The reliable assessment of changes in air temperature can be made for those meteorological station locations where long-term time series of observation data are available. It is also desirable to make sure that the sites of these stations have remained unchanged during the whole period of their operation, and are located in relatively small towns where local impacts (from heating mains, etc.) are relatively low.
There are several meteorological stations meeting these requirements in the Dnipro Basin such as the Poltava meteorological station where observations have been carried out since 1886. Comparable time series of observation data are also available for the Gorki meteorological station located in the north of Belarus. Long-term variations of mean annual air temperatures at these stations are shown in Figure 3.10.
The data suggests that the net increase of mean annual air temperature over the period 1880 to 2000 was about 1.0°C, generally higher than the global increase of air temperature. Rates of increase have been especially high during the past 25-30 years. It should be noted that an increase of mean annual air temperature might affect the river flow in many ways. Moreover, seasonal variations can have an even stronger effect on the water resource. In particular, higher temperatures at cold periods of the year and frequent thaws are expected to result in lower discharges and decreased peak flows during the spring high flow period. This likely effect can be confirmed by actual observation data.
Figure 3.10 Long-term variations of mean annual air temperature at the
Poltava (a) and Gorki (b) meteorological stations
Available data indicates that there is a strong relationship between changes in air temperature and changes in atmospheric precipitation, with the latter featuring a downward tendency in some areas of the Basin, and an upward tendency in other areas (Table 3.11). A similar picture emerges from an analysis of observation data obtained from a larger number of meteorological stations over the period 1946 to 2000. A significant body of research evidence is also available in various national and international reports.
The Dnipro River features a specific flow pattern with a markedly high flow in spring, when the river discharges more than half its annual flow. Therefore it is important to monitor variations in thickness of snow cover and water content.
Table 3.11 Changes in mean annual precipitation in Ukraine and Belarus over 1891-2000*
Station |
Equation |
Mean value, mm |
Gorki |
Y = -0.20 T + 648 |
637 |
Mogilev |
Y = -1.51 T + 734 |
648 |
Kyiv |
Y = -0.33 T + 670 |
652 |
Zhitomyr |
Y = 0.13 T + 604 |
611 |
Uman |
Y = 1.13 T + 526 |
589 |
Poltava |
Y = 0.57 T + 505 |
537 |
* Т- period (years)
These aspects have been studied at several meteorological stations located in the Polessie zone (where snow cover plays a major role in river flow formation). Despite significant variability of available data, there appears to be a downward tendency in snow cover thickness (Figure 3.11).
Figure 3.11 Long-term variations in maximum thickness of snow cover at the Pokoshitchi meteostation (130 km north-east from Chernihiv)
Given that the Dnipro River flow is greatly affected by various human activities, mainly concentrated in the Lower Dnipro Basin, assessment of global climatic changes and their impact on water resource needs to be based on data collected in the relatively undisturbed upper river stretches. The most suitable for this purpose are hydrometric stations located in Rechitsa (catchment area 58,200 km2) and Kyiv (328,000 km2). Although flow measurements are not currently conducted at the Kyiv hydrometric station, flow estimates may be derived by summing up the actually measured flow values available for the Kyiv hydropower dam (239,000 km2) and the Letki hydrometric station (88,500 km2) located near the Desna River mouth.
The above mentioned climatic changes (increased air temperature during cold periods of the year, and reduced thickness of snow cover) have resulted in reduced discharges and peak flows during the spring high flow period, with a corresponding increase of discharges during winter and summer low flow periods (Figure 3.12).
Figure 3.12 Seasonal distribution of the Desna River flow (near Chernihiv): the left column reflects the whole observation period; the Right column, the period between 1970-1999
Apart from the Dnipro River flow, global processes also affect river water quality. This is caused by changes in the composition of precipitation falling within the catchment area as a result of anthropogenic impacts. For instance, the mineralisation level in water associated with various forms of precipitation is now higher than several decades ago.
Ukraine has common borders with many European countries, therefore transboundary transport of pollution is considered to have an effect on the state of catchment areas and surface waters within the Dnipro Basin. Westerly air-mass transport prevails in Ukraine, therefore pollution emitted to the atmosphere in Western and Central European countries is transported to the western and northern Oblasts of Ukraine, including the upper part of the Dnipro Basin. The major contributors of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) load transported to Ukraine are Poland (450 tonnes), Germany (305 tonnes), and Slovakia (196 tonnes). Sulphur compounds are mainly brought with air masses from Poland (153 tonnes) and Romania (115 tonnes).
As a result of international field surveys carried out in the transboundary sections of the Dnipro River Basin during 2000-2001, new original data were collected. In particular, landscape diversity assessment surveys and a review of the current state of nature reserves and protected areas located in the transboundary sections of the Dnipro River Basin were undertaken. This has provided a basis for the identification of issues and problems relating to the conservation of the landscape and biological diversity in the Basin. Figure 3.13 shows the locations of sampling sites for the 2000-2001 field surveys.
The surveys revealed that the floodplains of the Pripyat, Ubort and Stvyga Rivers have been severely damaged and urgent actions are needed to protect what is left of their landscape diversity. Landscape and biological diversity conservation capacity in nature reserves and protected areas in the Basin is also inadequate. It was also shown that although such areas could be used as a reference basis for the purposes of ambient water quality monitoring, they are currently not.
In terms of ecological/sanitary criteria, the examined water bodies can principally be described as moderately polluted or dirty, corresponding to Water Quality Categories 5-7. The prescribed Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) limits for fishery water use were found to be exceeded in the majority of water bodies for a range of parameters (COD, BOD5, sulphates, ammonium and nitrites).
The field survey results confirmed that metal concentrations were relatively high in the transboundary river sections of the Dnipro Basin, where fishery MAC limits for metals were exceeded in all water samples. All bottom sediment samples were found to contain iron and manganese at significant concentrations. MAC limits for zinc, copper, lead and arsenic were exceeded in fish samples, as well as the interim sanitary guideline levels for iron, chromium and nickel. Excessive concentrations of metals and arsenic in water, bottom sediment and aquatic biota samples from the transboundary sections of the Dnipro Basin indicate that these media have accumulated considerable quantities of these substances (Figure 3.14).
Concentrations of zinc, copper, nickel and mercury in all water bodies were found to be excessive only in terms of the MAC limits for fishery water use.
Figure 3.13 Locations of sampling sites for the 2000-2001 field surveys
Figure 3.14 Excessive concentrations of metals and arsenic in fish sampled
during the 2001 field survey
During the spring field survey, all but two water samples (from Lake Nobel and the Seim River) were found to contain oil products at concentrations exceeding the MAC limit set for fishery water use. Many exceeded the MAC limit for potable and recreational water use, with levels up to 3.7 times higher than that set.
High levels of pesticides were found in water samples from the rivers Sozh, Ipout, Styr, Slovechna, Pripyat, Seim and the Dnipro itself. Analytical results indicated that HCCH, n,n'-DDT and its metabolites were the predominant organochlorines found in transboundary river water samples (Figure 3.15). a-HCCH was detected in 72% of all water samples at levels ranging from 0.003 to 0.111 mg/dm3. γ-HCCH concentrations in water samples ranged from 0.012 to 0.018 mg/kg. Levels of n,n'-DDT were found to be below the detection limit in most water samples, whereas n,n'-DDE was detected in 47% of water samples at concentrations ranging from 0.007 to 0.026 mg/dm3. The highest levels of organo-chlorine pesticides were found in water samples taken from Lake Nobel, the Kyiv reservoir, the Seim River and the Desna River section between the villages of Kamen and Chernihiv.
Treflane, Harness and synthetic pyrethroid herbicides were not detected in any of the water samples taken during the field surveys. However 2,4-D was detected at concentrations ranging from 2.1 to 2.4 mg/dm3 in water samples taken from the Desna and Sudost Rivers, and the mouth section of the Dnipro River itself. Organo-chlorine pesticides were present in bottom sediment samples at levels reflecting their global dispersion pattern. Moreover, 38% of the bottom sediment samples were found to contain treflane.
Figure 3.15 Chlorinated organic pesticides in water of the Dnipro River Basin
Organo-chlorine pesticides were detected in all fish samples at levels considerably higher than their ambient concentrations in water. A clear pattern of organo-chlorine pesticide contamination emerged from the analysis of freshwater fish species (pike, perch, pike perch, catfish, ide, bream, and rudd). The highest contamination levels were detected in liver samples, with lower concentrations being generally present in fish muscle. There was a general trend of higher contamination levels in predator fish samples (pike, perch, and pike perch) compared to the benthophage fish species.
The major organo-chlorine pesticides detected in all fish samples were a- and g-HCCH, n,n'-DDT, n,n'-DDE, n,n'-DDD, and heptachlor. Accumulated pesticide metabolites, in particular n,n'-DDE, were detected in fish muscle and organs, indicating major metabolic changes since initial exposure to contamination. a- and b-HCCH, n,n'-DDT and its metabolites n,n'-DDE and n,n'-DDD were detected in shellfish samples. In addition, there appear to be differences among water bodies in terms of the level of pesticide accumulation in shellfish.
High levels of bacterial contamination were recorded in the transboundary sections of the Pripyat River tributaries during the autumn field survey (Table 3.12. The number of lactopositive Escherichia coli in samples from the Snov and Sudost Rivers exceeded the MAC limits for recreational/domestic water uses by 1.2 times.
Table 3.12 Bacterial contamination in the transboundary sections of the Pripyat River tributaries
Pripyat River tributary |
Escherichia coli (million cells/l) |
Salmonella (cells/ml) |
Horyn |
10.98 |
102 |
Styr |
3.20 |
70 |
Stvyga |
0.60 |
34 |
The lowest quantities of bacterial plankton and heterotrophic microorganisms were in samples collected from the transboundary section of the Desna River. During the autumn 2000 field survey, recorded quantities of bacterial plankton and heterotrophic bacteria at the Belorussian/Russian border section were 1.87 million cells/ml and 1,600 cells/l, respectively. Bacteria species active on oil products and surfactants were detected in minor quantities (Escherichia coli, 60,000 cells/l). During the spring field survey, a 3.6-fold increase in the quantity of heterotrophic organisms was recorded for this section. This was attributed to pollution carried from the adjacent territory during the spring high-flow period. Also, samples taken from this river section during the spring field survey had higher quantities of bacterial plankton (by 1.4 times), heteroptrophic bacteria (by 2.8 times) and Escherichia coli (by 2.2 times).
The highest bacterial contamination levels were recorded in the transboundary section of the Vorskla River (downstream from the village of Lugovoe). Wastewater discharges from the local dairy and municipal wastewater treatment plant have affected the hydrobiological regime of the river. Recorded quantities of bacterial plankton and heterotrophic organisms for this section of the Vorskla River were 4.73 million cells/ml and 184,000 cells/ml, respectively. The quantities of bacteria active on oil products and surfactants were also relatively high at 1,800 cells/ml and 4,430 cells/ml, respectively.
Overall, 473 phytoplankton species representing 8 groups were recorded in the Dnipro Basin, with 321 species found in the transboundary sections of the Basin. Phytoplankton community structure data indicates that the water can be characterised as ‘moderately polluted’ by organic substances in the transboundary sections. The field survey results on zooplankton community structure indicate that pollution levels were relatively low. Water quality in the Pripyat River Basin was mainly affected by factors of natural origin, whilst anthropogenic factors played a major role in the Dnipro River and its left-bank tributaries.
Zoobenthos is an important indicator of aquatic ecosystem state and there appear to be significant differences among the transboundary sections of the Dnipro Basin. In the Pripyat River Basin, benthic fauna development is mainly affected by natural factors (soil properties and hydrological regime), while the effect of anthropogenic factors is minor. As a result, biotic and diversity indices vary widely among the rivers. Only in the Horyn River, did the state of benthic communities suggest significant inputs of organic pollution from local sources. Interpretation of zoobenthos diversity and abundance indices suggests that anthropogenic factors have not caused persistent effects on the state of the ecosystem.
Field survey results and a review of the specialist literature showed that there was considerable diversity of parasites (up to 200 species) living in or on fish, shellfish and crayfish species inhabiting the transboundary sections of the Dnipro Basin. The parasitic fauna includes species capable of causing disease and death in fish (Trypanosome, Microsporidia, Diplostomuma, and Ligula). Moreover, the following pathogenic species were also found: Opisthorchis felineus, Metagonimus yokogawai, Pseudamphistomum truncatum, Metorchis albisus, Mesorchis denticulatus, Apophallus muehlingi, and Diphyllobothrium latum (Figure 3.16).
Figure 3.16 Parasitic invasions in B.leachi mollusc sample (the Vorskla River)
Water and sediment samples from the Dnipro River Basin were analysed for toxicity with a set of animal and plant bioassays. River water samples analysed for toxicity in the field were found to contain no toxic substances at detectable levels, whereas chronic toxic effects were found in the laboratory. No toxic substances were detected in bottom sediment samples.
Maximum concentrations of 137Cs in the water were recorded in the Pripyat River tributaries (up to 435.0 Bq/m3), the Upper Dnipro tributaries (146.0 Bq/ m3), the Kyiv reservoir, a major trap for Chornobyl-related radionuclide contamination (up to 263.0 Bq/ m3) and the Snov River (102.0 Bq/ m3).
Concentrations of 137Cs in the bottom sediments of the Middle and Lower Dnipro tributaries varied within a range of 5-46 Bq/kg. The range was wider in the Upper Dnipro Basin (2.3-100 Bq/kg) due to the immediate proximity of the Chornobyl Nuclear Plant and the ‘spotty’ distribution of radioactive contamination.
Levels of 90Sr in bottom sediments correlated well with 137Cs concentrations, suggesting exposure to localised sources of radioactive contamination as a result of the Chornobyl accident. The highest level of 90Sr was found in bottom sediment samples from the Pripyat River within the 30-km Chornobyl zone (4.8 Bq/kg of dry sample mass), whereas samples from the Ubort River had the lowest levels (0.27 Bq/kg). The distribution of radionuclides in bottom sediment samples was similar to that of water samples, although more pronounced reflecting the overall picture of radionuclide contamination as a result of the Chornobyl accident.
Bivalve molluscs act as natural filters, contributing significantly to river self-purification processes. Data on radionuclides in bivalve molluscs sampled in the Pripyat River Basin indicate that such species as Dreissena and Unito pictorum are the most powerful biological filters in the freshwater macrozoobenthic community with accumulation factors of over 1,100 for 90Sr in Dreissena, and near 500 for 137Cs in Unito pictorum.
Radionuclide contamination in the Dnipro River Basin is very uneven in distribution, suggesting strong local sources of an anthropogenic nature. Tritium is a major radioactive component of effluent generated by nuclear power facilities and is regarded as a long-lived radionuclide capable of spreading far beyond its immediate source. Tritium concentrations in water were generally below or slightly above the detection limits of the measurement techniques involved in this study (up to 3.4 Bq/l). The only exceptions were water samples from the Styr River where the tritium concentration was 7.5 Bq/l, possibly as a result of the Rivne Nuclear Power Plant.
The Water Pollution Index (WPI) technique is used in the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine as a tool to assess surface water quality. The calculation procedure for WPI involves determining the mean annual concentrations of six substances. Two of them (dissolved oxygen and BOD5) are compulsory and the other four can be chosen from a priority list of substances ranked in terms of the rate of the maximum admissible concentration (MAC) exceedence at a given site. Based on data provided by the National Monitoring System, the four additional parameters involved in the WPI calculation procedure are ammonium nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, zinc, and oil products. The WPI-based water quality classification system includes seven water quality categories or classes (Figure 3.17).
Figure 3.17 Water quality classification on the basis of WPI values
The rivers of the upper part of the Dnipro Basin within the Russian Federation can be described as ‘moderately polluted’ in terms of WPI values.
In the Republic of Belarus, WPI values indicate that ambient water quality in the Dnipro River between Orsha and Bykhov is generally undisturbed, whereas water in the river section between Rechitsa and Loyev is ‘moderately polluted’, suggesting a progressive downward trend in water quality. The WPI values for the Berezina River indicate relatively stable water quality upstream of Svetlogorsk, although the downstream section of the river has deteriorated over recent years. Consistently high pollution levels have been reported for the Svisloch River section downstream of the municipal wastewater treatment plant serving the City of Minsk. The Pripyat River tributaries (Slutch, Tsna, Ptich, Bobrik, Moroch, Ubort, and Oressa) have a relatively stable water quality regime and can be described as ‘moderately polluted’ in terms of water quality classification. There appears to be no sign of water quality improvement in the transboundary sections of the Dnipro River and its tributaries where they enter Ukraine. Moreover, the WPI values increase within the transboundary section of the Dnipro River itself.
Within Ukraine, the rivers of the Dnipro Basin are characterised as ‘clean’ and ‘moderately polluted’. The pattern of WPI values for the Dnipro Basin is shown in Figure 3.18.
Figure 3.18 Variation of WPI values along the Dnipro River within the Republic of Belarus
The existing water quality monitoring system has not been designed to quantify transboundary pollution loads carried by river flow from or to the riparian countries of the Dnipro Basin. The closest cross-border water quality monitoring stations are often located 60-100 km from the border and the transboundary hydrological monitoring network is inadequate with monitoring carried out on an infrequent basis. Therefore it is virtually impossible to calculate mass load values at a required level of accuracy and precision (e.g. 10% error at 90% confidence).
The mass load estimates calculated in this section are considered to be very approximate. In order to minimise potential error, only averaged values over the period of 1995-2000 were included in calculation procedure. Calculation results are presented in Tables 3.13–3.16.
As can be seen from the these tables, there appear to be significant differences in mass flow estimates made on the basis of data collected at adjacent monitoring stations located on either side of the border. Nonetheless, the exercise itself is very useful, as it helps to appreciate the order of magnitude involved and clearly illustrates the need for establishing a special monitoring regime in the transboundary sections of the Basin.
Taking into account the flawed character of the input data involved in the calculations, the derived mass flow values must be considered as a very rough estimate. These values should not be used as a basis for evaluating and claiming damage incurred to the 3 riparian countries as a result of transboundary pollution.
Table 3.13(A) Estimated mean annual mass load at the Ukrainian/Belorussian border over the period of 1995-2000 (tonnes/year)
Parameter
|
Pripyat – Pinsk
|
Horyn – Rechitsa
|
Ubort – Krasnoberezhie
|
Suspended substances |
26600 |
73700 |
4800 |
BOD5 |
5280 |
11100 |
1300 |
Phosphates |
70 |
480 |
30 |
Copper |
15 |
24 |
4 |
Zinc |
50 |
97 |
5 |
Phenols |
25 |
9 |
- |
Iron total |
1070 |
1350 |
1340 |
Manganese |
29 |
58 |
13 |
Oil products |
235 |
289 |
81 |
Surfactants |
55 |
215 |
21 |
Note: Calculations on the basis of the RB monitoring data were made by the Belorussian experts.
Table 3.13(B) Estimated mean annual mass load at Ukrainian/Belorussian border over the period of 1995-2000 (tonnes/year)
Parameter |
Pripyat – Narovlya |
Pripyat – Chornobyl |
Suspended substances |
148000 |
189000 |
BOD5 |
38300 |
48400 |
Phosphates |
890 |
930 |
Copper |
93 |
111 |
Zinc |
344 |
790 |
Phenols |
170 |
175 |
Iron total |
7860 |
8930 |
Manganese |
307 |
1417 |
Oil products |
1360 |
1380 |
Surfactants |
- |
332 |
Note: Calculations made by the Belorussian experts (Pripyat-Narovlya) and Ukrainian experts (Pripyat-Chornobyl).
Table 3.13 (C) Estimated mean annual mass load at the Ukrainian/Belorussian border over the period of 1995-2000 (tonnes/year)
Parameter |
Republic of Belarus |
Ukraine |
Dnipro – Loyev |
Dnipro – Nedanchichi |
|
Suspended substances |
95810 |
172800 |
BOD5 |
42370 |
26130 |
Phosphates |
652.5 |
1608 |
Copper |
47.94 |
98.27 |
Zinc |
228.2 |
962.4 |
Phenols |
51.04 |
52.65 |
Iron total |
5308 |
7029 |
Manganese |
- |
1368 |
Oil products |
940.7 |
2469 |
Surfactants |
194.9 |
450.2 |
Note: Calculations made by the Belorussian experts (Dnipro-Loyev) and Ukrainian experts (Dnipro-Nedanchichi).
Table 3.14 Estimated mean annual mass load at the Russian/Belorussian border over the period of 1995-2000 (tonnes/year)
Parameters |
RF |
RB |
RF |
RB |
RF |
RB |
RF |
RB |
Dnipro – Smolensk |
Dnipro – Orsha |
Sozh |
Sozh - Krichev |
Ipout –Dobrodeevka |
Ipout - Dobrush |
Total, tonnes |
Total, tonnes |
|
Suspended solids |
31120 |
42644.4 |
Not estimated |
26300 |
34138 |
2132 |
Not estimated |
71070 |
| BOD5 | 9479 |
8778 |
4740 |
3943 |
1112 |
14630 |
||
| Mineral nitrogen | 5914 |
1748 |
646.2 |
391.6 |
993.8 |
3367 |
||
| PO4-P | - |
320.1 |
119.8 |
- |
28.08 |
468 |
||
| Total phosphorus | 458.9 |
- |
- |
179.5 |
- |
- |
||
Copper |
- |
19.99 |
14 |
- |
1.015 |
35 |
||
| Zinc | - |
19.97 |
36.99 |
- |
7.04 |
64 |
||
| Nickel | - |
30.01 |
12.01 |
- |
1.98 |
44 |
||
| Phenols | 5.96 |
9.996 |
2.996 |
- |
1.008 |
14 |
||
| Total iron | - |
3167 |
1059 |
310.8 |
203.8 |
4430 |
||
| Oil products | - |
360 |
195.6 |
- |
44.4 |
600 |
||
| Surfactants | 397.3 |
109.9 |
81.95 |
- |
5.122 |
197 |
Note: Calculations made by the Belorussian experts (Dnipro-Orsha, Sozh-Krichev, Ipout-Dobrush) and Russian experts (Dnipro-Smolensk, Ipout-Dobrodeevka)
Table 3.15 Estimated annual mass load carried by the main Dnipro tributaries across the Russian/Ukrainian border (tonnes/year)
Parameter |
Desna |
Seim |
Psyol |
Vorskla |
Vorsklitsa |
Suspended substances |
58482 |
24185 |
8168 |
2556 |
1326 |
Sulphates |
66631 |
79775 |
47142 |
16004 |
2312 |
Chlorides |
48132 |
45554 |
20962 |
15192 |
951.7 |
COD |
66822 |
40082 |
12446 |
2820 |
1168 |
BOD5 |
7543 |
4340 |
1459 |
445.5 |
163.2 |
Oil products |
- |
156.7 |
30.87 |
14.50 |
6.04 |
Phenols |
- |
1.43 |
0.774 |
0.510 |
- |
Surfactants |
- |
77.93 |
49.62 |
4.535 |
0.575 |
Mineral nitrogen |
1829 |
1890 |
604.1 |
188.8 |
51.38 |
Total phosphorus |
360 |
783 |
267.7 |
62.74 |
29.18 |
Total iron |
1022 |
261.2 |
95.89 |
54.82 |
20.30 |
Copper |
39.42 |
3.932 |
2.506 |
0.486 |
- |
Zinc |
18.64 |
3.435 |
11.73 |
1.376 |
- |
Chromium 6+ |
- |
6.587 |
1.122 |
0.200 |
- |
Note: Calculations made by the Russian experts.
Table 3.16 Averaged mass flow estimates for the Dnipro-Kherson section (estuary) based on the 1998-2000 data
Parameter |
Unit |
Sample average technique |
Linear interpolation |
Probabilistic interpolation |
||||||
Quantile 0.10 |
Mean |
Quantile 0.9 |
||||||||
Flow discharge |
km3/year |
52.225 |
||||||||
Suspended substances |
t/year ´1,000 |
64.17 |
53.93 |
51.26 |
55.07 |
59.14 |
||||
| Sulphates (SO4) | t/year ´1,000 |
2485 |
2458 |
2446 |
2497 |
2550 |
||||
| Chlorides (Cl) | t/year ´1,000 |
1971 |
1988 |
1958 |
1982 |
2004 |
||||
| COD | t/year ´1,000 |
1295 |
1288 |
1254 |
1281 |
1308 |
||||
| BOD5 | t/year ´1,000 |
155.0 |
154.8 |
152.7 |
154.8 |
159.1 |
||||
| Oil products | t/year |
549 |
479 |
492 |
534 |
581 |
||||
| Phenols | t/year |
78 |
79 |
74 |
81 |
88 |
||||
| Total mineral nitrogen | t/year ´1,000 |
17.12 |
17.23 |
16.78 |
17.17 |
17.51 |
||||
| Phosphate phosphorus | t/year |
6095 |
6048 |
6027 |
6072 |
6123 |
||||
| Total phosphorus | t/year ´1,000 |
12.54 |
12.45 |
12.40 |
12.48 |
12.55 |
||||
| Total iron | t/year |
4516 |
4987 |
4473 |
5042 |
5604 |
||||
| Copper | t/year |
146 |
169 |
156 |
175 |
194 |
||||
| Manganese | t/year |
1518 |
2199 |
1637 |
2482 |
3436 |
||||
| Zinc | t/year |
3583 |
3369 |
2981 |
3420 |
3903 |
||||
| Hexavalent chromium | t/year |
250 |
266 |
249 |
260 |
268 |
||||
Note: Calculations made by the Ukrainian experts.
Surface water quality in the Dnipro Basin is affected by a large number of point sources, including industries, urban centres, mining and agricultural developments. In autumn 2001, the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) launched the Project on Identification and Evaluation of Pollution Sources (Hot Spots) in the Dnipro Basin. Within the framework of this Project, national experts from the riparian countries of the Dnipro Basin have identified major hot spots affecting the ecological state of water bodies within the Dnipro Basin.
Figure 3.19 shows the locations of the most significant pollution sources (hot spots) identified by the national experts in the Belorussian, Russian and Ukrainian parts of the Dnipro Basin. A list of major hot spots for the three countries is shown in Table 3.17.
In order to fully reflect local specific conditions existing in the Basin, it is necessary to identify radioactive pollution hot spots. The list of actual and potential hot spots of radioactive pollution is presented below.
Current hot spots:
1. The Pripyat River floodplain section within the Chornobyl exclusion zone. This is considered to be a transboundary hot spot with an impact that increases during high flow periods.
2. Radioactive waste dumps at the former Pridniprovsky Chemical Plant (PCP) site in Dniprodzerzhinsk, and uranium processing sites in Zhovti Vody. These national hot spots have the potential to create a persistent long-term impact if the integrity of tailing waste storage facilities is affected by erosion or a major accident.
3. Inhabited areas in the three countries with high levels of Chornobyl-related radioactive contamination, including enclosed lakes, where 137Cs concentrations in food products or drinking water exceed admissible limits. These local hot spots occur in all three countries of the Basin.
4. Chornobyl exclusion zone, where temporary radioactive waste storage sites and local sources are concentrated, resulting in higher radionuclide concentrations in local small water bodies.
Potential hot spots:
1. The Chornobyl Shelter Facility could result in a potential transboundary hot spot and the Cooling Reservoir in a national hot spot if they were to collapse.
2. Nuclear Power Plants located within the Dnipro Basin have a transboundary hot spot potential if a major accident were to occur. The probability of this is considered to be very low in view of the continuous large-scale operational safety improvements implemented at the nuclear power facilities in Russia and Ukraine. However, a massive release would have considerable transboundary impact, particularly on the Black Sea, if it were to occur in the south of Ukraine.
Figure 3.19 Major hot spots identified in the three riparian countries of the Dnipro Basin
Uranium mines and ore-processing sites are concentrated in the Ukrainian part of the Dnipro Basin. Uranium exploration activities commenced in 1944, and 21 deposits were discovered, most of them located within the Dnipro Basin itself although there are some uranium deposits in the Southern Buh and Siversky Donets River Basins.
Mining and ore-processing operations in Zhovti Vody have had a profound impact on the environment and sanitary situation in the region. Runoff and leachate from tailings, mines and other contaminated sites has lead to elevated concentrations of radionuclides in the local rivers, although these concentrations remain below the maximum admissible levels set for drinking water sources.
Table 3.17 Major hot spots in the Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian parts of the Dnipro Basin
Country |
Industry |
Location |
Republic of Belarus |
Minsk Water Utility “Minsk Vodokanal” |
Minsk |
Rechitsa Hydrolysis Plant |
Rechitsa |
|
Chemical Fiber Plant “KhimVolokno” |
Mogilev |
|
Borisov Water Utility |
Borisov |
|
Gomel Water Utility “Gomel Vodokanal” |
Gomel |
|
Russian Federation |
Smolensk Water Utility “Smolensk Vodokanal” |
Smolensk |
Agricultural centre in the Vorskla River Basin |
Belgorod Oblast |
|
District Sewer Networks in the City of Bryansk |
Bryansk |
|
Kursk Water Utility “Kursk Vodokanal” |
Kursk |
|
District Sewer Networks in Novozybkov |
Novozybkov, Bryansk Oblast |
|
Ukraine |
Kyiv Water Utility “Kyiv Vodokanal” |
Kyiv |
Dnipropetrovsk Water Utility “Dnipropetrovsk Vodokanal” |
Dnipropetrovsk |
|
“KrivorozhStal” Steel Mill |
Kryvy Rih |
|
Lutsk Water Utility “Lutsk Vodokanal” |
Lutsk |
|
Chernihiv Water Utility “Chernihiv Vodokanal” |
Chernihiv |
|
Zaporizhzhia Water Utility “Zaporizhzhia Vodokanal” |
Zaporizhzhia |
|
“ZaporizhStal” Steel Mill |
Zaporizhzhia |
|
The Dzerzhinsky Plant |
Dniprodzerzhinsk |
|
Zhitomyr Water Utility “Zhitomyr Vodokanal” |
Zhitomyr |
|
Kherson Water Utility “Kherson Vodokanal” |
Kherson |
Operations at the Pridniprovsky Chemical Plant (PCP) and related facilities have resulted in elevated levels of uranium and its daughter elements in the Konoplyanka River and the Dnipro itself. In order to determine the effects of uranium mining and ore-processing activities in the region, pollution pathways need to be analysed, examining the presence of radioactive contamination in air, vegetation and food products. This information is currently scarce and needs to be made available prior to planning and implementing remedial actions.
The following radioactive waste disposal sites are located in the Dnipro Basin:
1. The “Ecores” State Enterprise near Minsk comprises of two sealed trenches and two storage sites that are currently being filled. This facility accepts radioactive waste material from the “Sosny” Nuclear Research Centre and another 100 industrial, research and healthcare organisations and institutions. The site is located 2 km from the Slutch River and 1.6 km from a local lake. The site does not meet existing international standards for the engineered disposal of low/medium radioactive waste material. However, the site is located some distance away from the Dnipro River and therefore any environmental impact associated with its operation in the future is likely to be limited.
2. The “Radon” State Enterprise in Kyiv and Dnipropetrovsk operates two disposal sites. These sites accept radioactive waste and spent materials from non-energy sources, including industrial organisations, healthcare institutions and agricultural companies.
3. Numerous waste disposal or ‘temporary’ storage sites for Chornobyl-related waste materials are located in Belarus and Ukraine, the largest of them being the “Buryakovka” disposal site which comprises of 30 cells with a sealed bottom (1m natural clay layer).
These facilities are considered to have moderate local impact potential. There are no significant radioactive waste disposal/storage sites in the Russian part of the Dnipro Basin. Engineered containment arrangements at the existing radioactive waste disposal sites are considered to be adequate and capable of preventing a potential impact on the environment. However, the majority of radioactive waste storage sites at the nuclear power plants are reaching capacity.