitative (expert) evaluation of Hot Spots was supplemented with an analysis of data obtained from the monitoring of water bodies downstream the Hot Spot.  In the presence of appropriate data, the National Experts compared (based on monitoring data) the impact of point sources (those which have direct effleunt discharge to the natural water body) and diffusive sources of pollution.

Smolensk Oblast

The gas pipe line “Yamal-Europe” is under construction and has partially been put into operation; it is located near the source (headwaters) of the Dnipro River.  Systematic observation showed that in the process of construction of this gas pipe line in the immediate area of the river headwaters, there were affected forests and ground area.  The impact entailed changing the habitat, migratory routes of animals and birds as well as nesting areas of birds.

Dump of solid domestic waste in the town of Viazma.  This Hot Spot is situated on the bank of the Viazma River.  It results in adverse impact on riverside microflora and ichthyofauna.  Analytical data relating to the chemical composition of water and bottom sediment are not available.  The influence of the dump is determined on the basis of visual examination, microbiological and the organoleptic characteristics of the water according to data from the Centre of state sanitary-hygienic inspections.

Lvov chemical pest-killers disposal (unauthorized and disabled pesticides), Yartsevsky Rayon.  This site has an adverse effect on natural habitat and surface waters.  As a result, there were registered isolated instances of ornithofauna kills.  It is located more than15 km away from the border of the national park “Smolenskoye Poozeriye”.

Dukudovskoye chemical pest-killers disposal (unauthorized and disabled pesticides), Pochnkovsky Rayon.  Analysis conducted proved destruction of forest flora and fauna within the area of influence of this enterprise (around 2 hectares).

Briansk Oblast

Oil-trunk pipeline “Samara-Briansk”.  Damages to the oil-trunk pipeline as a result of breakdown and theft of oil products took place repeatedly in the territory of Briansk Oblast.  As a result, the nearby wetlands and timberlands were polluted and these events have led to a loss of representatives of the local fauna.

Kursk Oblast

Gas-main pipeline “Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod”.  Forests and lands were affected by the construction of this gas-main pipeline during the crossing of water bodies.  The impacts entailed changing of habitat, migratory routes of animals and birds as well as nesting areas of birds.

Factory waste dump in the village of Starkovo (Oktiabrsky Rayon).  This Hot Spot causes disturbance to the hydrological, hydrobiological and geological conditions of the neighbouring territory and has a negative effect on plants and animals.

Oil-trunk pipeline “Michurinsk-Kremenchug” represents a constant potential danger of extremely high pollution of water bodies by oil-products with negative consequences for flora and fauna over a large territory.

Polygon for pesticides disposal “Volkova Dubrava” (Fatezhsky Rayon).  For agriculture, the pesticides represent one of the greatest concers with respect to the biota components.  Contamination from pesticides can take place when storage handling procedures are not followed.  Chemicals with long-term period of decomposition (pesticides) take the special place among pollutants of surface waters.  Improper pesticides disposal is a significant potential source of pollution of underground and surface waters.

5.1. Sources of Information and Data Quality Control

Sources of information related to the preliminarily selected Hot Spots included:

- official data of the State Water Cadastre, which is kept by territorial (oblast) Centres of hydrometeorology;

- environmental monitoring of Federal hydrometeorological Service of Russia; and

- territorial (oblast and basin) authorities for consumption and protection of water resources of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation.

The major source of information ultimately was the national statistics database of water consumption (Form 2TP – “Water Industry”) for 2001, as well as the materials submitted by the facilities themselves, the water consumers.  In particular, the experts used data regarding the annual volume of effleunt discharge to the surface water bodies and the annual mass of pollutants according to the parameters included into the method applied.  The concentration of pollutants in mg/l was calculated for each parameter separately as the quotient of the division of mass of pollutants by total volume of effluent discharge.

The beginning of the twentieth century was characterised by a significant setback in industrial and agricultural production.  The decline in production was closely connected with the reduction of water consumption and consequently with the reduction of the volume of effleunt discharge into the surface water bodies.  The resultant reduction of the volume of effective mass of pollutants is typical for practically all the inspected facilities (Table 4.3).  This had an overall beneficial effect for the environment and most importantly for water quality in boundary river stations of transboundary water bodies.

The changes in the structure of the facilities – water consumers, which are recognized as the Hot Spots, took place in 1991-1995.  For example, the communal enterprises – the vodokanals of the towns of Zheleznogorsk and Kurchatov moved away from the Stock Company “Mikhailivsky ore mining and processing enterprise” and Kursk nuclear power plant accordingly.  On the other hand the number of previously independent communal enterprises (electricity supply networks, water supply, sewerage system, heating system) of Briansk Oblast have amalgamated into the united organization under the name “Inter-district engineering services”.  Such organizations were established in the cities of Briansk, Novozybkov, Klintsy.

In accordance with existing Russian Federation legislation all water users are required to keep account of water consumption.  The managers of facilities which off-take, use water or discharge wastewater to water bodies, storage ponds, filter beds, etc. are responsible for the accurate and complete accounting of water consumption (primary accounting).

All water inlet and outlet pipes should be supplied with control equipment (meters) for the measurement of water volume.  The primary accounting of water consumption should be made with error within ± 5%.  In the event that it is not possible to use control instrumentation for the accounting of water consumption, the facility water-user must specify reasonable terms for the installation of measuring devices at water inlets and water discharging units.

Non-compliance with the regulations of control authorities to use control instrumentation for the accounting of water consumption or effluent discharge is recognized as administrative infringement.

5.2. Detailed Assessment

The detailed assessment of the Hot Spots was carried out using the scoring sheets, which come with the methodology applied.

The scoring sheet for the category “Pollution control” has been developed to assess the following indicators:

- general characteristics of effluent discharge;

- wastewater characteristics (properties);

- pollutant load.

On the basis of scores assigned as a result of detailed assessment of scoring sheets for each enterprise the National Experts received weighted scores for the categories and subcategories.

The subcategory “General characteristics” includes 10 indices:

1.        Normal total rate of discharge

2.        The share of treated wastewater

3.        Dilution / mixing

4.        Secondary pollutants

5.        Method of discharge

6.        Frequency of discharge

7.        Frequency of monitoring of discharge

8.        Frequency of sampling and tests

9.        Type of sampling

10.        Control of the flow of discharge

The subcategories “Waste-water characteristics” and “Pollutant load” include 22 indices, in particular:

1.        BOD₅

2.        COD

3.        Total Suspended Solids

4.        Total Dissolved Solids

5.        Phosphorus

6.        Аmmonia nitrogen

7.        Nitrate nitrogen

8.        Nitrite nitrogen

9.        Oil products

10.        Persistent Organic Pollutants

11.        Phenols

12.        Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons

13.        Oils and fats

14.        Iron

15.        Copper

16.        Zinc

17.        Nickel

18.        Chromium

19.        Cadmium

20.        Mercury

21.        Lead

22.        Radioisotopes

A detailed assessment was carried out for 15 Hot Spots.  The results of the calculations, which were made using the scoring sheets, are presented in Annex B.  Figure 2 indicates the location of the Hot Spots.  Fourteen (14) out of 15 of the Hot Spots have the highest value for the “effective mass of pollutants”, and one site is included in the list of the Hot Spots subject to the detailed assessment because of a systematic exceedanceof the maximum permissible concentration of a number of pollutants in the Vorsklitsa River at the border between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

5.2.1. General Characteristics

The issue “General characteristics of wastewater” includes an estimate of the following aspects:

- The rate of effleunt discharge to the surface water bodies (separately for industrial effluents and residential wastewater);

- The share of treated wastewater within the total volume of discharge;

- The rate of dilution of wastewater with water of the river;

- The share of pollution arriving from the secondary (non-primary) sources;

- The mode and frequency of effleunt discharge;

- Frequency of monitoring of effleunt discharge (water sampling and analysis); and

- Types of water sampling.

5.2.1.1. Normal Total Rate of Effluent Discharge

As a rule the discharges of communal enterprises, which carry out wastewater treatment are more volumetric than the discharges of industrial enterprises.  Accordingly, the rates of effleunt discharges are set at the level above 100 thousand m³/day for large enterprises, above 10 thousand m³/day for medium-size enterprises and below 1000 m³/day for small enterprises.  The suggested criterion enables a differentiation of the industrial objects of one branch of industry subject to the volume of effluent discharge.  As a rule the volume of wastewater is proportionate to the production volume.  The enterprises or facilities where the volume of effleunt discharge exceeds 2500 m³/day are recognized as large, enterprises where the volume of effleunt discharge exceeds 1000 m³/day are considered as medium, and small – if the volume of effluent discharge is below 50 m³.

Only 3 enterprises out of 15 included in the list of the Hot Spots subject to the detailed assessment are industrial enterprises.  These are the Smolensk nuclear power plant, the stock company “Dorogobuzh” (mineral fertilizers) and the stock company “Kursk Khimvolokno”.  The value of index 1.1b for these enterprises was qualified as 5 points (Annex B, Table B-1).

The agricultural complex on the Vorsklitsa River does not have “point” (concentrated) discharges of pollutants to the water body.  Diffusive pollution is tested by measuring the concentration of chemical parameters only in the river station at the border with Ukraine.  The value of index 1.1b for this Hot Spot was qualified as 0 (Annex B, Table B-1).

According to index 1.1a the volume of average daily discharge from municipal wastewater treatment facilities of the cities of Smolensk, Briansk, Kursk is qualified as a score of 5 and the volume of average daily discharge from wastewater treatment facilities of the cities of Zheleznogorsk, Safonovo, Klintsy, Kurchatov, Yartsevo, Viazma, Ludinovo, Novozybkov is qualified as a score of 3 (Annex B, Table B-1).

5.2.1.2. Share of Treated Wastewater

The assessment for this criterion included both continuous and periodic effleunt discharges.  At 12 enterprises out of 15, all industrial effluents discharged everyday undergo treatment.  These enterprises have been assigned a score 0 for the criterion 1.2. (Annex B, Table B-2).

86% and 96% of effluents undergo treatment at Smolensk and Briansk municipal vodokanals respectively.  Therefore the score of 1 was assigned for the criterion 1.2 (Annex B, Table B-2).

At agricultural enterprises in the basin of the Vorsklitsa River, 20% of “point” (concentrated) effleunt discharges undergo treatment.  Therefore a score of 5 is qualified for the criterion 1.2 (Annex B, Table B-2).

5.2.1.3. Dilution (Mixing) of Effluent in River Water

In order to assess the assimilative capacity of the rivers the experts compared the rate of effleunt discharge expressed in m³/second and the river flow in the receiving water body.

For this purpose the dilution ratio was determined – the ratio of the volume of the river flow and the volume of effleunt discharge.  The rate of discharge in the period of summer-and- autumn mean water of the year of 95% of exceedance probability was taken as standard quantity of the river flow.

The river stations data in the points of discharge from wastewater treatment facilities are given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 : Minimum Discharge Rate in the Summer and Autumn Period (Qmin, m³/sec) at the Point of Discharge, Effluent Disposal Rate (m³/sec) and Dilution Ratio for Individual Enterprises

The highest dilution ratio value was obtained for the effluent discharge from wastewater treatment facilities of Kurchatov vodokanal.  This facility was assigned a score of 1 (Annex B, Table B-3).

High dilution ratio values were obtained for the effluent discharge from wastewater treatment facilities of the cities of Smolensk, Viazma as well as the facilities “Kursk khimvolokno” and “Dorogobuzh” (mineral fertilizers).  Therefore, the score assigned to these Hot Spots was 2 (Annex B, Table B-3).

Medium dilution ratio values are typical for wastewater treatment facilities for the cities of Briansk, Liudinovo and the Smolenck nuclear power plant.  These facilities were assigned a score of 3 (Annex B, Table B-3).

Low dilution ratio values are typical for wastewater treatment facilities for the cities of Yartsevo, Safonovo and (rough expert estimate) for the agricultural complex located on the Vorsklitsa River, which correspond to a score of 4 (Annex B, Table B-3).

The lowest values for the wastewaterdilution ratio are typical for the wastewater treatment facilities of the cities of Kursk, Klintsy, Novozybkov and Zheleznogorsk.  Therefore, these Hot Spots have been assigned the highest score (5) for the criterion 1.3 (Annex B, Table B-3).

5.2.1.4. Secondary Pollutants

Contaminants which arrive at sewage treatment utility plants and industrial wastewater treatment facilities from the secondary sources of pollution, can have considerable effect on the quality of effluent discharge.  Industrial facilities do not control contaminants arriving from the secondary sources asrigidly as their own.  As a result, there is some vagueness as to the quality of the effluent discharge and consequently a higher risk of an adverse impact of effluent discharge.  In the case of sewage treatment utility plants – the greater the share of effluents arriving there from industrial facilities, the higher the probability that effluent discharges from sewage treatment utility plants would include such contaminants as heavy metals and oil products.

It is typical that daily effluent discharges from sewage treatment utility plants contain more than 40% of effluents arriving from industrial enterprises.  This state of affairs is registered in the cities of Smolensk, Briansk, Klintsy, Novozybkov, Viazma, Yartsevo, Safonovo, Ludinovo, Zheleznogorsk, Kurchatov.  These Hot Spots have been assigned a score of 5 for the criterion 1.4a (Annex B, Table B-4).

A high share of industrial effluents (about 35%) are registered in effluent discharge from Kursk wastewater treatment facilities, which corresponds the score of 4 (Annex B, Table B-4).

The share of effluents arriving at wastewater treatment facilities of the Smolensk nuclear power plant, “Dorogobuzh” (mineral fertilizers) facilities, and “Kursk khimvolokno” facilities from the secondary sources of pollution make up 20-30%, which corresponds to a score of 3 (Annex B, Table B-4).

The agricultural complex located on the Vorsklitsa River, where there are many numerous diffuse sources of effluent discharge, was assigned a score of 5 (Annex B, Table B-4).

5.2.1.5. Method of Discharge

The method of discharge of treated and untreated effluents has an effect on the location and dimension of a mixing zone – the area of possible formation of toxic conditions.  In cases where there is no discharge of effluents due to their complete localization, disposal or recycling, etc. were not subject to examination.

The discharges which do not have some definite point of discharge and where it is not possible to take a sample of such effluent, are qualified as “non-organized discharges”.  These include cases when it is impossible to determine the presence of manifold pipes (sewers) or when the discharges arrive overland.  Irrespective of  whether underground discharges are monitored, they are considered as more undesirable since they pose a threat of contamination of underground water, which is used for drinking water supply.

The majority of wastewater treatment facilities have single surface effleunt discharge (the vodokanals of the cities of Viazma, Yartsevo, Safonovo, Klintsy, Novozybkov, Liudinovo, Zheleznogorsk, Kurchatov) as well as three industrial enterprises: “Kursk khimvolokno”, “Dorogobuzh” and the Smolensk nuclear power plant.  These Hot Spots have been assigned a score of 5 for the criterion 1.5 (Annex B, Table B-5).

The method of discharge applied at wastewater treatment facilities of the cities of Smolensk and Kursk is bottom effluent discharge with slight current in the river – the receiving water body, which corresponds the score of 3 in the scoring sheet (Annex B, Table B-5).

The Briansk wastewater treatment facilities have bottom effluent discharge with rapid current in the river – the receiving water body, which corresponds the score of 2 in the scoring sheet (Annex B, Table B-5).

The agricultural complex on the Vorsklitsa River has multiple surface effleunt discharges.�