Report on the Status of HELCOM hot spots in Russia...Report on the Status of HELCOM hot spots in Russia BASE Project - Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan in Russia Baltic

Report on the

Status of HELCOM hot spots in Russia

BASE Project - Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan in Russia

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Pilot Activity Preparation of hot spots report including hot spot ques-

tionnaire - Report on the status of HELCOM hot spots in

Russia.

Annex to the HELCOM Final Report on

Implementation of the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive En-

vironmental Action Programme (JCP) 1992-2013 (Hot Spots

Component)

Implemented by (Main Consultant) LTD «Ecological Monitoring, Management, Audit and Con-

sulting» (EcoMMAK)

Report compilation and general conclusions by Sergey Kondratenko, Yulija Ruigite, Andrey Aldushin

For bibliographic purposes this document

should be cited as

HELCOM 2014, BASE project 2012-2014: Pilot activity on

preparation of hot spots report including hot spot ques-

tionnaire - Report on the status of HELCOM hot spots in

Russia.

English editing by Howard McKee, Key Image Ltd

Design and layout HELCOM Secretariat

Cover photo ‘Krasny Bor landfill’ EcoMMAK Ltd

Back cover Johanna Laurila

Implemented in the framework of:

Project Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan in Russia (BASE)

Funded by European Union

Implemented by HELCOM Secretariat and St. Petersburg Public Organisation

‘Ecology and Business’

Following the decision of the HELCOM Moscow Ministerial Meeting (2010), the report on current status

of the Russian hot spots was presented to the HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting in 2013.

This report does not necessarily represent the views of HELCOM. HELCOM does not assume responsibility

for the content of the report.

Information included in this publication or extracts thereof are free for citation on the condition that the

complete reference of the publication is given as stated above.

Copyright 2014 Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission HELCOM

2

Content

Executive summary....................................................................................................................................... 6

Introduction ………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………… 23

St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad and Leningrad Regions HELCOM’s hot spots survey ...................................... 25

1. St. Petersburg ......................................................................................................................................... 24

General characteristic of St. Petersburg’s hot spots (Sewerage treatment plant; collectors) ................... 24

Description of the new hot spot No. 18 – Sewage water treatment in St. Petersburg ................... 27

Conclusion……………….. ................................................................................................................................ 31

City dumps, Hot Spot No. 23 Hazardous waste landfill. State Unitary Nature conservation Enterprise (SUNE)

Krasny Bor landfill ....................................................................................................................................... 32

General characteristics ............................................................................................................................... 32

Environmental activities for the improvement of the hot spot during 1992-2003 ......................... 33

Situation at the landfill by the end of 2002 ..................................................................................... 34

Current state of the Krasny Bor landfill ............................................................................................ 34

The main parameters of the environmental impact ........................................................................ 38

Results of the monitoring of the environmental components ........................................................ 39

Planned environmental protection activities ................................................................................... 41

Activities necessary for removing the company from the HELCOM’s list of hot spots .................... 41

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 41

2. Leningrad Region .................................................................................................................................... 44

Hot spot No. 14 - The Syaskiy Pulp and Paper Mill (PPM) ............................................................... 44

Current state of the Syaskiy PPM (see Figure 6) ........................................................................................ 46

The main parameters of the environmental impact ........................................................................ 49

Emissions to the atmosphere ........................................................................................................... 51

Results of the monitoring of environmental components ............................................................... 52

Planned environmental activities ..................................................................................................... 54

Activities necessary to remove the company from HELCOM’s list of hot spots .............................. 57

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 57

Hot spot No. 15 Volkhov aluminium plant (Metakhim Ltd.) ............................................................ 57

General characteristic................................................................................................................................. 57

Condition of the plant by 2003 ........................................................................................................ 58

Current state of the plant................................................................................................................. 59

Monitoring environmental components .......................................................................................... 61


Environmental components monitoring .......................................................................................... 64


Comparison of the current negative impact on environment and for the previous reporting periods .... 66

3

Activities necessary for removing the company from the HELCOM list of hot spots ................................ 66

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 67

Hot spot No. 24 Large livestock farms (sewage water treatment and sediment treatment) .................... 71

General characteristics ............................................................................................................................... 71

Condition of the hot spot by 2003 ................................................................................................... 71

Current condition of the hot spot .................................................................................................... 72

Current state of the livestock sector in Leningrad Region ............................................................... 74

Planned activities to improve situation ........................................................................................... 83

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 84

3. Kaliningrad Region .................................................................................................................................. 85

Hot spot No. 49 Sovietsk PPM .......................................................................................................... 85

History of the development of the enterprise ................................................................................. 85

Characteristics of the bark dump of the OJSC Sovietsk Pulp and Paper Mill ................................... 93

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 94

Hot spot No. 50 Neman PPM Ltd. (Neman PPM) ............................................................................. 94

History and development ................................................................................................................. 94

The period of operations of the North-West Timber Company ...................................................... 96

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 96

The current state ............................................................................................................................ 100

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 102

Hot spot No. 67 Sewage water treatment plant of Kaliningrad ..................................................... 104

Results of the monitoring in the Kaliningrad Lagoon as the water-body receiver. ....................... 109

Analysis of the compliance of the treatment plant of Kaliningrad with the current HELCOM

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 114

Planned environmental activities ................................................................................................... 114

Activities necessary for removing the enterprise from the HELCOM’s list of hot spots .......................... 114

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 114

Hot spot No. 69 Cepruss PPM ........................................................................................................ 117

Current state of the mill ................................................................................................................. 122

Planned environmental protection activities ................................................................................. 123

Activities necessary for removing the enterprise from HELCOM’s list of hot spots ................................ 123

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 123

Hot spot No. 70 The hazardous waste landfill in Kaliningrad ........................................................ 124

Results of the monitoring of environmental components ............................................................. 130


Compliance of the Kaliningrad hazardous waste landfill’s activities with the current HELCOM


4

Activities necessary for removing the landfill from HELCOM’s list of hot spots ............................ 137

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 137

Hot spot No. 71 Fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE State Sea Fishing Port (Port oil bunkering station

of Kaliningrad) ................................................................................................................................ 138

History of the enterprise ................................................................................................................ 140

Impact on the environment ........................................................................................................... 140

The current state ............................................................................................................................ 145

Characteristics of the treatment plants of the fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE Kaliningrad Oil

Bunkering Station ..................................................................................................................................... 147

Pre-treatment of waste at the treatment plants of the fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE

Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port ..................................................................................................................... 149

Sediment utilization method .......................................................................................................... 150

Main parameters of the environmental impact............................................................................. 150

Discharge of pollutants into the waterbody during 2010-2011 ..................................................... 151

Monitoring results of the environmental components ................................................................. 152

Implemented environmental activities .......................................................................................... 157


Analysis of compliance of the activities of the fuel and cargo complex of FSUE KSFP with the HELCOM


Activities necessary to remove the company from HELCOM’s list of hot spots ..................................... 162

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 162

Hot spot No. 72 Agriculture of Kaliningrad .................................................................................... 162

History ........................................................................................................................................... 162

Current number of livestock and poultry in Kaliningrad Region .................................................... 164

The volume of manure and dung produced at farms in Kaliningrad Region ................................. 164

Livestock waste management systems in farms in Kaliningrad Region ......................................... 165

Development of the agricultural sector in Kaliningrad Region during 2007-2016 ........................ 167

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 168

4. Proposals to remove Russian hot spots from HELCOM’s list ............................................................... 169

5

Executive summary

The report presents information on 12 Russian hot spots of HELCOM located in St. Petersburg and Kalinin-

grad and Leningrad Regions (Figs. 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Hot Spots of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region:

No.18. (sub-hot spots 18.1-18.19). Municipal wastewater treatment in St. Petersburg

No. 23 Hazardous Waste Landfill - State Unitary Nature Conservation Enterprise (SUNE)

- Krasny Bor Landfill

No. 15 Volkhov Aluminum Plant (Metankhim Ltd.)

No. 14 Syaskiy Pulp and Paper Mill (PPM)

No. 24 Large livestock farms (sewage water treatment and sediment processing)

6

Figure 2 - Hot Spots of the Kaliningrad Oblast:

No. 67 Wastewater Treatment Plant of Kaliningrad City

No. 69 Cepruss PPM

No. 70 Landfill of Hazardous Wastes of Kaliningrad City

No. 71 Fuel and Cargo Complex FSUE State Sea Fishing Port

(Port Oil Bunkering Station of Kaliningrad City)

No. 49 Sovietsk PPM

No. 50 Neman PPM

No. 72 Agriculture of Kaliningrad Region

7

St. Petersburg

Hot spot No. 18 (sub-hot spots 18.1-18.19) Municipal wastewater treatment in St. Petersburg

Currently, the following three sub-hot spots remain:

- 18.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant, collectors

- 18.11 WWTP Town of Kolpino

- 18.15 WWTP Settlement of Metallostroy

Sub-hot spot 18.1. During the period 2006-2012, the SUE Vodokanal of St. Petersburg finished construction

of the main sewerage collector in the northern part of the city with the closing down of the direct untreat-

ed sewage water outfalls.

In 2011, the next construction stage of the main sewerage collector was finished: six direct outfalls were

closed reducing the discharges of untreated sewage water by 30,000 m3/day and providing treatment for

94% of urban sewage water.

The completion of this project was scheduled for November 2013 with 98% of urban sewage water being

treated.

St. Petersburg is the first city in the world with such a high percentage of urban sewage water treatment.

Application for exclusion of sub-hot spot No.18.1 from the list was submitted at the 19th meeting of the

HELCOM LAND Group in May 2014.

Sub-hot spot No. 18.11 STP Town of Kolpino. It is planned to reconstruct the treatment facilities, which will

increase the capacity up to 150,000 m3/day, and put into operation the sewage incineration shop during

2014-2015.

Sub-hot spot No. 18.15 STP Settlement of Metallostroy. The decommissioning of the STP is scheduled for

2014-2015 with the transfer of the entire amount of untreated sewage water to the Central Aeration Sta-

tion.

Hot spot No. 23 Hazardous Waste Landfill - State Unitary Nature Conservation Enterprise (SUNE) Krasny

Bor Landfill. The State Unitary Nature Conservation Enterprise Krasny Bor Landfill is intended for the recep-

tion, disposal and burial of toxic industrial wastes from St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region. The landfill

area is 67.8 hectares and is located 30 km from St. Petersburg. The total industrial site area is 52 hectares.

The main activities of the SUNE Krasny Bor Landfill include:

1. Collection and transportation of industrial wastes from the city and region.

2. Neutralization, utilization and burial of industrial toxic wastes.

8

3. Laboratory analysis of received industrial wastes and ecological monitoring of the landfill’s sani-

tary-protection.

4. Construction of the plant for industrial waste treatment (customer's function).

5. Development and implementation of nature protection technologies aimed at decreasing its im-

pact on the environment.

6. Collection and de-mercurization of exhausted fluorescent lamps (HELCOM Recommendation

18/5).

The company has a significant negative impact on the environment since it continues to use outdated tech-

nologies to handle toxic wastes. A comparative analysis of the hot spot for the previous period shows that

despite the reduction of waste acceptance volumes and the closing of some foundation pits, its negative

impact level is still increasing. Of special concern is the increasing number of emergency situations that are

occurring at the facility. The safe operation of the landfill is not possible without the construction of the

planned plant for hazardous waste treatment, which should have been in operation in 2005. The plant, with

a capacity of 40,000 tonnes of wastes per year, is scheduled for completion in 2015 and will be funded from

federal and regional budgets.

Leningrad Region

Hot spot No. 14 Syaskiy Pulp and Paper Mill (PPM). The Open Joint-Stock Company (OJSC) Syaskiy Pulp and

Paper Mill is located 140 km from St. Petersburg on the right bank of the River Syas 2.5 km from Lake Lado-

ga. The mill, originally built in 1928, in 1993 became a state corporation. Today, Syaskiy PPM is one of the

most modern multi-functional pulp and paper mills in the North-West Region of the Russian Federation.

The mill discharges sewage water into the River Valgoma and Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga. It has been in-

cluded in HELCOM’s list of hot spots as one of the biggest polluters of Lake Ladoga and atmospheric air with

nitrogen and phosphorous.

In recent years, work to rebuild the production departments and treatment facilities were implemented by

the company. The introduction of special measures decreased emissions to the atmosphere and significant-

ly reduced water consumption. Also, the discharge of untreated storm water from the industrial sites into

the River Valgoma was stopped completely. A significant reduction of pollutants discharged into Volkhov

Bay was the result of improvements to the sewage water treatment as well as decreased discharged vol-

umes. However, the technological processes of cellulose cooking and bleaching as well as the treatment

facilities must be modernised in the near future.

Taking into account the current economic situation of the mill, it is not possible to resolve the problem and

remove the enterprise from the list of hot spots without significant investment support.

9

Hot spot No. 15 Volkhov Aluminium Plant (Metankhim Ltd.). Volkhov Aluminium Plant is one of the largest

industrial enterprises in the town of Volkhov. The plant site is located on the right bank of the River

Volkhov some 120 km from St. Petersburg and 20 km from Lake Ladoga. The River Volkhov is a source of

industrial water supply to the plant and is the recipient of the plant’s industrial sewage water.

Three sewage water outfalls sewerage treatment facilities, a sludge collector for the aluminous shop and

gypsum collectors belonged to the plant. The sewage water discharge was 3.609 million m3/year with mass

of discharged pollutants exceeding 6,000 tonnes. The annual volume of emissions constituted 7,735

tonnes. The main reasons why the plant has been included in HELCOM’s list of hot spots as the one of the

largest polluters of the Ladoga Basin are indicated below.

Since the company is divided into three independent organisations, each is presented individually.

1) Branch VAZ-SUAL of the OJSC SUAL

The proposal to improve environmental management can only be implemented either after restructuring

or closing.

Since its current share of the total volume of wastewater is about 3%, and the sewage water is not dis-

charged into the water body but is transported to Metakhim for treatment, the planned environmental

activities should focus on the additional treatment of industrial emissions.

The company should stay on HELCOM’s hot spot list if only for its impact on atmospheric air.

2) Metakhim Ltd.

Metakhim Ltd. is the major source of impact on the environment. The only reason for its removal from the

list is the construction of the treatment plant.

To reduce emissions into the atmosphere, it is necessary to increase the efficiency of gas cleaning, especial-

ly in reconstructed sections for the production of phosphoric acid and polymineral fertilizers.

3) Parosilovoe hozyaystvo Volkhov Ltd.

The company can be removed from HELCOM’s list of hot spots because its activities are related to the pro-

duction of heat and electric power. Its share of the total emissions is below 15% and sewage water dis-

charge 10%. The sewage water is transferred for treatment to Metakhim Ltd.

As a result of a reorganisation, the Volkhov Aluminium Plant hot spot is currently made up of three inde-

pendent organisations. From these, Parosilovoe hozyaystvo Volkhov Ltd. should be removed from the list

since it has only a minor impact on the environment. The main source of emissions into the atmosphere is

VAZ-SUAL of the OJSC SUAL. However, the necessary environmental measures can only be taken after a

10

decision is made concerning its restructuring or closing. The main source of the sewage water discharges is

Metakhim Ltd., which combines all the plant’s chemical units. A significant increase in the discharge of indi-

vidual pollutants signals the urgent need to construct the treatment plant, which is scheduled for 2013-

2014.

Hot spot No. 24 Large animal breeding farms (sewage water treatment and sediment processing).

Agriculture is one of the most serious sources of pollution in the Baltic Sea with nitrogen and phosphorous,

mainly by large livestock farms. Initially, farms with more than 50,000 heads of cattle were considered as

the main threat to the Baltic Sea’s ecosystem. Within the framework of the JCP Program, four large animal

breeding farms are included in the hot spot No. 24: SAE (State Agricultural Enterprise) Sputnik, SAE Novy

Svet, SAE Pashsky and SAE Vostochny located in Leningrad Region.

Novy Svet (pig farming) is situated in the Gatchina District of Leningrad Region in the settlement of Novy

Svet some 10 km from the town of Gatchina. The complex was designed for fattening 120,000 pigs at a

time and has been in operation for more than 30 years. The sewage water is discharged into the River

Suyda (basin of the Neva River).

Vostochny (pig farming) is located in the settlement of Nurma in Tosnensky District. The complex was put

into operation in 1973. The maximum number of animals for fattening is 108,000 heads. The sewage water

is discharged into the Igolenka stream (the Neva basin).

Sputnik (pig farming) is located in Vsevolozhsk District near the settlement of Romanovka, 22 km from the

town of Vsevolozhsk. The first two lines of the complex were constructed in 1980. The designed capacity of

the complex was 250,000 heads at a time. The water from irrigated fields is discharged through the drain-

age system by horizontal sewers into the River Maurier and then to Lake Ladoga.

Pashsky (cattle) is located in Volkhov District in the settlement of Potanino at 132 km along the Murmansk

highway. It was designed for fattening 30,000 heads of cattle. The first stage for 10,000 heads, designed on

the basis of Italian technology, was put into operation in 1975. Pashsky owned 8,000 hectares of land with

double water regulation (polder land), where the treated sewage water was discharged. The sewage water

of the complex flowed into the River Pasha and then to Lake Ladoga.

Livestock farming in Leningrad Region is a developed sector of economy with a growing share in the gross

regional product in recent years. The predominance of the large-scale commercial production sector, com-

bined with very poor and dilapidated facilities for storing manure intensify the problem of excessive nutri-

ent inputs from the agricultural sector. The results of numerous investigations conducted within the

framework of domestic and international projects revealed the low efficiency of the approach to the prob-

11

lem by the lack of support for environmental activities at individual farms. Institutional reforms in livestock

waste management are urgently needed at both the farm and authority levels.

The introduction of technological regulations in manure and dung handling at all large livestock enterprises

in Leningrad Region will significantly decrease the nutrient load on the Baltic Sea and thus lead to the re-

moval of the region’s agricultural sector from HELCOM’s list of hot spots.

Kaliningrad Region

Hot spot No. 49 Sovietsk PPM. The Sovietsk Pulp and Paper Mill, located in the town of Sovietsk on the left

bank of the River Neman (Figure 16), was founded at the beginning of the 20th century. It was restored and

put into operation in 1946.

By the end of the 1980s, the mill produced about 130,000 tonnes of sulphite cellulose and 35,000 tonnes of

different types of paper annually. The four paper machines were rebuilt in in 1970-1980. The mill’s produc-

tion was mainly delivered to the domestic market of the Soviet Union.

In the 1990s, the water intake for production purposes from the River Neman amounted to 35 million

m3/year while the water discharge to the river was 34 million m3/year.

The inefficiency of the mill’s water treatment system is the reason why it is included in HELCOM’s list of hot

spots. In the Soviet era, the construction of an off-site treatment plant with a capacity of 169,000 m3/day

(construction began in 1983) was planned and was to be funded by the state.

However, the lack of funds and construction capacities available at the time in Kaliningrad Region meant

that the project fell behind schedule with many facilities left unfinished. In 1992, funding ceased complete-

ly and the construction of the plant suspended.

In response to the failure to construct the off-site treatment plant that would meet HELCOM’s Require-

ments on water protection of the Baltic Sea, the mill’s Board of Directors made a decision to reorganize the

existing mill by closing down one of the cellulose production facilities (pulp shop No.1) in 1993. This meas-

ure reduced water consumption and discharge, and consequently decreased the discharge of pollutants by

50%.

To reduce the negative impact on the environment, the technical policy aimed at introducing environmen-

tally safe technologies at the mill. From 1994, the mill began to produce corrugated cardboard and card-

board boxes and in 1998, the shop was put into operation.

12

In 2007, the mill was reconstructed with transition to viscose cellulose. However, in June 2008 a fire caused

irreparable damage to the production facilities. On 1 July 2008, the Board of Directors suspended cellulose

production. Paper, corrugated cardboard and packaging were produced from cellulose delivered from the

Arkhangelsk Region. The accumulated pulp and imported waste paper were used as raw materials in pro-

duction.

In June 2009, in view of the mill’s inability to pay off its debts, the General Meeting of Shareholders made a

decision on the voluntary liquidation of the legal entity Sovietsk PPM. Liquidation proceeding have not

been completed to date. The assets of the mill, including its estate, were either sold or rented.

The production capacities of the former Sovietsk PPM are now owned by OJSC Atlas-Market in accordance

with the agreement of 1 October 2010. OJSC Atlas-Market produces napkins from imported bleached pa-

per, paper for the production of corrugated products, cardboard from imported pulp and corrugated card-

board from its own cardboard.

The production volumes, as well as the water consumption and discharge, have been decreased ten-fold.

The discharge of pollutants formed during paper production (tarry matters, lignin, methanol, phor-

maldegyde, and chloroform, ions of acetic acid, acetone and phenols) ceased completely. Only three out of

five outfalls to the River Neman remain: the main outfall (backwater) and the outfalls of the energy shop

and the CHPP that currently works on fuel oil.

Calculations carried out on the basis of the company’s reports indicate that the inflow of nutrients from the

Sovietsk PPMs has been reduced so much that its removal from HELCOM’s list of hot spots can be consid-

ered.

Hot spot No. 50 Neman PPM. The mill is located on the border with Lithuania on the Neman River 76 km

upstream from the Curonian Lagoon of the Baltic Sea.

The mill was established on the basis of the German paper mill founded in 1912. During the Second World

War, the mill was destroyed but was rebuilt in 1946 when pulp and paper production was started.

During the subsequent operation period, the reconstruction and technical upgrades of individual produc-

tion facilities were implemented (replacing of cookers, individual bleaching towers, construction of the

evaporation station and some other facilities).

However, these improvements did not significantly affect the existing sulphite cellulose cooking technology

nor did they contribute to the improvement of environmental safety of individual processes and production

13

in general. For these reasons, the existing technology used at the mill did not meet to the current level of

technology and equipment in the pulp and paper industry.

In the field of applying the best available technologies:

1) Dry debarking is available; sewage water discharge is absent.

2) Closed treatment system is absent, but is envisaged in future plans.

3) The neutralisation of weak liquors before evaporation by the reuse of a significant amount of

condensates in production is carried out, which is part of the project Reconstruction of the pulp industry

and transition to magnesium-based pulp cooking.

4) Systems to provide treatment of almost total organic matter, dissolved in the liquor (liquor re-

generation up to 90%) are also envisaged in the project Reconstruction of the pulp industry and transition

to the magnesium-based pulp cooking with end-heat chemicals regeneration.

5) Discharge during cooking on the magnesium-based bleaching process is absent.

6) Two-stage bleaching of the discharged sewage water is presented in the investment project

Modernisation of paper and paper stationery production at the Neman PPM aimed at environmental sanita-

tion of the town of Neman.

7) Partially closed bleaching process during sodium-based cooking is available.

8) Biodegradable chelate substances are not used during production.

Sewage water treatment (availability of the treatment plant with activated sludge treatment) is provided as

a part of the investment project Modernisation of paper and paper stationery production at the Neman

PPM aimed at environmental sanitation of the town of Neman.

During the period 2000-2003, the mill reduced sewage water discharges as a result of the ‘Supratsellin’

filters operation. A similar system is now being installed in paper shop No. 1 within the framework of the

general plan of reconstruction of the Neman PPM, and then it will also be installed in the sewage water line

of the mill. A reduction in emissions is envisaged in the project Renewal of pulp production and the transi-

tion to magnesium-bisulphate cooking. In October 2000, Neman PPM switched from the sulphite method of

cooking with an ammonium base to the modified bisulphite method with a sodium base, thus reducing the

specific discharge of total nitrogen from 3.7 to 1.7 mg/l.

However, NWTC could not cope with the credit load and the mill again was transferred to another owner.

Currently, 400 employees are working at the Neman pulp and paper mill, which produces offset paper from

cellulose imported from Finland. The mill is currently in a state of bankruptcy.

An analysis of the modern production facilities and activities at the mill, and its negative impact on the en-

vironment leads to the conclusion that in its current state, the mill does not present a serious threat to the

14

environment and may be removed from HELCOM’s list of hot spots. However, due to the current uncertain

legal status of the mill, assurances cannot be given that the mill will retain its present level of impact on the

environment in the future.

Hot spot No. 67 Wastewater treatment facilities of the City of Kaliningrad. The sewage treatment facilities

in Kaliningrad are intended for municipal sewage treatment of Kaliningrad. It is subordinated to the Munic-

ipal Unitary Enterprise (MUE) Vodokanal of the City of Kaliningrad.

The sewage treatment system includes the mechanical treatment plant, the main collector, the sewerage

network, sewerage pumping stations and sewerage pits.

The sewage water of Kaliningrad is collected by means of thirty collectors and the tributaries network, and

is supplied to the treatment facilities within the city by means of the main collector and outside the city by

means of the free-flow interceptor. The main collector of the sewerage system consists of the aqueduct,

several pipe subways and two sand traps.

The domestic sewage water from the residential areas and industrial enterprises (water discharge of

160,000-180,000 m3/day) is collected by the main collector located on the River Pregel. The sewage water

is then supplied to the mechanical treatment plant located 1 km from Kaliningrad and 1.8 km from the Kali-

ningrad Maritime Channel connected directly with the Vistula (Kaliningrad) Lagoon. The mechanical treat-

ment plant was built in 1924 and was renovated after the Second World War. Its capacity is 68,000 m3/day.

After mechanical treatment, the sewage water is drained through the discharge channel into Primorsk Bay

of the Kaliningrad Lagoon almost untreated.

Implementation of environmental activities included putting the treatment plant into operation in 2013

within the framework of the implementation of the Federal Target Program of Development of the Kalinin-

grad Region for the Period up to 2015

Application of the stepwise chemical-biological treatment of the sewage water at the treatment plant un-

der construction will reduce pollutants in the discharged sewage water, including BOD, total phosphorous,

total nitrogen, suspended matter, and thus will radically decrease the impact on the environment.

To radically reduce the negative impact on the environment, it is necessary to complete the construction

and put into operation the new treatment plant. The ecological industrial monitoring program should in-

clude the assessment of the target indicators of the discharged sewage water quality, such as total phos-

phorous and total nitrogen.

15

Currently, the enterprise has a significant negative impact on the environment since it continues to use the

incomplete cycle of sewage water treatment, which results in non-observance of the Russian legislation

and HELCOM’s recommendations for sewage water treatment.

An analysis of the current state of the hot spot shows that despite the qualitative changes in recent years

(main collector overhaul, putting into operation the main pumping station in the east of the city and put-

ting into operation the local pumping sewerage station), the negative impact level still remains high.

Despite the construction of the new treatment plant in Kaliningrad within the framework of the Interna-

tional Project and Federal Target Program, the time it is taking to put the plant into operation is causing

concern.

Hot spot No. 69 Cepruss PPM. Kaliningrad Pulp and Paper Mill No.2 was restructured in 1993 into the

Closed Joint-Stock Company with foreign investments Cepruss (CJSC Cepruss). The mill began its commer-

cial operation in 1906 as the North-German Pulp Mill.

CJSC Cepruss is located on the right bank of the Pregel River in the mouth of Kaliningrad Lagoon of the Bal-

tic Sea.

Economic inefficiency in production has led to ceasing the production of pulp and paper, closing down the

water intake facilities on the water bodies, as well as suspending the drainage facilities intended for sewage

water treatment and discharge to surface water bodies. The thermal power station (TPS), the source of the

negative impact on the atmospheric air, has been transferred to the City of Kaliningrad.

Putting CJSC Cepruss onto HELCOM’s list of hot spots - on the basis of such negative impact as sewage wa-

ter discharge and the emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere - is now irrelevant due to the cessation

of production activities.

Hot spot No. 70 Landfill of Hazardous Wastes of Kaliningrad. The Landfill of Hazardous Wastes of Kalinin-

grad stores and disposes of municipal solid wastes (MSW) of Kaliningrad, Svetlogorsk District and Ze-

lenogradsk District and is operated by the Municipal Unitary Enterprise (MUE) Chistota.

The landfill is located on marshland in a forest in the western part of Kaliningrad with the River Pregel flow-

ing through its eastern boundary.

16

The distance from the landfill to the nearest settlements is 850 m to s. Kosmodemyanskiy; 1 km to the Kali-

ningrad Maritime Canal; and 1.8 km to the portable water lakes (Figure 8). An asphalt road, branches from

the main Kaliningrad - Baltiysk road to the landfill’s checkpoint and crosses the Kaliningrad by-pass channel.

The landfill was established in 1978 and has an area of 13.8 hectares. The disposal of waste at the landfill is

carried out in foundation pits with isolating material (sand and clay) (Figure 8). Waste is stored in layers of

up to 2 m with constant compaction.

The landfill had a licence to collect, utilise, neutralise, transport and dispose of hazardous wastes. The li-

cence was issued by the Department of Technological, Environmental and Nuclear Supervision (Ros-

technadzor) of Kaliningrad Region and was valid until 11.07.2013. The current licence permits the landfill to

receive 338 named wastes in accordance with the Federal Classification Catalogue of waste hazard classes

IV-V. In accordance with the decree of the City Administration of Kaliningrad No. 960 of 15 May 2008, the

lease period of the land allocated to the landfill was extended up to 31 December 2014. The lease period

was further extended to 25 years. This may become the basis for issuing an indefinite-term licence for the

neutralisation and disposal of wastes of the I-IV class of hazard.

The main activities of the Landfill of Hazardous Wastes of Kaliningrad include the following:

1. Collection and transportation of municipal solid wastes to the landfill from the residential areas

and various industries in Kaliningrad.

2. Disposal of solid wastes.

3. Ecological monitoring in the zone.

4. Development and implementation of ecologically safe technologies to minimise the negative im-

pact on the environment.

The reasons for concerns of the landfill:

1. An inefficient treatment plant and its proximity to the water body create the probability of it hav-

ing a negative impact on quality of the lagoon water though the existing hydrological network

(Clause 2 paragraph 3 of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic

Sea, 1992).

2. The occasional fires lead to air pollution.

3. The emission of the greenhouse gas as a result of solid waste burial.

4. Contamination of the soil and surface water with filtrate and sewage drainage water discharged

after only biological treatment.

5. Swamping of the surrounding areas due to input of the sewage water and filtrate from the land-

fill.

17

Currently, the landfill participates in the regional target program Handling production and consumption

waste in Kaliningrad Region for 2012-2016 and the international ecological project The Pilot Project - Cen-

tre for Recycling the Wastes of Electrical and Electronic Equipment in Kaliningrad. The landfill reclamation is

planned after the construction of the new landfill and waste treatment plant within the target program.

The construction of a recycling centre for electrical and electronic equipment at the landfill is planned for

the third final phase of the project.

Hot spot No. 71 Fuel and cargo complex FSUE State Sea Fishing Port (Port Oil Bunkering Station of Kali-

ningrad City). The FCC is located on the site of the FSUE KSFP on the bank of the River Pregel (Figure 33). It

covers an area of 19.35 hectares and houses a tank stock with the capacity to store 36,000 m2 of oil prod-

ucts, two double-sided railroad overpasses for unloading and loading black, white and other oil products,

24 tank wagons, technological pump stations for different oil products and other support services.

The FCC is included in HELCOM’s list of hot spots due to the presence (on its site) of the following sources

of environmental pollution generated during its operation:

• oil sludge accumulated in the soil storage;

• oil pollution of the soil near the shore line leading to oil products seeping into the River Pregel.

This can influence the water quality in the Vistula (Kaliningrad) Lagoon though the existing hydrological

network (Clause 3 paragraph 2 of the Convention on Protection of Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea,

1992).

Currently, the FSUE KSFP is taking the following measures to eliminate the above sources of pollution:

• Under the contract of 27 February 2010 with Ecoprom Ltd, the treatment of the residual oil sludge

that remained in the earth reservoir in the fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE KSFP was started.

Ecoprom has the licence to collect, use, neutralise, transport and dispose of wastes of I-IV hazard

classes valid until 10 September 2015. The planned work includes the treatment of 300 m3 of oil

sludge. In 2010, 147.07 m3 of oil sludge were transported for treatment. By March 2013, the

volume of oil sludge in sludge collector at the enterprise was 650 tonnes.

• The work is carried out with the contractor’s equipment at the specially prepared and enclosed site

(the former incineration station of the FCC of FSUE KSFP), which is equipped with a metal caisson

for the accumulation of raw materials, telpher, personal service rooms and tanks to store reagents.

During the oil sludge treatment process, the mineral powder PUN is produced from the oil waste.

18

The mineral powder PUN consists of the finest particles of oil wastes uniform in colour and composition,

which are encapsulated in solid, hydrophobic, frost-proof and calcareous capsules. The mineral powder

includes the following components:

a) neutralized oil wastes – not more than 50% (including 0.05% of heavy metals ) – hazard class IV;

b) hydrated lime Са(ОН)2 GOST 9179-77 (hazard class III) and chalk CaCO3 (hazard class IV) – 45 – 47%;

c) technical fat (GOST 1045-73) – 3 – 5%.

The mineral powder PUN is intended for use in road construction as an additive or component for the road

concrete mix or as a structural component of the road cover.

During the inspection by supervisory authorities in March 2011, violations of the requirements for the tem-

porary storage of the product were revealed - the product should be stored in an enclosed site, in bunkers

and silo pits, and the powder packaged in paper bags should be kept in closed storehouses.

Under the contract with Eco-partner Ltd. for the collection, reception, transportation, temporary storage,

neutralization and utilization of hazardous industrial (toxic) wastes, the work to collect and transport emul-

sion and mixture wastes of oil products from the FCC site began in 2011. The emulsion and mixed wastes of

oil products are hazard class III and consist of more than 95% of oil products.

During 2011-2012, the pumping-out of oil products penetrated into the soil was carried out at 13 develop-

ment wells located in the area of the 4th pier and railway lines. The productive capacity of the wells de-

pends on the funnel width and varies from 30-200 litres per day. Over the 1st quarter of 2011, the volume

of oil products pumped out from the wells reached 57.32 m3 (44.25 tonnes for the product density of

0.772). At the end of 2012, the volume of the pumped-out oil products was about 200 m3 (168 tonnes for

the product density of 0.84). During 2011-2012, the pumped-out oil wastes were accumulated in the tanks

located on the company’s site where they remain up to now.

In 2005, the FSUE KSFP developed the draft plan for the FSUE Oil Bunkering Station of Kaliningrad: the Re-

construction of the Bank Protection System. The plan provides for the construction of the bank protection

system with an unanchored bulwark consisting of boxes and rabbets. To prevent the penetration of oil

products into the waters, the project envisages a drainage construction along the entire back-end line of

the bank protection system and the installation of an underground tank and pumping house for pumping-

out the oil-containing water.

Hot spot No. 72 Agriculture of Kaliningrad. The inclusion of the agriculture sector of Kaliningrad Region in

HELCOM’s list of hot spots has been associated with the physical-geographical and economic features of

the region up to the mid-1990s.

19

The agricultural area of Kaliningrad Region is about 820,000 hectares, 90% of which has been reclaimed.

The region’s climatic conditions are favourable for agricultural development. The long vegetation period

(160-180 days), sufficient humidity and rich soils create a good basis for the successful development of

agriculture. Productivity of the natural meadow lands in the region is one of the highest in the Russian Fed-

eration. During the 1980s, the main agricultural sectors in Kaliningrad Region included dairy and meat live-

stock farming, poultry farming, vegetable growing, fishery and fur farming. Poor development of environ-

mental management systems at agricultural enterprises and the active use of organic and mineral fertilizers

along with high land reclamation led to the significant discharge of nutrients into the Baltic Sea.

From 1990, there was a trend to reduce milk production but from 2008 the trend has changed. The gross

milk yield in 2010 at farms of all categories in the region was 146,000 tonnes and at agricultural enterprises

62,000 tonnes, exceeding the 2009 level by 2.1% and 9.2% respectively.

The increase in milk yield during recent years was achieved as a result of the construction and moderniza-

tion of dairy farms (seven complexes were put into operation in 2006-2010 and one complex in 2011) , as

well as owing to the import of highly productive cattle.

The production of meat is increasing in the region each year, especially pork.

The main producers of organic fertilizer in the region are: CJSC Zalesskoe Milk (manure); CJSC Novoe

Vysokovskoe (liquid manure); CJSC Pobedynskoe (manure); CJSC Pradvinskoe Svinoproizvodstvo (unlittered

liquid pig’s manure); Pribaltiyskaya Myasnaya Kompaniya Tri Ltd. (unlettered liquid pig’s manure);

Baltptitseprom Ltd. (sawdust and dung compost); farms of the agricultural holding Dolgov and C (manure,

liquid manure).

Currently, the agriculture in Kaliningrad Region is experiencing a period of rapid development. The Federal

Government and regional authorities actively support the creation of modern livestock complexes, which

would operate subject to all national and international environmental requirements. A few of these com-

plexes have already been established.

However, enterprises created in the Soviet era when environmental requirements were not so strict are

still operating in the region. To remedy this, the regional authorities are developing mechanisms at these

enterprises to stimulate the introduction of advanced technologies, including the ecologically friendly man-

agement of manure.

In general, as the level of compliance with environmental requirements in the livestock sector in Kalinin-

grad Region is still low, the sector should not be removed from HELCOM’s list of hot spots.

20

To assist the Ministry of Agriculture of Kaliningrad Region in the implementation of the Russian National

Plan under HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Agriculture sector, the BASE project was launched

in January 2012.

The project should be implemented by March 2014. The main tasks of the project include:

a) Compilation of the database of agricultural enterprises of Kaliningrad Region containing the actual in-

formation on manure/dung formation and the utilization organic fertilizers.

b) Development of the draft of the long-term target program Utilization of agricultural wastes produced in

agricultural enterprises in Kaliningrad Region in the form of organic fertilizers or any other document to

provide the economic stimulation of enterprises observing environmental requirements.

c) Development of guidelines for applying the system of environmental and technological assessment crite-

ria in the evaluation of investment projects of the livestock sector during the planning of agricultural-

industrial complex development in Kaliningrad Region.

The implementation and practical adoption of the project will also contribute to the implementation of the

adopted Target Programs The main ways of development of agricultural complex of Kaliningrad Region

during 2007-2016 and Ecology and environmental protection in agricultural production in Kaliningrad Re-

gion. After a certain time period, this will give the possibility of returning to the problem of referring the

agricultural sector of Kaliningrad Region to the HELCOM’s hot spots and the possible removal of most farms

from this list.

Proposals for removing Russian hot spots from the HELCOM list

After studies on the current state of the Russian hot spots on HELCOM’s, the following are proposed.

Hot spot No. 18 (sub-hot spots 18.1-18.19). Municipal sewage water treatment in St. Petersburg.

Sub-hot spot No. 18.1 – Sewage water treatment plant; collectors. An application for the removal of sub-

hot spot No. 18.1 was made and submitted to the 19th meeting of the HELCOM LAND Group in May 2014.

Postpone the consideration on the removal of sub-hot spot No. 18.11 - WWTP Town of Kolpino and sub-

hot spot No. 18.15 – WWTP Settlement of Metallostroy from the list until the treatment plants have been

commissioned after 2015.

City dump Hot spot No. 23 Hazardous waste landfill State Unitary Nature conservation Enterprise (SUNE)

Krasny Bor landfill. Postpone the consideration of removing the hot spot from the list until the treatment

plants have been commissioned after 2015.

21

Hot spot No. 14 Syaskiy Pulp and Paper Mill (PPM). To postpone the consideration of removing the hot

spot because of the costs involved to resolve its environmental problems. Due to the mill’s poor economic

situation, it needs heavy financial support to resolve the issue.

Hot spot No. 15 Volkhov aluminium plant (Metankhim Ltd.). The Volkhov aluminium plant was divided

into three independent enterprises after reorganization. It is proposed to divide this hot spot into three

sub-hot spots:

No. 15.1 Parosilovoe Hozyaystvo Ltd. - Volkhov - should be removed from the list in view of its minor nega-

tive impact.

No. 15.2. VAZ-SUAL of OJSC SUAL is a serious source of emissions into the atmosphere.

No. 15.3 Metakhim Ltd. is the source of sewage water discharge. The construction of the sewage water

treatment plant is scheduled for 2013-2014.

Hot spot No. 24 Large livestock farms (sewage water treatment and sediment treatment). The introduc-

tion of the Technological regulations for handling manure and dung at all large livestock enterprises in Len-

ingrad Region will significantly reduce the nutrient load to the Baltic Sea and to remove the agricultural

sector from the list.

Hot spot No. 49 Sovietsk PPM. The input of nutrients from the former Sovietsk PPM operation has been

reduced by so much that it is now possible to request that it is removed from the list of hot spots.

Hot spot No. 50 Neman PPM. Neman PPM Ltd. does not, at present, seriously endanger the environment

and can be removed from the list of hot spots.

Hot spot No. 67 Sewage water treatment plant of Kaliningrad City.The construction of the sewage water

treatment plant of Kaliningrad City will be completed during 2013-2014. For this reason, the decision to

remove the hot spot from the list is proposed to be postponed to 2015.

Hot spot No. 69 Cepruss PPM.In view of the closure of paper and cellulose production at the Cepruss PPM,

the water consumption and sewage water discharge to the River Pregel have ceased. Therefore, the re-

moval of this enterprise from the list is proposed.

Hot spot No. 70 Landfill of hazardous wastes of the city of Kaliningrad.The hazardous wastes landfill has a

significant negative impact on the environment and could not be removed from the list.

22

Hot spot No. 71 Fuel and cargo complex of FSUE State Sea Fishing Port (Port oil bunkering station of Kali-

ningrad).The enterprise continues to have a considerable negative impact. The permanent discharge of oil

products into the River Pregel has been recorded. The contamination of the soil by oil products remains on

the site, the open sludge tank has not been liquidated and the reclamation of adjacent lands has not been

carried out.

A comparative analysis of the hot spot for the previous period shows that despite part of the tank stock has

been modernised and the plant for the purification of oil, bilge and ballast waters is now in operation, its

level of negative impact remains high.

To resolve these environmental issues requires significant financial costs. For this reason, it is not possible

to remove the enterprise from the list of hot spots.

Hot spot No. 72 Agriculture in Kaliningrad. Agriculture in Kaliningrad Region is currently experiencing a

period of rapid development.

However, the enterprises created in the Soviet era when environmental requirements were not so strict

continue to operate in the region. The regional authorities are developing mechanisms to stimulate the

introduction of advanced technologies at these enterprises, including the ecologically safe management of

manure.

In general, the level of compliance with environmental requirements in the livestock sector in Kaliningrad

Region is still low and therefore it is not possible to remove this sector from HELCOM’s list of hot spots.

23

Introduction

This report has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the agreement between HELCOM

and OJSC EcoMMAK dated 19 December 2012.

The contract envisaged the preparation of materials for the assessment of the current state of HELCOM’s

list of Russian ‘hot spots’ in accordance with the decision of the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, held in Mos-

cow on 20 May 2010, for the consolidated report of the Secretariat at the Ministerial Meeting in 2013.

To fulfil the requirements, a questionnaire was prepared and submitted to the regional authorities and to

the representatives of enterprises and organizations of St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad and Leningrad Regions

included in the hot spot list.

Based on the analysis of the questionnaire, conclusions were made on the probability of removing the fol-

lowing 12 Russian hot spots from the HELCOM list.

St. Petersburg

1. No. 18 (sub-hot spots 18.1-18.19). Municipal wastewater treatment in St. Petersburg

2. No. 23 Hazardous Waste Landfill - State Unitary Nature Conservation Enterprise (SUNE)

Krasny Bor Landfill

Leningrad Region

3. No. 14 Syaskiy Pulp and Paper Mill (PPM)

4. No. 15 Volkhov Aluminum Plant (Metankhim Ltd.)

5. No. 24 Large livestock farms (sewage water treatment and sediment processing)

Kaliningrad Region

6. No. 49 Sovietsk PPM

7. No. 50 Neman PPM

8. No. 67 Wastewater Treatment Plant of Kaliningrad City

9. No. 69 Cepruss PPM

10. No. 70 Landfill of Hazardous Wastes of Kaliningrad City

11. No. 71 Fuel and Cargo Complex FSUE State Sea Fishing Port (Port Oil Bunkering Station of

Kaliningrad City)

12. No. 72 Agriculture in Kaliningrad Region

24

St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad and Leningrad Regions HELCOM’s hot spots survey

1. St. Petersburg

Hot spot No. 18 (sub-hot spots 18.1-18.19). Municipal sewage water treatment in St. Petersburg

General characteristic of St. Petersburg’s hot spots (Sewerage treatment plant; collectors)

At the beginning of the 1970s in Leningrad (St. Petersburg), there was no treatment plant or a centralized

sewerage system. The discharge of untreated sewage water into the city’s waterbodies was 3.2 million m3

per day. The length of the sewerage network was 4,440 km and 130 km of tunnel collectors.

The discharge of nitrogen with untreated sewage water was 21,175 t/year and that of phosphorous 3,973

t/year. During that period, Leningrad was considered as the largest major source of pollution in the Baltic

Sea catchment area.

In 1978, the first stage of the biggest Central Aeration Station (CAS) in Europe was put into operation; in

1985, the start-up of the second stage took place that increases its output to 1.5 million m3/day. Also in

1978, the Krasnoselskaya aeration station commenced operations followed by the first stage of the North

Aeration Station (NAS) and a number of suburban treatment plants in 1987.

Before the adoption of the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Programme (JCP) in 1992,

already 18 biological sewage treatment plants (STP) were operating in St. Petersburg and its suburbs. Me-

chanical treatment was used, for example, at the Repino municipal settlement.

At the beginning of the 1990s, there were still some outstanding issues to be addressed such as the wear of

the processing equipment at the aeration stations, the low efficiency of the sewage treatment, the lack of

removal technology of the biogenic elements, and the problem of processing, storing and disposing of the

sludge generated by the urban sewage water.

During this period, there were no sewage collectors both on the Petrograd side and in the northern parts of

the city, which led to the discharge of untreated sewage water through the direct outfalls (approx. 200)

into the watercourses of the city.

The discharge of untreated or insufficiently treated sewage water into the waterbodies of St. Petersburg

and the Neva Bay of the Gulf of Finland contributed to a huge anthropogenic load, worsening the quality of

natural watercourses of both the city and the Gulf of Finland.

The extremely unsatisfactory situation in the field of water canalisation and sewage water treatment in St.

Petersburg and its suburbs at the beginning of the 1990s resulted in four JCP hot spots:

• No. 18 St. Petersburg; Building of the new sewerage collectors.

25

• No. 19 St. Petersburg; Treatment of the municipal and industrial sewage water.

• No. 20 St. Petersburg suburbs; Treatment of the municipal and industrial sewage water.

• No. 21 St. Petersburg; Removal of phosphorous from the sewage water.

Since 2004, the State Unitary Enterprise (SUE) Vodokanal of St. Petersburg has started to work on the in-

troduction of the modern biochemical technologies of sewage water treatment with the deep removal of

biogenic substances.

In September 2005, the South-West treatment plant (SWTP) was put into operation.

Fourteen different organizations from Western Europe and Scandinavia participated in the realization of

the SWTP building project - the biggest ecological project in Europe. The public-private partnership model,

which was used for project implementation, was highly appraised by the European Union. The initiators of

the project and the funding organizations received the award ‘For achievement in the field of environmental

protection in the municipal infrastructure’, which is annually awarded by the international journal Project

Finance (London, UK).

Putting the SWTP into operation increased the volume of the city’s treated sewage water to 85%, and it

allowed the emergency outfalls of untreated sewage water both on the Krasnoselskaya aeration station

and on the Rizhskaya aeration station to be closed down. Since the start-up of the first treatment plant in

St. Petersburg, work on expanding and modernizing the treatment facilities has been on-going.

Simultaneously with the modernization of the treatment facilities, the SUE Vodokanal of St. Petersburg

carried has out a large amount of work on repairing, reconstructing and laying sewerage networks. Ad-

vanced manufacturing techniques were mastered, such as ‘trenchless repairing’ (no-dig technologies),

whereby sewerage networks can be repaired without the need to rip-up pavements. This is extremely im-

portant during work in the historical part of the city. This work was carried out with financial and consulta-

tive support, especially from the Ministry of the Environment of Finland, the Swedish and the Danish Envi-

ronmental Protection Agencies, a number of financial institutions (NEFCO, EBRD, NIB), as well as leading

foreign companies: VIATEK, Insituform Suomi Oy (now Aarsleff Oy, Finland) and Per Aarsleff, Denmark).

By 2006, the building of new sewerage collectors allowed the connection of more than 60 direct outfalls of

untreated sewage water to the urban sewerage network, diverting the sewage water the city’s treatment

plants (149,000m3/day). St. Petersburg not only had enough treatment capacity by 2006, the city’s govern-

ment also developed and adopted a programme to increase the capacity of several operating treatment

plants that took into account the development of housing and industry as well as the projected increase in

population (up to five million people).

26

Also by 2006, 85% of St. Petersburg’s sewage water and 97.2% of its suburbs were treated by modern bio-

logical treatment methods. In eight sewage treatment plants of St. Petersburg and its suburbs, the indica-

tors of treated sewage water corresponded to HELCOM Recommendations concerning urban sewage water

treatment. The treatment of all sewage waters of both the city and its suburbs was held back by the lack of

sewerage collectors and outfalls linked with treatment plants. However, the question of the treatment

sewage water in St. Petersburg and its suburbs did not merit ‘hot spot’ status.

Two issues required attention:

• To complete the construction of the main sewerage collector of the city and to connect the remain-

ing direct sewage water outfalls to the sewerage system by pumping untreated sewage water to

treatment plants for full biological treatment, including rain and melt water.

• To improve the efficiency of the removal of biogenic substances from sewage water at separate

treatment plants by bringing the purification rate to HELCOM’s Recommendations.

In 2006, the presence of two hot spots concerning the sewage water treatment of St. Petersburg and its

suburbs was inaccurately reported. The territory on which the suburban treatment plant is located is the

administrative authority of the Government of St. Petersburg and all treatment plants of St. Petersburg and

its suburbs are subordinate to one agency - SUE Vodokanal of St. Petersburg - and operate under unified

requirements. This was the basis for Russia to ask HELCOM to review the list of four ‘hot spots’ that are the

responsibility of SUE Vodokanal.

At the 11th meeting of HELCOM LAND Group (16-18 May 2006 in Sopot, Poland) Russia submitted for con-

sideration two applications for closing two hot spots:

• No. 19 St. Petersburg; Treatment of the municipal and industrial sewage water.

• No. 20 St. Petersburg suburbs; Treatment of the municipal and industrial sewage water.

Applications for their closure included a detailed description of the technological scheme for the treatment

at each aeration station and sewerage treatment plant, including data on the chemical and bacteriological

parameters of the treated discharges. At the same meeting, Russia submitted for consideration the two

applications on the modification of two hot spots:

• No. 18 St. Petersburg; Building of new sewerage collectors.

• No. 21 St. Petersburg; Removal of phosphorous from the sewage water.

As the issues of treatment of all urban and suburb sewage water are closely linked to the supply of sewer-

age canalization and collector networks for collection and pumping of the sewage water to the treatment

27

plants, it was proposed to change the name of hot spot No.18 to hot spot No. 18 St. Petersburg sewage

water disposal and treatment.

Because the concentrations of biogenic substances (nitrogen and phosphorous) were not in compliance

with HELCOM’s Recommendations at the separate treatment plants administered by SUE Vodokanal, it was

proposed to change the name of hot spot No. 21 to hot spot No. 21 - Removing biogenic substances from

sewage water.

Russia’s proposal to revise the list of SUE Vodokanal’s hot spots of was kindly accepted by the participants

of the meeting. Significant progress was noted on the efforts made by SUE Vodokanal to improve the situa-

tion of sewage water treatment, in particular, by putting into operation the South-West treatment plant,

and by significantly reducing waste discharge with treated sewage water at the treatment plants.

As the sewage water treatment of St. Petersburg and its suburbs falls under the activities of the same or-

ganization, all four existing hot spots are interrelated. The participants of the meeting evaluated SUE

Vodokanal’s progress and decided to delete three out of the four hot spots, combining the remaining prob-

lems of the four hot spots into one, which included developing the sewerage network and deeming all

treatment plants of St. Petersburg and its suburbs as separate hot spots. It was also decided that any

treatment plant, now or in the future, that fulfils HELCOM criteria is to be removed from the new joint hot

spot. HELCOM Secretariat revised the name of new hot spot No. 18: Sewage water treatment in St. Peters-

burg.

Description of the new hot spot No. 18 – Sewage water treatment in St. Petersburg

The hot spot combines hot spots No. 8, 19, 20 and 21.

The problems of the hot spot:

1. Building sewerage collectors in St. Petersburg.

Reasons for its classification:

• insufficient capacity of the existing sewerage network for the collection of all sewage water for

its further treatment at the municipal treatment plant;

• direct discharge of untreated sewage water into the city’s waterbodies.

Necessary activities: Complete the construction of sewerage collectors in order to provide the treatment of

all sewage water in accordance with HELCOM Recommendations.

2. Treatment of the municipal and industrial sewage water of St. Petersburg and its suburbs.

Reasons for hot spot classification:

Out of the existing 17 sewage water treatment stations, the treatment plants that do not meet HELCOM’s

criteria for removal should be considered as sub-hot spots:

28

• low processing efficiency of the treatment plants;

• inadequate removal of biogenic substances;

• not enough capacities to treat the total volume of sewage water.

Necessary activities: Improve the quality of sewage water treatment to meet the requirements of HELCOM

criteria for subsequent removal of sub-hot spot from the list. Each sewage treatment plant (STP) (sub-hot

spot) can be removed from the list if it meets the requirements of criteria for removal (see Table 1).

It was proposed that treatment plants whose quality of treated sewage water corresponds to HELCOM’s

criteria on the removal of hot spots (highlighted bold font in Table 1) would be removed from the list of hot

spots and submitted for approval at the 19th HELCOM HODs meeting (Heads of HELCOM Delegation)

Table 1. Corresponding water treatment quality according to HELCOM criteria. No. Name State

18.1 Sewerage collectors Absence of main canalization collector of the city, there are direct waste water outlets

18.2 Central aeration station Exceeding phosphorous discharge

18.3 North aeration station Corresponds to the HELCOM Recommendations criteria

18.4 South-west treatment plant Exceeding phosphorous discharge

18.5 STP Pargolovo Corresponds to the HELCOM Recommendations criteria

18.6 STP Prigorodnye Corresponds to the HELCOM Recommendations criteria

18.7 STP Torfyanoe Corresponds to the HELCOM Recommendations criteria

18.8 STP Zavodskie Corresponds to the HELCOM Recommendations criteria

18.9 STP Pushkina Corresponds to the HELCOM Recommendations criteria

18.10 STP town of Petrodvorets’ Exceeding nitrogen and phosphorous discharges 18.11 STP town of Kolpino Exceeding phosphorous discharge 18.12 STP town of Kronstadt Exceeding phosphorous discharge

18.13 STP town of Sestroretsk Corresponds to the HELCOM Recommendations criteria

18.14 STP settlement of Pontonny Exceeding nitrogen discharge 18.15 STP settlement of Metallostroy Exceeding phosphorous discharge

18.16 STP settlement of Repino Exceeding the requirements for BOD5 (biochemical oxygen demand)

18.17 STP town of Zelenogorsk Corresponds to the HELCOM Recommendations criteria

18.18 STP settlement of Pesochny 1 It is supposed to decommissioned in the coming years

18.19 STP settlement of Pesochny 2 It is supposed to decommissioned in the coming years

The decisions of the 11th meeting of the HELCOM LAND Group were approved at the 19th meeting of the

Heads of the HELCOM Delegations.

29

Since then, SUE Vodokanal continued work on STP reconstruction by replacing obsolete equipment; mod-

ernizing aeration tanks sections with the introduction of deep removal technologies for nitrogen and phos-

phorous at the treatment plants; and updating the removal system of sewage sludge and the preparation

of sludge to dehydration.

In 2008, the new, modern biological treatment facilities at Repino commenced operations. In 2009, three

sub-hot spots were removed from the list:

• No. 18.4. South-West treatment plant (SWTP);

• No. 18.12. STP town of Kronstadt;

• No. 18.16. STP settlement of Repino.

In 2010, the sub-hot spot No.18.2 Central aeration station (CAS) was removed. In 2011, the renewal of the

STP in the town of Petrodvorets was finished with capacity increase from 50,000-65,000 m3/day. At the STP

in Petrodvorets, technology was introduced for the chemical and biological removal of nitrogen and phos-

phorous as well as for the post-treatment of sewage water by thin-layer sedimentation and the disinfection

of treated sewage water with ultraviolet irradiation.

Completion of the third stage of construction of the sewerage collector in the North of the city in 2011 re-

sulted in the closure of seven small, inefficient STPs (at Pesochny 1, Pesochny 2, Osinovaya Roscha,

Torfyanoe, Zavodskie, Pargolovo and Prigorodnye) by switching sewage water on at North aeration station

to the amount of 2,100 m3/day.

In 2012, three sub-hot spots were removed:

• No. 18.10 STP town of Petrodvorets;

• No. 18.18 STP settlement of Pesochny 1;

• No. 18.19 STP settlement of Pesochny 2.

At all city treatment plants, control of the discharge of treated sewage water to meet the chemical and

biological parameters is carried out internally by SUE Vodokanal’s chemical and bacteriological laboratories

(accredited in the Accreditation System of analytical laboratories for the technical competence in accord-

ance with the international standard ISO/IEC 17025).

At all major treatment plants, round the clock sampling at all stages of treatment was planned. Online con-

trol of the treatment facilities’ processing indicators by an arrangement of sensors and analysers was im-

plemented. In the near future, online control will be used at all Vodokanal’s treatment plants.

30

SUE Vodokanal has successfully solved the problem of 100% treatment of dehydrated sewage water sludge

by the construction of three sludge incineration plants ceased the relocation of the dehydrated sludge to

the special landfills that were then reclaimed. Sludge incineration led to a ten-fold reduction in the weight

of the dry sediments.

At all incineration plants, the composition of exhausted flue gases is analysed by online equipment. Addi-

tionally, the air and noise monitoring is carried out on the borders of the sanitary-protection zones and

near settlements where sludge incineration plants are located.

In addition, at the South-West treatment plant’s sludge incineration plant (SWTP) a unique system of bio-

monitoring was implemented – the composition of flue gases is controlled by the giant African snail, which

reacts not only to single emissions, but also to the accumulation of harmful substances in minimum

amounts as well as the synergetic effect of various contaminants.

To prevent toxic substances entering the drinking water in St. Petersburg, a unique bio-monitoring technol-

ogy was implemented. It uses crayfish to control water quality of the water intake from the River Neva, the

city’s main water source.

Similarly to the bio-monitoring of the water intake, crayfish are used by the SWTP to control the water

quality of the treated sewage discharge into the Neva Bay of the Gulf of Finland. This bio indicator simulta-

neously assesses all qualitative characteristics of the treated sewage.

In order to access the impact of discharged sewage water on the quality of the water, quality control is

carried out of the natural water at places where the sewage water is discharged.

SUE Vodokanal is actively engaged in educational work, paying special attention to environmental respon-

sibility among the younger generation. Since 2002, St. Petersburg has run a unique Children’s Environ-

mental Centre where hundreds of thousands of children have taken part in various activities. Modern

approaches and relevant content allows projects to be implemented in partnerships with different Rus-

sian and international organisations. SUE Vodokanal has a museum complex the ‘Universe of Water’,

which includes three unique exhibitions describing different properties of water. Interactive exhibits attract

visitors of different ages. Currently, three sub-hot spots remain open:

• No. 18.1 Sewerage collectors.

• No. 18.11 STP town of Kolpino.

• No. 18.15 STP settlement of Metallostroy.

31

Conclusion

Sub-hot spot 18.1

During 2006-2012, SUE Vodokanal finished the construction of the main sewerage collector in the northern

part of the city by closing down the untreated sewage water outfalls.

The main sewerage collector is a complex engineering structure with unparalleled in the world. It includes:

two tunnels 232.17 km long at a depth of 40-90 meters and with a diameter ranging from 1.5-4.9 m; a 5.5

kilometre-long micro-tunnel network; and dozens of receiving and distributive shafts – one houses the

sewage water’s regulation unit at a depth of 90 m and a diameter 26 m.

The first complex of North collector in 2008 resulted in the removal of 12 direct outfalls, with a total

amount of sewage water of 90,000 m3/day and to achieve 88% of the urban sewage water treatment. The

second starting complex allowed the removal of another 32 direct outfalls, reducing the discharge of the

untreated sewage water by 42,000 m3/day (91% of urban sewage water treatment). After the third com-

plex was finished, 12 direct outfalls with a total amount of 567,000 m3/day were removed, treating 93% of

urban sewage water.

In 2011, the next construction stage was completed; six direct outfalls were closed that reduced the dis-

charges of untreated sewage water by 30,000 m3/day, treating 94% of urban sewage water. The project

was scheduled to be completed in November 2013 and will treat 98% of urban sewage water.

St. Petersburg is the first city in the world to provide a high percentage of urban sewage water treatment.

The application to remove sub-hot spot No.18.1 will be prepared and submitted to the 19th meeting of the


Sub-hot spot No. 18.11 STP town of Kolpino

It is planned to upgrade the treatment plants to a capacity of up to 150,000 m3/day and put into operation

the sludge incineration unit. The work is scheduled for completion in 2014-2015.

Sub-hot spot No. 18.15 STP settlement of Metallostroy

The STP is scheduled for decommissioning in 2014-2015 by transferring all untreated sewage water to the

Central aeration station.

32

City dumps, Hot Spot No. 23 Hazardous waste landfill. State Unitary Nature con-

servation Enterprise (SUNE) Krasny Bor landfill

General characteristics

The location of the plant for processing toxic wastes - the SUNE Krasny Bor landfill (handling with hazardous

wastes) of St. Petersburg city - is indicated in Figure 1.

The State Unitary Nature conservation Enterprise Krasny Bor landfill is intended the reception, disposal and

landfilling of toxic industrial wastes from companies in St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region. It is subordi-

nated to the Administration Committee of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection and Environmental

Safety of St. Petersburg.

The landfill area is 67.8 hectares and is located 30 km from St. Petersburg and 6.5 km north-east of Kolpino

in the Tosnensky District of Leningrad Region between the Tosna and Izora rivers. The site covers 52 hec-

tares.

The distance from the landfill to the settlement of Nikolskoye is 2.5 km to the east; 1.5 km to Krasny Bor to

the south-east; and 1.2 km to Feklistovo and Myshkino to the South. Relief depressions are observed in the

north-east towards the River Tosno and north-west towards the River Bolshaya Izorka.

Figure 3. Location of the Krasny Bor landfill.

At the perimeter of the landfill, a ditch to capture the surface water from the surrounding area is connect-

ed with the main channel that flows into the River Bolshaya Izorka.

33

The main activities of the SUNE Krasny Bor landfill:

• The collection and transportation of industrial wastes to the landfill from companies in the

city and region.

• The neutralization, utilization and landfilling of industrial toxic wastes.

• Laboratory analyses of accepted industrial wastes and environmental monitoring of the

sanitary-protection zone.

• The construction of the plant for the treatment of industrial wastes – customer's function.

• The development and implementation of nature conservation technologies aimed to de-

crease the impact on the environment.

• Collection and demercurisation of exhausted fluorescent lamps (meets HELCOM Recom-

mendation 18/5).

Potential dangers:

• It is located above the water intake of St. Petersburg and thus may influence the water

quality of the Neva River through the existing HydroNetwork (Clause 3 paragraph 2 of the

Convention on the protection of marine environment of the Baltic Sea, 1992).

• More than 1.5 million tonnes of industrial toxic wastes have been on the landfill, of which

600,000 tonnes of wastes remain in six foundation pits that were not neutralized by 2003.

:

• During extreme weather conditions (continuous showers and sudden freshets) the open

foundation pits can overflow and levee may break causing pollution of the River Neva and

• drainage from the landfill,

• atmospheric pollution.

The main sources are the thermal neutralization facilities (TNF) that process without gas purification and

the six open foundation pits with wastes.

Environmental activities for the improvement of the hot spot during 1992-2003

During this period, the first construction phase of the processing and landfilling project was in its final con-

struction stage. Completion of the construction of the first start-up complex was planned for 2004. The

foundation pits (No. 39, 50, 52, 56, 62) with a total open surface area of 26,000 m2 and volume of 209,000

m3 were closed down, and the area of foundation pit No. 70 was decreased by 50% or 6,800 m2. The exper-

imental rehabilitation area at Krasny Bor was constructed and is a model for reclamation in the future for

all closed foundation pits.

34

Situation at the landfill by the end of 2002

Waste processing Technology and landfilling was hopelessly outdated, and companies’ impact on the envi-

ronment did not comply with environmental legislation. Waste reception was carried out in foundation pits

quarried into waterproof Cambrian clay. There were also atmospheric precipitations that became wastes.

Sludge neutralization was carried out in thermal neutralization facilities (TNF), which had an obsolete de-

sign and little productivity. As a result, the foundation pits contained some 700,000 tonnes of toxic sludge –

they were overfilled and the area fully utilized. During extreme weather conditions (continuously showers

and sudden freshets), there could be a break in the levee break and the River Neva could become polluted.

However, as the result of implementation of environmental activities, the impact on all environmental

components was reduced. The amount of received wastes significantly decreased (Table 2).

Table 2. Changes of hot spot status indicators. Status indicators/year 1992 2002

Emissions [t] 408.931 52.0 Discharges [t] - - Waste acceptance [t] 54,773 1,420 Number of open foundation pits [m2) 10 6 (area was decreased on 29,800 m2) Number of processed wastes [t] 890,000 600,000

Current state of the Krasny Bor landfill

The Krasny Bor landfill is the only entity in the north-west Federal district that deals with the reception,

disposal and landfilling of industrial toxic wastes. Its current state is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 4. The Krasny Bor landfill.

The Landfill accepts the following types of wastes:

• liquid wastes of inorganic composition (wastes of galvanic production, etc.);

35

• liquid wastes of organic composition (emulsion, stillage bottoms, tar, solvents, oil products,

etc.);

• solid and pasty wastes of organic and inorganic composition (sludge of galvanic production,

soil polluted by oil products, etc.); and

• especially harmful wastes, including hazard class 1 (waste containing mercury, cyanide, ar-

senic, cadmium and other highly potent toxins).

The volume of received wastes is given in Table 3 and Figure 3.

Table 3. Volumes of annually received wastes by the Krasny Bor Landfill.

Years Total

amount, tonnes

Solid Liquid organic Liquid inorganic Especially harmful

(hazard class 1)

2001 18,620 10,312 6,760 867 681 2002 14,521 6,613 6,844 868 196 2003 21,518 17,297 3,344 722 155 2004 12,059 8,070 3,132 447 410 2005 78,455 74,548 3,432 437 38 2006 23,407 18,665 3,695 986 61 2007 30,446 22,821 6,275 1,179 169 2008 8,547 4,904 2,647 977 18,6 2009 10,145 4,644 4,162 1,245 41 2010 14,719 5,303 8,453 794 169 2011 14,470 5,481 7,955 972 60

Figure 5. Dynamics of waste reception at the Krasny Bor landfill in 2001-2011 (tonnes/year).

Currently, more than 350 industrial entities of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region have contractual rela-

tionships with the company handling the disposal of industrial toxic wastes. Although the capacity of the

landfill is limited and lately extremely used, the specialists of the company developed the program of effec-

36

tive use of the available potential of the Krasny Bor landfill. For the further development of the landfill, it is

planned to introduce the new technologies for the treatment of toxic wastes. To solve this problem, com-

pany experts are looking at several potentials, including reducing the toxic level of liquid organic wastes

accumulated in the foundation pits; converting the thermal neutralization facilities from fuel oil to a natural

gas; and introducing the pyrolysis method for recycling used tires and oil sludge.

Currently, part of wastes containing oil products with a water content of less than 15% is recycled at the

landfill. Arrangement of equipment for processing of rubber wastes and exhausted tires is ending.

Wastes that cannot be re-cycled are sent for storage in open foundation pits of the landfill until the exper-

imental plant of processing and landfill of industrial toxic wastes of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region will

be put into operation. To store industrial toxic wastes the hydraulic structures is used at the landfill – foun-

dation pits No.: 59, 64, 66, 67 and 68 in accordance with the Safety Declaration No. 09-09/00/43411-22-GTS

from 11 January 2010.

By the end of 2012, the filling volume of opened foundation pits were (million, m3):

• Foundation pit No. 59 – 0.0100884;

• Foundation pit No.64 – 0.533958;



• Foundation pit No.68 – 0.11669.

The total volume of un-neutralized waste was 700,000 m3.

In 2010, an operating plan for the landfill’s hydraulic structures was developed. It determined the manufac-

ture of the equipment and installation, ensuring uninterrupted and safety waste disposal during the im-

plementation of the project. In 2010-2011, the following tasks were carried out:

• During the spring flood in 2010, drainage work on the landfill was carried out to avoid an

overflow into the landfill’s internal canals.

• More than 32,000 tonnes of water in the foundation pits (hazard class 2-3) were processed

at the thermal neutralization facilities.

• Maintenance of the floodwall of foundation pit No. 68 was carried out (Figure 4).

• The internal canals of the landfill from sludge (hazard class 2-3) were cleaned. The canals

are designed to collect atmospheric precipitation.

37

Figure 6. The floodwall of foundation pit No. 68 after maintenance.

In 2010-2011, the specialists of OJSC SRI Atmosphere developed the size of sanitary protection zone, which

equals 1 km, and was adopted by the Chief Sanitary Doctor of Leningrad Region. Currently, the landfill la-

boratories with the accredited laboratories are completing a two-year air monitoring project on the esti-

mated boundary of the sanitary protection zone.

The documents defining refined borders of the mining lease were obtained in 2011, issued by the Depart-

ment of Subsoil use in North-West federal district, to fulfil the requirements of the licence for subsoil use.

The Regional Environmental Science and Technology Centre was established to ensure environmental safe-

ty, the effectiveness of the adoption of innovative technologies in the field of the collection, storage,

treatment and utilization of wastes, the SUNE Krasny Bor Landfill. The centre will bring together science

and technical potential of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS), educational institutions of St.

Petersburg and organizations working in the field of environmental protection.

The perspectives of company development are connected with the construction and putting into operation

the plant for the recycling and landfilling of industrial toxic wastes of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region.

Currently, the first construction stage has been completed and includes: the treatment facilities, pumping

stations, control and regulating ponds, facilities for electricity and heating, a vehicle wash and hazardous

waste storage. Work on the construction of the treatment building for organic wastes containing oil and

the storehouse for organic wastes have been completed (second stage). The tentative date for the start-up

was 2013. The construction of the building for the treatment of organic wastes and wastes from the Krasny

Bor landfill will be completed during 2013-2014.

38

The main parameters of the environmental impact

Emissions to the atmosphere

The thermal facilities of waste neutralization are the main sources of air emissions at the site with more

than 20 standardized chemical substances and compounds. The annual emissions of the company are

shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Gross emissions of the Krasny Bor landfill into the atmosphere in 2011. Substance Emissions, tonnes/year

Divanadium pentoxide 0.001821 Diiron trioxide 0.003055 Manganese and its derivatives 0.000117 Nitrogen dioxide 10.253716 Ammonia 0.000301 Nitrogen oxide 1.668088 Hydrochloric acid 3.274830 Sulphuric acid 0.362476 Soot 3.965596 Sulphur dioxide 97.749711 Dihydrosulphite 0.748347 Carbon monoxide 44.024427 Gaseous fluorides 0.096876 Poorly soluble fluoride 0.000421 Hexane 7.305544 Benzene 0.122592 Xylene 0.287295 Methylbenzene 0.165023 Benzo (a) pyrene 0.000039 Chlorobenzene 0.009930 Butanol 0.040050 Hydroxybenzene 0.172791 Ethynylacetate 0.017902 Ethyl acetate 0.091930 Formaldehyde 0.051548 Propane-2-one 0.130176 Ethane acid 1.535577 Gasoline 0.014830 Kerosene 0.042771 Saturated hydrocarbons S12-S19 0.031420 Inorganic dust 70-20% SiO2 0.002380 Inorganic dust less than 20% SiO2 0.005038 Abrasive dust (corundum) 0.000187 Dioxins 0.0000000167 Coal ash 3.828000

Total gross emissions are 176 tonnes per year.

39

During the reporting period, there were three fires. In June 2006, a fire was caused by the collision of some

barrels that had toxic wastes of hazard classes 3 and 4. In May 2008, waste on area of 1,800 m2 caught fire.

In June 2011, part of the landfill (5,000 m2) containing organic wastes - oils and greases – caught fire. There

were some 18.6 tonnes of harmful emissions during fire according to the data from the supervisory agen-

cies.

Sewage water discharge

There were no discharges of sewage water. Water from the sludge is removed by the evaporation method.

Sewage water from the drainage canal is drained to the landfill’s internal gathering ponds (Table 5).

Table 5. Comparative indicators of hot spot condition in 1992, 2002 and 2011. Condition indicators / year 1992 2002 2011 Emissions [tonnes] 408.931 52.0 1,176 Discharges [tonnes] - - - Waste acceptance [tonnes] 54,773 14,520 14,470

Number of opened foundation pits [m2 ] 10 6 (area decreased by 29,800 m2) 5

Number of unprocessed wastes 890,000 tonnes 60,0000 tonnes 700,000 m3

Results of the monitoring of the environmental components

Monitoring of the sanitary protection zone of the site and surrounding territories is carried out in accord-

ance with the Program of Ecological Control of the SUNE Krasny Bor Landfill, which includes:

• industrial environmental control of the sources of water pollution;

• industrial ecological control of emissions into the atmosphere;

• control of atmospheric air analysis on the boundary and within the sanitary protection

zone;

• air control of working area at the SUNE Krasny Bor Landfill; and

• industrial and environmental monitoring of soils and plants.

The water quality monitoring programme includes the monitoring of 39 parameters of groundwater (back-

ground and control pits of the SUNE Krasny Bor landfill) and drain control (control points of ring and main

canal). During 2012, 100 water samples were collected and 3,900 quantitative chemical analyses were

made (Table 6).

Table 6. The results of the surface water monitoring in 2012 (Main canal, point no. 6 between the bicameral outlet and the mouth of the stream falling into the main canal)

Controlled ingredients Unit of measure-ment

The average annual concentration of pollu-

tants

Number of registered exceedings of MPC (monthly measurements from April to

December) Aluminium mg/dm3 0.107 − Ammonium ions (on nitrogen) mg/dm3 more than 0.522 5 Anionactive surfactant species mg/dm3 more than 0.218 − BOD5 (biochemical oxygen de- mgO/dm3 101.8 5

40

Controlled ingredients Unit of measure-ment

The average annual concentration of pollu-

tants

Number of registered exceedings of MPC (monthly measurements from April to

December) mand) Chlorides mg/dm3 more than 31.778 − Solid residual mg/dm3 495 − COD (chemical oxygen demand) mgO/dm3 284 9 Total iron mg/dm3 3.153 9 Manganese mg/dm3 0.583 7 Nickel mg/dm3 less than 0.003 − Lead mg/dm3 less than 0.004 − Copper mg/dm3 0.005 − Zinc mg/dm3 0.262 − Cobalt mg/dm3 less than 0.005 − Silver mg/dm3 less than 0.020 − Mercury mg/dm3 0.000207 − Рexachlorobenzene mg/dm3 less than 0.0001 − 4,4′ - DDD mg/dm3 less than 0.00001 − 4,4′ - DDE mg/dm3 less than 0.00001 − 4,4′ - DDT mg/dm3 less than 0.00001 −

Trichloromethane (chloroform) mg/dm3 less than 0.002 −

Tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride)

mg/dm3 less than 0.002 −

Tetrachloroethylene mg/dm3 less than 0.002 − Benzene mg/dm3 less than 0.005 1 (single) Methylbenzene (toluene) mg/dm3 less than 0.005 − Xylene mg/dm3 less than 0.005 − Propan-2-one (acetone) mg/dm3 less than 0.005 − PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) -1 mg/dm3 less than 0.0005 − PCB-11 mg/dm3 less than 0.0005 − PCB-29 mg/dm3 less than 0.00003 − PCB-47 mg/dm3 less than 0.0007 − PCB-121 mg/dm3 less than 0.00002 − PCB-185 mg/dm3 less than 0.00002 − PCB-194 mg/dm3 less than 0.00001 − PCB-206 mg/dm3 less than 0.0005 − PCB-209 mg/dm3 less than 0.0005 −

The control the content of pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, sulphur dioxide,

hydrogen sulphide, benzene, xylene, hydroxybenzene, formaldehyde, 3,4-benzo(a)pyrene in the atmos-

pheric air in the sanitary protection zone was carried out at four control points on four bearings (North,

South, West, East) at a distance of 1,000 m from the boundary. During 2012, 100 atmospheric air samples

were collected and 32 measurements of the levels of noise impact were taken. According to the results,

there was no exceedings of MPC (Maximum Permissible Concentration) of controlled substances in the

atmospheric air. In addition, field measurements on the impact of noise levels on the atmospheric air on

the boundary of the sanitary protection zone during the day and at night were carried out.

41

According to the results, the maximum sound level and the sound pressure levels during the day and at

night do not exceed the maximum allowable levels according to the SC (Sanitary Code) 2.2.4/2.1.8.562-96

for areas near residential areas.

To determine the content of heavy metals (mercury, arsenic, cadmium, lead, chromium, cooper, nickel and

zinc), control of oil and plants growing in the zone are carried out. Samples are taken at four points and at

four bearings (North, South, West, East) at a distance of 25 m from the landfill. During 2012, 24 soil samples

and four plants samples were collected and showed there was no MPC exceedings.

Planned environmental protection activities

There is no approved programme for environmental activities at the site. The landfill does not participate in

federal target programmes and environmental international projects.

The company plans to implement the following activities which can significantly reduce the environmental

load:

• Putting into operation the first stage of plant construction for waste treatment (2013);

• Completion of the buildings for oily waste treatment and organic waste storage (2013);

• Completion of the buildings for organic waste treatment and the treatment of wastes from

the existing foundation pits (2014);

• Selection of optimal technologies for the treatment of different types of wastes;

• The implementation of the approved project for hydraulic structures.

Activities necessary for removing the company from the HELCOM’s list of hot spots To radically reduce the impact on the environment it is necessary to complete the construction of a modern

plant for hazardous waste treatment.

Conclusion

The company has a significant negative impact on the environment as it continues to use obsolete technol-

ogies for handling toxic wastes. A comparative analysis of the hot spot shows that despite the reduction of

waste reception volumes and the closure of some foundation pits, the negative impact level has continued

rise. Of special concern are the increasingly frequent emergency situations at the facility. The safe opera-

tion of the landfill is not possible without the construction of the plant for hazardous wastes treatment,

which should have been completed in 2005. Currently, a plant with a capacity of 40,000 tonnes of waste

per year is planned for 2015 with funding provided by the federal and regional budgets.

42

Table 7. Analysis of compliance with the activities at the landfill for waste disposal according to HELCOM Recommendations.

HELCOM Recommendation Targets Standard The situation at the facility

Conclusion about conformity of the

target Comments

RECOMMENDA-TION 24/5

Proper handling of waste/landfill

Compliance with the nation-al legislation in the field of

waste management

Full compliance The company has a full set of environ-mental documentation developed in ac-cordance with the Russian legislation in

the field of handling with waste. Violations in the field of handling with

wastes were detected in 2011 due to the fire.

+/-

Reduction of waste land-filling at the expense of their

pre-separation and treat-ment

Wastes when accepted by the landfill are separated by hazard class, and physical

and chemical properties +

RECOMMENDA-TION 27/1

Limitation of emis-sions into atmos-

phere and dis-charges into water from incineration

of waste

The use of best available technologies

Waste separation (full control of composition of incinerated wastes)

Wastes in the company are separated by types and classes of hazard + Used at the

landfill TNF is not a facility for waste incinera-tion, they only

evaporate liquid fraction; how-

ever, its operat-ing principle

allows to extend to them the

requirements for incineration

facilities

Exclusion of burning on the air Evaporation spring from foundation pits - Heat and steam recovery Is absent -

Incineration gas temperature not less than 8500С (not less than 11000С

for hazardous wastes, containing more than 1% of organic halogen

compounds)

6000С

-

Controlled air delivery No - Constant monitoring of incineration process (C, CO, NOx,O2, SO2, HCI, HF,

dust, incineration temperature)

No -

Effective cooling of exhaust gases and blowing

No -

Effective systems to hold dust in the flue gases

Is absent -

Effective systems for holding acids, organic substances and organic halo-

gens

Is absent -

Treatment of condensate and liquid residues from installations for clean-ing of outgoing gases, using chemical

precipitation, filtration

Is absent

-

43

HELCOM Recommendation Targets Standard The situation at the facility


target Comments

Treatment of slag and soot in closed or wet systems. Soot placement on

dry landfills

Filled and dehydrated foundation pits are hermetically closed +

Emissions into the atmosphere from incineration installations shall not exceed the following level at 11% O2, mg/m3:

Data are absent. Gas cleaning systems are absent -

Dust 10 CO 50 HCI 10 HF 1 SO2 50

NOx (in the form of NO2) 400 Cd + TI 0.05

Hg 0.05 Sb+As+Pb+Cr+Co+Cu+Mn+Ni

+V 0.5

Dioxins and furans 0.1 ng Sewage water discharges from installations for cleaning of output

gases shall not exceed, mg/l: Gas cleaning systems are absent

-

General suspended solids 30 Hg 0.03 Cd 0.05 TI 0.05 As 0.15 Pb 0.2 Cr 0.5 Cu 0.5 Ni 0.5 Zn 1.5

Dioxins and furans 0.3 ng/l

44

2. Leningrad Region

Hot spot No. 14 - The Syaskiy Pulp and Paper Mill (PPM)

General characteristic

Location scheme of the Syaskiy Pulp and Paper Mill (sewage water cleaning, air pollution control) in Lenin-

grad Region is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 7. Location of the Syaskiy PPM.

The Open Joint-stock Company (OJSC) Syaskiy Pulp and Paper Mill is located 140 km from St. Petersburg on

the right bank of the River Syas and 2.5 km from Lake Ladoga. Founded in 1928, it is now is one of the most

modern pulp and paper mills in the North-West Region of the Russian Federation.

The mill discharges the sewage water into the River Valgoma and Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga. It was in-

cluded in HELCOM’s list of hot spots as one of the biggest polluters of the River Ladoga and atmospheric air

by nitrogen and phosphorous.

Condition of the mill by 2002

Ten workshops were operating at the Syaskiy PPM by the end of the reporting period (2002):

• acid and cooking workshop

SYASKIY

45

• drying and paper workshop

• bleaching workshop

• alcohol and yeast workshop

• workshop of sanitary and living paper

• workshop of sanitary and living products

• typography

• wood preparation workshop

• timber preparation workshop

• ground wood workshop

In 2000, Syaskiy PPM had the following parameters of production output:

• sulphite pulp cooking: 73,641 t/year;

• commercial pulp production: 42,691 t;

• wrapping paper of sort A: 5,128 t;

• sanitary and hygienic paper: 28,272 t;

• wood pulp: 14,708 t;

• nutrient yeast: 2,851 t;

• insulating plates: 79 000 m2.

The biological treatment facilities of industrial sewage water received an average of 115,500 m3/day of

industrial sewage water in 2000. Efficiency of the sewage water treatment was for BOD5 – 91.3% (concen-

tration in treated water was 12.4 mgO2/dm3), for suspended matters – 87.5% (concentration in treated

water was 26.2 mg/l). The load on the facilities was for BOD5 – 28.4 t/day, for suspended matters – 24.1

t/day.

Sulphite pulp cooking technology has remained practically unchanged. Emissions of air pollutants from the

facility in 2000 were:

• suspended matters: 10.69 t/year

• SO2: 79.93 t/year

• NOx: 146 t/year

As a part of the sewage water after the biological treatment, 54,138.3 tonnes of dry substances were dis-

charged into Lake Ladoga.

The greatest achievement of the facility from 1993-2003 was the gasification of the power-generating boil-

ers that comply with HELCOM Recommendation 16/4 on sulphur emissions. The actual sulphur emissions

were 1.08 kg per tonne of pulp with a target value of 1.5 kg per tonne.

46

In future, the facility plans to implement the following environmental activities:

1. Modernization of the sulphite pulp cooking process:

• replacement of the cooking liquor by cold diluted liquor;

• modernization of the washing process;

• pulp bleaching with oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, sodium hydroxide and hypochlorite.

2. Switching to natural gas.

3. Construction of two cookers for solid biowaste incineration and a site for the production of building pan-

els.

4. Post-treatment of the sewage water in sand filters.

Current state of the Syaskiy PPM (see Figure 6)

Figure 8. View of Syaskiy PPM.

Today, the mill includes:

1. A timber preparation sector for receiving, storing and processing timber in the following volumes:

• softwood up to 700,000 m3/year

• hardwood up to 300,000 m3/year

2. Sulphite and pulp production with a capacity of 120,000 tonnes per year of cooked pulp.

3. A groundwood workshop that produces 100,000 tonnes chemical-mechanical wood pulp annualy from

aspen chips.

4. Sanitary, living and hygienic paper production:

47

• toilet paper: 63,000,000 rolls per year

• paper napkins: 4,100,000 bundles per year

• roll towels: 1,500,000 rolls per year

• commodity paper (a sanitary-hygyenic base): 27,000 tonnes per year

5. The biochemical treatment of sulphite liquors into nutrient yeasts and technical lignosulfonates.

The dynamics of the production of marketable products are given in Figure 7.

Figure 9. Production volumes of marketable products of the Syaskiy PPM from 1992-2011

The data show that since 2000, the volume marketable pulp decreased slightly in 2011 to 37,100 tonnes.

Cooked pulp output was 66,158 tonnes. In 2012, 71,911 tonnes of unbleached pulp were produced (cooked

pulp output). Bleached pulp was only produced for the facility’s needs and was 25,829 tonnes. In 2012,

base paper output was 63,172 tonnes per year.

Sulphite pulp cooking technology has remained unchanged. In 2011, a new cooker was constructed and put

into operation. Planned in the previous reporting period, the modernization of the cooking technology has

not been implemented to date. Pulp bleaching is carried out with chlorine, the consumption of which is 66

kg per tonne of pulp. The introduction of new pulp bleaching technology is at the laboratory test stage.

48

Water resources are implemented from the surface waterbody (River Syas) under contract No. 3D from

March 28, 2008, reg. No. 47-00.00.00.000 – R – DZIH – S 2008 – 0091/00 from 15 April 2008 concluded with

the Committee of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Leningrad Region (Table 8).

Table 8. Annual volume of water intake by Syaskiy PPM from 2008-2012.

Source of water supply

Water intake volume, thousand m3 per year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

River Syas 20,470.00 18,470.00 18,266.65 20,129.21 19,950.00

Specific water consumption when producing pulp is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Dynamics of the specific water consumption when producing pulp.

Production Specific water consumption, m3/production unit

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Unbleached pulp 97.4 95.3 92.2 92.8 90.2 Bleached pulp 134.7 134.6 132.6 131.7 130.2

In 1992, water consumption was some 500 m3/year. The mill managed to reduce water consumption by the

gradual replacement of depreciated water-bearing networks as well as the use of closed water cycles in the

cleaning and sorting of pulp and bleaching (partially closed water cycle).

Sanitary-hygienic paper output has almost doubled, mainly due to the use of imported pulp. The output of

lignosulfonates has decreased compared to 2000, this was due to switching from liquid to dry production

(in 2011, 23% of sold products was dry lignosulfonates). In June 2009, the spray-type dryer was installed

and running. Designed for drying technological lignosulfonates, it considerably relieves the workshop’s bio-

logical treatment of industrial sewage water as well as stabilizes the operation of evaporation workshop

and thus considerably improves the ecological situation in Neva-Ladoga Basin.

During the reporting period, the mill shifted to the use of natural gas as a fuel for the power-generating

boilers, ceasing the use of peat.

At their own expenses for the period 2009-2011, the following environmental protection activities were

implemented:

• Purchased and installed equipment for the local sewage treatment of PM5.

• In August 2009, in accordance with the plan to modernize the biological treatment work-

shop, two units for the mechanical dehydration of sediments were mounted and put into

operation. It will allow the mill cease the costly operation of the sludge collectors and re-

claim land under them.

49

• Developed and implemented the construction of the transmission systems for rain and

melt waters of the outfalls 2, 3, 4 in the River Valgoma to the existing treatment facilities.

Outfalls 2 and 3 were closed on 10 June 2011 and outfall 4 on 1 November 2011.

• Reclamation at sludge collector no. 2 is continuing.

• Work on the automation of the stop valves at facilities with mechanical treatment of indus-

trial sewage water completed, and the mechanical rake MR 12 was replaced by an auto-

matic hydraulic screen.

The planned construction of cookers for burning of solid wastes was not implemented because detailed

studies deemed it financially and environmentally unprofitable. The project to post-treat sewage water in

sand filters was not implemented.

The main parameters of the environmental impact

Sewage water discharge

During the reporting period, the discharge of sewage water was carried out through four outfalls:

• Outfall No.1 in Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga.

• Outfalls Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the River Valgoma (Table 10).

Table 10. Discharge of sewage water by Syaskiy PPM from 2008-2012.

Outfall No. Sewage water discharge volume, thousand m3 per year

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 No. 1 total, including 18,779.000 16,924.000 16,452.000 18,531.000 18,241.000

OJSC Syaskiy PPM 17,311.820 15,552.520 15,223.29 17,341.290 17,034.020 Municipal unitary

entity SKS 1,468.180 1,371.480 1,228.710 1,189.710 1,206.980

No. 2 102,448 118,158 51,889 - - No. 3 34,960 40,321 17,707 - - No. 4 140,958 21,831 22,989 16,633 -

The effectiveness of the treatment plant of the OJSC Syaskiy PPM during the reporting period is character-

ized by the following parameters (Table 11).

Table 11. Effectiveness of the operation of the treatment plant at Syaskiy PPM, 2008-2012.

Pollutant Operation effectiveness of the treatment plant, %

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 BOD5 93.3 93.6 92.8 92.6 92.6 COD 32.5 39.4 41.9 44.7 40.9 Ntot 21.5 23.1 16.7 19.7 17.2 Рtot 57.9 41.3 21.5 36.3 42.8

Heavy metals approved for discharge in accordance with the standards of permissible discharges of pollu-

tants and microorganisms (SPD) are not shown.

50

The discharge mass of pollutants in waterbodies are shown in Tables 12 and 13. (The discharge mass of

pollutants in Volkhov Bay includes the pollutants of municipal sewage water discharged from the treatment

facilities of the Municipal Unitary Company SKS since it uses one outfall for sewage water discharge; for this

reason it obtained a single licence for discharge).

Table 12. Discharge mass of pollutants into Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga from 2008-2012 (tonnes/year). Pollutant

Discharge mass of pollutant in Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 BOD5 total, including 317.69 192.09 186.73 200.69 187.15 PC Syaskiy PPM 292.85 176.51 172.78 187.81 174.76 MUE SKS 24.84 15.58 13.95 12.88 12.39 COD total, including 15,858.87 8,522.93 9,269.06 9,506.40 9,102.26 PC Syaskiy PPM 14,618.71 7,831.72 8,576.66 8,896.09 8,499.69 MUE SKS 1,240.16 691.21 692.40 610.31 602.57 Ntot, including 124.69 86.31 92.13 101.92 100.33 PC Syaskiy PPM 114.94 79.31 85.25 95.38 93.69 MUE SKS 9.75 7.00 6.88 6.54 6.64 Рtot, including 12.58 10.83 10.53 11.49 10.99 PC Syaskiy PPM 11.60 9.95 9.74 10.75 10.26 MUE SKS 0.98 0.88 0.79 0.74 0.73

Table 13. Discharge mass of pollutants into River Valgoma of Lake Ladoga from 2008-2012 (tonnes/year). Pollutant Discharge mass of pollutant in River Valgoma

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 BOD5 0.78 0.47 0.28 0.05 - COD 7.68 9.49 5.39 0.77 -

Heavy metals and hazardous substances approved for discharge in accordance with the project Standards

of Permissible Discharges of Pollutants and Microorganisms (SPD) are absent. The discharge dynamics in

Volkhov Bay are given in Figure 8.

Figure 10. Discharge dynamics of the pollutants in Volkhov Bay (tonnes/year).

The data show that there were only slight variations in discharge of pollutants. Attention is drawn to some

reduction of pollutant discharges in 2009 that can be attributed to the environmental effect from the mod-

ernization of the biological treatment workshop and the launch of a line for drying lignosulfonates.

51

The discharge dynamics in the River Valgoma are given in Figure 9.

Figure 11. Discharge dynamics of pollutants in the River Valgoma (kg/year).

By 2012, the discharge of pollutants into the River Valgoma had stopped.


The main indicators of gross emissions are given in Table 14.

Table 14. Gross emissions to the atmosphere from 2008-2012. Pollutant Emissions to the atmosphere, t/year

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 SO2 55,737 51,345 57,344 50,264 48,601 NO 81,096 79,596 86,594 61,252 60,253 NO2 472,424 487,424 542,417 367,326 367,326

Heavy metals and hazardous substances approved for discharge in accordance the project Standards of

Permissible Discharges of Pollutants and Microorganisms (SPD) are absent.

Handling production waste

Currently, handling production and consumption wastes at the Syaskiy PPM is guided by licence No. OT-19-

000109 (78) from May 21, 2009. Waste generation volumes are given in Table 15.

Table 15. Waste generation volumes from 2008-2012 (tonnes). 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

3,209,914 1,539,942 993,667 779,253 780,500

The Syaskiy PPM is carrying out the disposal of its own production wastes and the consumption of hazard

classes 4 and 5 in sludge collector No.2. The land on which it is located has an area of 29,755.7 hectares and

is owned by the OJSC Syaskiy PPM. Volumes of disposal waste are given in Table 16.

52

Table 16. Disposal waste volumes from 2008-2012 (tonnes). 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1,961,900 844,300 420,771 287,620 349,400

The dynamics of the volumes of waste formation and disposal are given in Figure 10.

The difference in volumes of waste formation and disposal is explained by the fact that the part of the

waste is used as a secondary product as well as an insulating layer for the reclamation of the sludge collec-

tor. Waste was significantly reduced after the mill began using imported wood chips to produce pulp.

Figure 10. Volumes dynamics of waste formation and disposal.

Results of the monitoring of environmental components

Air monitoring was carried out in the sanitary protection zone (SPZ) during the reporting period according

to the production control program (Table 17).

Table 17. Results of industrial environmental air monitoring in the SPZ of the OJSC Syaskiy PPM (mg/m3) Ingredients 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Suspended matters less than 0.26 less than 0.26 less than 0.26 less than 0.26 less than 0.26 NO2 less than 0.02 less than 0.02 less than 0.02 less than 0.02 less than 0.02 SO2 less than 0.04 less than 0.04 less than 0.04 less than 0.04 less than 0.04

The concentration of pollutants in the air does not exceed the MPC for residential areas. Industrial envi-

ronmental monitoring of the waterbody (Lake Ladoga) was carried out in accordance with the program of

regular observations of the waterbody and its water protection zone approved by the Neva-Ladoga Basin

Water authority (NLBWA) in three points (Table 18):

• Point No. 1: Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga (500 m to the left from the sewage water outfall)

one time per month;

53

• Point No. 2: Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga (500 m to the right from the sewage water outfall)

one time per month;

• Point No. 3: Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga (2 km deep into the sewage water outfall) one

time per month.

Table 18. Results of the industrial environmental monitoring of the water (average annual concentrations in the control points).

Ingredients Unit of meas-urement

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga (500 m to the left from the sewage water outfall) BOD5 mgO2/dm3 5.5 3.7 3.5 2.9 3.2

Suspended mat-ters

mg/dm3 9.8 6.6 5.6 5.2 5.3

COD mg/dm3 225 107 81 63 58 Рtot mg/dm3 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.06 Ntot mg/dm3 4.3 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.5

Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga (500 m to the right from the sewage water outfall) BOD5 mgO2/dm3 4.7 3.8 3.4 2.8 3.4

Suspended mat-ters

mg/dm3 9.2 5.9 5.5 5.6 5.4


Volkhov Bay of Lake Ladoga (2 km deep into the sewage water outfall) BOD5 mgO2/dm3 2.9 3.0 3.5 2.7 2.6

Suspended mat-ters

mg/dm3 5.5 4.7 3.9 3.2 2.7


Thus, observational results demonstrate a stable reduction of pollutants concentration in waterbodies-

recipients during the reporting period.

In order to identify significant shifts in the environmental activity of the company, the comparative analysis

of anthropogenic impact on the environment from the company in comparison with the previously report-

ing periods was conducted (Table 19).

Table 19. Comparative analysis of anthropogenic impact on the environment by the OJSC Syaskiy PPM in 1992, 2000, 2012.

Receipt per year 1992 2000 2012 Discharge volume, thousand m3 46,600 41,100 17,034 Discharge, t/year

COD 2,9871 38,132 8,499.69 BOD 1,131.8 1,247.7 174.8 Рtot 21.2 30.2 10.3 Ntot 286.5 265.3 93.7

Emissions, t/year SO2 5,420 79.93 48.60

NO[x] 561 146.6 427.6

54

Receipt per year 1992 2000 2012 Wastes, t/year 30,000 29,420 780.5

The above data shows that during the reporting period the significant amount of environmental activities

which allowed more than two times decrease the water consumption and sewage water discharge were

done by the company. Waste formation is decreased more than 3.5 times.

Planned environmental activities

To improve the ecological situation and reduce the risk of environmental pollution the company is planning

a number of environmental activities (Table 20).

In long-term period it is planned:

• to introduce post-treatment sewage water system after the biological treatment workshop;

• to modernize aeration system of aeration tanks of the workshop of biological treatment of

industrial sewage water.

Table 20. Environmental activities planned for 2013-2015.

No. i/o

Activity

Deadline

Amount of financing, RUB

million

Funding source

1. Construction of new pumping station for empting of secondary precipitation tanks Q4 2013 2.7 PC Syaskiy PPM

2 Reconstruction of new treatment facilities: - precipitation tanks overhaul; - replacement of air supply lines in the second tunnel of aeration tank No.2; - automating the process of biological treatment of industrial sewage water of the company; - replacement of control and measuring equipment on blowers, having type 361-21-1; - replacement of the aeration system in the aera-tion tank No.3

Q4 2013 Q4 2014

Q4 2014

Q3 2015

Q4 2015

2.6 1.5

4.2

1.2

3.5

PC Syaskiy PPM PC Syaskiy PPM

PC Syaskiy PPM

PC Syaskiy PPM

PC Syaskiy PPM

3 Overhaul of equipment of pumping station for pumping of storm sewage (rainwater) and melt sewage water of outfalls No.5, No.6 with full re-placement of all equipment of the station by the KNS system of the Grundfos company

Q1 2015

1.8

PC Syaskiy PPM

TOTAL 17.5 million

Deadline for these activities is preliminarily 2020. Amount of financing today is not evaluated. The possibil-

ity of implementing of activities depends on the economic condition of the company which so far is not

stable.

The company is not participated in international environmental projects. Implementation of environmental

activities in the frameworks of the federal target programs is not planned.

Table 21 - Analysis of compliance of activity of the company with HELCOM Recommendations

HELCOM Recommenda-tion Targets Standard The situation at the company


target Comments

RECOMMENDATION 17/9 Reduction of discharges from the sulphite pulp

industry

The use of best available technologies

1. Dry debarking with minimum dis-charge of sewage water. 2. Closed cleaning. 3. Neutralization of weak liquor before evaporation with the subsequent reuse of significant part of condensates dur-ing production. 4. Systems which allows to utilize al-most all organic substances dissolved in the liquor (U ***) – liquor recovery should reach 98%. 5. The absence of discharge during cooking from the bleaching process on the sodium base. 6. At least, two-stage treating of dis-charged sewage water. 7. During cooking on a sodium base is partially closed bleaching processing.

1. Dry debarking is not used. The company reduces paper wood, sent for debarking, at the expense of purchasing of wood chips from tim-ber industry companies. 2. Sorting and cleaning of pulp is carried out in a closed loop of water circulation with a partial feeding with a ratio of circulating wa-ter/fresh water – 86% / 14%. 3. Is not applicable for sulphite cook-ing technology. 4. Is not applicable for sulphite cook-ing technology. 5. Is not applicable for sulphite cook-ing technology. 6. Treatment of industrial sewage water is conducted in two steps on the facilities of mechanical and bio-logical treatment with the subse-quent neutralization of treated sew-age water before discharging into the water object. Sludge from the primary precipitation tanks and surplus sludge are dehydrated on the 7 and are token out for disposal to the own landfill. 7. Pulp bleaching is conducted in partially closed water consumption with a ratio of circulating wa-

- From all best avail-able technologies the company suc-

cessfully imple-ments only closed

and partially closed water circulations

when sorting, cleaning and

bleaching pulp.

HELCOM Recommenda-tion Targets Standard The situation at the company


target Comments

8. Use in production, where possible, chemicals that are harmless for the environment, for example, biode-gradable chelating agents.

ter/fresh water – 30% / 70%. 8. For bleaching a molecular chloride is used.

Discharges kg/ ton of air-dried pulp

(bleached/unbleached)

COD 70/45 118.2 -

Absorbable Organic Halogen (AOH)

0,5/- Not applicable No data

Рtot 0.08/0.06 0.14 -

Ntot 0.7/0.6 1.3 -

Use for pulp bleaching of molecular chloride

Not applicable Applicable -

RECOMMENDATION 16/4 Reduction of emissions

into the atmosphere from the pulp-and-paper

production

NOx emissions from recovery cookers

120 mg/MJ or 0.40 g/m3 Recovery cookers on the company are absent. Emissions of power-generating cookers – 67.1 mg/MJ

+

NOx emissions from lime recovery kilns

300 mg/MJ or 0,60 g/m3 Lime recovery kilns on the company are absent. Emissions of power-

generating cookers – 67.1 mg/MJ

Sulphur emissions kg/ton of pulp

1.5 0.76

Activities necessary to remove the company from HELCOM’s list of hot spots

• Modernization of the pulp cooking process.

• Switching to less harmful pulp bleaching technology with the complete cessation of molecular chlo-

ride for bleaching.

• Reconstruction of the treatment facilities.

Conclusion

In recent years, work has been carried out on the reconstruction of the production units as well as the re-

construction of the treatment facilities. The projects reduced the emissions to the atmosphere and signifi-

cantly decreased water consumption. Moreover, the discharge of untreated storm water from industrial

areas into the River Valgoma was also completely stopped. Significant reductions in the discharges of pollu-

tants into the Volkhov Bay were mainly due to reducing the volume of sewage waters and not by improving

the quality of the sewage water treatment. It is necessary to further modernize the technological process-

es of pulp cooking and bleaching, and the treatment facilities.

Meeting these needs to mitigate the environmental problem and removing the mill from the list hot spots

is not possible due to the mill’s current economic situation. Investments are therefore needed.

Hot spot No. 15 Volkhov aluminium plant (Metakhim Ltd.)

General characteristic

The location of the Volkhov aluminium plant is in Leningrad Region (see Figure 11).

The Volkhov aluminium plant is one of the largest industrial facilities in Volkhov. It is located on the right

bank of the River Volkhov in the northern part of the town and some 120 km from St. Petersburg and 20 km

from Lake Ladoga. The River Volkhov is a source of industrial water supply for the plant and it is where the

industrial sewage water of the plant is discharged.

In 1992, aluminium plant began operations producing aluminium, argil, soda and potash, Portland cement,

double superphosphate, salts fluoride, sulphuric acid, diammonium phosphate as well as producing heat.

Figure 12. Location of the Volkhov aluminium plant.

Three sewage water outfalls, sewerage treatment facilities, a sludge collector for the aluminous workshop

and gypsum collectors were owned by the plant.

Sewage water discharge was 3,609,000 m3/year and the mass of discharged pollutants was more than

6,000 tonnes. The annual volume of emissions was 7,735.7 tonnes. The main reasons why the plant was

included in the HELCOM’s list of hot spots as one of the largest pollutants of the Ladoga Basin are listed

below.

Water

• Absence of facilities for the treatment of industrial and storm sewage water.

• High failure rate of the machinery (obsolete sulphuric and acid production equipment, unreliable

performance of gypsum lines when producing double superphosphate).

• 3) Unstable double superphosphate production, failures in aluminous production technology.

Atmosphere

• Depreciation of gas cleaning of the cement mill as well as electrical precipitator after the argil calci-

nation kilns.

• Absence of gas cleaning in the aluminium refining workshop.

• Technical problems during the production of double superphosphate and arrhythmic work of sul-

phuric and the acid workshop.

Condition of the plant by 2003

Branch Volkhov aluminium produces raw aluminium, polyphosphates, sulphuric acid, fluxed agglomerated

phosphate, potassium sulphate, soda, fluxes, aluminium sulphite and produces heat.

One outfall of industrial sewage water, two gypsum collectors (one is operating, the other is used as the

sewage water storage) and one sludge collector (not in operation) were owned by the plant.

All water was circulated throughout the factory, including water circulation of the casting section in the

electrolysis workshop, the compressor house, the silicon-converter substation, and the sulphuric and acid

workshop.

Sewage water from gypsum collector is not treated and returned to the production of polyphosphates.

There are no treatment facilities (Tables 22 and 23).

Table 22. Emissions of pollutants for 1992-2002 (tonnes/year).

Year 1992 2002 Reduced in relation to 1992

Emissions of pollutants including solid substances

gaseous substances including fluorine sulphurous anhydride carbon monoxide

7,735.7

2,855.8 4,879.9

252.6

2,387.5 1,644.5

4,984.336*

2,308.433 2,675.903

15,609

937,926 1,370,575

1.55 times

1.2 1.8

16.2 2.5 1.2

* The increase in the emissions of pollutants in 2002 compared to 2001 is due to the growth of production and the increase of the list of controlled parameters.

Table 23. Discharges of pollutants with sewage water for 1992-2002 (tonnes/year).

Year 1992 2001 2002 Reduced in relation to 1992

Suspended matters Oil products Total nitrogen Total Phosphorous Fluorine Sulphates Aluminium Iron

3,180.5 9.0

157.6 820.2 77.9

2,049.3 58.3 4.0

178,030 0.971 9.922

16.707 2.943

288,826 1.622 1.267

198.7* 1.8

12.33 16.03 2,262 315.7 2,158 1,563

16 times 5

12.8 51.16 34.3 6.5

27.0 2.6

*The increase in the discharges of pollutants in 2002 compared to 2001 is due to the increase in sewage water vol-ume.

The plant significantly exceeds phosphorus concentrations in sewage water indicated in the HELCOM Rec-

ommendations. The following problems remained unresolved:

• the absence of sewage water treatment

• ineffective operation of the electrical precipitator behind the kilns in flux production

• obsolete equipment in sulphuric acid production

Current state of the plant

In 2003, the production capacities of the Volkhov aluminium plant were divided between the three auton-

omous companies:

1. Volkhov aluminium – aluminium producing capacities

2. Metakhim Ltd. – chemical production

3. Parosilovoe hozyaystvo - Volkhov Ltd – heat and energy capacities.

The information related to each of the companies is provided below.

Branch VAZ-SUAL of the OJSC SUAL

In 2006, the Volkhov aluminium plant became the RUSAL holding company and today only produces prima-

ry aluminium for the automobile and building industries. Its capacity is 24,000 tonnes of aluminium per

year. In 2011, it began manufacturing large-size T-shaped pig (11,109 t) and small pig (4,797 t).

The complex consists of two electrolysis lines and a foundry. The company uses electrolysis based on cal-

cined (prebaked) anodes technology. In 2011, refitting the foundry for aluminium alloys was started and

completed at the beginning of 2013.

The planned constriction of the gas cleaning installations was suspended in 2009 due to a lack of funding.

The existing gas cleaning emits pollutants in accordance with the permitted limits. Currently under consid-

eration is the termination of the production of primary aluminium due to high production costs.

The plant is certified according to the ISO 14001 in 2007.


The plant has 21 air emission sources, 16 of which are monitored. Information on the volume of the emis-

sions is presented in Table 24.

Table 24. Gross emissions to the atmosphere of VAZ-SUAL.

Substance 2008 t/year

2009 t/year

2010 t/year

2011 t/year

2012 t/year

0101 Aluminium oxide 105.672 86.805 68.955 70,956 76.590 0123 Iron oxide 0.385 0.386 0.762 0.0698 0.796 0143 Manganese and its compounds 0.013 0.013 0.024 0.021 0.025 0150 Sodium hydroxide 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0301 Nitrogen (IV) oxide (Nitrogen dioxide) 1.800 1.503 0.451 0.429 0.410 0304 Nitrogen (II) oxide (Nitrogen oxide) 0.277 0.240 0.075 0.071 0.073 0322 Sulphuric acid (by molecule H2SO4) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0328 Black carbon (soot) 3.735 0.818 1.510 1.028 1.187 0330 Sulphur dioxide 75.338 34.813 68.290 67.954 68.065 0337 Carbon monoxide 3,011.649 3,522.260 3,526.709 3,077.716 2,579.410 0342 Gaseous fluorides 19.888 12.165 19.769 19.191 17.396 0344 Poorly soluble fluorides 2.633 5.476 6.172 6.086 6.108 0416 Mixture of saturated hydrocarbons C6-C10 0.003 0.003 - - - 0415 Mixture of saturated hydrocarbons C1-C5 0.001 0.001 - - - 0703 Benz(a)pyren (3,4 – Benzpyrene) 0.00000 0.00000 0.00003 0.00003 0.00002 1071 Phenol 0.00032 0.00032 - - - 1301 Acrolein 0.056 0.762 2.749 2.867 1.783 2704 Benzine (oil, low-sulphur) 0.049 0.049 0.031 0.031 0.029

Substance 2008 t/year

2009 t/year

2010 t/year

2011 t/year

2012 t/year

2732 Kerosene 0.492 0.492 0.150 0.150 0.150 2754 Saturated hydrocarbons C12-C19 0.008 0.008 - - - 2908 Inorganic dust: 70-20% of SiO2 3.914 3.932 6.180 6.336 6.249 2909 Inorganic dust: up to 20% of SiO2 208.035 220.382 266.595 289.974 341.683 2930 Abrasive dust 0.012 0.012 0.006 0.006 0.006 TOTAL: 3,433.964 3,890.122 3,698.428 3,543.517 3,099.963

Sewage water discharges

There are no discharges to waterbodies. Some 55,000-60,000 m3 of industrial sewage water are treated by

Metakhim Ltd. annually.

Monitoring environmental components

Air quality is monitored in the town of Volkhov. There was no exceeding of MPC found during the observa-

tion period.


In 2013, the plant plans to complete the foundry rebuild. Switching to modern technology means a reduc-

tion in the impact on the environment.

There is no long-term program for the implementation of environmental activities since it the plant either

aims to replace the production of primary aluminium with another product or close the plant. Closing or

changing the line of business is scheduled for no earlier than 2015.

Metakhim Ltd.

Metakhim is a subsidiary of FosAgro AG and produces mineral fertilizers, polyphosphates, sulphuric acid

and cement. It uses production capacities that are part of the Volkhov aluminium plant. Metakhim was

founded in 2004 because of the reorganisation of OJSC Volkhov aluminium; the production volumes in 2012

were:

• polyphosphates and fertilizers – 145,580 tonnes/year

• sulphuric acid – 195,513 tonnes/year

• mineral fertilizers (potassium sulphate) – 143,726 tonnes/year

• cement – 733,800 tonnes/year

The company is located within the same industrial zone as VAZ-SUAL, a subsidiary of Parosilovoe ho-

zyaystvo Ltd. The approximate sanitary protection zone is 1 km. The company inherited all ecological prob-

lems from the Volkhov aluminium plant together with the production capacities. The financial state of Me-

takhim at the time meant that the company could not radically change situation; however, a number of

activities aimed to improve the environmental situation were carried out:

• the sulphuric acid production line was fully reconstructed in 2005;

• work began on the technical upgrading of the production of polyphosphates and fertilizers;

• gas treatment equipment in the cement production site was installed;

• the treatment facilities of the mechanical treatment of sewage water were constructed which re-

duced the discharges of suspended matters in 2008; and

• an advanced sewage treatment plant was planned.

Discharges of pollutants

Sewage water consists of their own industrial and industrial-storm sewage water as well as sewage water

from a number of companies that are sent for treatment. The distribution of the volumes of sewage water

in 2012 is given in Table 25.

Table 25. Distribution of sewage water volumes incoming to Metakhim’s treatment plant.

Company Sewage water volume, m3/year

Share in total volume of sewage water, %

Limited Liability Company Parosilovoe hozyaystvo

188,571 11.7

Branch VAZ-SUAL 57,115 3.5 Limited Liability Company Metakhim 1,361,292 84.2 Municipal Unitary Company PATP of the Volkhov municipality

9,754 0.6

TOTAL 1,616,732 - The above-mentioned companies have significantly different qualities of sewage water composition (see

Table 26).

Table 26. Chemical composition of the sewage water accepted from third-party organisations, mg/m3

Pollutant Limited Liability

Company Parosilo-voe hozyaystvo

VAZ-SUAL Municipal Unitary

Company PATP of the Volkhov municipality

Suspended matters 601.59 135.4 19.99 Solid residual 296 386.0 - Ammonium nitrogen 1.24 2.09 - Nitrate nitrogen 0.28 1.55 - Nitrite nitrogen 0.034 0.2 - Phosphate phosphorous 0.16 3.40 - Sulphate-ion 60.32 66.42 - Oil products 1.71 1.94 1.98 Total iron 11.78 2.46 - Aluminium 20.27 8.01 - Cooper 0.013 0.008 - Chlorides 34.85 28.47 - Manganese 0.112 0.08 - Fluoride 0.131 2.27 -

Sewage water treatment is carried out at the mechanical cleaning treatment facility. To improve the quality

of sewage water treatment, the following reagents are used:

• Aluminium sulphate

• Nalko 8190

• Nalko 71601

The effectiveness of the treatment plant for suspended matters is shown in Table 27:

Table 27. The effectiveness of Metakhim’s treatment plant during 2008-2012 (%). Year The effectiveness of the treatment plant 2008 81% 2009 77% 2010 58% 2011 87% 2012 78%

After treatment, the sewage water is discharged into the River Volkhov through the first outfall. The dis-

charge is carried out within the framework of Licence No. 17-08-87-S-10/14. The volumes pollutants enter-

ing the waterbody with the sewage water is given in Table 28.

Table 28. Discharges of pollutants into the River Volkhov (tonnes/year). Pollutant 2009 2010 2011 2012

Suspended maters 102.359 116,598 144.259 153.142 Solid residual 893.626 948.694 1,605.007 1,726.766 COD - 74.103 86.94 95.746 BOD5 4.945 3.845 6.447 7.375 Total nitrogen - 5.392 8.034 9.154 Ammonium nitrogen 4.507 4.572 9.569 11.539 Nitrate nitrogen 5.622 4.566 8.45 10.373 Nitrite nitrogen 0.629 0.573 1.342 1.521 Total phosphorous - 23.081 45.898 57.853 Phosphate phosphorous 4.422 4.12 26.242 37.676 Sulphate-ion - 118.867 274.439 300.697 Chloride-ion 73.363 57.862 74.717 90.123 Oil products 0.602 0.987 3.446 2.287 Total iron 2.926 1.824 2.908 3.742 Aluminium 0.819 0.87 1.972 2.157 Cooper 0.029 0.021 0.016 0.022 Nickel - 0 0.072 0.055 Manganese 0.246 0.222 0.317 0.415 Sodium 144.22 134.279 242.438 356.735 Fluorine - 2.06 7.534 31.967


Metakhim Ltd. has 83 sources of emissions including 47 controlled sources and 36 non-controlled. The main

sources of emissions are the sulphuric acid production units, polyphosphates (including the extraction of

phosphoric acid), mineral fertilizers and cement (see Table 29).

Table 29. Gross emissions to the atmosphere by Metakhim Ltd. (tonnes/year). Substance 2009 2010 2011 2012

Substance 2009 2010 2011 2012 Iron oxide 0.98 0.983 0.969 0.58 Calcium oxide 0.027 0.025 0.025 0 Magnesium oxide 0.029 0.029 0.029 0 Manganese and its compounds 0.072 0.073 0.073 0.008 Sodium carbonate 7.026 7.389 5.841 9.023 Nitrogen (IV) dioxide 109.686 123.258 108.172 269.377 Nitrogen (II) oxide 18.456 18.591 15.624 22.321 Hydrocyanide (hydrogen cyanide) 0.006 0.006 0.006 0 Sulphuric acid 16.892 22.637 16.443 34.755 Black carbon (soot) 2.516 2.515 2.516 1.117 Sulphur dioxide (sulphurous anhydride) 408.23 457.301 458.263 610.092 Hydrogen sulphide 0 0 0 0 Carbon monoxide 49.341 47.773 40.232 47.532 Gaseous fluorides 1.366 1.45 1.27 1.41 Poorly soluble fluorides. 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.0025 Hydrocarbons С1-С5 0.224 0.214 0.214 0.236 Hydrocarbons С6-С10 0.061 0.06 0.06 0.06 Benzene 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.01 Dimethylbenzene (xylene) 0 0 0 0.001 Methylbenzene (toluene) 0.0048 0.004 0.005 0.0088 Ethylbenzene 0 0 0 0 Benz(a)pyrene 0 0 0 0 Benzene (oil, low-sulphur) 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.0492 Kerosene 11.864 11.864 11.14 18,554 Hydrocarbons 0.266 0.265 0.265 0.0381 Inorganic dust (70-20% SiO2) 1,539.832 221.682 258.4 238.729 Wood dust 0.492 0.548 0.46 0.423 Diphosphorous pentaoxide 14.649 15.359 15.394 9.351 Diesel fuel 522.966 588.513 524.987 449.578 Petrol 133.138 141.955 153.981 117.843

Thus, the company annually released into the air more than 1,800 tonnes of pollutants, one third of which

is sulphur dioxide.

Waste formation and disposal

In 2012, the company had 2,692 tonnes of wastes. Some 0.256 tonnes of mercury-containing wastes (haz-

ard class 1) were transferred for neutralization to the a specialized company; 2,009 tonnes of wastes (haz-

ard classes 4-5) - mainly scrap as well as paper wastes and polypropylene - were sent to third-party organi-

sations for reuse; and 683 tonnes of wastes were landfilled under the contract with an authorized organisa-

tion.

Environmental components monitoring

The air quality is monitored in Volkhov. There was no exceeding of MPC found during the observation

period.

Water quality monitoring at control points on the River Volkhov are carried out. The control points are lo-

cated 300 metres upstream and 50 metres downstream of the sewage water outfall. Samples are collected

once a month. Oil products, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, total nitrogen, phos-

phate phosphorous, total phosphorous, fluoride, total iron, cooper, zinc, nickel, aluminium, sodium, mag-

nesium, manganese, phenols as well as pH, soluble oxygen and temperature are determined. In accordance

with the data of the Neva-Ladoga Basin Water authority, the River Volkhov both above and below the out-

fall is characterized by the steady contamination of copper, manganese and iron; also, the total pollution

index has increased at the lower river station from 2.54 to 2.99. In addition, individual exceeding of MPC of

lead and cadmium were observed at the monitoring river station located below the outfall.


The most important environmental activity is the construction of the treatment plant, scheduled to start in

2013 and begin operating in June 2014. This will dramatically reduce sewage water impact on the River

Volkhov’s ecosystem.

Parosilovoe hozyaystvo - Volkhov Ltd

The company’s main activity is the production of:

• steam for the needs of the plant and external companies

• hot water for heating and the hot-water supply of the town (Volkhov-2) as well as for the plant and

other organisations

• electricity for the plant

Four steam cookers were installed in the cooker-turbine workshop of the steam-power company in the

boiler-room and three steam cookers that can work as steam turbines – in the cogeneration plant building

(CHP). The cookers use natural gas as the main fuel and black oil as reserve.

The steam-power entity (SPE) has two steam turbo generators with a total nominal capacity of 12 MW.

Electricity produced by the turbo generators is used for their own needs (boiler-room equipment and CHP)

and as a power supply for the primary and ancillary equipment of Volkhov aluminium. The average annual

electric output by SPE’s turbo generators of is 32,000-35,000 Kwh. Waste steam from turbo generators has

the following parameters: pressure: 6 kg/m2, temperature: 250°С.

1) Emissions to the atmosphere

The company did not provide the data of emissions. However, given the fact that CHP operates on natural

gas and heat production does not exceed 500,000 Gcal/year entity emissions, according to the expert esti-

mations, does not exceed 800 t/year, 97% of which are nitrogen oxides.

2) Sewage water discharges

There are no sewage water discharges. Household and industrial-storm sewage waters are sent for treat-

ment to Metakhim Ltd. The volume of passed sewage water was– 349,336 m3 in 2011 and 199,363 m3 in

2012.

3) Monitoring environmental components

The air quality is monitored in the town of Volkhov. There was no exceeding of MPC found during the ob-

servation period.

4) Planned environmental activities

There is no information on any planned environmental activities. Taking into account the unprofitability of

its production and its low environmental hazard, significant investments in environmental activities should

not be expected.

Comparison of the current negative impact on environment and for the previous

reporting periods

Air emissions volumes did not change for the past reporting period. In 2002, 4,984 tonnes of pollutants

entered the air; in 2012, there were 5,500 tonnes. This increase was due to a growth in production vol-

umes, especially in chemical production (Metakhim Ltd). Changes in sewage water discharge volumes are

shown in Table 30.

Table 30. Discharges of pollutants with sewage water for 1992-2012 (tonnes).

Year 1992 2002 2012 Reduction in relation to 1992

Reduction in relation to 2002

Suspended matters Oil products Total nitrogen Total phosphorous Fluorine Sulphates Aluminium Iron

3,180.5 9.0

157.6 820.2 77.9

2,049.3 58.3 4.0

198.7 1.8

12.33 16.03 2.262 315.7 2.158 1.563

153.142 2.287 9.154

57.853 31.967

300.697 2.157 3.742

16.01 5.00

12.78 51.17 34.44 6.49

27.02 2.56

1.30 0.79 1.35 0.28 0.07 1.05 1.00 0.42

As can be seen from the data, there is a significant reduction in the discharge of suspended matters due to

the start of mechanical cleaning at the treatment plant. Nitrogen discharges were also reduced. In addition,

the discharges of phosphorous increased more than three times; iron twice and fluoride 14 times. Even

though the increase in discharges was due to the increasing production volumes, such a sharp negative

trend indicates the urgent need to construct a treatment plant.

Activities necessary for removing the company from the HELCOM list of hot spots

The company is divided into three independent organisations:

1. VAZ-SUAL, a branch of OJSC SUAL

• Offering recommendations for the improvement of environmental management that can be im-

plemented only after the question of restructuring or closing the plant is finally solved.

• The share of the company of the total volume of waste water is about 3%, the sewage water is not

discharged into the waterbody and sent for treatment to Metakhim, so the planned environmental

activities should be aimed at additional treatment of industrial emissions.

The plant should be a HELCOM hot spot only on its impact on the atmospheric air.

2. Metakhim Ltd.

• Metakhim is the main source of impact on the environment. For Metakhim to be removed from the

list of hot spots, it must construct a treatment plant.

• In order to reduce emissions to the atmosphere, it is necessary to increase the effectiveness of gas

cleaning, especially for the production of phosphoric acid and polymineral fertilizers.

3. Parosilovoe hozyaystvo - Volkhov Ltd.

• The entity can be removed from the HELCOM’s list of hot spots since its activity is the production of

heat and electricity, and share of total emissions is less than 15%, and sewage water 1%. The sew-

age water is not discharged and sent to Metakhim for treatment.

Conclusion

As a result of the reorganisation, the Volkhov aluminium plant hot spot currently consists of three inde-

pendent organisations. From these, Parosilovoe hozyaystvo - Volkhov Ltd should be removed from the list

as it only has a small impact on the environment. The main source of emissions to the atmosphere is VAZ-

SUAL, a subsidiary of OJSC SUAL. It is not possible to develop the necessary environmental activities before

a decision is made about its restructuring or closure. The main source of sewage water discharges are

chemicals from Metakhim Ltd. The significant increase of discharges of individual pollutants requires the

urgent construction of a treatment plant which is scheduled for 2013-2014.

Table 31. Analysis of the implementation of HELCOM Recommendations by the companies that are part of hot spot No. 15.

HELCOM Recommendation Targets Standard

The situation at the entity Conclusion about conformity of the

target

Branch VAZ-SUAL of OJSC SUAL

Metakhim Ltd. Parosilovoe hozyaystvo - Volkhov Ltd.

RECOMMENDATION 17/6. Reduction of

pollution from discharges into water,

emissions into atmosphere and

phosphogypsum out of the production of

fertilizers

Discharges of phosphogypsum Do not discharge Fertilizers are not produced

Is not discharged Fertilizers are not produced

+ The impurity content in the raw

material Low Average -

Using of secondary (contaminated) sulphuric acid for cooking of phos-

phate charge

Do not use Is not used +

Re-use of industrial water Yes Yes + Recirculation of vapours, conden-

sates and industrial water Yes. Mainly in gas

scrubbers No -

Using of storm water Yes No - Using of dry processes Maximally Partially +/-

Direct cooling/damping Avoid No + Use of modern technologies of

sewage water treatment including chemical, physical-chemical and

biological treatment

Yes No. Only mechanical treatment of sewage water is carried out

_

Content of chemical substances in production

-

Total nitrogen (kg/t) - - Fluorides (kg/t) 0.3 No data Cadmium (g/t) 0.05 <0.2 Mercury (g/t) 0.01 <0.2

Zinc (g/t) 1 1.3 Phosphorus -Р (kg/t) 0.05 Produced only pot-

ash fertilizers RECOMMENDATION

23/11 Requirements for discharging of waste

water from the chemical production

Reducing the sewage water load at the expense of using best available

technologies

Industrial cooling wa-ter separation

Yes Yes Chemical industries are absent; entity

produces only heat and electricity.

Sewage waters are passed to

the Metakhim Ltd.

-

Sewage water pre-treatment. Joint sew-age water treatment

only in the case of high treatment efficiency

No Partially

Water re-use, use of Yes Yes



target



water-saving technol-ogies

Indirect cooling sys-tems

No data No data

Use of vacuum pro-cesses

No No

Mother liquor treat-ment

No Yes

Switching to less harm-ful reagents

No No

Permanent monitoring of sewage water pa-

rameters

No Measurements of sewage water pa-rameters coming

from other consum-ers is 1 time per

month Reducing of sewage water dis-

charge COD – treatment effi-ciency not less than

80%, concentration – not more than 40 mg/l

Sewage water are passed to Me-takhim Ltd.

53.222 -

Phosphorous – not more than 2 mg/l

29.784 -

Nitrogen – not more than 50 mg/l (or not more than 75 mg/l

when efficiency is not less than 75%)

4.862 +

Absorbable Organic Halogen – treatment efficiency – not less

than 80%, concentra-tion – not more than

1 mg/l

Is not determined No data

Mercury – not more than 0.05 mg/l




target



Cadmium - mot more than 0.2 mg/l


Cooper – not more than 0.5 mg/l

0.01 +

Nickel – not more than 1.0 mg/l

0.034 +

Lead – not more than 0.5 mg/l


Chromium – not more than 0.5 mg/l


Chromium -VI – not more than 0.1 mg/l


Zinc - 2.0 mg/l Is not determined No data Sewage water toxicity No data

Toxicity for fish TU (fish, 96 h) 2 Is not determined No data Toxicity for daphnia TU (daphnia, 48 h) 8 Is not determined No data

Toxicity for algae TU (algae, 72 h) 16 Is not determined No data Toxicity for bacteria TU (Fish vibrio, 0.5 h)

8 Is not determined No data

71

Hot spot No. 24 Large livestock farms (sewage water treatment and sediment

treatment)

General characteristics

Agriculture, mainly large livestock farms, is one of the main sources of nitrogen and phosphorous pollution

in the Baltic Sea. Initially, livestock farms with more than 50,000 heads of cattle were considered as a threat

to the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Within the framework of the JCP Programme, hot spot No. 24 was referred to

four large hog breeding farms: SAE (State Agricultural Company) Sputnik, SAE Novy Svet, SAE Pashsky and

SAE Vostochny, which are located in Leningrad Region.

The pig breeding complex Novy svet is situated in the Gatchina District of Leningrad Region, some 10 km

from the town of Gatchina. The complex was designed for fattening 120,000 pigs at a time and worked for

more than 30 years. The sewage water was discharged into the River Suyda (basin of the River Neva).

The pig fattening complex Vostochny is located in the Nurma settlement of the Tosnensky District and be-

gan operations in 1973. The maximum number of animals for fattening is 108,000 heads. The sewage water

is discharged into the Igolenka steam (Neva basin).

The pig fattening complex Sputnik is located in the Vsevolozhsk District near Romanovka, some 22 km from

the town of Vsevolozhsk. The first two lines were constructed in 1980. Its capacity is 250,000 pigs at a time.

Water runs from irrigated fields through the drainage system and horizontal sewers to the River Maurier

and then to Lake Ladoga.

Pashsky, a livestock complex for fattening bulls and calves, is located in Potanino in the Volkhov District, at

the 132nd kilometre point on the Murmansk highway. It was designed for fattening 30,000 heads of cattle.

The first stage for 10,000 heads, using Italian technology, began operations in 1975. The Pashsky complex

owned 8,000 hectares of land with double water regulation (polder land), on which the treated livestock

sewage water was discharged. The sewage water is discharged into the River Pasha and then to Lake Lado-

ga.

Condition of the hot spot by 2003

Due to the economic situation in Russia, the Sputnik and Novy Svet complexes almost went out of business.

Pashsky’s livestock decreased to 360 heads of cattle and Vostochny to 39,097.

SAE Novy Svet. Due to the lack of production, the complex is not hazard for the environment. The new

project, developed by the Northwest Research Institute of Mechanization and Electrification of Agriculture

of the Russian Academy of Agricultural sciences, if realized, would be ecological and should not lead to pol-

72

lution of the surrounding area. Resumption of production had been planned for 2004. The condition of the

gathering ponds caused some anxiety because the removal of the solid fractions that had settled to the

bottom of the ponds over 30 years was not carried out. Serious anxiety was also caused by the pond’s con-

dition in which the large stocks of peat-manure compost were present.

SAE Vostochny. The number of pigs was slowly reduced, and on 1 October 2003 they numbered 36,000. In

2002, the company became Vostochny Ltd. In 2002, an attempt to overhaul the treatment plant was done;

however, due to a change in property funding, the project was not carried out. The treatment facilities,

which have operated for more than 30 years, recently had a crisis – there was a poor level of sewage water

treatment. The discharged sewage water had an exceeding of MPC of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium,

organic matters and phenols. The treatment plant was also used to treat the sewage water of the settle-

ment of Nurma, which also increased the load. The plant was not renovated. Using the treatment plant in

such a condition could lead to a serious ecological disaster.

The silt-gathering ponds containing huge stocks of solid fraction (silt) were not cleaned, leading to a signifi-

cant reduction in volume. Cleaning is urgently needed.

In order to improve the environmental situation it was planned to:

• reconstruct the treatment plant;

• clean the silt gathering ponds to be used as agricultural fertilizers;

• purchase equipment to overhaul the air cleaning system; and

• construct a plant to process and produce meat-bone meal from the pigs’ waste.

SAE Sputnik. At the end of the reported period, pig complex was closed down as was the partially con-

structed treatment plant. The company went into liquidation.

SAE Pashsky. At the end of 2003 there were 360 heads of cattle (including 135 cows). The company was

divided into two parts – the Joint-Stock Company Kyselna, which owned 4 000 hectares of land, and the

near-bankrupt Pashsky, which – its land housed all livestock premises. Livestock rearing was not resumed

on the land of these two companies. A large amount of unused manure had been collected Pashsky’s land,

which is now well-decomposed compost and is a valuable organic fertilizer. However, because the land on

which the manure is stored is not protected from storm sewage water, it is constantly entering a state of

solid fraction compost and is decomposing into drainage network and the River Pasha, and then to Lake

Ladoga.

Current condition of the hot spot

By the beginning of 2009, four selected companies had the following characteristics.

73

SAE Novy Svet. OJSC Novy Svet was founded. It is the largest pork producer in Leningrad Region. The num-

ber of pigs at the beginning of 2009 stood at 26,000. An area of land used for storing a mixture of peat and

manure compost was left to stand.

At the beginning of 2012, Novy Svet had problems with the inspecting authorities because of non-

compliance with the rules on waste disposal. Consequently, the company had to invest RUB 36 million to

build a new workshop for manure preparation. However, in January 2013 the company again filed for bank-

ruptcy.

Vostochny Ltd. The company Rurik-Agro, which is owned by the Danish Group Idavang A/S, purchased the

industrial complex of the former SAE Vostochy. By the end of 2011, the number of sows numbered 6,850.

Today, after reconstruction and the installation of modern processing equipment, its annual production

capacity of the complete cycle is estimated at 180,000 commercial pigs.

With NEFCO funding, Rurik Agro constructed a number of sealed lagoons with a membrane cover in 2010.

The farm now meets both Russian and European environmental standards. According to NEFCO, the new

lagoons save about 230,000 m3 of water annually. To reduce the biogenic load on the environment, a post-

treatment station for manure liquid fraction was built in March 2011. Its main task is the production of

high-quality organic fertilizers. During production, the manure is divided into solid and liquid fractions in

two decanter centrifuges. The solid fraction is transported to the storage area and then is used as a fertiliz-

er. The liquid fraction’s ammonium nitrogen is removed with the help of an evaporator; at the output, am-

monium water is produced which also is used as a fertilizer.

The light fraction is used for irrigation and fertilizing crops. The company carries out regular measurements

of pollutant concentrations emitted by the livestock company on the border of the sanitary protection zone

as well as controlling soil quality as well as surface and groundwaters.

SAE Sputnik. The Closed Joint Stock Company Romanovka was established on its land. By the end of 2008,

the company had 4,700 pigs. Today, the company has filed for bankruptcy.

Public corporation Pashsky. According to 2008 data, the number of livestock was reduced to 165, of which

96 were cows. The company has a negative outlook.

The results of an analysis show a decline in livestock production at three out of four selected farms. Out-

puts in cattle and poultry farming Leningrad Region are also increasing, which has more impact on the envi-

ronment. Thus, labelling the above farms as the main sources of pollution is not representative.

74

Current state of the livestock sector in Leningrad Region

Agriculture in Leningrad Region has been one of the most dynamic sectors over the last nine years - it

demonstrates the stability and progressive development of all sectors of agricultural production. The live-

stock sector in Leningrad Region accounts for 69% of gross production (Figure 12).

Leningrad Region is one of the few Russian regions where, despite reforms, a large share of animal/poultry

production (76%) is produced at large agri-industrial enterprises including meat 97%; milk 92%; and eggs

99%. Such centralization on the one hand allows good management, including the adoption of innovations,

while on the other it significantly exacerbates the environmental consequences of the ineffective treatment

of animal waste.

Figure 13. Agricultural production volumes in Leningrad Region from 2007-2012 (according to data of the official portal of the Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries of Leningrad Region).

An assessment carried out within the framework of the Balthazar project ascertained that by the end of

2008, Leningrad Region had 136 cattle farms with a total number of cattle standing at 172,220 (average

number per farm: 1,266). In recent years, the number of cattle has remained stable (Figure 13). Most farms

specialize in dairy livestock production (133 farms).

As a result of a pig inventory within the framework of the Balthazar project, Leningrad Region had nine

farms in 2008, each of which had an average of 17,444 pigs (total number 47,700). Today, the number of

pigs in the region is growing steadily and the number of pigfarms has increased to 13 (Figure 14). In 2011,

265,112 heads of pigs were slaughtered.

75

Figure 14. Dynamics of the number of cattle in Leningrad Region (1,000s).

Figure 15. Dynamics of the number of pigs in Leningrad Region (1,000s).

There are 13 poultry farms in Leningrad Region:

• seven egg producers (CJSC PF Nevskaya, Lenoblptitseprom Ltd., CJSC Agrokomplex Oredezh, CJSC

PF Lagolovo, CJSC PF Sinyavinskaya, Pig Production Complex PF Udarnik, OJSC PF Primorskaya),

• three specialising in broiler production (OJSC PF Severnaya, PF Russko-Vysockaya Ltd., OJSC Nagor-

noe),

• one poultry farm produces both eggs and broilers (CJSC PF Roskar).

By the end of 2008, there were 16 poultry farms (data from the Balthazar and Primer projects) with a total

number of poultry standing at 20,415,950 (average number 1,275,997 per farm). The production of poultry

products had increased by more than 25% by the end of 2011 (Figure 15).

1990 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

551,2

175,3 170,4 172 170,4 163,9 166,1

1990 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

585,1

50,4 49,1 74,7

148,5 167,5 181,1

76

Figure 16. Dynamics of the number of poultry in Leningrad Region (1,000s).

Dairy goat breeding has also taken off in the region is progressed. At the CJSC Pedigree Plant Privnevskoe

and the CJSC Pedigree Plant Krasnoozerskoeof Saanen and Alpine goats breeds are reared. The total num-

ber of goats in these farms is 2,236, of which 1,253 are dairy goats.

Many animals are bred for the fur farming industry in Leningrad Region, which has two main companies:

Sever Ltd. of Vyborgsk District and Severnaya Pushnina Ltd. that has several farms in the region. During

2011, some 100,000 mink, 5,000 blue fox, 5,000 fox, and thousands of racoon dog pelts were processed.

Manure and dung disposal

Agricultural enterprises in Leningrad Region annually produces 0.3 million tonnes of pig manure, 2 million

tonnes of chicken manure and 2.5 million tonnes of cattle manure. They contain 44,000 tonnes of nitrogen

and 25,000 tonnes of phosphorous, which are sources of excessive inputs of biogenic matters into water-

bodies that cause eutrophication.

According to the results of the inventory of agricultural enterprises implemented within the framework of

the Balthazar and Primer projects, the following features of the existing system of manure disposal in the

region were ascertained:

• The predominance of livestock farming in the region leads to the accumulation of very large

amounts of manure and dung in one place and thus creates areas of extremely high loads of nitro-

gen and phosphorous on the waterbodies. These loads are highest in the districts of Vsevolozhsk,

Vyborg, Kirov, Lomonosov and Tosnensky.

• The vast majority of farms were built 30-50 years ago and do not meet the current requirements of

safe disposal of livestock wastes. Upgrading manure storage facilities is slow due to a lack of funds

with the exception of new enterprises (often with the foreign capital), but their share in agricultural

production is still small.

2001 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

12685,5

17672 18385 19659,1 20413,9 20687,9

77

• Due to the lack of capacity and the poor state of manure storages, many companies are forced to

keep the manure in fields. Leakage from manure storages and other temporary storage points are

the main sources of nitrogen and phosphorous in surface water.

• There are only few deep treatment installations for manure and dung in the region to date.

• By the end of 2008, all cattle and pig farms had enough of their own arable lands for manure dis-

posal. It is a different situation with poultry farms: there are only few places for manure disposal; at

the same time, there is no stable demand for chicken manure from other sectors.

• A negative impact when using manure as the fertilizer (especially in terms of attracting third-party

consumers) is formed at the federal level, with the system of state subsidies in place to use mineral

fertilizers.

• Most enterprises do not have emissions and/or waste disposal permits and thus they do not have

to pay any costs for the negative impacts they have on the environment.

• The state-controlled system of handling livestock farming wastes is poor – most violations are only

detected after the environment has suffered extensive damage. Currently, however, significant ef-

forts to improve the effectiveness of environmental control are being taken at the regional level.

Within the framework of the Balthazar project, the list of agricultural enterprises that have the most signifi-

cant impact on the environment has been revised. In the new list, 20 livestock farms that make the largest

contributions of nitrogen and phosphorous to the waterbodies of the Baltic Sea basin are included (Table

32).

Table 32. List of the main livestock farms in Leningrad Region forming the biggest share of nitrogen and phosphorus loads on the environment (based on the Balthazar project data).

Company name Farming type Livestock in 2008 (1,000s)

Location Production, t/year

of nitro-gen

of phospho-rous

Poultry farm Lomonosovskaya Meat poultry 4,090 Settl. Gorbunki,

Lomonosov District 3,680 1,227

Poultry farm Severnaya Meat poultry 3,860 Urban settlem. 1 Sinyavino,

Kirov District 3,564 1,188

Poultry farm Roskar Egg and meat poultry 3,410 Settl. Pervomayskoe, Vyborg

District 3,069 852

Poultry farm Synyavinskaya Egg poultry 2,800 Urban settl. Praladozhskit,

Kirov District 2,534 563

Agroholding Pulkovsky Pig-breeding 56 Vil. Tarasovo, Tosnensk District 1,307 316

Poultry farm Russko-Vysotskaya Meat poultry 830 Vil. Russko-Vysotskaya, Lo-

monosov District 748 249

Poultry farm Voiskovitsy Pedigree poul-try 720 Settl. Voiskovitsy,

Gatchina District 644 215

Poultry farm Lenoblptitseprom Egg poultry 1,010 Settl. Tervolovo and Skvorit-

sy, Gatchina District 911 202

Open Joint-stock Com-pany Rurik-Agro Pig-breeding 35 Settl. Nurma, Tosnensk Dis-

trict 817 198

Poultry farm Primorskaya

Egg and meat poultry 720 Settl. Krasnaya Dolina, Vy-

borgsk District 650 181

78

Company name Farming type Livestock in 2008 (1,000s)

Location Production, t/year

of nitro-gen

of phospho-rous

Poultry farm Nevskaya Egg and meat poultry 660 Settl. Leskolovo, Vsevolozhsk

District 590 164

Poultry farm Udarnik Egg and meat poultry 640 Settl. Pobeda, Vyborgsk Dis-

trict 577 160

Agrocomplex Oredezh Egg poultry 700 Vil. Batovo-1, Gatchina Dis-trict 661 147

Pig-breeding complex Novy Svet Pig-breeding 26 Settl. Novy Svet, Gatchina

District 607 147

Poultry farm Lagolovo Egg poultry 490 п. Лаголово, Ломоносовский район 441 98

Livestock complex Bor Pig breeding 15 Vil. Romashki, Priozersk Dis-trict 350 84

Livestock complex Ras-svet Cattle 10.3 Vil. Retun, Luzhsk District 509 72

Livestock complex Agro-Balt Cattle 3.2 Vil. Bolshaya Pustomerzha,

Kingiseppsk District район 263 40

Livestock complex Pla-mya Pig-breeding 7 Vil. Syasskelevo,

Gatchina District 164 40

Livestock complex Detskoselsky

cattle, pig-breeding

5 – pigs, 3.2 – cat-

tle St. Petersburg 257 39

The above-mentioned companies produce more than 50% of the biogenic load from the livestock of Lenin-

grad Region to the Baltic basin.

Participation of Leningrad Region in state programs and international projects for

the protection of the environment during agricultural activities

Leningrad Region’s Government pays a great attention to the development of agriculture and livestock

farming, in particular, regarding the environmental aspects of agricultural land-use. The target of the Agri-

culture Development Program in Leningrad Region (2013 to 2020) is currently being implemented. A sub-

program on technical and innovation development includes activities for the implementation of innovation

technologies in the field of organic waste utilisation.

The region is aiming at high-tech livestock waste disposal. According to the program, the proportion of ag-

ricultural wastes treated by the biotechnological methods should reach 10%. In particular, the region plans

to implement the support of innovation projects related to energy production from alternative sources

including biofuel production from agricultural wastes. In order to implement this major activity, the com-

pensation for the interest payments of investment credits for construction, overhaul and the moderniza-

tion of bioenergy installations and facilities for the production of bioenergy production are provided.

In 2011, experts from the committee on agriculture and fisheries in Leningrad Region and the Northwest

Research Institute of Mechanization and Electrification of Agriculture of the Russian Academy of Agricultur-

al sciences developed and adopted a waste disposal concept for agricultural enterprises in Leningrad Re-

79

gion for 2012-2015 and up to 2020. In 2012, the following were developed, commissioned by the Agency

for Economic Development and the Committee of the Agricultural sector of Leningrad Region:

• Guidelines on the use of ecological and technological evaluation criteria when evaluating invest-

ment projects of the livestock industry development as well as planning the agricultural sector de-

velopment in the region.

• The long-term project on the conversion of agricultural waste from agricultural enterprises in the

region into organic fertilizer.

Investigations showed that the practical implementation of the developed guidelines and the pro-

gram will reduce the loads of nitrogen and phosphorous into the atmosphere by 2020 to 50%. The target

will be reached by the phased implementation of best available technologies of handling wastes and the

implementation of industrial environmental control (technological requirements of handling ma-

nure/dung).

Moreover, during the reporting period 12 international projects devoted to the environmental safety of

livestock in Leningrad Region was implemented. The list of projects is presented in Table 33.

Table 33. List of international projects of the ecological approach to the livestock sector implemented in Leningrad Region during the reporting period (in accordance with the data of the Committee of Agriculture and Fishery complex of Leningrad Region. No. i.o. Country Sponsoring

agency Project

executor Project name Results

1 Finland Environment Ministry

Pro-agriya South Karelia

The principles of proper agri-culture practices (2005-2006).

Publication of a set of rules on envi-ronmentally friendly agricultural prac-tices in livestock, fodder production and poultry.

2 Finland Agriculture and forestry

Ministry

Pro-agriya South Karelia

Strengthening of cooperation with the authorities and fron-tier organizations in the field of agriculture (2004-2006).

Organised and conducted two study tours to Finland: Environmental prob-lems in agriculture (2004) and Poultry manure removal (2006).

3

Finland European Union, IN-

TERREG Program

University of Applied Sciences in

Mikkeli

Decrease the environmental impact of livestock production at the North-West of Russia (January 2008-2009).

The analysis of the current state of environmental safety in the livestock sector in the pilot farms in Leningrad Region was conducted: Plamya, Novy Svet and poultry farm Primorskaya

4

Finland Environment Ministry

Ramboll company

Activities to struggle with menaces to Baltic Sea from growing agriculture industry of Leningrad Region – final report 2008).

The investigation of loads of pollutions was carried out. Summary of previous projects in agro-ecology field was con-ducted.

5 Finland Environment Ministry

Environ-mental

institute

Project PRIMER Identification of priority activities to reduce eutrophication process from North-West of Russia to the Gulf of Finland (2008).

Investigation of sources of nutrient loading into the Gulf of Finland: point and diffuse, the identification of exist-ing and future sources of pollution.

80

No. i.o. Country Sponsoring

agency Project


6 Sweden Swedish International

Develop-ment and

Cooperation Agency SIDA

University of Agricul-tural Sci-ences in Uppsala

Agriculture, environment and ecosystem of Leningrad Re-gion (2003-2009).

Technology solutions of agricultural waste removal and treatment of CJSC Rapti and CJSC Krasnoozernoe produc-tions were suggested; seminars and trips to Sweden for the safe use of pesticides, ecosystem health; imple-mentation of water monitoring.

7 Finland Financial Corporation Nefco, Envi-ronmental

Partnership Northern

Dimension, poultry farm

Roskar

Poultry farm Ros-karm Bio-lan com-

pany

Project of incineration of poultry manure at the poultry farm Roskar (2007-2009).

Preparation of investment plans for the installations of manure incinera-tion at four poultry farms. A joint en-terprise was not established. At the beginning of 2009, Biolan company said that their installation has not passed the tests.

8 Finland Helcom Finland organisa-tion MTT, Environ-mental

Institute, Pro-agriya of South Karelia

Towards enhanced protec-tion of the Baltic Sea from main land-based threats: BALTHAZAR (2009-2012).

Sampling and analysis of water sam-ples from water sources flowing near agricultural enterprises were carried out. The list of agricultural hot spots was updated. In 2011-2012, the work modernization of the treatment of poultry manure into organic fertilizers was done; mod-el design estimates for the construc-tion of modular cell-fermenters for manure treatment was developed. Such technology was introduced by LTD. BIOZEM to CJSC Agrocomplex Oredezh. The technological regulations for the pilot farms of the Region were developed.

9 Finland Financial Corporation

Nefco

Peyuri company

2010. Preparation of business plans to improve the treat-ment of wastes from poultry farming at poultry farms of Leningrad Region.

50% of poultry farms were investigat-ed. It was concluded that biogas pro-duction and manure incineration are very expensive. The best approach is the treatment of manure into fertilizer and compost production. The estab-lishment of a new joint enterprise was discussed.

10 Finland Financial Corporation Nefco, Envi-ronmental

Partnership Northern

Dimension, Environmen-tal Ministry of Finland, Agriculture Ministry of

Finland

Maxwell Stamp (Great Britain)

Sustainable treatment of manure/dung at the farms of Leningrad Region (from 2011).

Feasibility studies for the pilot farms Pervomayskoe, Bor, poultry farm Pri-mosrkaya and poultry farm Udarnik were carried out. Two seminars on environmental safety when imple-menting various methods of livestock and poultry waste treatment were conducted. Business plans for the management of waste products for farms were made.

81

No. i.o. Country Sponsoring

agency Project


11 Finland Agriculture and forestry

Ministry. Environment

Ministry

Joint Rus-sian-

Finland consulting company

Pro-agriya, South Karelia

Within the framework of the Program of join cooperation the project Development of ecology and environmental protection in agricultural sector of Leningrad Region. Subproject: Ecological solu-tions of sustainable livestock waste management at OJSC Pedigree plant Novoladozh-skiy.

Since 2009, investigations of cattle waste treatment have been carried out. A biogas installation was recom-mended and a project for the collec-tion and storage of manure in lagoons was prepared.

The data show that the authorities of Leningrad Region are paying considerable attention to environmental

safety in agriculture. International projects aimed at detailing the situation of the discharges of biogenic

elements from agricultural enterprises to the Baltic Sea as well as exploring the possibilities of implement-

ing modern technologies to handle manure are constantly being implemented in the region, (Table 34).

Table 34. Analysis of the compliance of agriculture activities of HELCOM Recommendations 24/3 and 28Е/4 in Leningrad Region.

Indicator Standard Agriculture situation in Len-ingrad Region

Conformity of the activity to the

standard

Evaporation of ammonium from livestock farms. Handling with manure

It is necessary to monitor that exceeding of nitrogen are not formed in manure by using the correct diet to suit the needs of a particular animal.

Analysis of the diet of ani-mals in terms of nitrogen content in the manure in most farms is not carried out.

-

In poultry emissions, the moisture con-tent in the manure should be reduced by decreasing or by removing it as soon as possible to the stores located outside the hen houses.

Most poultry farms imple-ment activities for reducing the moisture content of ma-nure and optimizing its re-moval

+

Programs include strategies and activi-ties for reducing the ammonium from vaporing from livestock farms.

Most enterprises do not implement programs to re-duce emissions. Most enter-prises do not pay for emis-sions of mainline production.

-

Solid manure should be placed in dung-yards with a solid floor and side walls.

Storing manure in piles on open land is widely spread.

-

Liquid manure should be drained though the outlet pipes and stored in dung-yards for liquid manure.

Farms use different systems for disposal of liquid waste.

+

Tanks for the storage of liquid manure and wastes from farms should be made from a stable waterproof material and should not break during use.

At many farms, manure stores are leaking due to wear.

-

Manure storage capacity should ensure the storage of the manure produced for at least six months.

At enterprises with manure storages for their capacity is sufficient. Manure storage capacity at poultry farms was exceeded due to poor sales of manure.

+

Animal manure should be used so as to achieve the maximum efficiency of its

Manure usage efficiency is low. Manure transmission

-

82



standard

use. capabilities to third-party organisation are limited.

The maximum amount of manure that is entered each year, including the excre-ments of the animals, coming to soil while pasturing, is calculated on the content of nitrogen and phosphorous in it. With it to soil should come not more than 170 kg/hectare of nitrogen and not more than 25 kg/hectare of phospho-rous.

Entering organic fertilizers into the soil is significantly below the standards in most cases.

+

The balance between the number of animals on the farm and the area of land on which the manure is entered should be calculated and represented as the density of animals. Maximum number of animals should be determined taking into account the balance between the amount of phosphorous and nitrogen in the manure and the requirements for the organisation of plant nutrition.

Most farms have their own areas for manure disposal. The exception is poultry farms.

-

Farmers should be encouraged when they use manure.

The legislative barriers com-plicate manure transfer to third-party organisations. Government stimulates plant growers to use mineral, but not organic fertilizers

-

It is necessary to encourage researches on the content of biogenic substances in animal manure as well as calculations of the appropriate conversion coefficients per unit of livestock

In Leningrad Region, detailed studies into the nutrient content of manure is carried out.

+

It is necessary to develop national guide-lines with recommendations on the use of fertilizers and they should take into account: - soil properties, the content of nutri-ents, soil type and relief; - climatic conditions and water regime; - the form of land-use agricultural prac-tice including crop rotation systems; - all external potential sources of nutri-ents.

At the national level, there are no normative guidelines for the use of organic fertiliz-ers.

-

Handling with agricultural sewage water

Cowshed or similar structures for live-stock are designed in such a way that the ground and surface water is not contam-inated.

When designing facilities, provision to mitigate the pollution of ground and sur-face water are obligatory.

+

Programs including strategies and activi-ties to reduce discharges from agricul-ture and household sewage water (after washing equipment) are developed.

Specialized programs of sew-age water reduction from agriculture have not been developed.

-

Reducing soil ero-sion

In order to reduce the soil erosion, it is necessary to encourage technologies of transition to other forms of tillage.

Stimulation of the transition to the new ways of tillage is absent.

-

Permits for nature Large livestock enterprises must obtain The normative base provides +

83



standard

use permission for nature use by taking into account environmental aspects and the farm’s impact on the environment.

the need to obtain permits for discharges, emissions and waste disposal for all types of enterprises. In practice, only very large farms have such permits.

Activities to pro-tect waterbodies and areas intended for the intercep-tion of nutrients flows

If necessary, buffer water protection areas, and areas for interception of nu-trients or sedimentation ponds are cre-ated.

Water protection zones are established for all waterbod-ies in the Russian Federation. Placing manure storages within protection zones is prohibited.

+

Specialized water protection zones for groundwater protection are created, such as reducing the dose of used ferti-lizers, the establishment of zones where use of manure is prohibited, creating meadows of many years use

Restrictions have been set on economic activities in zones of sanitary protection of drinkable water intakes on the basis of the groundwater.

+

It is necessary to maintain and, where possible, to restore water-logged grounds in order to reduce the leaching of nutrients and maintain biological diversity.

The drainage and reclama-tion of water-logged grounds has stopped. Activities to restore some water-logged grounds are on-going.

+

Planned activities to improve situation

An analysis of the changes in handling the wastes generated by livestock farming clearly shows that focus-

ing attention on individual large farms does not bring the desired effect. Most of the enterprises identified

as critical points shut down or change their status and new large pollutants appear. The appearance of new

sources of extremely high biogenic load in the agricultural sector is mainly due to the poor environmental

safety system in Russia. The administrative and economic measures in place do not as such stimulate com-

panies to use the best technologies and reduce the negative impact on the environment. This is why the

planned activities should relate to improving the management and control systems of handling agricultural

wastes at federal, regional and individual enterprises levels.

In accordance with the approved Principles of State Policy in the field of environmental development of the

Russian Federation for the period up to 2030 (30 April 2012), a number of actions will be adopted:

• improving the efficiency of state environmental supervision at the federal and regional lev-

els;

• an environmental regulation based on technological standards to ensure an acceptable risk

level for the environment and public health;

84

• the reduction of specific emissions and discharges of pollutants to the environment as well

as waste generation (in different sectors) to a level in line with those achieved in devel-

oped countries;

• the creation and development of the infrastructure of environmentally safe waste treat-

ment, its neutralisation and disposal;

• encouraging enterprises to carry out programs modernize production;

• the implementation of international environmental standards and putting them in line with

international systems.

The adoption of these legal acts will provide quality improvement of environmental safety level when han-

dling wastes from the livestock sector in Leningrad Region

Before the State Duma adopts these changes in the Federal Environmental Legislation and taking into ac-

count problems related to the treatment of animal/poultry wastes, it would be advisable that the local legal

act – Company Standards (Technological regulations of manure treatment and use) is applied in Leningrad

Region. The technological regulations of manure treatment and its use as an organic fertilizer” has been

tested in a number of entities in Leningrad Region (CJSC Pedigree farm Pervomayskoe, CJSC Agrokomplex

Oredezh, Livestock Complex Bor Ltd., CJSC Pedigree plant Agro-Balt, CJSC Pedigree Plant Krasnoarmeyskiy,

etc.). Their introduction enables the enterprise to create an effective system to control the production of

fertilizer from manure and dung. The technological regulations in accordance with the legislation of the

Russian Federation have the status of a local legal document and all the HELCOM requirements related to

environmental safety are taken into account. The development of the technological regulations of the

treatment and use of manure (dung) should be made individually for each farm, taking into consideration

the volume and parameters of the feedstock, the availability and structure of agricultural land, the current

crop rotation, and the presence and type of agricultural machinery. As practice shows, if an enterprises

adopts the technological regulations, it can reduce the emissions of nitrogen and phosphorous by more

than 30%.

For all large farms in the region to adopt the regulation, it is necessary to put into force a regional norma-

tive legal act that requires owners to develop these procedures for environmentally sound manure han-

dling.

Conclusion

Livestock farming in Leningrad Region is a well-developed sector of the economy whose share in the gross

regional product has increased in recent years. The predominance of a large-scale commercial production

sector coupled with a high degree of poor storage facilities for storing manure exacerbates the problem of

excessive inputs of biogenic substances from the agricultural sector. The results of numerous investigations

85

conducted within the framework of domestic and international projects had little effect in trying to solve

the problem by supporting environmental activities at individual farms. The necessity to implement institu-

tional reforms related to livestock waste management is seen at the authority level in the sector.

The introduction of the technological regulations will result in a significant decrease of the biogenic load to

the Baltic Sea and the ultimate removal of the region’s agricultural sector from HELCOM’s list of hot spots.

3. Kaliningrad Region

Hot spot No. 49 Sovietsk PPM

History of the development of the enterprise

The Sovietsk pulp and paper mill is located in the town of Sovietsk on the left bank of the River Neman (Fig-

ure 16). It was founded at the beginning of 20th century and underwent a complete rebuild in 1946.

By the end of the 1880s, the mill was producing 130,000 tonnes of sulphite pulp and 35,000 tonnes of dif-

ferent types of paper annually. Four paper machines were installed on its establishment and were modern-

ized in the 1970s and 1980s. The mill’s production was mainly for the Soviet Union.

In the 1990s, water for production was taken from the River Neman and was some 35 million m3/year; wa-

ter discharged back into the river was 34 million m3/year. The mill has a water treatment system, but it is

inefficient – the reason why it is on HELCOM’s list of hot spots. In Soviet times, the construction of an off-

site treatment plant with a capacity of 169,000 m3/day (construction scheduled for 1983) was planned,

funded by the state. However, the amount of allocated funds coupled with the lack of available construc-

tion capacity at that time in Kaliningrad Region meant that it was not possible to complete the project with-

in the timetable set and thus many facilities were left unfinished and destroyed. In 1992, funding stopped

completely as did the construction work.

Because of this and the need to meet the HELCOM Requirements on Baltic Sea water protection - one of

the environmental problems faced by the mill - the Board of Directors made a decision in 1993 to reduce

pulp production by shutting down one machine, which would reduce water supply, and water and pollutant

discharges by 50%.

To reduce the negative impact on the environment, a technical policy was implemented to promote envi-

ronmentally friendly technologies. In 1994, the mill began to plan the production of corrugated cardboard

and boxes and began operations in 1998.

86

Figure 17. Location of the Sovietsk PPM.

In 2000-2001, PM2 was rebuilt to produce paper for the plane layers of corrugated cardboard at a cost of

RUB 17,410 million.

Figure 18. Paper machine at Sovietsk PPM (2006).

The combined heat and power plant (CHPP) was the most significant stationary source of air pollution in

Sovietsk. The emissions of harmful substances with flue gases have an impact across the city area and part-

ly to the neighbouring Republic of Lithuania.

Originally, the combined heat and power station operated on coal (steam boilers No. 1-4) and fuel oil

(steam boilers No. 5-8); however, in January 2002 coil burning was stopped and work began on converting

it to natural gas burning with fuel oil as a reserve fuel. Currently, the CHPP is on loan to a Sovietsk municipal

enterprise.

87

After the conversion of boilers Nos.7 and 8 to natural gas, the amount of sulphurous anhydride, nitrogen

oxides and oil ash discharged together with the flue gases has been reduced. However, the problem of the

ash dump formed over several years (Figure 18) - located in the northwest of the mill site 850 m from the

wood-preparation workshop - is still a problem. It was used by the mill from 1970 as a precipitation tank for

hydraulic ash removal (mechanical treatment of ash slurry) and covered an area of 10 hectares banked by a

dike on the perimeter and equipped with dicshraging wells precipitation ash after being cleaned.

Most of the ash is formed from the combustion of coals from Lvovsk-Volynsk.

Figure 19. The Sovietsk ash dump (2006).

From 1999 to 2001, Vorkutinsk coal was burned producing 563,024 tonnes of ash.

Due to the conversion of the CHPP from heavy fuel oil to fuel oil in 2002, the discharge of ash pulp into the

precipitation tank was ceased and the discharging wells were closed. As a result, the dump site was planted

with grass and shrubs, typical for the coastal zone of the River Neman.

The mill management also discussed the possibilities of using ash as a raw material for cement production.

However, as the nearest customer was a cement plant in Leningrad Region, the delivery of ash by rail with

existing rates would be an unprofitable venture for the mill.

Great work has been performed in order to solve the problems associated with the local treatment of sew-

age water from the mill after transferring to the biological treatment plant, which increased its quality to

meet the highest requirements for fishery waterbodies in the River Neman.

88

The mill carried out a number of environmental activities:

• The transition from ammonia to 100% sodium base for the receipt of sulphite cooking acid

that reduced the nitrogen contamination in sewage water by 86 t/year.

• The use of sodium hypochlorite for the bleaching of pulp instead of calcium hypochlorite

significantly reduced generation of waste (sludge).

• Equipment was installed for the capture of sulphurous anhydride during the desulphitation

process of the cooking liquor before being further processed. Recycled sulphur anhydride

was used to make the acid liquor used in the last stage of the bleaching process (acid

treatment).

• A study was made at the OJSC Sovietsk PPM with the aim of reducing water consumption,

water discharge and the amount of pollutants discharged from mill into the River Neman.

• Water recycling and water reuse in the technological process were increased.

During the pulp bleaching process, great attention was paid to increasing water use in recycling. Thus, for

mass washing and dilution, hot water was used after the fourth turbo-generator to the amount of 500

m3/hour.

In 2004, the scheme to reuse recycled water from vacuum-filter No.7 (175 m3/hour) was implemented. As a

result of the overhaul of the draining section, it was possible to improve the washing quality of the pulp in

the drainers; moreover, the conversion of two thickeners (Nos. 5 and 6) in the unbleached pulp cleaning

section to detarrers also improved the washing quality in the cleaning section.

Due to the washing quality in the cleaning section, the tar content in the pulp mass was significantly de-

creased, which allowed the use of recycled (filter from vacuum-filter No.7) instead of fresh water at the

grain dilution stage, without worsening the bleaching quality. The cost of the project was RUB 0.307 mil-

lion.

The overhaul of drainers Nos.1-9 reduced the contamination of suspended matters in the sewage water to

60 mg/l, as stipulated by the technological process regulations.

As a result, water consumption for production from the River Neman was 24.8 million m3/year and water

discharge 22.6 million m3/year. After 2004, the mill continued to implement its development plan.

In 2007, a reconstruction project with conversion to the viscose pulp output was planned. However, in June

2008 there was a fire at the mill which inflicted irreparable damage to production. By a decision of the

Board of Directors on 1 July 2008, the pulp production at the mill was suspended. Paper, corrugated card-

89

board and packaging were produced from the finished pulp which came from Arkhangelsk Region. The ac-

cumulated paper mass and imported waste paper were used as raw materials in production.

In June 2009, due to the mill’s inability to cover a sizeable payment, the General Meeting of Shareholders

decided to voluntary liquidate Sovietsk PPM. The proceedings are ongoing with the mill’s estate being sold

or leased to entities.

The production capacities of the former Sovietsk PPM have been transferred to OJSC Atlas-Market in ac-

cordance with the agreement of 1 October 2010. OJSC Atlas-Market manufactures, for example napkins

from imported bleached paper, paper for corrugated products, cardboard from imported pulp and corru-

gated cardboard.

Production volumes as well as water consumption and discharges (Figure 19) have significantly decreased

(approximately 10-fold). The discharge of pollutants - formed during paper production (tarry matters,

lignin, methanol, phormaldegyde, chloroform, ions of acetic acid, acetone, phenols) - has stopped

completely. From the five outfalls to the River Neman, three still remain: main (backwater), after the

energy workshop and from the CHPP, which currently works on fuel oil.

Figure 20. Volume of sewage water of the Sovietsk PPM during 1992-2011.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 2006 2011

Vol

ume

of se

wag

e w

ater

dis

posa

l, m

ln.m

3 /yae

r

Years

90

Figure 21. Receipt of the total nitrogen to the River Neman coming with the sewage water from the Sovi-etsk PPM (tonnes/year).

In 2011, the mill discharged 3,047,400 m3 of water which was only mechanically treated. A calculation of

the volume of discharged water was carried out on the basis of special the technological standards of the

formation of the sewage water by unit of production. The volumes discharged with the sewage water were

(tonnes):

• BOD5 – 48.8 • COD – 254.5 • Total phosphorous – 0.074 • Total nitrogen – 0.974

Figure 22. Receipt of the total phosphorous loads to the River Neman coming with the sewage water from the Sovietsk PPM (tonnes/year).

Also, 7,131 tonnes of nitrogen oxides were emitted into the atmosphere.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Dis

char

ge v

olum

e, to

ns

Years

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Dis

char

ge v

olum

e, to

ns

Years

91

OJSC Atlas-Market issued all permits for water use, emissions to the atmosphere and waste handling. OJSC

Atlas-Market developed and implemented the programme to measure the sewage water quality, maintain

regular observations for the waterbody and its water-protection zone on 6 July 2011 (valid until 31 Decem-

ber 2013). It includes an approved list of identified pollutants in its sewage water and control points along

the River Neman.

The assessment of the contamination level in the waterbody used by OJSC Atlas-Market was taken at a

point 50 m below outfall No.2 (backwater), 57.7 km from the mouth of the river below where the outfall of

ME Vodokanal is located.

Table 35. Results of water monitoring in the River Neman (2012) at the discharge point of OJSC Atlas-Market’s sewage water.

Substances

Discharge into the River Neman at outfall No.1 (main)

Discharge into the River Neman at out-fall No. 2 (backwater)

24.07 02.10 average 24.07 02.10 average mg/dm3 mg/dm3

Ph - 8.15 - - 7.76 - Suspended matters 14.0 19.0 16.5 15.0 15.0 15.0

BOD5 3.4 13.4 8.4 2.3 5.0 3.7 COD 33.0 69.0 51.0 26.0 35.0 30.5

Chloride-ion 18.3 18.2 18.3 37.0 23.9 30.5 Sulphate-ion 16.7 22.7 19.7 21.0 22.7 21.9

Ammonium nitrogen 0.51 0.36 0.44 0.42 0.36 0.39 Nitrate nitrogen 0.26 0.15 0.20 0.46 0.77 0.62 Nitrite nitrogen < 0.002 < 0.006 < 0.006 0.021 < 0.006 0.021 Total nitrogen 0.92 0.63 0.78 1.04 1.27 1.16

Phosphate Phosphorous < 0.016 0.02 0.02 < 0.016 0.034 0.034 Oil products 0.011 0.130 0.071 0.015 0.013 0.014

Iron 0.122 < 0.05 0.12 0.19 0.09 0.14 Phenol (mkg/dm3) 1.30 0.80 1.05 0.57 0.70 0.64

OJSC Atlas-Market conducts studies of the River Neman’s water in the vicinity of the sewage discharge in

accordance with the adopted monitoring program. The results for 2012 are given in Table 36. It gives water

value indicators of the River Neman at points of sewage water entry from three outfalls: 100 m above the

top outfall and 50 m below the outfall which is the last of the flows.

As only studies were carried out in 2012, it is difficult to draw any concrete data on what impact the com-

pany has on the River Neman. However, it can be assumed that for almost all indicators, an exceeding of 5-

10% has been observed 50 m downstream and the exceeding for phenol is almost 300%.

92

Some 400 tonnes of production and consumption wastes are generated per year – some 70% being packag-

ing polyethylene, from which paper waste comes from. Waste of hazard classes 4 and 5 are transferred to

the landfill.

Figure 23. Location of ash and bark dumps, and water monitoring points of the River Neman near the out-

falls of OJSC Atlas-Market. 1 = outfall No. 1 (main); 2 = outfall No. 2 (backwater); 3 = outfall No. 3 (after

energy workshop); 4 = control point 100 m above outfall No. 3; 5 = control point 50 m below outfall No. 2.

Table 36. Results of the water monitoring of the River Neman in 2012 at the discharge point of OJSC Atlas-Market (continued).

Sub-stances

Outfall No. 3 (after the energy work-shop) on the River Neman at the dis-

charge point of outfall No. 3

The River Neman 100 m above the discharge of

outfall No. 3

The River Neman 50 m below the discharge of outfall No. 2

(backwater)

24.07. 02.10. average 24.07. 02.10. aver-

age 24.07. 02.10. average

mg/dm3 mg/dm3 mg/dm3 pH - 7.06 - - 8.1 - - 8.05 -

Sus-pended matters

6.9 10.8 8.9 18.0 12.0 15.0 17.0 14.4 15.7

BOD5 3.1 4.2 3.7 4.1 2.6 3.4 3.5 3.9 3.7 COD 28.0 47.0 37.5 31.0 27.0 29.0 30 30 30

Chloride-ion 17.2 16.9 17.1 16.2 17.9 17.1 23 20.2 21.6

Sul-phate-

ion 19.0 23.3 21.2 18.9 21.2 20.1 19 22.4 20.7

Ammo-nium

nitrogen 0.47 0.31 0.39 0.43 0.31 0.37 0.41 0.40 0.41

Nitrate 0.37 0.28 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.23 0.31 0.38 0.35

93

Sub-stances

Outfall No. 3 (after the energy work-shop) on the River Neman at the dis-

charge point of outfall No. 3

The River Neman 100 m above the discharge of

outfall No. 3

The River Neman 50 m below the discharge of outfall No. 2

(backwater)

24.07. 02.10. average 24.07. 02.10. aver-

age 24.07. 02.10. average

mg/dm3 mg/dm3 mg/dm3 nitrogen Nitrite

nitrogen 0.010 < 0.006 0.01 0.012 < 0.006 0.012 0.012 < 0.006 0.012

Total nitrogen 1.14 0.86 1.00 0.90 0.54 0.72 0.85 0.90 0.88

Phos-phate Phos-

phorous

0.065 0.031 0.048 0.02 0.031 0.0255 <0.016 <0.016 <0.016

Oil prod-ucts 0.011 0.076 0.044 0.007 0.009 0.008 0.012 0.013 0.013

Iron 0.14 < 0.05 0.14 0.20 0.05 0.13 0.13 <0.05 0.13 Cooper - - - 0.012 0.006 0.009 0.013 0.006 0.010 Manga-

nese - - - 0.07 0.023 0.047 0.043 0.015 0.029

Zinc - - - 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.009 <0.005 0.009

Nickel - - - < 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 < 0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Phenol (mkg/dm

3) 0.47 0.80 - 0.71 0.46 0.59 2.50 0.90 1.70

Characteristics of the bark dump of the OJSC Sovietsk Pulp and Paper Mill

The bark dump (Figure 23) is located in the floodplain of the River Neman 350 m west of the OJSC Sovietsk

PPM’s wood-preparation workshop.

Figure 24. Bark dump of the Sovietsk PPM.

94

The bark dump has been in operation since 1946. The storage area is seven hectares and contains some

600,000 t. The bark has been accumulated due to technological debarking of spruce (white deal). After the

start-up of the boiler house in 1972, the waste bark was used as a fuel (95% of waste bark was used in

2003). Unused bark was transported to the bark dump and then compacted by a bulldozer. The results af-

ter the bio-testing of the bark processed on the surface and at a depth of 5 m determined a class 5 waste

hazard.

In 2005, a program to monitor the dump was developed. The company began work on closing down the

dump in 2008, initially with deliveries to Finland; however, because the bark had many impurities, deliver-

ies were stopped.

A bark briquetting line from Denmark with capacity a 1.5 t/hour was recently purchased and is currently at

the test phase.

Simultaneously, negotiations with Lithuanian companies on bark sorting and deliveries to Lithuania to the

amount of 5,000-7,000 t/month are on-going. The Russian innovation company OJSC Razvitie is interested

in the raw material for its use in the production of carbon. If all plans are realized, the dump can be closed

down within 10 years.

Conclusion

The studies show that the inflows of biogenic matter from Sovietsk PPM have been reduced; for this rea-

son, its removal from HELCOM’s list of hot spots can be considered.

Hot spot No. 50 Neman PPM Ltd. (Neman PPM)

History and development

The mill is located on the border with Lithuania on the River Neman 76 km upstream from the Curonian

Lagoon of the Baltic Sea (Figure 24).

95

Figure 25. Location of Neman PPM.

The mill was formally a German Paper Mill, which was founded in 1912. During the Second World War, the

mill was destroyed but rebuilt in 1946 when pulp and paper production began. Over the following years,

the mill saw periods of modernization - replacement of the cookers and individual bleaching towers as well

as the construction of the evaporation station, among other activities.

However, these improvements made no major changes in the existing sulphite pulp cooking technology and

thus only few improvements to environmental safety and production processes in general were made - the

mill’s technology and equipment lagged behind world developments in pulp and paper production.

The mill – located in the town of Neman with population of 13,000 - is a socially and economically im-

portant enterprise in Kaliningrad Region.

The discharges of pollutants together with the sewage water into the river were estimated in 1990 as

(tonnes/year):

• BOD5 – 5,300

• Total nitrogen – 2,700

• Phosphorous – 14

Emissions to the atmosphere in the same year were: (tonnes/year):

• Sulphur dioxide – 4,569

• Carbon black – 400

• Carbon monoxide – 1,268

96

In the 1990s, the mill planned to carry out some reconstruction work and develop a series of environmental

activities. However, due to the crisis in the country, the mill was on partial shutdown and the environmen-

tal activities were not implemented.

The period of operations of the North-West Timber Company

In September 1999, the plant was bought by North-West Timber Company (NWTC), which started to mod-

ernize plant with best available technologies and meeting international requirements of environmental

safety.

After major investments during 1999-2000 - urgent repairs and overhaul to ensure the stable operation of

the system as well as the repair and maintenance of environmentally hazardous equipment - the plant

started up again after a lengthy downtime

NWTC has embarked on a project to reconstruct and modernize Neman PPM based on the principle of best

available technologies and to meet international requirements for environmentally safety by conducting a

number of studies taking the HELCOM Recommendations into consideration. The investment project to

modernize the production of paper stationary products and improve the environment in the town of Ne-

man was also developed. To realize this project, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which passed

the state environmental limits in the State Committee of the Environmental Protection of the Kaliningrad

Region was conducted. The decision by a committee of experts is: the implementation of the planned envi-

ronmental activities at Neman PPM provided by EIA will ensure compliance with the standards of pollutant

discharges that meet the HELCOM

Recommendations

The following actions aimed protecting the River Neman were conducted:

1) In 2000, the change from using ammonium to sodium in the sulphite method of cooking

pulp eliminated the main source of exceeding ammonium nitrogen discharge with the

mill’s sewage water. This significantly reduced the discharge of ammonium nitrogen into

the River Neman (up to 4.90 mg/l in 2001). At the end of 2000, sulphite pulping was re-

placed by a modified bisulphite, which gives a significantly higher pulp output that led to

the reduction in the content of organic matters in the cooking liquor, and thus their

amount in the mill’s sewage water.

2) The transition to the new bisulphite cooking with magnesium reduced the amount of

organic matters passing from wood into the liquor during cooking. The construction of a

liquor incineration unit and the recovery of chemicals from flue gases led to the full

treatment of the organic part of the liquor and at the same time producing steam and

the recovery of cooking chemicals.

97

3) The installation in paper workshop No. 2 of three pressured flotation snares CPS-18 sup-

plied by KWI Plc. It reduced the fresh water consumption by 48.4 m3/hour and grain dis-

charges by 70.1 kg/hour. The efficiency of the sewage water treatment was 97-99%.

4) During 2001-2003, three similar flotators in paper workshop No.1 were installed.

5) The grinding unit of half-finished products put into operation (environmental effect –

fresh water economy is 550,000 m3/year)

6) Restoring and testing the vacuum evaporation installation during 2001-2002 reduced

the substance matter discharge in 2002 by 80 tonnes/year.

7) To eliminate any possible emergency emissions of sulphur dioxide to the atmosphere

the old exhausters were replaced by new ones in acid department.

8) The project of gas-impulsive cleaning of the mill’s cookers was developed by Ener-

gomash Ltd. (St. Petersburg).

9) The overhaul of the salvage cooker-room by installing a cooker unit with a capacity of

20 MW, which uses the bark and wood wastes of Neman PPM. The ecological effect is

the mitigation of contamination in the mill’s locality by wood wastes as well as saving

energy.

By 2002, production capacities of the mill were restored to 75% of the designed capacity. In 2003, construc-

tion of the join treatment plant both for the town of Neman and the mill began. It was constructed because

of a preliminary tripartite agreement between the Administration of Kaliningrad Region, the Administration

of the Municipality of Neman District of Kaliningrad Region and Neman PPM to implement decisions of the

interagency meetings on issues related to environmental regulations.

The first phase of the project was to test the pilot station for the biological treatment the mill’s sewage

water and domestic sewage water from the town. It was a small-scale industrial installation of the treat-

ment of highly contaminated sewage waste, and consisted of:

• the installation of a pressured flotation device on the flotator snare at KWI SediDAF (physical-

chemical treatment phase); and

• KWI’s bioreactor (sewage water treatment phase using activated sludge).

The station began operating on 23 September 2003 after being successfully tested.

The Austrian company KWI carried out a feasibility study of the treatment plant project. The designed ca-

pacity of the complex of treatment plans is 48,000 m3/day. According to the project, the construction com-

prises eight main units that allow the output to receive even cleaner water than the company takes from

the River Neman. More than 70% of the cleaned water could be returned to the production for reuse.

98

In order to develop the drainage system, two different approaches were used:

• for the local intra-workshop treatment plant, undiluted concentrated sewage water treatment or

the maximum removal of grain and to save the temperature of the water sent to reuse; and

• for the treatment plant outside the workshops, the cleaning of the combined sewage water, includ-

ing all the mill’s excess surface runoff from the site area as well as all domestic sewage water of the

town of Neman Town is recommended.

OJSC Neman PPM’s proposed flow process with a capacity of 48,000 m3/day is based on the combination of

physical-chemical (flotation when using reagents), biological, sorption and filtration methods of sewage

water treatment. To treat sewage water, three technological workflows were proposed:

• sewage water with mechanical and aeration remixing for an average duration of six hours;

• the removal of sand and coarse admixtures in hydrocyclones;

• physical-chemical treatment on pressed flotation installations;

• continuous biochemical treatment in bioreactors duration 12 hours;

• the removal of suspended matters on pressed flotation installations;

• neutralisation on ultraviolet treatment installations;

• a deep post-treatment of treated water on automatic filters with a floating load;

• dehydration of the formed sludge on a belt press-filter, followed by its incineration at Turmalin.

The quality of industrial sewage water sent to the treatment plant based on the development of the local

installations:

• the local treatment of grain containing sewage water from paper production by pressed flotation;

• the local treatment of grain containing sewage water from pulp production by pressed flotation;

• the local treatment of sewage water from the bleaching workshop by the biochemical method and

pressed flotation;

• the local treatment of sewage water from the cooker by pressed flotation, sorption and filtration.

According to the calculations, the effectiveness of industrial sewage water treatment on the local installa-

tions on organic substances was 40-50%; and from suspended matters 95%.

The quality of the treated sewage water after the implementation of the project was in line with the MPC

for waterbodies of fishery importance.

The project was approved by the State Environmental Impact Assessment of the Ministry of Nature Sources

(MNS) of Russia in March 2004 (Order of MNS of Russia on 19 March 2004 No.278 On the adoption of the

99

decision of the expert commission of state environmental impact assessment feasibility of investments for

the construction of a joint complex of treatment plant of Neman PPM Ltd. and Neman Town). The project

was supported by the Russian Program of Organisation of Investments to Environmental Sanitation (RPOI),

for which the main criterion for a successful implementation is a real contribution to the progress of eco-

nomic reforms and the implementation of institutional reforms.

On 24 December 2003, a meeting of the supervisory council (SC) of RPOI took place where the issue of the

Vneshtorgbank application to grant a sub-loan to RPOI for the implementation of the investment project

‘Reduction of the anthropogenic impact on the River Neman by constructing a treatment plant for Neman

PPM and the town of Neman was discussed.

In 2004, Neman’s new treatment plant was a significant contribution by North-West Timber Company to-

wards the protection of the Baltic Sea. For its efforts, it won the National Environmental Prize awarded by

the Vernandsky Fund in the category of Eco-efficiency investments.

During 2002-2004, the design, development, introduction and certification of Neman PPM’s management

system were implemented. It includes a quality management system and management system related to

environmental protection in accordance with the international standards of ISO 9000 and 14000; also, the

following certificates were conferred:

• GOST R and IQNet - certifying that the quality management system of Neman PPM in respect to the

design, development and production of roll-pulp, imitation parchment, paper, paper-bleaching

products, nutrient yeasts and technical lignosulphonates are in line with: GOST R ISO 9001-2001

(ISO 9000-2000) for the period 26 July 2004 to 26 July 2007.

• A compulsory certificate on environmental requirements (without indication of the field, i.e. on all

production), certifying that the environmental management system of Neman PPM meet the re-

quirements of ISO 14001 (26 July 2004 to 26 July 2007).

• IQNet certificate - certifying that the environmental management system of Neman PPM in respect

to the design, development and production of roll-pulp, imitation parchment, paper, paper-

bleaching products, nutrient yeasts and technical lignosulphonates is in line with the requirements

of ISO 14001-1996 (26 July 2004 to 26 July 2007).

In 2004, the project of gasification of Neman District of Kaliningrad Region was implemented. Conversion of

the enterprise cooker into gas allows the use more environmentally friendly fuel as well as reducing the

cost of production, which will give another stimulus for programmes to modernize Neman PPM.

The centralized gasification system in Kaliningrad Region was initiated in November, 2004.

100

Achieved results by 2004

The use of best available technologies:

• Dry debarking exists; sewage water discharge is absent.

• Closed treatment is absent, but modernisation plans will be made in the future.

• The neutralisation of weak liquors before evaporation with the reuse of a significant amount of

condensates in production is carried out using the technology that is part of the project to convert

pulp production into using magnesium for pulp cooking.

• Systems that allow the treatment of almost all organic matters dissolved in the liquor – liquor re-

covery should reach 90% - are part of the project to convert pulp production to using magnesium

for pulp cooking to recover both heat and chemicals.

• There are no discharges during cooking with magnesium from the bleaching process.

• The two-stage bleaching of discharged sewage water is presented in the investment project ‘Mod-

ernisation of Paper and Paper Stationery Production at Neman PPM with the Aim of Environmental

Sanitation in Neman’.

• Sodium is still used for cooking in some bleaching production.

• Biodegradable chelate matters are not used during production.

Sewage water treatment (the presence of a treatment plant that uses an activated sludge treatment) is

provided as a part of the investment project ‘Modernisation of Paper and Paper Stationery Production at

Neman PPM with the Aim of Environmental Sanitation in Neman.

During 2000-2003, the mill reduced sewage water discharges at the expense of the Supratsell operatin

filters. A similar, arrangement - within the framework of the general plan of reconstruction of Neman PPM

held in paper workshop No. 1 - will be installed on the pulp mill’s sewage water line. The reduction of emis-

sions is stipulated by the project ‘Reconstruction of pulp production with transition to magnesium-

bisulphate cooking’; in October 2000, Neman PPM switched from using ammonium in the sulphite method

of cooking to the modified bisulphite method of cooking with sodium, and thus reduced the specific dis-

charge of total nitrogen from 3.7 to 1.7 mg/l.

The current state

NWTC, however, could not cope with the credit load and the mill once again had a new owner. Currently,

400 employees work at Neman PPM. It produces offset paper based on pulp imported from Finland, but is

in the state of bankruptcy.

In 2011, the enterprise discharged 975.01 m3 of not enough treated and 98.76 m3 of untreated sewage

water (the calculation is based on the volume of sewage water per unit of production). Thus, the total vol-

101

ume of discharged sewage water is 1,073.77 m3/year. It significantly decreased for the last five years (Fig-

ure 25).

The treatment plant has a flotation snare, which allows the removal of some 99% of suspended matters

from the sewage water. Together with the sewage water, the enterprise emitted to the environment

(tonnes):

• BOD5 – 7,165

• COD – 26,918

• Total nitrogen – 2.41

• Total phosphorous – 0

The volumes of discharges of total nitrogen and total phosphorous are presented in Table 37.

Figure 26. Sewage water volumes of Neman PPM during 1998-2011.

Table 37. Volumes of discharges of total nitrogen and total phosphorous (tonnes). Indicator 1993 1994

Total nitrogen 108,645 53,986 Total phosphorous 0.578 0.212

The emission of nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere in 2011 was 27.23 tonnes. Environmental projects at

the mill have been stopped due to bankruptcy. The results of the monitoring of chemical water indicators

of the River Neman in the mill’s sewage water’s discharged area during 2008-2012 are given in Tables 38

and 39. It might be noted that almost all hydro-chemical indicators (based on comprehensive data) at a

distance of 500 m downstream from the second sewage water outfall is about 10% higher on average than

those water indicators sampled 500 m upstream from the first sewage water outfall.

02000400060008000

100001200014000160001800020000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Vol

ume

disc

harg

e, th

ousa

nd m

3

Years

102

Conclusion

The analysis of information on the modern production activities of Neman PPM and its negative impact on

the environment leads to the conclusion that it is not a serious threat to the environment and can be re-

moved from HELCOM’s list of hot spots. However, its uncertain legal status does not ensure that in the

future it will retain the current level of impact to the environment.

Table 38. The results of the water monitoring of the River Neman 500 m above outfall No. 1.

Ingredients Sampling date

03.04.2008

23.06.2008

17.06.2009

10.09.2009

24.11.2009

19.05.2010

19.05.2010

11.08.2011

04.06.2012

15.08.2012

BOD5 2.4 6.3 3.2 3.6 3.7 2.9 4.1 7.35 - 4.5 Suspended matters 25.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 18.5 20.0 20.0 - 19.0 Solid residual 430 270 180 250 280 280 400 280 - 300 COD 35 41 24 30 30 30 30 30 - 30

Nitrite nitrogen <0.005 0.007 0.009 0.0064 <0.0061 0.004 0.018 0.007 - 0.008

Total nitrogen 3.8 3.1 - 2.5 2.4 - 1.8 0.91 0.7 0.858 Ammonium nitrogen 0.452 0.351 - 0.84 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.39 - 0.39 Nitrate nitrogen 2.00 0.10 2.53 0.21 0.27 0.391 1.45 0.483 - 0.46 Phosphate phospho-rous 0.013 <0.01 0.005 <0.01 <0.01 0.018 0.03 0.044 - 0.04

Fats and oils <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 - - - 1.5 - Oil products 0.019 0.20 - 0.009 0.15 - 0.017 - - Formaldehyde 0.048 0.050 - 0.036 0.048 - - - - - Furfural 0.019 0.017 - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - Lignosulphonates 3.5 3.5 - 3.0 2.9 - - - - - Acetate-ion 25.0 22.0 - 25.0 23.0 - - - - - Sodium 28.0 17.0 - 27.0 25.0 - - - - - Iron 0.58 0.58 - 0.52 0.60 - 0.20 - 0.113 - Chloride-ion 24.3 18.8 26.5 18.8 47.0 46.0 14.8 45.0 - 56.0 Sulphate-ion 24.2 50.0 62.8 21.2 45.0 52.0 22.0 58.0 - 66.0 Methanol 0.85 0.90 - 0.81 0.80 - - - - - Phenol 0.0009 0.001 - 0.001 0.0007 - - - - - Ammonium ion 0.58 0.45 - 1.08 0.51 0.5 0.49 0.5 - 0.5 Anionic surface-active substances - <0.025 - <0.025 <0.025 - - - 0.03 -

Non-ionic surface-active substances - 0.19 - 0.19 0.20 - - - 0.58 -

Cupper - - - 0.0004 <0.001 - 0.0024 - 0.0047 - Manganese - - - 0.010 0.0040 - - - 0.0440 - Magnesium - - - 0.035 24.0 - - - 17.1 -

103

Table 39. The results of the water monitoring of the River Neman 500 m below outfall No. 2.

Ingredients

Sampling date

03.04.

2008

23.06.

2008

17.06.

2009

10.09. 2009

24.11. 2009

19.05.

2010

19.05.

2010

11.08.

2011

04.06.

2012

15.08

2012

BOD5 2.6 6.5 3.35 3.7 3.9 3.1 4.3 7.6 - 4.7 Suspended matters 31.0 24.0 21.0 22.0 25.0 20.0 25.0 22.0 - 21.0 Solid residual 490 300 190 290 320 300 420 290 - 320 COD 39 43 28 32 33 33 34 32 - 32

Nitrite nitrogen <0.005 0.009 0.01 <0.006

1 <0.006

1 0.00

4 0.019

5 0.00

7 - 0.008

Total nitrogen 4.0 3.4 - 2.9 2.8 - 2.1 0.911 0.84 0.95

1

Phosphate phosphorous 0.018 <0.01 0.006 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

8 0.03 0.045 0.04

1 Fats and oils <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 - - - 1.0 - Oil products 0.020 0.21 - 0.007 0.15 - 0.017 - 0.006 - Formaldehyde 0.050 0.055 - 0.04 0.048 - - - - - Furfural 0.021 0.019 - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - Lignosulphonates 3.7 3.8 - 3.0 2.9 - - - - - Acetate-ion 28.0 26.0 - 27.0 24.0 - - - - - Sodium 31.0 20.0 - 30.0 28.0 - - - - - Iron 0.66 0.63 - 0.56 0.65 - 0.23 - 0.096 - Chloride-ion 28.5 20.1 27.3 18.0 49.0 46.5 15.1 45.0 - 58.0 Sulphate-ion 29.0 54.0 63.5 19.3 50.0 56.0 24.6 62.0 - 70.0

Nitrate nitrogen 2.60 0.20 2.6 0.18 0.30 0.437 1.58 0.50

6 - 0.51

Methanol 0.88 0.95 - 0.80 0.80 - - - - -

Phenol 0.001 0.0011 - 0.001 0.0008 - - - - -

Ammonium nitrogen 0.476 0.445 - 0.81 0.41 0.406 0.38 0.42 - 0.43

7 Anionic surface-active sub-stances - <0.02

5 - <0.025 <0.025 - - - 0.047 -

Non-ionic surface-active sub-stances - 0.21 - 0.20 0.20 - - - <0.5 -

Cupper - - - 0.0001 <0.001 - 0.0024 0.003

3 -

Manganese - - - 0.011 0.0070 - - - 0.0340 -

Zinc - - - <0.004 <0.005 - - - <0.005 -

Nickel - - - 0.003 <0.001 - - - - -

Lead - - - <0.0002 <0.001 - - - - -

Aluminium - - - 0.038 0.030 - - - - -

104

Hot spot No. 67 Sewage water treatment plant of Kaliningrad

The sewage treatment plant in Kaliningrad is intended for municipal sewage treatment and falls under the

Municipal Unitary Enterprise of Communal Services (MUE CS) Vodokanal of the District City of Kaliningrad.

The sewage treatment system includes a mechanical treatment plant, the main collector, sewerage net-

work, sewerage pumping stations and sewerage pits.

This current sewerage system comprises a branched network in the quarters adjacent to the River Pregel

and built on the principle of a combined sewerage system. Further, as the city expanded, the new areas

were canalized on a separate sewerage system. Most of the collectors operate on individual systems before

the sewerage is transferred to a combined system. The main collector is also a combined sewerage system.

The sewage waters of Kaliningrad are collected by thirty collectors and the tributary network and are dis-

charged to the treatment plant: within the city there is a main collector; in the countryside there is a free-

flow interceptor. The sewerage system comprises an aqueduct, several pipe subways and two sand traps

on the main collector.

Domestic sewage water from the residential areas and industrial enterprises, with discharges of 160,000-

180,000 of m3/day, are collected by the main collector situated on the River Pregel and are discharged to

the treatment plant for mechanical treatment located. The plant is 1 km from the city of Kaliningrad and

1.8 km from the Kaliningrad canal (Figure 26), which has a direct connection with the Vistula (Kaliningrad)

Lagoon. The mechanical treatment plant was built in 1924 and restored after the Second World War. The

designed capacity is 68,000 m3/day (Figure 27). After being mechanically treated and passing through the

discharge channel, the sewage water is drained into Primorsk Bay in the Kaliningrad Lagoon almost without

further treatment (Table 40).

105

Figure 27. Location of Kaliningrad’s treatment plant.

- location of the existing treatment plant - location of the treatment plant under construction

Figure 28. The sewage water treatment station in Kaliningrad in 2004.

106

Table 40. Sewage water volumes discharged by MUE CS Vodokanal during the period 2007-2011.

Year Unit of measurement Volume of polluted sewage water

Without treat-ment Not enough treated Total volume

2007 million m3/year 6.06 6.06 52.20 2008 million m3/year 5.72 46.03 51.75 2009 million m3/year 5.35 46.69 52.04 2010 million m3/year 4.10 48.04 52.14 2011 million m3/year 4.00 50.19 54.19

The potential problems of the existing treatment plant are:

• it has obsolete and deprecated equipment;

• the quality of the discharged water does not meet the requirements of the legislation of the Rus-

sian Federation;

• sewage water discharge after mechanical treatment and its proximity to the Vistula (Kaliningrad)

Lagoon may influence the water quality of the Lagoon (Clause 3 paragraph 2 of the Convention for

the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea, 1992);

• there is no treatment for the rainfall water flowing through the storm water sewer to the River

Pregel;

• the pollution of atmospheric air to some extent from the discharge channel.

Implementation of environmental activities to improve the state of the host spot

until 2004

In September 2002, the contract between MUE Vodokanal of Kaliningrad City and the Swedish company

Sweco International to provide consultancy services to manage the above mentioned project and with the

company VIA-Projekt to provide consultancy services for the design and supervision of the construction of a

sewerage treatment plant for Kaliningrad was concluded in 2002. Within the framework of the project im-

plementation, an investigation of the existing concrete constructions on the site was carried out.

In 2002, within the framework of the Federal target program of the development of the Kaliningrad Region

during the period up to 2010, work on laying the industrial collector to transport the city’s sewage water to

the treatment plant was resumed. In 2003, work on relaying the pressure header and repairing the sand

trap began.

Within the framework of the implementation of the project on the reconstruction of water supply system

and environmental protection of Kaliningrad City in 2003, the following investments were made:

• USD 450,000 to complete the construction of the sewerage treatment plant and pumping station;

and

107

• USD 127,000 to complete the construction of the lower part of the new collector from shaft No.5 to

the main pumping station and pressure header.

Implemented environmental activities to improve the state of the hot spot after 2004

1) Construction of the new treatment plant

Due to the necessity to modernize the water supply and the water discharge systems, the Administration of

the Kaliningrad Region, Kaliningrad’s mayor and the leaders of the enterprise made a decision to call for

funds of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development to invest in the international project the

Reconstruction of the water supply system and environmental protection of Kaliningrad. The construction

of this facility is part of the Baltic Sea Action Plan of the Helsinki commission on the protection of the ma-

rine environment of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM) in Kaliningrad Region. The construction and installation work

was carried out within the framework of the Federal target program of the development of Kaliningrad

Region during the period up to 2012 from federal, regional and local budgets. The cost of the facility after

tendering was RUB 1.381 billion. The volume of drawn funds as on 1 February 2013 was RUB 1.088 billion

The treatment plant under construction is located less than 1 km from the Kaliningrad maritime canal

which has direct connection with Vistula (Kaliningrad) Lagoon (Figure 26).

The municipal building owners are the Committee of Architecture and Building of the city hall of Kaliningrad

and MUE CS Vodokanal.

The general contractor for construction is OJSC Mostostroitelny trest No.6 (St. Petersburg).

The construction of these facilities began in 1976 and are currently being operated on the basis of the de-

sign specifications developed in 2007, which correspond to the Russian legislation and HELCOM Regulations

for sewage water treatment. The project stipulates the construction of a group of buildings for the phased

treatment of sewage water, outdoor networks, among others.

Construction work began in August 2009 and was due for completion on 20 December 2011; however, due

to decision of the Arbitration tribunal the date was extended up to 20 December 2012. All work was com-

pleted in October, 2013, with a pre-commissioning period of six months.

The treatment plant is based on anaerobic-anoxide-aerobic treatment and includes a full biological treat-

ment of sewage water with nitrification-denitrification and dephosphating processes as well as post-

treatment. Sewage water neutralisation is planned to be carried out by the ultraviolet method. The treated

sewage water will be discharged through the scattering outfall to the Kaliningrad maritime canal. Sludge

treatment includes dehydration, neutralisation and dehelmintization. The project stipulates an additional

108

amount of emergency sludge banks (255,000 m3) that can be used in case of emergency or during pre-

commissioning. It is planned to use the latest system of internal water recirculation in the aeration tanks.

The designed capacity of the sewerage treatment plant under construction will be 150,000 m3/day with the

possibility to increase its capacity in the future. The technological features of the treatment plant are given

in Table 41.

Table 41. Technological features of the treatment plant under construction in Kaliningrad. Feature Unit of measurement Value

Volume of accepted sewage water: Daily m3/day 150,000

Average m3/h 6,750 Maximal m3/h 9,650

Amount of mud (suspended and dissolved matters) Inflow (before treatment) mg/l 206

After passing the water treatment mg/l 3 BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand)

Inflow (before treatment) mg/l 174 After passing the water treatment mg/l 2

N tot (Total nitrogen) Inflow (before treatment) mg/l 34.8

After passing the water treatment mg/l 10 N NH4 (Ammonium nitrogen)

Inflow (before treatment) mg/l 25 After passing the water treatment mg/l 0.39

P tot (Total phosphorous) Inflow (before treatment) mg/l 5.7

After passing the water treatment mg/l 0.5 Phosphates

Inflow (before treatment) mg/l 3.5 After passing the water treatment mg/l 0.2

As of 7 February 2013, the technical readiness of the plant is 50-90% and construction readiness 78%. Work

is simultaneously being conducted at 20 sites with a 30-99% readiness rate.

The procurement and installation of the equipment is supported by the international financial organisa-

tions: the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) with funding of SEK 120 million

and the Ecological partnership North dimension (EPND) with EUR 10 million. SIDA has expressed its readi-

ness to increase the grant amount up to SEK 145 million to finance the purchase of Swedish equipment in

full. The equipment for the primary and secondary precipitation tanks, compost grounds and emergency

sludge banks has been installed. The equipment for the building grids, silt pits, pumping stations for domes-

tic and surface sewage water and fresh sludge is fully installed. The equipment for the filter station has

been procured, but only 5% has been installed. Some 17% of the equipment for the aeration tanks, the

pump-blowing station and the sludge pump station has been installed. About 10% of the equipment for the

ultraviolet neutralisation station has been installed. The equipment for the process control system has been

procured in full and the laboratory equipment for the process building has been procured (50%). Overall,

90% of the equipment was procured and 23% installed as of 7 February 2013.

109

Apart from the construction of the treatment plant, work on the construction and modernisation of the

auxiliary facilities related to the sewerage system of the city are being carrying out. During 2007 to Decem-

ber 2008, the overhaul of the operating sewerage collector was carried out and the local pumping sewer-

age station (local pumping station on the right bank) with a capacity of 84,700 m3 of water per day was put

into operation, which significantly improves the reliability of the sewerage discharge system.

Within the framework of the federal and regional investment programs by the end of December 2012, it is

planned to complete the construction and equipment of the main pump station (MPS) in east Kaliningrad.

For this purpose, RUB 210 million - 80% from the federal and 20% from regional budget - were allocated.

The MPS capacity is currently estimated at 53,000 m3/day, which is almost one third of Kaliningrad’s sew-

age water. In the future, the capacity of the station can be increased up to 120,000 m3/day with the instal-

lation of additional equipment.

2) Quality of discharged sewage water

In 2004, the quality of discharged sewage water belonged to the category ‘highly polluted’ with substantial

exceeding of the maximum permissible discharges of ammonium nitrogen, oil products and methanol.

MUE CS Vodokanal annually developed and endorsed the Program of production environmental control

over the sources of water pollution. During laboratory studies in September 2010, inconsistences of biogen-

ic indicators in the sewage water with MPC were detected (Table 42). The lack of data on many indicators

and invariability of used methods of sewage water treatment does not allow a conclusion to be drawn that

quality of discharged sewage water will be improved and thus it will not meet the environmental protection

requirement.

Table 42. Sewage water indicators after the treatment plant in September 2010. Indicators Unit of measurement Pollutant concentration

Temperature 0С 18 pH pH unit 7.3 Nitrite-ion mg/l <0.02 Nitrate-ion mg/l 0.71 Ammonium nitrogen mg/l 24.87 Phosphate phosphorous mg/l 2.7 Suspended matters mg/l 84 BOD5 mgO/l 112.2 Oil products mg/l 1.02

Results of the monitoring in the Kaliningrad Lagoon as the water-body receiver.

In accordance with the data of 1992, as a result of the activity of the treatment plant of Kaliningrad, the

following data on the anthropogenic loads on the Kaliningrad (Vistula) Lagoon were obtained. In 2010, the

low efficiency of the Kaliningrad treatment plant related to the removal nitrogen and phosphorous was

confirmed by the data given in Table 43.

110

Table 43. Indicators of anthropogenic loads from the Kaliningrad treatment plant on the Kaliningrad (Vistu-la) Lagoon in 1992 and 2010.

Indicator Unit of measurement Indicator value

1992 2010 Phosphorous t/year 460 1,75.33 Nitrogen t/year 2,200 1,244.87 Suspended matters t/year 11,500 -

It was ascertained in 2004 – based on the results of long-term observations by the State Sanitary and Epi-

demiological Centre in Kaliningrad - that the water quality in the River Pregel at water intake places in ur-

ban areas had exceeded of bacteriological and viral water contamination indicators up to 15 times more

than permitted. During the emergency discharge of sewage water to the water, these water quality indica-

tors increased by 2-3 times; for this reason, the water supply sources in Kaliningrad do not comply with the

sanitary-hygienic requirements in place and can affect the health of its residents.

Studies of the surface water in Primorsk Bay (Kaliningrad Lagoon) near outfall No.1 (sewage water dis-

charge) were carried out by the OS-1 MUE CS Vodokanal laboratory in Kaliningrad. The data were provided

for the period 2008-2012 (Tables 44-48). The control of pollutants in the waterbody was carried out at

three points from the place where the sewage water is discharged. In 2008, the monitoring of surface wa-

ter was carried out for 27 indicators and in subsequent years for 17.

In 2008, an exceeding of MPC of pollutants in waterbodies of fishery importance was detected for seven

indicators. For three indicators (iron, methanol, and furfural), the exceeding of MPC was recorded during

the full observable period.

Table 44. Data of the monitoring of Primorsk Bay’s surface water near outfall No.1 in 2008.

Controlled indicator

The average annual concentration of pollutants (mg/l)/Number of regis-tered exceedings of MPC (from 7 measurements conducted from April to

October) MPC1, mg/dm3

500 m to the right of the outfall No. 1

500 m straight to outfall No. 1

500 m to the left of the outfall No. 1

pH 8.6 / - 8.4 / - 8.5 / - -

Suspended matters 80.1 / - 81.9 / - 83.1 / - -

Ammonium nitrogen 0.05 / - 0.05 / - 0.05 / - 0.5

Nitrate-ion 2.79 / - 2.5 / - 2.7 / - 40.0

Nitrite-ion 0.08 /3 0.09 / 4 0.09 / 3 0.1

Phosphate phosphorus 0.07 / - 0.09 / - 0.07 / - -

Solid residual 4,596 / - 4,448.6 / - 4,576.6 / - - Anionic surface-active sub-stances 0.083 / - 0.099 / - 0.094 / - 0.5

BOD5 3.99 / - 5.41 / - 4.57 / - -

Dissolved oxygen 10.7 / - 10.3 / - 10.4 / - -

Oil products 0.03 / - 0.036 / - 0.03 / - 0.1

Colour of water 120.7 / - 115 / - 122.8 / - -

COD 33.2 / - 53.0 / - 49.7 / - -

111


The average annual concentration of pollutants (mg/l)/Number of regis-tered exceedings of MPC (from 7 measurements conducted from April to


500 m to the right of the outfall No. 1

500 m straight to outfall No. 1

500 m to the left of the outfall No. 1

Iron 0.55 / 7 0.59 / 7 0.57 / 7 0.1

Phenols 0.0005 / - 0.0005 / - 0.0005 / - -

Sulphides 0.005 / - 0.005 / - 0.005 / - -

Lignosulfonic acids 5 / - 5 / - 5 / - -

Formaldehyde 0.02 / - 0.02 / - 0.02 / - -

Boron 0.05 / - 0.05 / - 0.05 / - 0.5

Fats 0.5 / - 0.5 / - 0.5 / - -

Methanol 0.91 / 7 1.05 / 7 0.75 / 7 0.1

Furfural 0.022 / 7 0.019 / 7 0.020 / 7 0.01

Chloroform 0.00063 / - 0.00063 / - 0.00060 / - 0.005

Cooper 0.0030 / 7 0.0033 / 7 0.0045 / 5 0.001

Zinc 0.0160 / 3 0.0178 / 3 0.0199 / 3 0.01

Nickel 0.0040 / 1 0.0032 / - 0.0031 / - 0.01

Cadmium 0.00016 / - 0.00098 / 1 0.00015 / - 0.005 1 Water quality standards of waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible concentrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fish importance based on the order of the Federal Fishery Agency No.20 from 18.01.2010 On the adoption of water quality standards for waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible concentrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fishery im-portance.



The average annual concentration of pollutants (mg/l)/Number of regis-tered exceedings of MPC (from 3 measurements conducted from June to


500 m straight to the outfall

50 m to the left from the outfall

50 m to the right from the outfall

pH 8.5 / - 8.6 / - 8.6 / - -

Dissolved oxygen 9.8/ - 9,8/ - 10,0 / - -

Suspended matters 21 / - 21/ - 22 / - -

BODtot. 9.10 / - 8,07 / - 8,40 / - -

Ammonium nitrogen < 0.05 / - < 0.05 / - < 0.05 / - 0.50

Nitrate-ion 1.65 / - 1.77 / - 1.85 / - 40.00

Nitrite-ion 0.08 / 1 0.08 / 1 0.09 / 2 0.08

COD 108.2 / - 98.4 / - 118.0 / - -

Oil products 0.06 / 2 0.06 / 2 0.1 / 1 0.05

Total iron 0.43 /3 0.40 /3 0.39 /3 0.10

Zinc 0.015 / 2 0.009 / 1 0.009 / 1 0.01

Cupper 0.0051 / 3 0.004 / 3 0.004 / 3 0.001

Manganese2 0.0490 / 1 0.048 / 1 0.047 / 1 0.01

Nickel 0.0015 / - 0.001 / - 0.001 / - 0.01

Solid residual 5033 / - 5227 / - 5433 / - - Anionic surface-active substances 0.06 / - 0.05 / - 0.04 / - 0.5

Phosphate-ion 0.07 / - < 0.05 / - < 0.05 / - - 1 Water quality standards of waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible con-centrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fish importance based on the order of the Federal Fishery Agency

112


The average annual concentration of pollutants (mg/l)/Number of regis-tered exceedings of MPC (from 3 measurements conducted from June to

October) MPC1, mg/dm3 500 m straight to the

outfall 50 m to the left from the

outfall 50 m to the right from the outfall

No.20 from 18.01.2010 On the adoption of water quality standards for waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible concentrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fishery importance.

2 Investigation for manganese was conducted once in October 2009.

In 2009, an exceeding of MPC at the control points was detected for six indicators. For three indicators

(iron, cooper and manganese), the exceeding of MPC were recorded at all control points. In 2010, an ex-

ceeding of MPC pollutants in fishery waterbodies was detected for seven indicators; for three indicators

(manganese, iron, and oil products) the exceeding of MPC was recorded at all control points.



The average annual concentration of pollutants (mg/l)/Number of registered exceedings of MPC (from 3 measurements conducted

from May to October) MPC1, mg/dm3




pH 7.7 / - 8.0 / - 7.8 / - -

Dissolved oxygen 7.6 / - 7.4 / - 7.7 / - -

Suspended matters 91 / - 79 / - 87 / - -

BODtot. 35.9 / - 26.7 / - 26.0 / - -

Ammonium nitrogen 0.05 / 1 < 0.05 / - < 0.05 / - 0.5

Nitrate-ion 0.89 / - 1.02 / - 1.04 / - 40

Nitrite-ion 0.07 / - 0.09 / 2 0.05 / 1 0.08

COD 78.4 / - 55.5 / - 52.3 / - -

Oil products 0.27 / 3 0.18 / 3 0.11 / 3 0.05

Total iron 0.62 / 3 0.62 / 3 0.61 / 3 0.10

Zinc 0.0551 / 3 0.0332 / 2 0.0905 / 3 0.01

Cupper 0.0051 / 2 0.0066 / 2 0.00590 / 2 0.001

Manganese 0.142 / 3 0.139 / 3 0.129 / 3 0.01

Nickel 0.0030 / - 0.0010 / - 0.0017 / - 0.01

Solid residual 3700 / - 3515 / - 3547 / - - Anionic surface-active sub-stances 0.42 / - 0.23 / - 0.20 / - 0.5

Phosphate-ion 0.13 / - 0.13 / - 0.10 / - - 1 Water quality standards of waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible con-centrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fish importance based on the order of the Federal Fishery Agency No.20 from 18.01.2010 On the adoption of water quality standards for waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible concentrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fishery importance.

In 2010, an exceeding of MPC pollutants in fishery waterbodies was detected for seven indicators; for five

indicators (manganese, iron, oil products, zinc and cooper) and an exceeding of MPC was recorded at all

control points.


Controlled indicator The average annual concentration of pollutants (mg/l)/Number of regis-tered exceedings of MPC (from 3 measurements conducted from May to


113




pH 7.7 / - 7.7 / - 7.7 / - - Dissolved oxygen 6.8 / - 6.7 / - 6.9 / - - Suspended matters 99 / - 74 / - 80 / - - BODtot. 57.9 / - 44.2 / - 49.3/ - - Ammonium nitrogen 1.3 / 2 1.3 / 2 1.4 / 2 0.5 Nitrate-ion 0.81 / - 0.93 / - 1.06 / - 40 Nitrite-ion 0.08 / 2 0.09 / 2 0.08 / 1 0.08 COD 89.5 / - 66.3 / - 79.4 / - - Oil products 0.31 / 3 0.36 / 3 0.1 / 3 0.05 Total iron 0.48 / 3 0.48 / 3 0.48 / 3 0.1 Zinc 0.045 / 3 0.053 / 3 0.046 / 3 0.01 Cupper 0.0052 / 3 0.0046 / 3 0.0056 / 3 0.001 Manganese2 0.126 / 2 0.128 / 2 0.129 / 2 0.01 Nickel 0.0021 / - 0.0022 / - 0.0022 / - 0.01 Solid residual 2339 / - 2309 / - 2245 / - - Anionic surface-active substances 0.36 / - 0.36 / - 0.41 / - 0.5 Phosphate-ion 0.57 / - 0.43 / - 0.43 / - - 1 Water quality standards of waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible con-centrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fish importance based on the order of the Federal Fishery Agency No. 20 from 18.01.2010 On the adoption of water quality standards for waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible concentrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fishery importance.

2 Investigation for manganese was conducted twice in May and October 2011.

In 2012, monitoring was conducted at one control point. An exceeding of MPC of pollutants in fishery wa-

terbodies was detected for seven indicators; for four indicators (manganese, iron, oil products and ammo-

nium nitrogen), the exceeding of MPC was recorded during all investigation periods.

Table 48. Data of the monitoring of surface water of Primorsk Bay near outfall No. 1 in 2012 (control point – to the right from outfall No. 1 at a distance of 50 m).

Controlled indicator The average annual

concentration of pollutants, mg/l

MPC1, mg/dm3 Number of exceedings of MPC (from 3 measurements conducted from April

to October)

pH 8.6 - - Dissolved oxygen 6.0 - - Suspended matters 50 - - BODtot. 50.3 - - Ammonium nitrogen 0.67 0.5 3 Nitrate-ion 2.18 40 - Nitrite-ion 0.15 0.08 2 COD 94.7 - - Oil products 0.21 0.05 3 Total iron 0.52 0.1 3 Zinc 0.0566 0.01 2 Cupper 0.0047 0.001 2 Nickel 0.0015 0.01 - Manganese 0.35 0.01 3 Solid residual 2832 - - Anionic surface-active substances 0.21 0.5 - Phosphate phosphorous 0.57 - - Non-ionic surface-active sub-stances ˂0.5 0.5 -

114

Controlled indicator The average annual

concentration of pollutants, mg/l

MPC1, mg/dm3 Number of exceedings of MPC (from 3 measurements conducted from April

to October) 1 Water quality standards of waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible con-centrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fish importance based on the order of the Federal Fishery Agency No.20 from 18.01.2010 On the adoption of water quality standards for waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible concentrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fishery importance.

Analysis of the compliance of the treatment plant of Kaliningrad with the current

HELCOM Recommendations

Analysis of the compliance of the treatment plant of Kaliningrad with HELCOM’s Recommendations is

based on three recommendations:

• RECOMMENDATION 28E/5 Municipal wastewater treatment;

• RECOMMENDATION 23/5 Reduction of discharges from urban areas by the proper management of

storm water system;

• RECOMMENDATION 13/2 Industrial connection and point sources other than household connected

to municipal sewerage system (Table 49).


The implementation of environmental activities to put the treatment plant into operation in 2013 within

the framework of the implementation of the Federal target program of development of Kaliningrad Region

for the period up to 2015.

Using phased chemical-biological sewage water treatment at the plant will reduce the content of pollutants

in the discharged sewage water including BOD, total phosphorous, total nitrogen and suspended matters,

thus radically reducing the impact on the environment.

Activities necessary for removing the enterprise from the HELCOM’s list of hot spots

To radically reduce the negative impact on the environment, it is necessary to complete the construction

and put into operation the new treatment plant. With regard to the environmental production control pro-

gram, it is necessary to determine the target indicators of discharged sewage water quality, such as total

phosphorous and total nitrogen.

Conclusion

The enterprise has a significant negative impact on the environment as it continues to use an incomplete

cycle of sewage water treatment which, in turn, leads to a discrepancy with the Russian legislation and

HELCOM’s Recommendations for sewage water treatment.

115

An analysis of the condition of the hot spot shows that even though a number of measures have been tak-

en at the plant to mitigate environmental impacts (main collector overhaul, putting into operation the main

pumping station in the east of the city and a local pumping sewerage station), its negative impact level re-

mains sizable.

The delayed start-up of the new treatment plant in Kaliningrad within the framework of the international

project and the Federal target program is cause for concern.

Table 49. Analysis of the compliance of activities of Kaliningrad’s treatment plant with HELCOM’s Recom-mendations.

HELCOM Recom-mendation Targets Standard The situation at the enterprise

Conclusion about con-

formity of the target

RECO

MM

ENDA

TIO

N 2

8E/5

Mun

icip

al w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent

Compliance with the requirements of sewerage sys-

tem development

Full compliance Urban (municipal) sewage water from the domestic sector (domes-tic sewage water) or from indus-trial enterprises are not fully col-

lected and treated before dis-charging into the waterbody and

have exceeded of MPC

-

Sewage water discharge should be reduced (%) or

should not ex-ceed of, mg/l

Reduction of BOD5, minimum, by 80%;

or 15 mg/l;

Used methods of treatment do not allow to reach the target -

Reduction of total phosphorous, min-imum, by 90%; or

0.5 mg/l;

This indicator is not assessed

-

Reduction of total nitrogen, minimum,

by 70-80%, or 10 mg/l.

This indicator is not assessed

-

Use the best available tech-

nologies and the best environmen-

tal practice

Use phase sewage water treatment

Only mechanical sewage water treatment is used -

Use methods of safe disposal of formed

sludge

Formed sludge is placed in sludge banks -

116

HELCOM Recom-mendation Targets Standard The situation at the enterprise

Conclusion about con-

formity of the target

RECO

MM

ENDA

TIO

N 2

3/5

Redu

ctio

n of

disc

harg

es

from

urb

an a

reas

by

the

prop

er m

anag

emen

t of

stor

m w

ater

syst

em

Reduction of discharges from urban territories

by the proper management of storm sewage

water sewerage systems

Use of storm sew-age water treat-

ment system

The lack of the storm sewage water treatment system

-

RECO

MM

ENDA

TIO

N 1

3/2

Indu

stria

l con

nect

ion

and

poin

t sou

rces

oth

er th

an h

ouse

hold

con

nect

ed to

mun

ic-

ipal

sew

erag

e sy

stem

Use of the best available tech-

nologies of sew-age water treat-

ment at industrial enterprises be-fore its connec-

tion to the munic-ipal sewerage

system

Use of phase treat-ment system of a sewage water of

industrial enterpris-es

Not all industrial enterprises per-form phase sewage water treat-

ment

-

The lack of persis-tent, toxic or bio-

accumulative matters in the treated water

Compliance of the treated water quali-ty with MPC values

Exceedings of MPC for many indi-cators

-

Technological ca-pacity of the treat-ment plant to treat

the given type of substance

Used methods of treatment do not allow to treat the sewage water from given substances -

117

Hot spot No. 69 Cepruss PPM

The Kaliningrad Pulp and Paper Mill No.2 was reorganised in 1993 into a Closed Joint-Stock Company with

foreign investments (CJSC Cepruss). This enterprise began its commercial operation in 1906 as the North-

German Pulp Mill.

CJSC Cepruss (Cepruss) is located on the right bank of the River Pregel in the mouth of the Kaliningrad La-

goon of the Baltic Sea (Figure 28).

Figure 29. Location of CJSC Cepruss.

Condition of the mill in 1992-1993

During this period, the industrial technology of production of bleached pulp included the following stages:

• Debarking of the spruce timber was carried out in the wood-preparation workshop at two debark-

ing drums by the dry method.

• Pulp cooking was carried out in cookers. Five lined cookers with a capacity of 220 m3 each and two

bimetallic cookers with the capacity of 320 m3 each were used. Cooking acid was prepared with

sodium.

• Pulp washing was carried out in the cooker and drainers. Lye removed from the cooker was used to

produce ethyl alcohol, nutrient yeast and lignosulphonates.

• Pulp sorting (grey flow) was carried out in gravity centrifugal screeners and centricleaners. The

white flow was sorted by pressure screeners and centricleaners;

118

• The bleaching of pulp included two stages of chlorination, two stages of alkalization and three stag-

es of post-bleaching by sodium hypochlorite. The process was finished by acid treatment.

• Drying of pulppulp was carried out in two drying machines with capacities of 110 and 119 t/day of

commercial pulp.

Paper was produced on a ‘Yanki’ type paper machine. Formed screenings (waste from pulp grading) were

recovered into cardboard and rolled pulp. The production process involved the following:

• wood-preparation

• acid-cooking

• evaporation

• cleaning

• alcohol

• bleaching

• yeast

• cardboard

• paper machine

Table 50. Production indicators of the mill in 1992. Product range Unit of measurement Volume of production

Pulping t/year 77,464 Bleached liquid pulp t/year 64,545 Unbleached roll pulp t/year 4,954 Cardboard technical t/year 2,509 Paper- base of sanitary hygiene t/year 1,314 Napkins thousand packs/year 5,708 Ethyl alcohol thousand packs/year 372 Nutrient yeast t/year 2,659 Technical liquid lignosulphonates t/year 38,490

Water intake for industrial purposes was taken from the River Pregel, Lake Karpovsky and man-made wells,

and for household uses from freshwater wells.

The mill had a thermal power station that ran on coal and fuel oil.

It did not have biological sewage water treatment - all flows before discharge passed through mechanical

treatment based on filtration and sludging. Household and some industrial sewage water were discharged

to the urban sewerage system while industrial sewage water was discharged though four outfalls into the

River Pregel and its tributaries.

Table 51. Environmental indicators of production activity of CJSC Cepruss in 1992. Name of indicators Unit of measurement Indicator value

Fresh water intake from all sources thousand m3/year 34,306 Sewage water discharge

Total thousand m3/year 31,516 including: into surface waterbodies thousand m3/year 30,681

into urban sewerage thousand m3/year 835

119

Name of indicators Unit of measurement Indicator value Discharge of organic matters expressed though the BOD5 in the total sewage water discharge t/year 13,324

COD in the total sewage water discharge t/year 86,619 Total nitrogen in the total sewage water dis-charge t/year 742

Total phosphorous in the total sewage water discharge t/year 43

Suspended matters in the total sewage water discharge t/year 1,859

Emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere Total t/year 8,413 including: solid matters t/year 4,816 Sulphur dioxide t/year 3,143 Nitrogen oxides t/year 341 Other t/year 113 Wood waste (bark, sawdust) t/year 30,787* Ash of solid fuel t/year 10,592** * this waste was used to make compost at Agroprom up to 1993 ** this waste was disposed of in the ash disposal area

In 1993, a program to develop the pulp production was initiated, which included improving the technical

and economic parameters as well as increasing the environmental safety of its production processes. The

program provided a transition to environmentally safe technologies and consisted of three phases:

• The first phase included the renovation of the cooking workshop and the thermal power station by

replacing equipment and improving the technological processes.

• The second phase included the overhaul of the unbleached and bleached production flows with the

construction of an all-factory intra-areal treatment facility for sewage water.

• The third stage included the overhaul of the cleaning unit for bleaching pulp and the introduction

of a chemical recovery system.

The state of the mill in 2002

Within the framework of the implementation of the first phase of the program in 2001, the following activi-

ties were carried out:

• the transition to bisulphite cooking technology which allows all types of wood to be treated;

• the termination of alcohol-yeast production;

• the replacement of the lined cookers by bimetallic with the capacity of 320 m3;

• the rebuild of the wood chip distribution system;

• the rebuild of the liquor delivery system with the replacement of two opened metallic tanks on a

closed bimetallic tank with a capacity of 320 m3;

• arrangement of the phased intake of strong liquor and washing the pulp in the cooker;

• overhaul of the steam supply system with the replacement of the steam generators and the transi-

tion to burning natural gas instead of coal and fuel oil;

120

• the stabilisation of the operation of the evaporation workshop by increasing the output of lignosul-

phonates from the sulphite liquor (liquid waste cooking).

The above activities resulted in:

• the reduction in water use by 4.1 million m3 (12%);

• the reduction of discharges of dissolved organic matters expressed through the BOD5 by 5,887

tonnes (44%);

• the reduction of emissions to the atmosphere of hazardous substances by 7,480 tonnes (89%).

The environmental and production indicators attained by CJSC Cepruss by 2002 are given in Tables

52 and 53.

Table 52. Environmental indicators of CJSC Cepruss in 2002. Name of indicators Unit of measurement Indicator value

Fresh water intake from all sources thousand m3/year 30,206 Sewage water discharge

Total, thousand m3/year 28,484 including into surface waterbodies thousand m3/year 27,272

into urban sewerage thousand m3/year 1,212 BOD5 in the total sewage water discharge t/year 7,437 COD in the total sewage water discharge t/year 61,848 Ntot in the total sewage water discharge t/year 455 Ptot in the total sewage water discharge t/year 11 Suspended matters in the total sewage water discharge t/year 1,643

Emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere Total, t/year 933 including: Solid matters t/year 409

Sulphur dioxide t/year 167 Nitrogen oxides t/year 352 Other t/year 5

Wood waste (bark, sawdust) t/year 1,4678* Ash of solid fuel t/year 1,381** * 13,278 t of this waste is disposed of in the bark dump due to the termination of its use by Agroprom **1,381 t of this waste is disposed of in the ash dump due to the termination of the supply of natural gas

Table 53. Production indicators of CJSC Cepruss in 2002. Product range Unit of measurement Volume of production

Pulping t/year 9,3828 Bleached liquid pulp t/year 77,881 Unbleached roll pulp t/year 3,749 Cardboard technical t/year 2,836 Paper- base of sanitary hygiene t/year 3,004 Napkins thousand packs/year 16,779 Tissues thousand packs/year 27,427 Toilet paper thousand rolls/year 980.5 Technical liquid lignosulphonates t/year 98,407

The total amount of investments for the first phase was USD 15 million (self-financed). The implemented

activities met HELCOM Recommendation 16/4, in accordance with which the average annual sulphur emis-

sions from the production of the sulphite pulp should not exceed 1.5 kg of sulphur per tonne of produced

pulp from 1 January 2000. This recommendation was fulfilled by CJSC Cepruss, sulphur emissions have not

121

exceeded 1.2 kg per tonne of pulp since 2000. However, HELCOM Recommendation 17/9 has not been

implemented for any of the indicators.

In 2004, a two-stage project by CJSC Cepruss to improve production and construct a treatment plant was

adopted but not implemented. The first stage specified the overhaul of the unbleached flow with the opti-

misation of the water supply (first start-up complex) and the reconstruction of the bleached flow with chlo-

rine-free bleaching and the local treatment of alkaline sewage (second start-up complex).

The first start-up complex included:

• the construction of a washing station and the transition to a closed-loop wash-out and continuous

hot pulp washing at three pressure filters with increasing liquor recovery from 73.6% to 96.5%;

• the replacement of the ‘open’ to a ‘closed’ pulp sorting system with minimal fresh water consump-

tion;

• the rebuild of the acid workshop;

• the optimisation of water consumption in the production units;

• mounting the Krofta flotation trap for local sewage water treatment by reusing the treated water in

production and closing outfall No.1 in the River Pregel.

The second start-up complex included the construction of the chlorine dioxide production unit and the

transition to chloride pulp bleaching that would have removed molecular chlorine and sodium hypochlorite

as the substances that generate halogen-organic compounds including violate chlorine-organic substances

from the bleaching process.

The second stage included the construction of the all-factory intra-areal treatment facilities for the me-

chanical-biological and physical-chemical sewage water treatment of industrial and surface flows by dis-

charging the treated water into the River Pregel and closing two outfalls. The project also removed from

the production processes all chemicals that contained nitrogen and phosphorous (ammonia water and

trisodium phosphate).

122

Table 54. Planned environmental indicators of CJSC Cepruss after the implementation of two phases of the program.

Indicators Unit of measurement

Actual val-ues, 2002

I phase of the Program

II phase of the Program HELCOM Rec-ommendation

17/9 1 stage 2 stage

Water consump-tion

thousand m3/year 30,206 12,241 7,614

7697 (taking into

account their own needs of the Biological

Treatment Plant)

-

Water discharging thousand m3/year 28,484 12,206 7,534 7,534 -

COD kg/t 659 - 112.7 2.03 70 Р tot. kg/t 0.12 - 0.018 0.018 0.08 N tot. kg/t 4.9 - 0.13 0.13 0.7

Adsorbable Or-ganic Halogen kg/t - - 0.5 0.5 0.5

In 2002, the mill carried out its own environmental production audit that included its certified eco-

analytical laboratory.

Current state of the mill

CJSC Cepruss stopped the production of bleached and unbleached sulphite pulp on 1 November 2006 due

to financial problems after increases in the price of raw materials (softwood) and chemicals as well as insuf-

ficient deliveries of natural gas. It is not proposed to resume pulp production.

On 1 July 2009, the mill completely stopped paper production due to the rising cost of raw materials, name-

ly pulp. And on 1 March 2011, the sanitary-hygienic production from purchased paper was also stopped for

the same reasons.

From 2011, the main economic activity of Cepruss has been shipment by water transport – cargo handling

operations not involving any water intake or discharge.

The production equipment was decommissioned and partially sold.

1) Sewage water discharge

The reduction of production capacities at the mill led to the reduction of discharge volumes of sewage wa-

ter into the waterbody (Table 55).

Table 55. Discharges of polluted sewage water by CJSC Cepruss during the period 2007-2010.

Year Discharge of polluted sewage water, million m3/year

Without treatment Partially treated Total 2007 0 3.82 3.82 2008 0 1.43 1.43 2009 0 0.47 0.47 2010 0 0.08 0.08

123

Due to the winding up of pulp and paper production, work started in 2010 to close down the water intake

and water discharge facilities on the waterbodies intended for treatment, and also the discharge of sewage

water into surface waterbodies. This led to the cessation of water intake and the discharge of sewage water

into the River Pregel in 2011.

Domestic sewage water generated by household use and surface water runoff from the mill are transferred

to the urban sewerage system under a contract with the MUE CS Vodokanal of Kaliningrad.

2) Emissions of pollutants

Due to the closure of sulphite pulp production and the transfer of the thermal power station to MUE CS

Kaliningradteploset, there were no emissions of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and heavy metals into the

atmosphere in 2011.

3) Waste disposal

The bark and ash dump have been located on the mill site for many years. The bark dump was transferred

to the ownership of the German Company Zarya International GMBH under the sale’s contract of 8 October

2010. The bark (waste hazard class 5) was sold to the same company. The site of the ash dump was trans-

ferred under the contract to Kaliningrad on 10 September 2010.

Planned environmental protection activities

There is no adopted program of environmental activities at the mill nor has it participated in any interna-

tional environmental projects. It is also not planned to implement any environmental activities within the

framework of the federal and regional target programs.

Activities necessary for removing the enterprise from HELCOM’s list of hot spots

The implementation of such activities by the mill is not required due to the cessation of pulp and paper

production, which led to the radical reduction of its impact on the environment.

Conclusion

The economic inefficiency of production has led to the closure of all activities connected with the produc-

tion of pulp and paper products, the water intake and drainage facilities intended for sewage water treat-

ment and its discharge into surface waterbodies. CJSC Cepruss’s thermal power station (TPS) as the source

of negative impact to the atmospheric air has been donated to the city of Kaliningrad.

Being on the list of HELCOM’s hot spots for such reasons as its negative impact due to sewage water dis-

charges and emissions of pollutants is now irrelevant since the closure of CJSC Cepruss’s production activi-

ties.

124

Hot spot No. 70 The hazardous waste landfill in Kaliningrad

The hazardous waste landfill in Kaliningrad was designed for the storage and disposal of municipal solid

wastes (MSW) of Kaliningrad, Svetlogorsk urban district and Zelenogradsk District and is operated by the

Municipal Unitary Enterprise (MUE) Chistota.

The landfill is located on marshland in a wooded area on the western outskirts of the city of Kaliningrad

near the settlement of Kosmodemyanskiy. The River Pregel flows from the eastern side of the landfill.

The distances from nearest settlements to the landfill are: 850 m to Kosmodemyanskiy; 1km to the Kalinin-

grad maritime canal; and 1.8 km to the drinking water supply lakes (Figure 29). An asphalt road leads from

the main Kaliningrad – Baltiysk road to the landfill’s checkpoint and the crossing the Kaliningrad offtake.

The landfill was began life in 1978 and covers 13.8 hectares. Waste is disposed of in foundation pits with

use of isolating material (sang, clay) (Figure 30). Waste is stored in two-metre layers with constant compac-

tion.

Figure 30. Location of the hazardous waste landfill in Kaliningrad.

125

Figure 31. The hazardous waste landfill in Kaliningrad.

Channelling is used to intercept surface runoff in the area. A drainage system for filtrate derivation to be

collected in suction sumps was installed in 2008-2009 (Figure 31). At the same time, the filtrate is trans-

ferred to the biological treatment plant, built in 2009, through a system of different pumps.

Figure 32. Suction sumps at the hazardous waste landfill in Kaliningrad.

The landfill’s service area includes a control room and outbuilding for repairing and storing machinery. The

landfill has a centralised water supply system. The site also has inspection pits for the emergency repairs, a

vehicle disinfection point, and a concrete bathtub to disinfect the undercarriages of dustcarts.

The annual volume of solid waste disposal at the landfill is 4,000 m3. To date, the total accumulated waste

is about 35 million m3.

126

After an unscheduled inspection by the supervisory authority in November 2012, it was ascertained that

the designed capacity of the landfill has been exceeded by 24.8%.

The landfill holds Licence No. OT – 21 – 000296 (39) of 11 August 2008 on the Implementation of Activities

on the Collection, Use, Neutralisation, Transportation and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes issued by the De-

partment of Technological, Environmental and Nuclear Supervision (Rostechnadzor) of Kaliningrad Region,

valid until 11 July 2013. The current licence allows the landfill to accept 338 different wastes in accordance

with the Federal classification waste catalogue related to hazard classes IV-V. This list was approved by the

Deputy of the Territorial Administration of Rospotrebnadzor on 26 December 2008.

On the basis of the decision of the Mayor of Kaliningrad on 22 May 1998 No.1535 On granting an area of

land to MUE Chistota in October District, the land area of 13.3 hectares on the Baltic highway in October

District was given to the mill for the operation, reclamation and phased closedown of the existing MSW

landfill. According to the decision of the Mayor No.141 on 2 February 2007, the area allocated for landfill

was 13,8281 hectares. The expansion of the landfill area was due to the weighing equipment.

In accordance with the decree of Administration of urban district city of Kaliningrad No.960 on 15 May

2008, the lease period of the land area allocated for the MSW landfill was extended for MUE Chistota until

31 December 2014. Currently, the lease period was extended by 25 years, evidence of execution of an in-

definite-term licence for the neutralisation and disposal of wastes of hazard classes 1-4.

In addition to the licence, MUE Chistota has the following documentation:

• Sanitary-epidemiological Conclusion No. 39.KS.14.000.M.000013.01.08 on 18 January 2008.

• Technological regulations of operation of the MUE Chistota landfill adopted by the Director on 17

October 2008.

• Documents of the acceptance of large-size solid wastes.

• Documents on the design, operation and reclamation of the MSW landfill adopted by the Ministry of

Building of the Russian Federation on 2 November 1996.

• Limits for waste disposal No. 605 and No. 606 as well as limits for the municipal solid wastes landfill

were issued to MUE Chistota. Limits were adopted by the territorial Administration of Technologi-

cal, Environmental and Nuclear Supervision of Kaliningrad Region and fixed for five years.

• The production control plan of the municipal solid waste landfill in the settlement of Kosmodemyan-

skiy.

• The production control program related to waste handling was endorsed on 3 July 2012 by the Ser-

vice of Environmental Control and Supervision of Kaliningrad Region.

127

The min activities of Kaliningrad’s hazardous waste landfill:

• Collection and transportation of municipal solid wastes to the landfill from households and industry

in Kaliningrad.

• Disposal of solid wastes.

• Environmental monitoring in the landfill’s discharge area.

• Development and implementation of environmental technologies in order to minimise the negative

impact on the environment.

Potential dangers:

• An ineffective treatment plant and the landfill’s proximity to the waterbody can influence the water

quality of the Lagoon (Clause 2, paragraph 3 of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine En-

vironment of the Baltic Sea, 1992)

• Any outbreaks of fire will lead to air pollution.

• Greenhouse gas emissions as a result of solid waste landfilling.

• The contaminated ground and surface waters were treated by using filters and sewage drainage

water by biological treatment.

• The surrounding areas have become ‘marsh-like’ due to sewage water and filtrate from the landfill.

Environmental protection activities carried out during 2003-2009

The TACIS Project Support for waste management in Kaliningrad Region was implemented in 2003-2004. Its

aim was to improve and increase the efficiency of services, bring it in compliance with the environmental

standards of waste management system in Kaliningrad, and provide solutions for the long-term handling of

wastes in the region. The main results of the project were:

• A review of the existing waste management system in Kaliningrad Region was carried out (amount

and morphology of formed wastes, existing infrastructure).

• Technical solutions were proposed for the organisation of work with wastes (the number and loca-

tion of new landfills; additional infrastructure for collection; the sorting, transportation and dispos-

al of wastes; and activities for the closure and reclamation of existing dumps).

• The financial costs for waste operations were estimated for the next few years.

In 2004, the international TACIS project ‘Decreasing the volume of the greenhouse gases forming on the

Kaliningrad landfill (Russia)’ was implemented. The aim of the project was to demonstrate the possibility to

reduce the impacts of landfills on the environment in general, and the Kaliningrad landfill in particular, by

the use of biogas disposal.

128

The main results of the project:

• Laboratory studies found concentrations of methane ranging from 64-81%; the volume of produced

biogas is thus 11 million m3/year.

• Laboratory studies on leached water were carried out (filtrate). The obtained BOD (Biological Oxy-

gen Demand) value (783 mg/l) suggests an active process of biogas production.

• Two methods to use the biogas were suggested:

o to produce 45.2 GWh of heat per year

o to produce 16.9 GWh of energy and 33.9 GWh of heat per year

• The use of biogas for the production of energy and heat (second method) is more effective from an

economic point of view.

Within the framework of implementation of the Federal target program of the development of Kaliningrad

Region up to 2010, the construction of the landfill and a waste-sorting plant for the disposal of municipal

and industrial wastes was planned, but has not been implemented to date.

Environmental activities carried out during 2009-2012

In 2009, within the framework of the international project JOCCOW (the JOint Capacity Building COncerning

Waste Management (2007-2009)), the pilot installation consisting of three waterbodies and appropriate

equipment for the collection and treatment of filtrate were purchased and put into operation (Figure 32).

Figure 33. The pilot installation for the collection and treatment of filtration water at the Kaliningrad landfill.

The main aims of the 2009 pilot project for the recycling of electric and electronic waste in Kaliningrad are:

129

• The preparation of proposals for the development of technical, organisational and financial project

documentation to create a uniform system for the disposal of electrical and electronic waste.

• The establishment of the Centre for the Treatment of Electrical and Electronic Wastes in the City of

Kaliningrad.

During the first phase of the project, various scenarios were developed on how electrical and electronic

waste can be sustainably handled. In the second phase, technical, organisational and financing documents

were developed to create a logistics system electrical and electronic waste. On the basis of these docu-

ments, the Municipality of Kaliningrad will be able to meet the needs of existing municipal and private insti-

tutions and thus carry out a fully environmentally safe collection and disposal of electrical and electronic

waste in the long-term in Kaliningrad.

Within the framework of implementation of the third phase of the project, the construction of a centre for

recycling electrical and electronic waste on the site of the MSW landfill is planned.

The construction of the new modern landfill for municipal and industrial wastes with a waste-treatment

plant with capacity of 300,000 t/year is provided by the regional target program on the handling of produc-

tion and consumption waste in Kaliningrad Region from 2012-2016 funded by the regional budget subject

to its inclusion in the regional investment program. The ongoing work on site selection for this landfill is

complicated by the absence of the MSW landfill on the current Master plan of the Kaliningrad. Construction

sites for the landfill outside Kaliningrad, namely Gurjevsk or Bargationovsk, are being studied. After the

construction of the new landfill and waste-treatment plant, work will begin to reclaim the existing landfill.

Environmental impact assessment

1) Emissions to the atmosphere

Biogas is the main source of emissions to the atmosphere during waste landfilling. The maximum permissi-

ble emissions of pollutants for the landfill have not been set.

Fires regularly break out at landfill – the largest occurring in August 2012, covering an estimated area of

25,000 m2.

2) Sewage water discharge

The landfill does not discharge household sewage water. Sewage is collected by its own vehicles for dispos-

al at the MUE CS Vodokanal treatment plant.

The supervisory authority’s inspection in November 2012, found that land around the landfill had become

‘marsh-like’ due to the irregular removal of wastes, sewage drainage water and filtrate from the landfill’s

130

perimeter - only 10% of this water passes through the treatment plant. The remaining untreated sewage

drainage water and filtrate pass through the soil and can enter the nearest waterbodies. The treated sew-

age water runs into an accumulation pool and is used to wash landfill’s vehicles.

3) Soil contamination

Exceeding the landfill’s designed capacity leads to the littering of the surrounding area.

In November 2012, laboratory studies by the Federal Budgetary Institution Centre of Laboratory Analysis

and Technical Measurements of Kaliningrad Region (FBI TSLATI of Kaliningrad Region), found that concen-

trations of the mobile form of nickel at the control point of the MSW landfill in Kosmodemyanskiy were 1.2

times higher than the nickel’s MPC determined by Hygienic Regulation 2.1.7.2041-06 Maximum permissible

concentrations of chemical substances in the water. This mobile form of nickel represents the greatest

danger since it migrates deep into the soil and groundwater.

Results of the monitoring of environmental components

The monitoring of hazardous wastes at the Kaliningrad landfill is carried out in accordance with the Pro-

gram for environmental control of landfills in the settlement of Kosmodemyanskiy, and includes:

• environmental control of the soil in the landfill’s discharge zone

• environmental control of the atmospheric air in the landfill’s discharge zone

Experts from FBI TSLATI of Kaliningrad Region take and analyse samples quarterly.

The soil monitoring program includes the analysis of the following: hygienic indicators (bacteriological and

parasitological analysis), heavy metals, and pH and oil products (Table 56). In accordance with sanitary-

parasitological indicators, the soil corresponded to the category ‘clean’ during the research period. In al-

most all of the sanitary-bacteriological tests, the soil was classified as ‘clean’, except for the bacteriological

samples (coliform index and enterococcus index) in the fourth quarter of 2012 where they were catego-

rized as moderately hazardous. Due to the lack of information on the forms of heavy metals in the soil

(gross metal content and its moving form), a conformance evaluation of MPC for heavy metals was carried

out by the maximum value of MPC in accordance with the soil type.

The results of the studies of the chemical indicators in the soil (heavy metals, oil products) showed no ex-

ceeding of MPC.

The air monitoring program included analysing the following parameters: sulphur dioxide, ammonium, ni-

trogen oxides, hydrogen sulphide, benzene, mercury vapours, carbon dioxide and methane (Table 57). Con-

trol of the content of pollutants in the atmospheric air is carried out at two points - at the landfill’s control

131

point and outside the site at the Avtotor plant’s control point. The results indicate an exceeding of MPC of

suspended matters in the air in 2012 and for benzene in the first half of 2012 at the two control points.

Within the framework of the implementation of the BALTHAZAR project (Reducing risks from hazardous

wastes in Russia), studies were conducted in November 2009 on the filtrate and bed silt of the adjacent

waterbody to the Kaliningrad hazardous waste landfill (Table 58). According to the results, the MPC of con-

trolled substances was exceeded for one indicator (49 times for phenol); also, the MPC for arsenic and

cadmium were exceeded in the bottom sediments.


Currently, the landfill participates in the regional target program Handling waste production and consump-

tion in Kaliningrad Region from 2012- 2016 and in the international environmental project The pilot project

Centre for recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment in Kaliningrad. Landfill reclamation is

planned to be carried out after the construction of the new landfill and waste-treatment plant. Within the

implementation of the third and final phase of the international project, the construction of a recycling

centre for electrical and electronic waste on the landfill’s site is planned.

132

Table 56. Results of soil monitoring in the discharge zone of the Kaliningrad hazardous waste landfill during 2011-2012.

Indicator Unit of meas-urement

2011 2012 MPC1, mg/kg 1 quarter 2 quarter 3 quarter 4 quarter 1 quarter 2 quarter 3 quarter 4 quarter

Coliform index Colony Forming Units (CFU)/g < 1 2.5 < 1 9.4 < 1 < 1 1.9 48.75

-2

Enterococcus index CFU/g < 1 6.2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.9 98.1

Pathogenic en-terobacteria,

including Salmo-nella

CFU/g not de-tected not detected not detected not de-

tected not detected not detected not detected not detected

Eggs and larvae of helminths

(viable) spec. /g

not de-tected in 1

kg

not detected in 1 kg


not de-tected in 1

kg





Intestinal patho-genic protozoan

cysts spec. /100g not de-

tected not detected not detected not de-tected not detected not detected not detected not detected

Cadmium mg/kg < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 (2)

Cooper mg/kg 18.3 23.3 26.8 32.4 33.1 29.6 19.8 26.4 132

Zinc mg/kg 41.6 46.8 34.2 30.8 29.9 34.5 37.3 32.1 (220)

Nickel mg/kg < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 80

Lead mg/kg 52.4 49.2 41.7 46.3 47.3 39.1 44 36.9 32 (130)

Arsenic mg/kg < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 2.0 (10)

pH mg/kg 7.1 7.03 7.00 7.00 7.05 7.02 7.00 7.02

Oil products mg/kg 68.9 53.4 44.0 22.4 23.0 18.0 21.0 45.7 1 Maximum permissible concentrations of pollutants is determined in accordance with the Hygienic Regulations HR 2.1.7-2041-06 Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of chemical substances in the soil and Hygienic Regulations HR 2.1.7.2511-09 Tentative allowable concentrations (TAC) of chemical substances in the soil (MPC values are given in brackets). 2 Soil quality standards were determined in accordance with the Sanitary and epidemiological requirements to water quality SanPiN 2.1.7.1287.03 Soil, cleaning of settlements, domestic and industrial wastes, sanitary protection of soil. Sanitary and epidemiological rules and norms.

133

Table 57. Results of air monitoring in the discharge zone of the Kaliningrad hazardous waste landfill during 2011-2012.

Indicator

Unit of meas-ure-

ment

2011 2012 MPC1, mg/kg 1 quar-

ter 2 quar-

ter 3 quar-

ter 4 quar-

ter 1 quar-

ter 2 quar-

ter 3 quar-

ter 4 quar-

ter Near the landfill’s checkpoint

Nitrogen oxide

mg/m3 0.034 0.04 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 0.06

Nitrogen dioxide

mg/m3 0.05 0.039 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.04

Sulphur dioxide

mg/m3 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 -

Ammonia mg/m3 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.04 Hydrogen sulphide

mg/m3 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 0.0076 -

Methane mg/m3 < 40 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 25.0 - Carbon

monoxide mg/m3 < 1 < 1 2 < 1 < 1.5 < 1.5 1.00 < 1.5 3.0

Mercury vapours

mg/m3 < 50х10-6

< 50х10-6

< 50х10-6

< 50х10-6

< 50х10-6

< 50х10-6

< 50х10-6

< 50х10-6

0.003

Soot mg/m3 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 0.027 - Suspended

matters mg/m3 0.09 0.07 0.14 0.08 < 0.26 < 0.26 < 0.26 < 0.26 0.15

Benzene mg/m3 0.07 0.03 < 0.001 0.03 0.14 0.14 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.1

Outside the landfill area (near the Avtotor plant’s control post) Nitrogen

oxide mg/m3 0.06 0.047 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 0.06

Nitrogen dioxide

mg/m3 0.086 0.049 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.04

Sulphur dioxide

mg/m3 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 -

Ammonia mg/m3 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.04 Hydrogen sulphide

mg/m3 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 0.006 -

Methane mg/m3 < 40 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 29.8 - Carbon

monoxide mg/m3 1.1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1.5 < 1.5 1.1 1.5 3.0

Soot mg/m3 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 0.063 - Suspended

matters mg/m3 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.27 < 0.26 < 0.26 < 0.26 0.15

Benzene mg/m3 0.054 0.047 < 0.001 0.042 0.119 0.11 < 0.05 0.14 0.1 1 Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of pollutants is determined in accordance with the Hygienic Regulations HR 2.1.6-1338-03 Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of pollutants in the air of settlements.

134

Table 58. Results of the filtrate monitoring near the Kaliningrad hazardous waste landfill and bed silt moni-toring in the adjacent waterbody.

Filtrate near the Kaliningrad hazardous waste landfill Bed silt of the waterbody No. п/п Indicator MPC1,

mg/dm3 Concentration,

mg/dm3 Indicator MPC2, mg/kg

Concentration, mg/kg

1 pH - 6.85 pH - 6.49

2 Cadmium 0.001 < 0.0001 Phenol - < 0.05

3 Total chromium 0.05 0.001 Mercury 2.1 0.09

4 Mercury 0.0005 < 0.05 х 10-3 Zinc (220) 71

5 Phenol 0.001 0.049 Cooper (132) 21

6 Arsenic 0.01 0.0004 Nickel (80) 6.6

7 Cobalt 0.1 < 0.001 Lead 32.0 (130) < 0.5

8 Cooper 1 0.0012 Cadmium (2) 2

9 Nickel 0.02 0.0032 Chromium - 36

10 Lead 0.01 < 0.001 Cobalt - 5.3

11 Zinc 1 0.015 Arsenic 2.0 (10) 14.2

12 Cyanides 0.07 < 0.005 Oil products - 191

13 Oil products 0.3 0.26 DCH - 0.016

14 DCM (dichloromethane) 0.02 0.50 х 10-3 Chloroform - 0.0043

15 Chloroform 0.06 0.00217 Carbon tetrachloride - 0.0011

16 Carbon tetrachloride - 0.036 х 10-3 DCE - 0.00008

17 DCE (dichloroethane) 0.003 <0.001 х 10-3 Hexachloroethanes - < 0.0002

18 Hexachloroethane 0.01 <0.001 х 10-3 Pentachloroethane - < 0.0002

19 Pentachloroethane - <0.001 х 10-3 Hexachloroethane - < 0.0002

20 Hexachloroethane - <0.001 х 10-3 Trichloroethylene - < 0.0002

21 Perchloroethylene 0.005 <0.001 х 10-3 Perchloroethylene - < 0.0002

22 Benzene 0.001 50 х 10-6 Benzene 0.03 (0.3) 0.0017

23 Toluene 0.024 0.00127 Toluene 0.3 0.025

24 Ethylbenzene 0.002 24 х 10-6 Ethylbenzene - < 0.0001

25 M- and p- xylenes - 16 х 10-6 M- and p- xylenes 0.3 0.0064

26 O-xylene - 10 х 10-6 O-xylene 0.3 0.0034

27 Sterol - 0.00017 Chlorophenol - < 0.01

28 Chlorophenol - <0.0001 Pentabromdiphenyl ether (sum of isomers) - 0.0296 х 10-3

29 Anthracene 10 2.2 х 10-6 Hexabromodiphenyl ether (sum of isomers) - 0.0064 х 10-3

30 Acenaphthene - 70.3 х 10-6 Octabromodiphenyl ether (sum of isomers) - < 0.01 х 10-3

31 Acenaphthylene - 19.8 х 10-6 Decabromodiphenyl ether - 0.0591 х 10-3

32 Benz(a)anthracene - 4.6 х 10-6 Hexabromocyclododecane (sum of isomers) - < 0.02 х 10-3

33 Benz(a)pyrene 0.00001 9.6 х 10-6 Endosulphane (sum of isomers) - < 0.02 х 10-3

34 Benzo(b)fluoranthene - 12.6 х 10-6 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 0.03 х 10-6

135





35 Benzo(k)fluoranthene - 8.5 х 10-6 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD - 0.09 х 10-6

36 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene - 10.2 х 10-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD - 0.05 х 10-6

37 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene - 1.9 х 10-6 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD - 0.18 х 10-6

38 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene - 5.6 х 10-6 1,2,3,7,8,9-HpCDD - 0.23 х 10-6

39 Naphthalene 0.01 7.9 х 10-6 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD - 2.02 х 10-6

40 Pyrene - 54 х 10-6 OCDD - 0.0157 х 10-3

41 Phenanthrene - 0.198 х 10-3 2,3,7,8-TCDF - 0.53 х 10-6

42 Fluoranthene - 46.7 х 10-6 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF - 0.31 х 10-6

43 Fluorene - 9.3 х 10-6 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF - 0.31 х 10-6

44 Chrysene - 8.9 х 10-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF - 0.34 х 10-6

45 Pentabromdiphenyl ether (sum of isomers) - 0.4 х 10-6 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF - 0.23 х 10-6

46 Hexabromodiphenyl ether (sum of isomers) - 0.04 х 10-6 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF - 0.11 х 10-6

47 Octabromodiphenyl ether (sum of isomers) - < 0.02 х 10-6 2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF - 0.24 х 10-6

48 Decabromodiphenyl ether - < 0.2 х 10-6 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF - 1.20 х 10-6

49 Hexabromocyclododecane (sum of isomers) - < 0.5 х 10-6 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF - 0.15 х 10-6

50 Endosulphane (sum of isomers) - < 0.2 х 10-6 OCDF - 1.97 х 10-6

51 3,3’4,4’-TCB (77) 0,01 2.038 х 10-6 Other TCDD - 0.0111 х 10-3

52 3,4,4’,5-TCB (81) 0,01 97.4 х 10-9 Other PeCDD - 0.0248 х 10-3

53 3,3’, 4,4’,5-PeCB (126) 0,0005 8.45 х 10-9 Other HxCDD - 0.0409 х 10-3

54 3,3’,4,4’,5,5’-HxCB (169) - < 1.9 х 10-9 Other HpCDD - 5.1 х 10-6

55 2,3,3’,4,4’-PeCB (105) 0,0005 1.484 х 10-6 Other TCDF - 5.9 х 10-6

56 2,3,4,4’,5-PeCB (114) 0,0005 97.4 х 10-9 Other PeCDF - 3.7 х 10-6

57 2,3’,4,4’,5-PeCB (118) 0,0005 2.462 х 10-6 Other HxCDF - 2.6 х 10-6

58 2’,3,4,4’,5-PeCB (123) 0,0005 21.3 х 10-9 Other HpCDF - 1.8 х 10-6

59 2, 3,3’,4,4’,5-HxCB (156) - 69.06 х 10-9 3,3’4,4’-TCB (77) 0.06 9.47 х 10-6

60 2,3,3’,4,4’,5’-HxCB (157) - 20.76 х 10-9 3,4,4’,5-TCB (81) 0.06 0.30 х 10-6

61 2,3’,4,4’,5,5’-HxCB (167) - 35.17 х 10-9 3,3’, 4,4’,5-PeCB (126) 0.1 1.38 х 10-6

62 2,3,3’,4,4’,5,5’-HpCB (189) - 3.39 х 10-9 3,3’,4,4’,5,5’-HxCB (169) - 0.18 х 10-6

63 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 х 10-9 < 0.12 х 10-9 2,3,3’,4,4’-PeCB (105) 0.1 0.1582 х 10-3

64 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD - < 0.13 х 10-9 2,3,4,4’,5-PeCB (114) 0.1 0.0106 х 10-3

65 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD - 0.15 х 10-9 2,3’,4,4’,5-PeCB (118) 0.1 0.1092 х 10-3

66 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD - < 1.21 х 10-9 2’,3,4,4’,5-PeCB (123) 0.1 8.51 х 10-6

67 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD - <0.21 х 10-9 2, 3,3’,4,4’,5-HxCB (156) - 0.0451 х 10-3

136





68 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD - 1.47 х 10-9 2,3,3’,4,4’,5’-HxCB (157) - 0.01539 х 10-3

69 OCDD - 8.90 х 10-9 2,3’,4,4’,5,5’-HxCB (167) - 0.02597 х 10-3

70 2,3,7,8-TCDF - 0.45 х 10-9 2,3,3’,4,4’,5,5’-HpCB (189) - 4.83 х 10-6

71 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF - 0.34 х 10-9 Anthracene - 0.1279

72 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF - 0.74 х 10-9 Acenaphthene - 0.0087

73 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF - 0.50 х 10-9 Acenaphthylene - 0.0034

74 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF - 0.39 х 10-9 Benz(a)anthracene - 0.2173

75 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF - < 0.14 х 10-9 Benz(a)pyrene 0.02 0.2018

76 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF - 0.61 х 10-9 Benzo(b)fluoranthene - 0.2251

77 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF - 1.17 х 10-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene - 0.1608

78 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF - < 0.3 х 10-9 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene - 0.221

79 OCDF - 0.86 х 10-9 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene - 0.0471

80 Other TCDD - 2.1 х 10-9 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene - 0.1254

81 Other PeCDD - < 2.35 х 10-9 Naphthalene - < 0.001

82 Other HxCDD - 4.0 х 10-9 Pyrene - 0.9849

83 Other HpCDD - 2.6 х 10-9 Phenanthrene - 0.2514

84 Other TCDF - 15.8 х 10-9 Fluoranthene - 0.9336

85 Other PeCDF - 8.0 х 10-9 Fluorene - 0.0064

86 Other HxCDF - 4.1 х 10-9 Chrysene - 0.2242

87 Other HpCDF - 1.9 х 10-9 - - - 1 Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of pollutants are determined in accordance with the Hygienic Regula-tions HR 2.1.5.1315-03 Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of chemical substances in the water of waterbod-ies of household water use and cultural and domestic water use and Hygienic Regulations HR 2.1.5.2280-07 Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of chemical substances in the water of waterbodies of household use and cultural and domestic water use. Additions and changes No.1 to the HR 2.1.5.1315-03.

2 Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of pollutants are determined in accordance with the Hygienic Regula-tions HR 2.1.7.2041-06 Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of chemical substances in the soil and Hygienic Regulations HR 2.1.7.2511-09 Tentatively permissible concentrations (TPC) of chemical substances in the soil (MPC values are given in brackets). MPC values, given into quotation marks 0.01, are taken from http://www.dioxin.ru/, section About dioxins, subsections polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and Environmental contamination by dioxins.

137

Compliance of the Kaliningrad hazardous waste landfill’s activities with the current

HELCOM Recommendations

An analysis of the compliance of the Kaliningrad hazardous waste landfill’s activities with HELCOM’s Rec-

ommendations is made on the basis of RECOMMENDATION 24/5 Proper waste handling/disposal (Table

59).

Activities necessary for removing the landfill from HELCOM’s list of hot spots

To radically reduce a negative impact on the environment, it is necessary to reclaim the landfill of hazard-

ous wastes and construct new landfill for industrial and municipal wastes as well as a waste-treatment

plant.

Conclusion

The Kaliningrad landfill has a significant negative impact on the environment as it continues to use outdat-

ed landfilling technologies, e.g. no pre-sorting and treatment, as well as the ineffective measures taken to

minimise its negative impact.

A comparative analysis of the hot spot for the previous period shows that despite the treatment plant for

leakage water is now operating, the negative impact level continues to rise.

Moreover, the landfill’s technical and operational features do not meet today’s requirements; nor does it

have impermeable bedrocks to prevent leakage of filtrate. There is no reliable information on the sewage

water’s hazardous contents penetrating from the landfill to the environment. There was no monitoring of

the sewage drain water and filtrate from the landfill that impact the ground and surface waters. Recurrent

fires at the landfill also provoke concern.

It is possible to ensure the environmental safety of the landfill by the reclamation activities.

It was planned to construct a new landfill and incineration plant by 2006 (capacity 300,000 t/year) within

the framework of the regional target program Handling production and consumption wastes in Kaliningrad

Region from 2012-2016, and funded by the regional budget subject to its inclusion in the regional invest-

ment program.

To control the composition and migration of pollutants together with groundwater, it is necessary to estab-

lish a hydrogeological monitoring network.

138

Table 59. Compliance of the Kaliningrad landfill’s activities with the HELCOM Recommendations.

HELCOM Recommen-dation Targets Standard The situation at the enterprise

Conclusion about con-formity of the target

RECOMMENDATION 24/5 Proper waste handling/disposal

Compliance with the na-

tional legisla-tion in the field of waste man-

agement

Full compliance The company has a full set of envi-ronmental documentation, devel-oped in accordance with the Rus-sian legislation on waste handling.

Violations in the field of waste handling were detected in 2012 due to the scheduled inspection

on compliance with environmental legislation.

+/-

Reduction of waste land-filling at the expense of their pre-

separation and treatment

Wastes when accepted by the landfill are not separated or sepa-

rately treated. -

Hot spot No. 71 Fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE State Sea Fishing Port (Port oil

bunkering station of Kaliningrad)

By 2 July 2005, the FSUE State Sea Fishing Port had been joined to the FSUE Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port

(FSUE KSFP).

The FSUE Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port operates in the loading, unloading and service of transport ships as

well as receiving and treating bilge and ballast waters, and wash and oily waters from ships. FSUE KSFP has

three production areas: central (port), the motor technical centre and the fuel and cargo complex (FCC).

Sanitary-protection zone of the FSUE KSFP’s industrial site is 1,000 m because of its class 1 hazard category

in accordance with of SanPiN 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03 (para 7.1.14).

The FCC is located on the FSUE KSFP site on the bank of the River Pregel (Figure 33). It covers an area of

19.35 hectares and houses a tank stock (capacity 36,000 m2); a one-time storage for oil products; two dou-

ble-sided railroad overpasses for the unloading and loading of black and white oil products, and other oils;

up to 24 tank wagons; technological pump stations for oil products of different properties and other sup-

port services. The fuel and cargo complex is able to unload 30 tank wagons simultaneously. The site has an

access way for 150 tank wagons and has terminals for tankers with a displacement of up to 14,000 tonnes

and transport the waste runoff from the ships to the treatment plants. The plants are able to treat oil-

containing water from suspended matters and oil products, and store oil-containing mixtures, bilge and

ballast waters in tanks on the site.

139

The site’s perimeter is surrounded by a concrete wall and borders the River Pregel in the north, the Baltic

Shipyard Yantar in the east, Transportnaya street in the south, and marshland in the west.

Slick bars at the point of entry prevent oil products from contaminating the waters of the River Pregel.

Figure 34. Location of the FCC.

The port collects the following types of wastes from ships berthing at FSUE KSFP:

• oil-containing (bilge) waters, e.g. from the ships’ engines; the waste is treated at the treatment

plant.

• domestic sewage waters that are discharged into the sewerage system.

The main activities of the enterprise are:

• receipt, transhipment and storage of oil and oil products

• bunkering of ships for fuel

• the collection, treatment and recycling of bilge and bilge and ballast waters as well as other oi

containing waters (naphtha residue, oil mixtures containing chemical substances)

• oil and sewage oil-containing water analysis

• the reception and treatment of oil-sludge

The following types of wastes are formed at the plant:

• BBW (bilge and ballast water)

• Oil-sludge

140

• MWO (mixture of waste oil)

• oil-sludge trap

History of the enterprise

The FCC was established on the site where the small oil bunkering station of the former German company

SHELL remained after the Second World War, and located on the right side of the Forestry harbour port. In

1954, the overhaul of the oil bunkering station and the expansion of the site began. Over the subsequent

five-year period, the four tanks were put into operation; also, bunkering and wood fire moorings, railways

and personnel facilities were built, and in 1959 oil bunkering began.

During the 1960s, horizontal oil tanks were installed and the system of vertical tanks for diesel fuel and fuel

oil was extended. In 1965, the boiler room, operating on liquid fuel, was built and renovated in 1982. By

1967, the total capacity of the oil bunkering station has reached 30,000 m3 of simultaneous storage of dif-

ferent fuels and oils. The fire pump station was also put into operation in the same year. The improvement

of the tank farm for the storage of oil products led to the construction of an oil fuel pumping station and

the upgrade of the pumping facilities.

During the 1970s, the administrative and utility building was built, as was the laboratory for the content

analysis of oil products and sewage water, a storehouse a fuels and lubricants and control rooms, etc. In

1976, the plants to treat mazut-polluted bilge and ballast, and oil-containing waters were put into opera-

tion. In 1982, the station for the utilisation of ship wastes and oil-sludge were also put into operation.

In the 1990s, the renewal of the technological equipment increased the freight turnover of the FCC.

During 1999-2005, the enterprise existed as a separate state enterprise (FSUE) – the Kaliningrad oil bunker-

ing station (KOBS). In November 2005, it again became a structural unit of the Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port.

Impact on the environment

The FCC of the FSUE KSFP is included in the list of the HELCOM’s of hot spots due to the presence of the

following sources of environmental pollution:

• oil sludge accumulated in the soil storage

• oil-polluted soils located close to the shoreline that drain into the River Pregel which, though the

existing hydrological network, influences the quality of the water Vistula (Kaliningrad) Lagoon

(clause 3, paragraph 2 of the Convention on protection of marine environment of the Baltic Sea,

1992).

In addition to the above, other possible ways that the fuel and cargo complex can impact the environment

are:

141

• Some areas might become flooded with polluted water from the River Pregel might due to the lack

of storm water collection and treatment systems in some areas of the FCC.

• The emissions of pollutants (hazard substances, carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere during the oil-

sludge treatment, while it is stored in the sludge tank and during loading and unloading work.

The state of the facility during 2000-2004

The tank farm consisted of 33 tanks with total capacity of 30,000 m3, in which the crude oil, diesel fuel,

engine oil and bunker fuel were stored. The tank farm had banking and was equipped with electronic in-

formation-measuring system ENTIS.

The oil products were delivered in cisterns by rail and unloaded into vessels and trucks. All operations with

oil products on bunkering ships and tanker trucks were carried out by the closed method. The transhipment

volume in 2003 was 1,863.84 tonnes.

The site of the oil bunkering station was divided into the three functional areas: reception, storage and

delivery (bunkering).

The reception area included two railroad overpasses for 16 tanker wagons with a capacity of 60 tonnes

each, and facilities for upper and lower unloading with four pumping stations with the capacity of 200-700

t/hour depending on the oil product’s density. The oil products were sent from the reception area to the

storage tanks or directly to the bunkering ships.

The storage area housed a tank farm (horizontal and vertical tanks) with a capacity of 50-5,000 m3. The

total capacity of the tank farm was 30,305 m3 (Table 60).

Table 60. The tank farm in 2004. Object name Model Class of

hazard Hazard substance Volume

(tonnes)

Year of commis-sioning

Date of the last inspection

Tank No. 1 РВК-1000 4 Diesel fuel 895.57 1956 2003 Diamar-servis

Tank No. 2 RBK-1000 4 Fuel oil 985.53 1956 2000 Diamar-servis

Tank No. 3 RBK-1000 4 Fuel oil 898.17 1957 2003 Diamar-servis

Tank No. 4 RBK-600 4 Diesel oil 447.37 1957 2000 Diamar-servis

Tank No. 5 PBS-2000 3 Oil, gas condensate 1642.68 1961 2003 Diamar-servis



142

Object name Model Class of hazard

Hazard substance Volume (tonnes)

Year of commis-sioning

Date of the last inspection

Tank No. 9 PBS-5000 3 Oil, gas condensate 3,600.45 1969 2003 Diamar-servis



Tank No. 12 PBS-5000 4 Diesel oil 3,847.05 1964 -

Horizontal tank No. 26 RGS 4 Diesel oil 56.932 1963 -

Horizontal tank No. 27 RGS-50 3 Oil 45.24 1963 -






Pumping station No.1 (diesel fuel) - 4 Diesel oil - 1975 -

Pumping station No. 2 (fuel oil) - 4 Fuel oil - 1978 -

The storage area was connected to the reception and delivery area by a surface pipeline with a diameter

of 219 mm and a total length of 2,000 m. The maximum length of the pipeline section between shutoff

gate valves was 150 m.

The oil products delivery area was subdivided into oil products for moored tankers and tanker trucks.

Table 61. Transhipment volume during 1991-2004 (1,000 tonnes).

Year Diesel fuel Fuel oil Oil Oil (petroleum) Ship’s fuel Total transhipment

1991 - - - - - 455.0 1992 - - - 66 - 544.8 1993 19.1 11.2 0.5 226 - 574.3 1994 96.1 24.6 6.7 484.2 - 617.9 1995 63.9 21.7 1.2 326.5 - 413.3 1996 37.5 8.7 1.2 508 - 574.1 1997 34.5 20.5 1.0 619 - 675.1 1998 50.7 17.1 0.6 493.9 - 562.3 1999 101.65 54.7 1.25 267.3 - 424.9 2000 82.17 57.34 1.86 314.01 1.74 457.12 2001 197.40 52.22 1.99 185,280 - 555.73 2002 291.06 34.6 1.42 757 105.65 1,348.85 2003 297.47 72.33 1.19 1,401.21 417.56 1,863.84 2004 - - - - - more than 2,000

143

The enterprise had four artesian wells for its own water supply - three working and installed near the

stop valves and the other lying idle. The volume of total water consumption in 2004 was 120.7 m3/day,

from which:

• domestic needs – 20.5 m3/day

• production needs – 100.2 m3/day

The FSUE KOBS has its own treatment plant with a capacity of 2,800 m3/day; the actual load in 2004 was

38.4 m3/day.

Water discharge to the River Pregel was 231.4 m3/day.

Sewage water discharge in 2004 was 43,000 m3/year:

• without treatment - 29,000 m3/year

• insufficiently treated - 14,000 m3/year

Blige and ballast water taken from ships and third-party organisations to the FSUE Kaliningrad oil bun-

kering station treatment plants was 14,000 m3/year. The amount rain and melt water from the site was

78.6 m3/day.

In 2004, starting-up and the fine-tuning of the UNIVERSAL installation for the treatment of oil-containing

waters were carried out at the treatment plants. This installation significantly decreased the content of

pollutants in discharged waters.

During an investigation carried out by the Special Bureau of Independent Examinations of St. Petersburg in

2000, the volume of oil products in soils in the oil bunkering station was 1,332 tonnes, and the volume of

soil contaminated by oil products was 19,041 m3. The soil on the oil bunkering station site near the fuel

overpass and close to the shoreline of the River Pregel running into the Vistula (Kaliningrad) Lagoon was

classified as ‘heavy polluted’ by oil products. Such accumulation of oil products in the soil (sometimes in the

form of lens) is caused by many years’ of operating without following the environmental requirements.

Actual concentrations of pollutants in the sewage water from outfalls of the oil bunkering station to the

River Pregel were up to a hundred times in exceeding of the maximum permissible discharges for some

indicators.

144

Completed works on the improvement of technological production processes and

the improvement of the hot spot state during 1992-2004

Table 62. Activities carried out during 1992-2004.

Year Activities Total cost of the works, RUB

1992 The reconstruction of technological equipment was carried out; pumping oil station and technological pipeline were installed. -

1993 Electronic information-measuring system for the oil product accounting (ENTIS) was put into operation. -

1993-1994

Stenders SP-250 at moorage No.4 was put into operation. Stender is a facility for loading (unloading) oil products to ships by the closed method. -

1994 A Ferroconcrete fence with length of 700 running meters was constructed. - 1995 Three stenders SP-250 at moorage No.3 for bunker oil, diesel fuel, fuel oil and oil were

installed; 33 installations for lower unloading oil products from rail tank waggons by the closed method were installed.

-

1996 Harbour booms were purchased. - 1997 A horizontal tank with a capacity of 200 m3 in the below-ground version for the collection

of industrial storm runoff was installed. -

1998 Three pumping facilities were installed: in fuel and pumping (2) and oil and pumping (1). Repairing the pumping stations, utility building and storage rooms began. -

1999 The area with horizontal tanks was repaired. - 2000 Design work on the construction of facilities for oil-sludge began; engineering and envi-

ronmental expertise of the territory and waters in the region of fuel overpass was carried out by the Scientific Production Company GT Inspect of St. Petersburg.

207,284

2002 The installation for oil-sludge treatment of the KHD Klоcknег-Humboldt- Deutz, manufac-turer BAKER PROCESS (Germany) was completed and put into operation. It is an environ-mental protection piece of equipment providing water and soil protection from pollutions by oil products and secondary sources.

40,920,269

2003 On the basis of recommendations from engineering and environmental experts, to pre-vent oil products leaking into the soil during loading and unloading works, work should be carried out to repair the concrete encasement of the front discharges of 1 and 4 railways with a system for the collection and discharge of storm and industrial sewage waters to the treatment plants.

3,476,085

According to HELCOM Recommendation 20/5 Minimum ability to respond to Oil spillages in Oil Terminals the LARN, a plan was developed by FSUE KOBS and adopted by the Mari-time Administration of the Port of Kaliningrad and LARN, which included: an oil spills response Boom boat -150; booms of constant buoyancy BPP-830; an emergency side barrier ABZ-500; skimmer booms of threshold type SB-6; an anchor system and a posi-tioning chain.

1,864,806

Fire extinguishing equipment with a nontoxic, biodegradable foaming agent was pur-chased (PETROFILM-PHH FFFP, NIZHEGORODSKIY AFFF). 2,500,000

2004 The design documentation for the Compact installation for stabilizing hydrocarbon raw materials at the Kaliningrad oil bunkering station (KPOT), on which the stabilization of physical and chemical indicators of treated discharged oil products of group of mixture of waste oil (MWO) was developed and adopted by the supervisory authorities. Later, the complex of civil and erection works were implemented and the ancillary equipment of the stabilization of hydrocarbon raw materials was installed.

1,600,000

The design documentation for Tank farm for the reception and storage of oil-sludge and MWO on the site of the FSUE Kaliningrad oil bunkering station was developed. The pro-ject provided for the collection and storage of oil-sludge and treated MWO as well as for the collection of storm and industrial sewage water from the site of the existing tank farm with its further transfer for treatment. Outfall No.1 was decommissioned. The im-plementation of the project eliminated the open sludge collector with a capacity of 800 m3 and reclaimed some land.

7,784,047

Four RVS-1150 tanks were purchased.

145

Year Activities Total cost of the works, RUB

The maximum permissible discharges in sewage water at the outfall to the River Pregel were adopted.

The technical re-equipping of the treatment plants for bilge and ballast water was imple-mented: the renovation of the building and treatment plants was carried out; the project documentation for the installation of the waste water treatment unit ‘Universal’ and the results of the ecological assessment was obtained; the technological equipment for the installation for the Universal sewage water treatment was purchased; the equipment was installed; work on improving the banking of tanks Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 13 began (geomembrane installation).

2,767,138

Total cost of the work carried out by FSUE KOBS (own financing): 58,619,629

The planned activities in 2005 aimed to improve the hot spot (design and construction of a facility for the

biological treatment of domestic sewage water from outfall No.3, and a facility for burning municipal solid

wastes) were not implemented.

The current state

The amount of the transhipment of oils and oil products of the FCC is given in Table 63. The potential of

treatment of oil products is up to three million tonnes per year.

Table 63. The amount of transhipment of soils and oil products during 2007-2012 (1,000 tonnes/year). Product Possible amount The amount of transhipment of soils and oil products

2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 Oil 61 - Diesel fuel, kerosene 500 453 - - - - Benzine 2,100 1,567 2,019 - - - Mazut 40 14 36 - - - Oils 1 0,02 - - - - Total amount of tran-shipment of oil and oil products

3,000 2,166 2,047 2,000 1,621.13 780.9

There is a terminal for volatile flammable liquids (VFL) in the Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port on the site of the

FCC for the transhipment of white oil products with a capacity of 12,000 m3. The VFL terminal is currently

not in service.

The reconstruction of the tank farm on the FCC site began in 2011. As part of this, four new tanks with a

capacity of 5,000 m3 for oil products were installed.

The Minoga bilge water collector (BWC) transfers domestic and sanitary sewage water to the sewerage

system of the port and to the FCC. Minoga provides services on the reception of oil-containing, domestic

and sanitary water. A ship can accept 150 tonnes of oil-containing water and 12 tonnes of domestic and

sanitary water.

146

Figure 35. The amount of transhipment of oil and oil products during 2007-2012.

Table 64. Capacity of the FCC of the FSUE KSFP moorings.

Moorage No. Product Technological opera-tions

Tank shipment (tonnes) Efficiency (tonnes/hour)

1 bunkering Diesel fuel Oils Unloading-loading 500,500 10,025

2 Diesel fuel, kero-sene Unloading-loading Up to 3,000

400

Mazut 120 3 Benzine

Unloading-loading Up to 10,000

1,000 Diesel fuel 600 Kerosene 600 Oil 1,200

4 Benzine Unloading-loading Up to 14,500 1,000

The oil-containing water is transferred to the FSUE KSFP treatment plant. Acceptance and transfer are car-

ried out by a hose with a diameter of 76 mm.

Sewage waters (oil-containing bilge and ballast water) treated to adequate requirements are discharged

into the River Pregel.

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

2007 2008 2009 2011 2012

Vol

ume

of o

il pr

oduc

ts p

umpi

mg,

thou

sand

to

ns

Years

Fact volume

Potencial volume

147

Characteristics of the treatment plants of the fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE

Kaliningrad Oil Bunkering Station

The FSUE Kaliningrad Oil Bunkering Station put into operation the waste water treatment unit ‘Universal’

with the advanced treatment stage. This project was implemented to meet the requirements of the envi-

ronmental legislation. It improved the environmental situation by reducing the water pollution of the River

Pregel and Kaliningrad (Vistula) Lagoon.

The Universal modular treatment plant is designed to treat oil-containing and bilge and ballast waters. The

designed capacity is 55,000 tonnes/year and the total volume of the tanks is 96 m3. The bilge and ballast

waters after mechanical treatment are discharged into the River Pregel. During 2012, the enterprise took

1,178.888 m3 of bilge and ballast waters from ships and third-party organisations for treatment (Trans-

nefteproduct Ltd. and Utilnefteproduct Ltd.).

Table 65. Indicators of the treatment quality of the waste water treatment unit ‘Universal’.

Standardized ingredients Quality treatment indicators (mg/dm3) Suspended matters 20.0 Solid residual 700.0 BOD total 3.0 Chlorides 100.0 Sulphates 10.0 Ammonium nitrogen 0.1 Nitrate nitrogen 0.03 Nitrite nitrogen 0.01 Oil products 0.05 Phosphates 0.03 Alkylsulfonates 0.03 Fats Not permitted

The treatment plants of the fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE Kaliningrad Oil Fishing Port consists of the

following facilities:

• receiving stender (loading arm)

• receiving pipeline

• two storage tanks (5,000 m3 and 2,350 m3)

• receiver tank

• coagulation unit

• sludge unit

• filtration unit

• neutralization unit

• fresh water tank

148

The hydraulic scheme of the system of sewage water treatment is given in Figure 35. The treatment meth-

od is uninterrupted.

Symbols:

ЭК – electrocoagulator; ФЗП – sandy backfilling filter; БР – expansion tank; ФЗС – sorptive back-filling filter; ВБ – vacuum unit; ФЗИ – ion-exchange backfilling filter; БП – power unit; УФ – ultraviolet irradiator; БК – commutation unit; ГПХ – hypochlorite receiving installation; ПУ – control panel; ЭВ1, ЭВ2 – electromagnetic valve; ВВН – vacuum pump; Э1…7 – electromagnetic valve; НВ1,2,3 – water pump; ОК – inverted valve; НД –doser pump; К1…7 – ball valve; П1…3 – float; М1…3 – manometer; Д1, Д2 – level sensors; МВ – vacuum manometer. УОС – reverse-osmosis installation;

Figure 36. Hydraulic scheme of the treatment system.

The fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port collects all types of oil wastes. The

features of reception facilities are presented in Table 66.

Table 66. The reception facilities of the fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE KSFP as of 7 February 2012.

Type of parameter Parameter Type of accepted wastes

All types of oil wastes Type of structures F (stationaries) F Limitations of reception Minimal amount (m3) Is not limited

Maximum amount (m3) 160 Maximal speed of reception (m3/hour) 75 Other (specify) −

Availability of reception facilities 24 hours per day, 7 days per week − Only hours of service, 5 days per week +

Scheme of payment Cost is included in port charges + Cost, separate from other services +

Required minimum notification Hours 24

149

Pre-treatment of waste at the treatment plants of the fuel and cargo complex of

the FSUE Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port

Technological tanks are used for the pre-treatment of waste at the fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE

Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port (Figure 35 and Table 67).

Table 67. Purpose of technological tanks of the treatment plants of the FCC. Tank’s name Tank’s volume Tank’s purpose

Reception tank 24 m3 For receiving, storing and averaging the chemical composition of the incoming sewage water.

Tank for sedimentation of discharge sewage water (2 sections)

24 m3 each For the sedimentation of sewage water, passing the treatment phase in an electrocoagulator (flocculation).

Tank for preliminarily treated water 24 m3

For the accumulation of the treated water for the washing filters.

Pre-treating waste at the Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port waste treatment plant is carried out as follows:

1. Bilge water collected by collector ships is pumped into the sump tanks. The crude sewage (oily bilge ballast water) to be purified is brought to the receiver tank from the reservoir, which is part of the Kaliningrad Sea Fishing Port waste treatment plant. When the water reaches the upper trigger level of the float a liquid ring vacuum pump is activated. This creates underpressure (lowered partial pressure up to 0.2 atmospheres) in the inflation tank and at the diathermic coagulation block. In order to intensify the oxidation process up to the target level, active chorine produced at the sodi-um hypochloride is dosed into the plant.

2. The suction electromagnetic valve on the diathermic coagulation block is opened, and the sewage water is vacuum-pumped to the coagulator`s aluminum electrodes. As direct current flows through, the electrode dissolves in the water as anode-dissolved aluminum (AI+). Thus the coagulator is in-troduced into the feed water. Further, as the voltage on the plates exceeds 4V, water electrolysis begins, accompanied by emissions of oxygen and hydrogen; this initiates a sequence of oxidation-reduction reactions which, together with increased water pH in the near-electrode space, result in contaminants disengaging from the water as insoluble hydroxides. The coagulator (AI+) is conduc-tive to the enlargement of contaminants which is essential for their further rapid sedimentation and removal. This process is known as flaking.

3. The water then reaches the inflation tank, where flaking is completed, and a considerable quantity of electrolytic gases as fine bubbles (flotation) rapidly float up, which is stipulated by the use of vacuum. In the process, the bubbles pick up floating and rapidly coagulating contaminants; then, as floating foam, all the mass (in fractions) is brought to the receiver tank.

4. After removal of the floating foam and degasation in the inflation tank, a D1 level sensor is activat-ed; the pumpback is switched off, gas is introduced to the inflation tank until atmospheric pressure is generated, and the treated water subsequently flows to the clarifying tank. When the D2 level sensor is switched off, the introduction is stopped, a new pumpback is opened, the electromagnetic valve at the entrance to the electrocoagulator is opened, and a new portion of water is pumped in for treatment. The electrocoagulator and the inflation tank work in a fractional cyclic mode (pump-ing in – discharge).

5. The processed water flows into the clarifying tank, where the flaking process is completed, and the flaked contaminants gravitate to the bottom (sedimentation).

150

The water processed in the vacuum block is settled for at least 20 minutes in order to complete the coagu-

lation process. In order to make the most of the electrocoagulation block productivity, two clarifying tanks

are required (section I, section II); their filling is regulated by electromagnetic valves E2, E3, float 2.1 and

float 2.2.

6. The setting-vat water is then alternately pumped from either of the clarifying tanks by Pump 1 and Pump 2 to the polishing unit, which is a cascade of the following self-cleaning filters: • Sandy chlorating agent. Quarts sand is used as expendable material. • Sorbtion filter with backfill of activated charcoal.

Pump 3 is used for filter backwashing, operated by the washing control device. When Pump 3 for filter

washing is activated, Pumps 1 and 2 are switched off, the gate valve E6 opens, the gate valves E7, E4 and E5

close, and the hutch water is poured into the receiver tank.

7. After the final purification, the clarified and filtered water is disinfected by ultraviolet treatment. At this stage, coliphages and viruses are destroyed; final purification of the dissolved fraction of or-ganic contaminants is done by reheating (photooxidation). Then sodium hypochloride is dosed by the dosing pump, which allows to induce residual action of water disinfection, and also to disinfect filters during their backwashing.

8. After disinfection, the water is pumped into a clear water tank; from there, the water, when neces-sary, is pumped by Pump 3 to be released or to be used for filter washing.

9. The purified water is released into the River Pregolya in compliance with Sanitary Regulations and Standards 2.1.5.980 – 00. All the technical procedure is automated and is managed by a remote control device.

Sediment utilization method

The sediment formed during the sewage water purification is accumulated in special metal containers and,

when the need arises, is transported to the landfill site in the settlement of Kornevo under the contract

with Roskemping Ltd.

In case there is no possibility to transport the sediment to the site, it can be recycled into environmentally

friendly subsoil by means of inertization and lithification methods (bio-treatment).

Main parameters of the environmental impact

The enterprise’s own accredited laboratory carried out the analysis of sewage and surface water as well as

natural water from the River Pregel. The laboratory carries out the following:

• Analysis of the oil-containing bilge waters from ships coming to the port.

• Analysis of the oil content in the water when testing the ship’s oil filter equipment.

• Analysis of the sewage waters for pH; nitrogen total content; aluminium; ammonium ion; BOD

total; boron; suspended matters; iron total; total hardness; fats; calcium; magnesium; manganese;

cooper; urea; oil products; nitrate ion; nitrite ion; anionic synthetic surface-active substances;

151

hydrogen sulphide; sulphide; sulphate ion; solid residual; lead; phosphate ion; phosphorous total;

COD; chloride ion; and zinc.

• Analysis of the natural water for temperature range; pH; ammonium ion; BOD total; suspended

matters; iron total; fats; dissolved oxygen; oil products; nitrate ion; nitrite ion; anionic synthetic

surface-active substances; sulphate ion; solid residual; phosphate ion; phosphorous total; COD; and

chloride ion.

All activities dealing with ecological control are certified with ISO 14001:2004 requirements.

Discharge of pollutants into the waterbody during 2010-2011

The company has the approved Program of regular observation of the waterbodies. According to this pro-

gram, the sampling points at the water treatment plant are defined. The discharge control of pollutants and

microorganisms is carried out according to the standards of permissible discharges of pollutants and micro-

organisms into the waterbody adopted by the Department of water resources of the Neva-Ladoga Basin

Water authority (NLBWA) of Kaliningrad Region.

The enterprise has four outfalls, one of which (outfall No.1) is not in operation. The discharge of storm can-

alization after the oil remover is carried out through outfall No.3. Outfall No.4 is for the discharge of indus-

trial sewage waters after treatment at the modular installation into the River Pregel. The household and

sanitary canalization is transferred to the detritus tank and then discharged through outfall No.5.

The discharge volume of insufficiently treated sewage waters into the River Pregel in 2010 was 88,270 m3

and 88,360 m3 in 2011 through three outfalls (Table 69).

Table 68. Discharge volume and mass of pollutants in 2010. Indicator Unit of measurement Value

Discharge volume thousand m3 88.27 BOD t/year 0.55 COD t/year 3.62 N tot. t/year 0.12 P tot. - 0

Table 69. Discharge volume and mass of pollutants in 2011. Indicator Unit of measurement Outfall No.3 Outfall No.4 Outfall No.5

Discharge volume thousand m3 20.910 62.06 5.3 BOD tonnes/year 0.24 0.25 0.06 COD kg/year 941.89 2,489.53 194.49 N tot. tonnes /year 0.04 0.06 0.02 P tot. - 0 0 0 Mg kg/year 47.21 - - Ca kg/year 363.30 - - Zn kg/year - 0.35 0.12 Cu kg/year - 22.43 0.02 Mn kg/year - 3.68 -

• Waterbody pollution by oil products

152

According to an inspection of the supervisory authorities in March 2011, it was found that the River Pregel’s

waters within the slick bars are permanently polluted by oil products.

• Soil pollution by oil products

According to the same inspection, the soil on the bank at the point of its ingress into the River Pregel was

polluted by oil.

Monitoring results of the environmental components

An investigation of the natural water quality of the River Pregel in the FCC area was carried out in Novem-

ber 2010. A hydro-chemical analysis from two horizons – surface and near-bottom – a swell as the sampling

and analysis of the bed silt were carried out. Point sampling was conducted twice in November 2010.

In the FCC area, the natural water monitoring of the River Pregel was carried out at four points (Figure 36).

The obtained hydro-chemical characteristics of the natural water of the River Pregel in the FCC area are

presented in Table 70.

An analysis of the hydro-chemical indicators of the River Pregel in the FCC area in November 2010 uncov-

ered an exceeding of MPC for waterbodies of fishery importance for copper, oil products, ammonium ions

at all points and horizons, and for zinc at two points (Table 70). The concentration of dissolved oil products

in the near-bottom layer was 442 of MPC. An exceeding of MPC for other indicators was not detected.

Fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE KSFP; point 9; point 11;

point 10; point 6; point 13; point 12

Figure 37. Locations of the hydrogeochemical stations on the FCC site of the FSUE KSFP.

153

Table 70. Average hydro-chemical characteristics of the natural water of the River Pregel in the FFC area of the FSUE KSFP in November 2010 (mg/dm3).

Indicator Horizon

Point 9 Point 10 Point 11 Point 13

Average value

Number of MPC exceed-

ing*

Average value


ing*

Average value


ing* Average value


ing*

Total nitrogen Surface layer 3.6 4 3.75 3.95

Near-bottom layer 4.15 3.95 3.85 3.85

Total phosphorus Surface layer 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Near-bottom layer 0.29 0.26 0.4 0.3

Nitrates Surface layer 12.28 13.22 12.68 12.46 Near-bottom layer 14.12 12.94 12.9 12.01

Nitrogen nitrate Surface layer 2.77 2.99 2.87 2.82 Near-bottom layer 3.19 2.93 2.92 2.71

Nitrites Surface layer 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Near-bottom layer 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04

Nitrogen nitrite Surface layer 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Near-bottom layer 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Phosphates Surface layer 0.74 0.72 0.75 0.73 Near-bottom layer 0.73 0.75 0.73 0.73

Phosphate phosphorus Surface layer 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.24 Near-bottom layer 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24

Ammonium ions Surface layer 0.91 2 0.95 2 0.9 2 0.9 2 Near-bottom layer 0.65 2 0.59 2 0.59 2 0.55 2

Ammonium nitrogen Surface layer 0.75 0.78 0.74 0.74 Near-bottom layer 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.45

Turbidity Surface layer 4.3 4.65 4.5 5.05

Near-bottom layer 5.05 4.85 4.8 5.6

Suspended matter Surface layer 6 6 5 6 Near-bottom layer 9 12 4 11

BOD total Surface layer 2.86 3.19 2.75 3.19 Near-bottom layer 3.06 2.77 6.92 2.99

Hydrogen sulfide Surface layer <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Near-bottom layer <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002

Anionic synthetic sur-face-active substances

Surface layer 0.048 0.05 0.043 0.074 Near-bottom layer 0.073 0.063 0.063 0.079

154

Indicator Horizon

Point 9 Point 10 Point 11 Point 13

Average value


ing*

Average value


ing*

Average value


ing* Average value


ing*

Cadmium Surface layer <0.0001 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Near-bottom layer <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Cooper Surface layer 0.0022 0.0014 0.0023 0.0019 Near-bottom layer 0.0023 0.0017 0.0048 0.0014

Chromium Surface layer <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Near-bottom layer <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Zinc Surface layer 0.0104 2 0.0059 0.006 0.0088 Near-bottom layer 0.0071 0.006 <0.005 0.011 2

Arsenic Surface layer <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Near-bottom layer <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

Mercury Surface layer <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 Near-bottom layer <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001

COD Surface layer 46.7 52.7 49.8 46.5 Near-bottom layer 77.8 81.3 72.7 90

Dissolved oil products Surface layer 0.07 2 0.07 2 0.08 2 0.13 2 Near-bottom layer 0.59 2 0.79 2 0.94 2 19.44 2

Redox potential, mV Surface layer 278.35 279.85 271.6 277.95 Near-bottom layer 146.95 107.2 76.29 104.52

Dissolved oxigen Surface layer 10.18 10.08 10.36 10.2 Near-bottom layer 8.62 8.82 8.76 7.94

рН Surface layer 7.89 7.86 7.89 7.92 Near-bottom layer 8.2 8.24 8.15 8.17

Alkalinity total, mmole/dm3

Surface layer 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.05 Near-bottom layer 3.7 3.8 3.75 3.8

Hydrogen carbonates Surface layer 253.23 253.23 253.23 247.13 Near-bottom layer 225.77 231.88 228.83 231.88

* Water quality standards of waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible concentrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fish im-portance based on the order of the Federal Fishery Agency No.20 from 18.01.2010 On the adoption of water quality standards for waterbodies of fishery importance, including the standards of maximum permissible concentrations of harmful substances in waterbodies of fish importance.

155

For the analysis of the chemical composition of the bed silt of the River Pregel, upstream and downstream

data monitoring points in the FCC area were used (Figure 36). The different interpretations of the data from

the selected investigation points of the River Pregel are due to their proximity to other large pollutants

(entities) and the influence of streams and the wind; therefore, it is possible to trace only some regularity in

the chemical parameters of the bed silt in the area. Generally, pollutant’s concentration is bigger upstream

than downstream. Exceeding concentrations of some pollutants in the FCC area has been observed (Table

71, Figures 37-39).

Table 71. Results of the chemical composition of bottom sediments of the River Pregel in the FFC area of the FSUE KSFP.

Indicator Point 6 Point 9 Point 13 Point 10 Point 11 Point 12

Sampling depth, m 7.8 10.5 10.1 9.5 5.5 9.6

Mercury, mg/kg 0.34 0.24 0.45 0.44 0.15 0.16

Benzpyrene, mg/kg 0.07 0.05 0.077 0.03 0.01 0.019

Zinc, mg/kg 350 100 250 190 53 93

Cooper, mg/kg 100 28 79 46 8.3 28

Nickel, mg/kg 28 14 33 23 6.5 12

Lead, mg/kg 16 6.5 30 11 9.6 6

Cadmium, mg/kg 2.6 1.2 3.8 2 0.61 0.79

Chromium, mg/kg 64 24 74 47 7.3 18

Arsenic, mg/kg 64.8 29.3 59 46.1 14.4 24 Oil hydrocarbons, mg/kg 226.96 722.93 146.96 524.96 107.8 112.23

PCB 28, mmg/kg 0.12 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB 52, mmg/kg < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB 101, mmg/kg < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB 138, mmg/kg < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB 153, mmg/kg 0.25 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

PCB 180, mmg/kg < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05

Sum of 7 PCB, mmg/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Total content of PCB, mmg/kg < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5

α - Hexachlorocyclohexane, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Hexachlorobenzene, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Lindane, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Heptachlor, ng/kg < 1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1

Heptachlorepoxide, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

o,p -DDE, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

p,p — DDE, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

o,p — DDD, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

p,p -DDD, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

o,p — DDT, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

p,p — DDT, ng/kg < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

156

Figure 38. Concentration of some pollutants in the bed silt of the River Pregel in 2010.

Figure 39. Concentration of some pollutants in the bed silt of the River Pregel in 2010.

Figure 40. Concentration of oil hydrocarbon in the bed silt of the River Pregel in 2010.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

0,5

Point 6 Point 9 Point 13 Point 10 Point 11 Point 12

Con

cent

ratio

n, m

g/kg

Con

cent

ratio

n, m

g/kg

Points

Mercury

Benzpyrene

Cadmium

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Con

cent

ratio

n, m

g/kg

Points

Zinc

Cooper

Arsenic

0100200300400500600700800


Con

cent

ratio

n, k

g/m

g

Points

157

Implemented environmental activities

Currently, the FSUE KSFP is carrying out the following measures to eliminate the above-mentioned sources

of pollution:

1. Under the contract on 27 February 2010 with Ecoprom Ltd, work began on the treatment of oil

sludge residues contained in the soil reservoir on the site of the fuel and cargo complex of FSUE KSFP.

Ecoprom has a licence for the collection, usage, neutralization, transportation and disposal of hazard

wastes of classes 1-4, which is valid until 10 September 2015. The work includes the treatment of 300 m3 of

oil sludge. In 2010, 147.07 m3 of oil sludge was transported for treatment. By March 2013, the volume of oil

sludge in sludge collector at the company was 650 tonnes.

Work is carried out with use of special equipment located on a specially prepared site (the former incinera-

tion station of the FCC of the FSUE KSFP), which is equipped with a metal caisson for the accumulation of

raw materials, lifting devise, personnel facilities and tanks for the storage of reagents. During the oil sludge

treatment process, the mineral powder PUN is formed. PUN is the smallest particles of oil wastes, uniform

in colour and composition, which are encapsulated in solid, hydrophobic, frost-proof and calcareous cap-

sules. The components of the mineral powder are:

• Neutralized oil wastes – not more than 50% (including heavy metals 0.05%) – hazard class 4. • Hydrated lime Са (ОН)2 GOST 9179-77 (hazard class 3) and chalk CaCO3 (hazard class 4), 45-47%. • Inedible fat (GOST 1045-73), 3-5%.

PUN is intended for use in building roads as an additive or component for the concrete mix or as a structur-

al component.

As a result of an inspection by supervisory authorities in March 2011, violations of the requirements of the

product’s temporary storage were exposed - it must be stored in an enclosed space, e.g. bunkers and silo

pits, and the powder packaged in paper bags in closed storehouses.

2. Under contract No. 08/11 on 1 January 2011 with the Eco-partner Ltd. On the collection, recep-

tion, transportation, temporary storage, and the neutralization and utilization of hazardous industrial (tox-

ic) wastes, work began on the collection and transportation of both emulsion and mixture wastes from oil

products from the FCC area. The emulsion and mixture wastes are hazard class 3 and consist of more than

95% of oil products.

Eco-partner has a licence for the collection, usage, neutralization, transportation and disposal of wastes of

hazard classes 1-4, valid until 1 April 2015.

During 2011-2012, pumping of oil products from contaminated soil was performed from 13 wells in the

area between the 4th pier and railway lines. The productive capacity of the wells depends on the funnel

158

width and ranges from 30-200 litres per day. During the first quarter of 2011, the volume of oil products

pumped through the wells was 57.32 m3 (44.25 tonnes when the density is 0.772). At the end of 2012, the

volume of oil products pumped through the wells was some 200 m3 (168 tonnes when the density is 0.84).

During 2011-2012, pumped oil waste was accumulated in the tanks located on the company’s site where

they remain up to this day.

In 2005, FSUE KSFP developed a working draft of the FSUE Oil Bunkering station of Kaliningrad, which in-

cluded improving the protective bank by constructing an unanchored bulwark of boxes and rabbets. To

prevent the discharge of oil products into the waters, the project proposed to construct a drainage system

along the backend line of the bank protection and to install an underground tank and a pumping station for

oil-containing waters. The go-ahead for this project was declined due to improper documentation.


The company did not participate in federal target programs aimed at improving the state of the hot spot. In

March 2013, an international project aimed at investigating the possibility of treating the oil pollution on

the FCC’s site began.

It further aims to significantly reduce its impact on the environment by:

• Improving the bank protection with the construction of a drainage system and the installa-

tion of an underground tank and pumping house for oil-containing waters. It will avert the

discharge of oil products into the River Pregel.

• Work on the oil sludge treatment stored in the soil storage on the FCC’s site and work to

collect and transport the emulsion and mixture wastes from oil products are continuing.

159

Analysis of compliance of the activities of the fuel and cargo complex of FSUE KSFP

with the HELCOM Recommendations

Compliance is carried out on the basis of the following recommendations (Table 59):

• RECOMMENDATION 20/5 Minimum ability to respond to oil spillages in oil terminals

• RECOMMENDATION 24/5 Proper handling of waste/landfilling

• RECOMMENDATION 10/7 General requirements for reception of wastes

• RECOMMENDATION 19/12 Waste management plans for ports

• RECOMMENDATION 19/13 Basic principles of ashore handling of ship-generated wastes

• RECOMMENDATION 23/5 Reduction of discharges from urban areas by the proper

management of storm water system

• RECOMMENDATION 15/4 Additional maritime safety and pollution prevention measures in

the Baltic Sea area

160

Table 72. Compliance of the activities of the fuel and cargo complex of FSUE KSFP with the HELCOM Rec-ommendations.

HELCOM Recommen-dation Targets Standard Situation at the com-

pany

Conclusion on con-formity of the tar-

get RECOMMENDATION 24/5 Proper handling of waste/landfilling

Compliance with the requirements of national legislation in waste handling.

Full compliance. The enterprise has full set of environmental documentation devel-oped in accordance with the Russian legis-lation in waste han-dling. Violations in the field of waste handling were revealed in March 2011 in connec-tion with the verifica-tion of compliance with the environmen-tal legislation.

+/-

Proper waste han-dling.

Storing and accumula-tion of oil sludge in the earth storage.

-

The proper practice of closure and follow-ing the restoration of land used for land-filling wastes.

In 2010, the work on treating oil sludge contained in the soil storage began. There was no work carried out to reclaim the land where the sludge tank is situated.

+/-

RECOMMENDATION 20/5 Minimum ability to respond to oil spill-ages in oil terminals

The presence of an approved plan for the elimination of oil spills and oil prod-ucts.

Full compliance. An approved plan to eliminate oil spills and oil products in the Kaliningrad sea port.

+

RECOMMENDATION 10/7 General re-quirements for recep-tion of wastes

The presence of a sufficient reception capacity for oil-containing wastes.

The company has sufficient reception capacities for oil-containing wastes.

+

Provision of a suffi-cient pumping rate of oil-containing wastes from ships of 1,000 GRT and be-low/above.

Ships of 999 GRT and below should be able to pump the wastes with a min-imum rate of 2.5 m³/h and ships of 1,000 GRT and above with a mini-mum rate of 5.0 m³/h.

The maximum pump-ing rate of any types of oil wastes up to 75 m³/h is provided.

+

RECOMMENDATION 19/12 Waste man-agement plans for ports

The presence of a management plan for ship-generated wastes in ports.

The company as a unit of the FSUE Kalinin-grad sea fishing port has the approved management plan for ship-generated wastes in Kaliningrad sea port.

+

RECOMMENDATION 19/13 Basic principles

The observance of basic principles of

Waste reduction and handling with

The existing technolo-gies do not prevent -

161

HELCOM Recommen-dation Targets Standard Situation at the com-

pany

Conclusion on con-formity of the tar-

get of ashore handling of ship-generated wastes

handling of ship-generated wastes onshore.

the use of the best available technolo-gy (BAT) and best environmental practice (BEP).

pollution of the River Pregel and the soil.

Presence of compe-tent and trained staff in the field of wastes handling.

The company has the trained staff in the field of waste han-dling.

+

Compliance of used technologies of utili-zation, final treat-ment and disposal of oil-contaminated wastes with the re-quirements of na-tional legislation.

Full compliance The existing technolo-gies of the utilization, final treatment and disposal of oil-containing wastes have a negative impact on the environment. According to the in-spection of superviso-ry authorities in March 2011, the waters of the River Pregel are now permanently polluted by oil prod-ucts within the slick bars as is the soil on the shore.

-

RECOMMENDATION 23/5 Reduction of discharges from urban areas by the proper management of storm water system

Limitation of oil in storm waters.

Connection to a storm water system and the separate treatment of storm waters.

The company had been connected to a storm waters and has carried out the sepa-rate treatment of storm waters by oil remover.

+

Use of effective measures of water pollution control when discharging to the recipient.

The company has its own laboratory and approved program to regularly observe the waterbodies.

+

RECOMMENDATION 15/4 Additional mari-time safety and pollu-tion prevention measures in the Baltic Sea area

Annual compulsory reporting on port reception facilities for IMO.

The company does not provide an annual compulsory report on the port reception facilities for IMO.

-

162

Activities necessary to remove the company from HELCOM’s list of hot spots

The radical reduction of the negative impact on the environment requires a set of measures aimed at:

• protecting waters from oil discharges from the site of the fuel overpasses and from the side of

the railway tracks;

• dismantling the 650 m3 sludge tank and reclaim the adjacent lands;

• reducing pollutant emissions from oil cargos by installing equipment to capture and recover the

oil vapours and oil products.

Conclusion

The company has a significant negative impact on the environment. There is a constant oil inflow into the

River Pregel; moreover, the soil is still being polluted by oil products and as the open sludge tank was not

dismantled, the adjacent land was not reclaimed.

A comparative analysis of the hot spot for the previous period shows that despite the reconstruction of part

of the tank farm and putting into operation the modular plant for the purification of oil, bilge and ballast

waters, the level of negative impact is nevertheless high.

Solving the environmental problems will incur significant costs. Currently, it is not conceivable to remove e

this entity from the list of hot spots.

Hot spot No. 72 Agriculture of Kaliningrad

History

The inclusion of agriculture in Kaliningrad Region on HELCOM’s list of hot is because of the physical-

geographical and economic features of Kaliningrad Region up to the middle of the 1990s.

Agricultural land in Kaliningrad Region totals some 820,000 hectares, of which 90% has been reclaimed. The

climatic conditions of the region favour agricultural development – the long vegetation period (160-180

days), sufficient humidity and rich soils create a good basis for the successful development of agriculture.

Productivity from natural arable lands in the region was one of the highest in the Russian Federation. The

main agricultural sectors in Kaliningrad Region during the 1980s were: dairy and meat livestock farming,

poultry farming, vegetable growing, fishing and fur farming. The poor development of environmental man-

agement systems and the active use of organic and mineral fertilizers along with high land reclamation led

to a large outflow of biogenic matters into the Baltic Sea.

However, from the middle of the 1990s, a stable trend towards the reduction of areas allocated for agricul-

tural production was recorded and soil fertility was reduced. At the beginning of 2000, the share of agricul-

163

ture in the gross regional product was about ten per cent. The use of equipment was reduced as was agri-

cultural chemistry, etc.

Table 73. Number of cattle in all categories of farms in 2007-2008 (1,000). Farms of all catego-

ries Including

Agricultural entities Farm entities Household farms 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

Cattle 80.1 67.1 44.6 36.5 4.1 2.4 31.4 28.2 Including: Cows 40.5 34.3 18.0 14.8 1.9 1.2 20.6 18.3 Pigs 52.0 41.7 32.1 27.7 5.8 2.7 14.1 10.2

From 1990, there was a trend in livestock farming to reduce milk production, but changed in 2008. The

gross milk yield in 2010 in all categories of farms was 146,200 tonnes and in agricultural enterprises 62,200

tonnes, 2.1% and 9.2% higher than in 2009, respectively.

Milk yield growth in recent years has been due to the establishment and modernisation of dairy farms (in

2006-2010, seven farms began production with only one in 2011), and the import of highly productive cat-

tle.

The production of meat is increasing annually, particularly pork.

Table 74. Major livestock production. Major livestock production (1,000 tonnes)

Name 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Cattle and poultry for slaughter (in live weight) 39.9 39.2 39.5 42.5 49.5 Milk 165.9 149.8 134.5 143.3 146.2

In 2009, within the framework of the Balthazar project Inventory of animal farms in Kaliningrad region fall-

ing under the hot spot criteria of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Bal-

tic Sea (Part 2, Appendix III), hot spots include such farms that do not comply with the environmental

standards and rules for handling manure and dung, which had a total capacity of:

• poultry: 40,000

• pig fattening: 2,000 (more than 30 kg)

• sows: 750

• cattle: 400

There were 25 large livestock farms in 2009 in Kaliningrad Region – two have since been closed down and

two put into operation.

164

Current number of livestock and poultry in Kaliningrad Region

In 2010 and 2011, agricultural entities had the following number of livestock and poultry (Table 75).

Table 75. Number of livestock and poultry in 2010-2011 (1,000). Name By 01.12.2010 By 01.12. 2011 Growth rate in %

Cattle (including cows) 31.7 31.2 98.5

(without cows for fattening) 14.1 13.5 96.5

Pigs 87.0 122.9 141.2

Sheep and goats 2.3 1.5 64.9

Birds of all kinds 1,184.9 1,426.7 120.4

Horses 0.8 0.6 80.1

In accordance with the forecast of the Ministry of Agriculture of Kaliningrad Region (Appendix 1), the num-

ber of cattle, pigs and poultry by 2015 will significantly increase (Table 76).

Table 76. Number of cattle, pigs and poultry in accordance with the forecast of the Ministry of Agriculture of Kaliningrad Region.

Livestock Number

2011 2013 2015

Cattle 61,475 102,975 126,000

Pigs 136,273 233,065 306,820

Poultry 1,595,700 3,808,000 6,018,000

The volume of manure and dung produced at farms in Kaliningrad Region

Table 77. Volumes of manure produced and organic fertilizers applied in Kaliningrad Region during 2001-2011.

Year Manure production (1,000 tonnes) Fertilizers applied (1,000 tonnes)

Applies to one hectare of arable land (tonnes)

2001 309.5 146.2 0.5 2002 343.3 152.5 0.4 2003 229.4 104.5 0.3 2004 171.5 88.9 0.2 2005 163.4 82.6 0.2 2006 189.9 117.9 0.3 2007 131.1 73.5 0.2 2008 186.7 94.4 0.3 2009 109.9 94.1 0.3 2010 193.6 149.7 0.4 2011 207.1 163.7 0.4

The main producers of organic fertilizers in the region are: CJSC Zalesskoe Moloko (manure); CJSC Novoe

Vysokovskoe (slurry); CJSC Pobedynskoe (manure); CJSC Pradvinskoe Svinoproizvodstvo (unlittered liquid

pig’s manure); Pribaltiyskaya myasnaya kompaniya Ltd. (unlettered liquid pig’s manure); Baltptitseprom

165

Ltd. (sawdust and dung compost); and the farms of agricultural holdings of entrepreneur Dolgov and C

(manure, slurry).

For 2007, the volumes of manure production at agricultural entities and farms were estimated (Table 78).

Table 78. Estimated volumes of manure production in agricultural entities and farms for 2007 (1,000 tonnes). Group of animals

Excrement output

(1,000 tonnes) Conversion of excrement to nutrients

Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium Cattle 568.5 2.4 1.6 2.8 Pings 78.2 0.5 0.3 1.4

Table 79. Volumes of manure and dung, produced by livestock farms in 2009 Group of animals, annual manure output (tonnes)

Cattle Pigs Poultry 889,753.2 284,148.8 104,598.9

Manure is calculated on the basis of the manure output rate: 40 kg per day for cattle; 10 kg per day for

pigs; and 0.190 kg per day for poultry.

Using this output rate, it is possible to calculate the potential production of manure for 2011-2015 (Table

80).

Table 80 – Potential production volumes of manure for 2011-2015

Group of animals Annual output of manure and dung (tonnes) 2011 2013 2015

Cattle 895,076 1,503,435 1,839,600

Pigs 497,396 850,687 1,119,893

Poultry 110,662 264,085 417,348

Thus, if the government plans of Kaliningrad Region for the development of livestock and poultry farming in

the region are implemented, in 2015 the region will be produced about three million tonnes of manure and

more than 400,000 tonnes of dung.

Livestock waste management systems in farms in Kaliningrad Region

The 20 largest livestock farms employ free grazing during the frost-free season and inside feeding during

the cold season. Two farms have separators to separate manure into liquid and solid fractions. Liquid ma-

nure is produced by five farms and is stored in lagoon-type dung-yards or in metal leak-proof tanks. Solid

fraction is stored in heaps in the open air either with leak-proof bases (seven farms), or without leak-proof

bases (five farms). In all farms, manure of all types is recycled to fields after holding for four months to two

years.

166

In seven large pig-breeding farms, pigs are stalled resulting in liquid manure, which is stored in lagoon-type

dung-yards with a concrete base and sides. The dung-yard of one entity does not have a solid leak-proof

coating while another has a closed lagoon. The main method of recycling pigs’ manure is to apply it to fields

throughout the year after holding from 1-8 months.

The litter and solid forms of manure are produced at two poultry farms, neither of which have a dung-yard.

One of the farms recycles manure and produces compost in accordance with the regulations while the oth-

er passes it on to other entities that then apply it to fields.

In Slavsk District, 13 farms were investigated for their manure management systems (10 cattle; 3 pig

farms). Detailed data were collected on the: number of animals at each farm; areas of arable land and pas-

tures; soil types, volumes of water and manure production; the mineral and organic fertilizers used; and

fields maps with the locations of waterbodies plotted. As a result, the volume of manure produced during

the year was determined:

• liquid from cattle – 71,000 t

• solid from cattle – 21,000 t

• liquid from pigs – 1,140 t

Seven cattle farms employed twenty-four hour grazing during the frost-free season. Solid manure is stored

in open areas with no leak-proof covering. Liquid manure at cattle and pig farms is stored in special tanks.

Three farms have a fully developed system for the protection of surface and groundwater and soil from

contamination by manure. Solid manure is about 30% of the total amount of manure produced. Docu-

mented accounting of its production is not conducted. In some farms, there are no sufficient volumes of

tanks and areas for manure and thus cannot be applied to fields year-round. Many farms do not have the

necessary documentation for livestock waste (waste passports, standards of waste generation and limits of

its disposal, technical regulations and certificates of organic fertilizer from manure) - primary accounting or

the annual reporting of 2TP-wastes is often not conducted.

In 2012, within the framework of the Balthazar project, the study on Environmental and economic evalua-

tion of the possibility of recycling and disposing manure from livestock farms in Kaliningrad Region was im-

plemented with the following results:

• A review of the recycling technologies for manure and dung and the use of recycled products in dif-

ferent countries.

• An approximate evaluation of the necessary investments and operating costs for recycling manure

and dung in Kaliningrad Region, taking into consideration the existing amount of waste on livestock

(including poultry) farms.

167

• An assessment of the possibility of using the recycled manure and dung products in Kaliningrad Re-

gion as well as in Russia and the European Union countries.

• The possible environmental effects of creating entities for recycling manure and dung in Kaliningrad

Region, and their environmental effects.

• A comparative analysis of the environmental effectiveness of the use of various recycling technolo-

gies in Kaliningrad Region.

For the three pilot farms, the technological regulations for recycling manure and dung into organic fertilizer

were developed.

Development of the agricultural sector in Kaliningrad Region during 2007-2016

The program to develop the agriculture sector in Kaliningrad Region has a special focus, namely ecological

and environmental protection. The aim is to protect the environment in during the establishment of agri-

cultural entities and to stimulate the development of entities producing green foods in compliance with

environmental safety requirements.

This focus will:

• Ensure the ecological balance (wellbeing) of the agricultural sector through achievements in sci-

ence and technology.

• The development of agro-industrial entities to meet the requirements of environmental protection:

• employing environmentally safe technologies in production

• employing closed cycles when recycling industrial wastes

• using environmental assessments in investment projects within the agro-industry sector along with

economic and technological assessment.

• the introduction of biological methods of pest control and crop sickness

However, this focus does not provide for additional funding from Kaliningrad Region’s budget; never-

theless, the program has financing in place that is indirectly linked to the recycling of manure and dung:

• soil reclamation and fertility

• the improvement of materials, technology and services in agriculture

• the development of crop production, the livestock sector and the processing industry

168

Conclusion

Agriculture in Kaliningrad Region is currently experiencing a period of rapid development. The Federal Gov-

ernment and regional authorities actively support the creation of modern livestock entities that would op-

erate subject to all national and international environmental requirements.

While such entities already exist, many continue to operate that were established during the Soviet era at a

time when environmental requirements were not so strict. For these farms, regional authorities have pro-

vided a mechanism to stimulate the introduction of modern technologies, including the environmentally

safe management of manure.

In general, the level of compliance with environmental requirements in the livestock sector is still at low

level and thus does not allow the removal of the hot spot from the HELCOM list.

To assist the Ministry of Agriculture of Kaliningrad Region in the implementation of the Russian National

Plan of HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in January 2012, the BASE project was implemented. The

project, to be completed by March 2014, includes:

a) The development of a database of agricultural entities of Kaliningrad Region containing data on

manure/dung formation and the use of organic fertilizers.

b) The development of the long-term project Recycling agricultural wastes produced on agricultural

entities in Kaliningrad Region into organic fertilizers and the implementation of other economic stimula-

tions to enable entities to comply with environmental requirements.

c) A set of guidelines on the estimated environmental and technological criteria in the evaluation

of investment projects for the development of the livestock sector in Kaliningrad Region.

The implementation and adoption of the results of the project will also contribute to the implementation of

the adopted Target program: The development of agriculture in Kaliningrad Region during 2007-2016 with-

in its environmental protection component. This will eventually return to the question of how many farms

can be removed from HELCOM’s list of hot spots.

169

4. Proposals to remove Russian hot spots from HELCOM’s list

The results of the study on the current state of Russian’s hot spots propose the following.

1) Hot spot No. 18 (sub-hot spots 18.1-18.19). Municipal sewage water treatment

in St. Petersburg.

Sub-hot spot No. 18.1 Sewage water treatment plant; collectors.

To make an application for the closure of sub-hot spot No. 18.1 and submit it at the 19th meeting of the


To postpone the consideration on the removal of sub-hot spot No. 18.11 WWTP Town of Kolpino and sub-

hot spot No. 18.15 WWTP settlement of Metallostroy until the commissioning of the treatment plants in

these settlements after 2015.

2) City dump Hot spot No. 23 Hazardous waste landfill State Unitary Nature conservation Enterprise

(SUNE) Krasny Bor landfill.

To postpone the consideration of removing the hot spot City dump Hot spot No. 23 from the list of hot

spots until the commissioning of the hazardous waste treatment plant after 2015.

3) Hot spot No. 14 Syaskiy Pulp and Paper Mill (PPM).

To postpone the consideration of removing the hot spot No. 14 due to the high costs related to solving the

environmental problems. Because of the mill’s current economic situation, it is not possible to achieve this

in the near future without investment support.

4) Hot spot No. 15 Volkhov aluminium plant (Metankhim).

The Volkhov aluminium plant was divided into three independent entities after reorganization. It is pro-

posed to divide this hot spot into three sub-hot spots:

No. 15.1 Parosilovoe hozyaystvo - Volkhov Ltd. can be removed from HELCOM’s list of hot spots because its

negative impact is insignificant.

No. 15.2 VAZ-SUAL, a subsidiary of OJSC SUAL, should be on HELCOM’s list of hot spots due to its high im-

pact on the atmospheric air.

No. 15.3 Metakhim is the main source of sewage water; to remove the entity from the list, a sewage water

treatment plant should be constructed (planned for 2013-2014).

170

5) Hot spot No. 24 Large livestock farms (sewage water treatment and sediment treatment).

The introduction of technological regulations at all large livestock entities in Leningrad Region related to

manure and dung handling will significantly decrease the biogenic load on the Baltic Sea and thus remove

region’s agricultural sector from HELCOM’s list of hot spots.

6) Hot spot No. 49 Sovietsk PPM.

The inflow of biogenic matters from the former Sovietsk PPM’s operation was reduced and thus can be

considered for removal from the list.

7) Hot spot No. 50 Neman PPM.

The activities of Neman PPM are not a serious threat to the environment and can be removed from HEL-

COM’s list of hot spots.

8) Hot spot No. 67 Sewage water treatment plant of Kaliningrad.

The construction of Kaliningrad City’s sewage water treatment plant will be finished at the beginning of

2014. Its consideration to be removed will be proposed after 2015.

9) Hot spot No. 69 Cepruss PPM.

Water consumption and sewage water discharge into the River Pregel ceased due to the closure of paper

and pulp production at the mill. It is proposed to remove the mill from the list.

10) Hot spot No. 70 Landfill of hazardous wastes of the city of Kaliningrad.

The landfill of hazardous wastes of the Kaliningrad has a significant negative impact on the environment

and thus cannot be removed from the list of hot spots.

11) Hot spot No. 71 Fuel and cargo complex of the FSUE State Sea Fishing Port (Port oil bunkering station

of Kaliningrad).

The company has a significant negative impact on the environment. There is a constant oil inflow into the

waters of the River Pregel. Contamination of the soil on the site by oil products is still present, the open

sludge tank was not dismantled and the reclamation of adjacent lands was not carried out.

A comparative analysis of the hot spot for the previous period shows that despite the reconstruction of

certain parts of the tank farm and putting the modular plant for purification of oil, bilge and ballast waters

into operation, the level of negative impact is high. Currently, its removal from the list of hot spots is not

possible due to significant financial costs.

171

12) Hot spot No. 72 Agriculture of Kaliningrad

Agriculture in Kaliningrad Region is currently experiencing a period of rapid development.

However, entities that were established during the Soviet era when environmental requirements were not

so strict continue to operate. For these farms, regional authorities have provided a mechanism to stimulate

the introduction of modern technologies including the environmentally safe management of manure.

In general, since the level of compliance with environmental requirements in the livestock sector is still at a

low level, the activity should not be removed from HELCOM’s list of hot spots.

www.helcom.fi