Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (Initial)
Report No: AC393
Section I - Basic Information
Date ISDS Prepared/Updated: 11/04/2003
A. Basic Project Data (from PDS)
Public Disclosure Authorized
I.A.1. Project Statistics
Country: RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Project ID: P071473
Project: ROSTOV NUTRIENT DISCHARGE &
Task Team Leader: Manuel G. Marino
METHANE REDUCTION GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY
Authorized to Appraise Date: October 1, 2005
IBRD Amount ($m):
Bank Approval: March 16, 2006
IDA Amount ($m):
Global Supplemental Amount ($m): 10.80
Managing Unit: ECSIE
Sector: General water, sanitation and flood protection
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan (SIL)
sector (30%); Sewerage (30%); Central government
Status: Preparation
administration (20%); General public administration
sector (20%)
Public Disclosure Authorized
Theme: Pollution management and environmental
health (P); Environmental policies and institutions
(P); Law reform (S); Other public sector governance
(S)
I.A.2. Project Objectives (From PDS):
(i) Global Objectives
In a period of only three decades (1960s-1980s), the Azov/Black Sea basin has suffered serious
degradation of a major part of its natural resources. The water resources of the basin are facing
particularly acute problems generated as a result of pollution from nutrients, organic materials, oil
products, and significant modification of the hydrological regimes of the Don River. The Greater
Public Disclosure Authorized
Rostov Environmental Strategic Action Plan (GRESAP) and various publications (e.g. A Water
Quality Assessment of the Former Soviet Union (1998)/Eds. V. Kimstach, M. Meybeck, E.
Baroudy, E&F.N. Spon, London. Chapter 14. The Lower Don Basin) name the RVK municipal
wastewater facility as the principal source of pollution on the Don River. It is the largest single
point source of discharges of phosphorus and nitrogen substances to the Don River and Azov
basin. Such discharges are responsible for the stimulation of aquatic plants and contribute to the
eutrophication of these bodies of water. Estimates show that the city of Rostov-on-Dov
discharges annually about 2,000 tons of nitrogen, measured as Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN),
and about 200 tons of phosphorus into the Don River. This constitutes about 10% of the overall
nutrient flux from the Don River into the watershed of Azov/Black Sea. Also, as a result of
inadequate capacity and insufficient configuration of the sewage treatment network,
20,000-30,000 thousand m3/day of municipal wastewater are being discharged untreated into the
Public Disclosure Authorized
Don River's tributary, the Temernik River, just a few kilometers upstream from the confluence of
the Temernik River with the Don River. The estimated amount of nutrient load reduction into the
Don (and thus into Azov/Black Sea) resulting from the project is about 1000 tons of nitrogen and
about 100 tons of phosphorus per year, corresponding to a reduction of about 27,000 tons of
nutrients over the project life.

---

2
ISDS
The existing sludge handling technology results in substantial (estimated at 24,000 m3/day)
emissions of Green House Gases (GHG), particularly methane, from the wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) facilities (the GHP of methane is 21 times the GHP of carbon dioxide). Low
environmental fines for methane discharges ($0.09 per 1000 m3) are a poor incentive for methane
collection. Released methane, when collected and utilized for power generation for the WWTP
needs, substantially reduces the GHG release. The estimated reduction of GHG emissions as a
result of the project will be about 771,000 tons of carbon equivalent over the project life.
(ii) Sub-Project: Reduction of Nutrient Discharges
Objectives
The key objective of the proposed sub-project is to reduce the discharge of nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorous) into the Don River and the Azov /Black Seas through: (i) rehabilitation and
improvement of the wastewater treatment plant of the city of Rostov-on-Don (RVK WWTP); (ii)
configuration of the sewage network to reduce untreated wastewater overflow into the Temernik
River, a tributary of the Ron River; (iii) policy reform and pilot activities to promote phasing out
of phosphates and polyphosphate discharges into the Don River watershed; and (iv) replication of
a comprehensive nutrient reduction approach in other parts of Russia and riparian countries of the
Azov/Black Seas.
(iii) Sub-Project: Reduction of Methane Emission
Objectives
The key objective of the proposed sub-project is to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from RVK WWTP through: (i) rehabilitation and extension of sludge digesters; (ii) capture and
combustion of methane gas; (iii) electric generation displacement; (iv) heat generation
displacement; (v) completion of the full chain of the sludge treatment process with sludge
dewatering and final disposal; and (vi) promotion of the replication of methane emission reduction
in municipal wastewater utilities in other parts of Russia and CIS countries.
I.A.3. Project Description (From PDS):
1.1 Sewage Network Reconfiguration: The component will finance the completion of an underground
tunnel from sewerage pumping state (SPS) Severnaya-1 to the exisiting siphon.
1.2 Construction: High Pressure Pumping Station: The component will finance the construction of a
high-pressure pumping station at the WWTP to pump wastewater directly to the processing units.
1.3 Rehabilitation of Waste water Treatment: The component will finance the rehabilitation of the
treatment facilities and the implementation of new technology for the removal of phosphorus and nitrogen.
2.1 Rehabilitation of Digesters: This component will facilitate the treatment of all generated sludge and
capture most of the methane previously discharged into atmosphere.

---

3
ISDS
2.2 Construction of Gas-Holders: The component will finance the construction of two 3,000 m3
gas-holders to maintain the pressure in the combustion system.
2.3 Construction: Methane Power Generation Plant: The component will finance the power generation plant
that will use the methane.
3.1 Project Management and Monitoring: Project management and monitoring will be conducted by Rostov
Bureau for the CSIP implementation (PIU) in coordination with the RVK.
3.2 Technical Assistance for Replication: The component will fund the replication of the project findings in
the
Azov/Black Sea region.
3.3 Policy Reform Programs: The component will deal with the discontinuation of phosphates and
polyphosphates into the Don River watershed and proper wastewater collection from low-rise housing.
I.A.4. Project Location: (Geographic location, information about the key environmental and social
characteristics of the area and population likely to be affected, and proximity to any protected areas, or sites or
critical natural habitats, or any other culturally or socially sensitive areas.)
B. Check Environmental Classification: B (Partial Assessment)
Comments:
C. Safeguard Policies Triggered (from PDS)
(click on for a detailed desciption or click on the policy number for a brief description)
Policy
Triggered
Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01)
Yes
No
TBD
Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04)
Yes
No
TBD
Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36)
Yes
No
TBD
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
Yes
No
TBD
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03)
Yes
No
TBD
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)
Yes
No
TBD
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Yes
No
TBD
Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37)
Yes
No
TBD
Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50)
Yes
No
TBD
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)*
Yes
No
TBD
Section II - Key Safeguard Issues and Their Management
D. Summary of Key Safeguard Issues. Please fill in all relevant questions. If information is not available,
describe steps to be taken to obtain necessary data.
II.D.1a. Describe any safeguard issues and impacts associated with the proposed project. Identify and describe
any potential large scale, significant and/or irreversible impacts.

---

4
ISDS
As discussed above, the project will address the largest single point source of discharges of
phosphorus and nitrogen substances to the Don River and Azov basin as well as address the
discharge of untreated wastewater into the Don River's tributary, the Temernik River. This will
positively impact on the quality of water for intake by down-river communities. The use of
methane for energy production will also impact emissions of Green House Gases (GHG) in the
metropolitan area. These actions are important also as models for application in other areas along
the Don River basin.
II.D.1b. Describe any potential cumulative impacts due to application of more than one safeguard policy or
due to multiple project component.
Not Applicable
II.D.1c Describe any potential long term impacts due to anticipated future activities in the project area.
Not Applicable
II.D.2. In light of 1, describe the proposed treatment of alternatives (if required)
Not Applicable
II.D.3. Describe arrangement for the borrower to address safeguard issues
OP 7.50 "International Waterways" applies to this Project because it is located on the Don river about 80
kms of its inflow into the Azov Sea. The Azov Sea is connected to the Black Sea. Given the nature of the
planned interventions to be supported by the project and the fact that they will not impact adversely on
riparian countries, the exception to the international notification requirements of OP 7.50, as set forth in
paragraph 7(a) of the policy has already been confirmed for project preparation (designs and tender
documents) by the Bank's legal department. The exception to the notification requirements for the project
implementation activities will be sought before appraisal.
The conduct of a comprehensive Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Social Assessment (SA)
is an integral part of project preparation. The scope of work for the EA includes: (i) a description
of the environmental status of the pilot area (including physical, biological, social, and cultural
conditions); the collection and analysis of legal documents related to environmental management
and protection; (iii) the identification and assessment of other possible options and the
identification of any possible negative environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of
such options; (iv) the development of an Environmental Management Plan; and (V) the promotion
of coordination between agencies and the inclusion of civic participation in public decision making
The SA will: (i) identify and specify the roles of the main stakeholders of the Project; (ii) identify
the main consumer groups to be positively or negatively influenced by the implementation of the
Project, mainly downstream from the waste water treatment plant; (iii) identify the interests,
needs, and concerns of selected stakeholders regarding the goals, design, and implementation of
the Project; (iv) asses the possible immediate and long-term impact of the Project on the existing
land and eater use (including municipal engineering, agricultural use, recreational use, and fishery
production; (v) review the role of municipal engineering as one of the pollution sources, including
the quality of service delivery; and (vi) the identification of negative social-economic aspects of

---

5
ISDS
potential impact of the Project on local industry, markets, and the general public, including a
Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) .
Provisions to ensure compliance with safeguard policies, including the EMP and AP, will be made
after completion of the studies at appraisal at latest.
II.D.4. Identify the key stakeholders and describe the mechanisms for consultation and disclosure on safeguard
policies, with an emphasis on potentially affected people.
The project is being prepared in close cooperation with the Oblast Government, municipality,
RVK, and local PIUs for two other Bank's projects. General public and NGOs have already been
involved in the preparation of the sewerage system configuration and will be involved in the
preparation of the wastewater treatment components through the environmental and social
assessment process described above.
E. Safeguards Classification (select in SAP). Category is determined by the highest impact in any policy. Or
on basis of cumulative impacts from multiple safeguards. Whenever an individual safeguard policy is
triggered the provisions of that policy apply.
[ ] S1. ­ Significant, cumulative and/or irreversible impacts; or significant technical and institutional risks in
management of one or more safeguard areas
[X] S2. ­ One or more safeguard policies are triggered, but effects are limited in their impact and are
technically and institutionally manageable
[ ] S3. ­ No safeguard issues
[ ] SF. ­ Financial intermediary projects, social development funds, community driven development or similar
projects which require a safeguard framework or programmatic approach to address safeguard
issues.
F. Disclosure Requirements
Environmental Assessment/Analysis/Management Plan:
Expected
Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank
4/1/2004
Date of "in-country" disclosure
4/15/2004
Date of submission to InfoShop
4/15/2004
Date of distributing the Exec. Summary of the EA to the Executive
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Directors (For category A projects)
Resettlement Action Plan/Framework:
Expected
Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Indigenous Peoples Development Plan/Framework:
Expected
Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
Not Applicable Not Applicable

---

6
ISDS
Pest Management Plan:
Expected
Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Dam Safety Management Plan:
Expected
Actual
Date of receipt by the Bank
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Date of "in-country" disclosure
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Date of submission to InfoShop
Not Applicable Not Applicable
If in-country disclosure of any of the above documents is not expected, please explain why.
Signed and submitted by
Name
Date
Task Team Leader:
Manuel G. Marino
01/30/2001
Project Safeguards Specialists 1:
Philip W. Moeller
10/01/2003
Project Safeguards Specialists 2:
Project Safeguards Specialists 3:
Approved by:
Name
Date
Regional Safeguards Coordinator: Jane E. Holt
01/30/2001
Sector Director
HosseinRazavi
[01/30/2001]
Comments
Approved by R. Halperin, previous Sector Director, See EDS as filed

---