liepaja city council - World Bank Documents & Reports

E-306VOL. 1

LIEPAJA CITY COUNCIL:52 -Akrmene

Vqrgde Du k

SO'M Ploce s

Medz R6va162 ~10 J__

, .Kapsgde DURBE9Q5W ~~~~~~~~~~~Lie,i

GOpcas Rfdz Joun ;.384

LIEPAJA:- -hde V6r[i-

Cniden e -k GrGoavieze Taii

100 M611

Dube6 -' DSusta

Cenkone Pa> 3 t

Pqrkone oii

gem6 -- bun 100i Benih z Rude Wite

56'2tKyPla - Nica BMit C-M

Beitdbdems

4480 qw SIOMsti

FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRELIMINARY DESIGNAND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

OF SUSTAINABLE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTFOR LIEPAJA CITY AND LIEPAJA REGION

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORTAMENDED DECEMBER 7, 1999

SWECO onsonsultants

SWECO INTERNATIONAL in association with GEO CONSULTANTS

Stockholm, December 7, 1999

Project No. 1150335

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

LIST OF CONTElNTSI );dL

0 SUMMARY I) l

I INTRODUCTION 1:11.1 Background 1:11.2 Structure of the report 1:21.3 Objectives and tasks of the EIA 1:21.4 Concepts of the Feasibility Study 1:3

2 GENERAL DATA ABOUT THE REGION 2:12.1 Territorv, inhabitants and administrative division 2:12.2 Inhabitants served by the current waste management

system 2:22.3 Existing road network 2:52.4 Hydrometeorological conditions 2:5

3 OVERVIEW ON THE EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENTSYSTEM 3:1

3.1 Institutional aspects and existing infrastructure 3:13.2 Waste amount and composition 3:33.3 Waste collection and transportation 3:63.4 Waste reuse and recycling 3:83.5 Waste disposal and existing landfills 3:113.6 Environmental and health impacts 3:153.7 Economic aspects 3:21

4 ACQUIS OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIREMENTSFOR PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 4:1

4.1 Requirements of the EU legislation 4:14.2 National legislation and responsible institutions 4:24.3 Local legislation and instructions 4:204.4 Need for additional legislation 4:20

5 FORCAST OF FUTURE WASTE PRODUCTION, COLLECTION 5:1AND LANDFILLING

5.1 Amount of waste 5:15.2 Future collection and transport svstem 5:55.3 Area and handling requirements at the new waste

treatment plan 5:5

6 CHARACTERISATION OF THE PROPOSED WASTE 6:1DISPOSAL SITES

6.1 History of site selection 6:16.2 Site selection criteria, procedure and results 6:16.3 Hydrological conditions 6:6

6.3.1 Methods and scope of work 6:66.3.2 Skede site 6:66.3.3 Grobina site 6:86.3.4 Possible impacts and mitigation nmcasures 6:11

6.4 Geological structure and hidrogeological conditions 6:116.4.1 General features on geological structure and

hydrogeological conditions 6:126.4.2 Skede site 6:15

II

6.4.3 Grobina sile 6:1l6.4.4 Possible impacts anid nmitignation mneaisures 6:22

6.5 Surface and groundwater quality 0:226.5.1 Skede site 6:236.5.2 Grobina site 6:306.5.3 Possible impact anid mitigation measures 6:31

6.6 Air pollution, loise aind vibration 6:336.6.1 Possible impacts and mitigationi measures 6:35

6.7 Assessment of Biological Diversity 6:356.7.1 Introduction 6:366.7.2 Potential site in Skede 6:366.7.3 Potential site in the former military training ground,

Grobina parish 6:446.7.4 Comparison of the potential sites 6:48

6.8 Land use, land values and landscape 6:506.8.1 Skede site 6:506.8.2 Grobina parish 6:596.8.3 Comparison of the potential sites 6:62

6.9 Cultural and historical heritage and protection ofcultural environment 6:62

6.9.1 Potential waste deposit site Skede 6:656.9.2 Potential waste deposit site "Grobina" 6:666.9.3 Comparison of the potential sites and conclusions 6:69

6.10 Impacts on human health 6:706.10.1 Description of harmful impact 6:706.10.2 Description of the existing situation 6:726.10.3 Conclusions 6:746.10.4 Recommended mitigating measures 6:75

6.11 Occupational health aspects 6:766.11.1 Description of risk factors 6:766.11.2 Assessment and preventive measures 6:79

7. TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES 7:17.1 Waste collection and transportation 7:17.2 Recycling, separation and recovery 7:47.3 Baseline alternative for treatment and disposal 7:57.4 Alternatives for final disposal and comparison of them 7:57.5 Gas abstraction system 7:15

7.5.1 Gas extraction system in Skede 7:157.5.2 Gas extraction in energy cells at Skede and Grobina 7:157.5.3 Assessment of gas extraction svstem 7:15

8. Financial analysis of the alternatives 8:18.1 Investment costs 8:1

8.8.1 Total investment costs 8:28.2 Operational costs 8:38.3 Revenues 8:48.4 Financial viability and affordability 8:4

8.4.1 Viability 8:48.4.2 Affordability 8:5

9. Social-economic aspects 9:1

6iI

9.1 Finding^s (o1 Mir I lanck's studv 9:19.2 Attitude of local governments 9:39.3 Attitude of people 9:39.4 impact on development and land owners 9:49.5 Impact on local governnments 9:4

9.6 Impact oni National budget 9:59.7 Impacts on household's budgets 9:5

10. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SITES 10:110.1 Evaluation criteria and comparison of two sites 10:110.2 Conclusions 10:6

11. SEQENCE OF THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ANDMATERIALS 11:1

11.1 Realisation of construction works 11:111.2 Implementation schedule 11:311.3 Materials 11:311.4 Potential environmental impacts during construction 11:4

12. ACTIVITIES DURING THE OPERATION OF THE LANDFILL 12-112.1 Local guidelines 12-112.2 Daily operation 12-1

12.2.1 Waste reception, registration and guarding 12-212.2.2 Waste sorting, tipping and covering 12-212.2.3 Waste treatment areas and process control 12-312.2.4 Personnel for daily operation and management 12:4

12.3 Security and safety measures in emergency cases 12:512.4 Monitoring 12:6

13. CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 13:113.1 Final shaping and cover of the landfill 13:213.2 Preparation of new surface runoff ditches 13:213.3 Control of landfill gas 13:313.4 Relocation of leachate drains and ditches 13:313.5 Leachate control-and monitoring 13:313.6 Environmental monitoring 13:4

14 CONCLUSIONS ON SELECTED SITES 14:1

15 REFERENCES 15:1

List of Tables

2.1 Distribution of Inhabitants in Liepaja region 2:12.2 State of bridges on roads supposed to be used for waste transportation :52.3 Water balance at Skede and Grobina sites, mm/year 2:62.4 Recurrence of wind directions, in percents of total number of

observations (1989-1998) 2:7

2.5 Averaue wind velocity per month, in mJsec (1989-1998) 9:3.1 Organisation of Waste Collection and Transportation in Liepaja

district 3:3.2 Enterprises providing waste management scrvices 3:33.3 Disposed waste Amounts and Composition in Lielpajia Region (1 998) ):43.4 Waste generation per capita 3:5

tv

3.5 Morphological Composition of wastc 3:6

3.( Techni(lques Uscd for Waste Collectioni and Transporlatiln 3:73.7 \'Waste collection frequcncy 3:831.8 Backgr-ounld dlatai oni experimental \vasIC Sorlilln at site 3:1 ()3.9 Results obtained dulino exper-imienital waste Sortillo 3:1 13. I( Dump Sites in Liepajaregion 33:13.11 Location oi Dump Sites. Employees, and Related Problems 3:143.12 Value of Nature Resources Tax 3:213.13 Operational costs 3: 224.1. Review of Latvian legislation on conslruclion of solid household

waste disposal sites 4:65.1 Forecast on population growth and serviced population 5:35.2 Forecast on economic development 5:35.3 Forecast on waste amounts to be collected and disposed. in m3 5:46.1 Comparison of leachate. ditch and Alande river discharees 6:106.2 Characterisation of geological cross-section 6:126 3 Leachate composition 6:326.4 Characterisation and quantification of biological criteria 6:496.5 Comparison of biological diversity for potential sites 6:496.6 Comparison of land value/use and landscape for potential sites 6:626.7 Comparison of cultural and historical heritage for potential sites 6:696.8 Results of well's-survey at the Grobina site 6:736.9 Impacts and mitigation measures: construction period 6:81

6.10 Impacts and mitigation measures: operation period 6:816.11 Impacts and mitigation measures: post-closure period 6:826.12 Site's correspondence to requirements stated by Regulation no. 38

from February 9, 1999 6:837.1 Household waste collection and transport in parishes and towns 7:27.2 Time consumption for collection and transportation 7:37.3 Alternatives considered for the Skede and Grobina .7:67.4 Comparison of-waste treatment alternatives 7:147.5 The total gas energy from landfill and energy cells in Skede and

Grobina 7:168.1 Investments for solid waste treatment in Liepaja Region 8:18.2 Total investment costs for Liepaja waste management, years 1-6 8:28.3 Operation costs: vehicles and waste containers 8:39.1 Attitude of people towards " new landfill siting 9:310.1 Criteria for comparison of locations 10:210.2 Evaluation and comparison of sites 10:510.3 Comparison of main problems for Skede and Grobina sites 10:511.1 Sequence of construction works 11:211.2 Implementation schedule 11:312.1 Staff required for landfill operation 12:413:1 Typical elements of a landfill closure plan 13:113:2 Function of monitoring facilities 13:414:1 Evaluation of alternative sites 14:1

List of Figures

1 Administrative division of the Liepa a Region ':3

Poptulallon (ICISy 2':43 Waste dLisposal1 siles in Li-epaa Reg1ion 3: 1 24 Contamiiinaltioni of surface water. "Ske(le 3:175 Groundwatter contamination at thc SUIToIndings ol landlicil "Skled' 3:1 X6 Groundwater contamination In thc dumpLsitc l0lig.ons . (irohill

parish 3:2()7 Forecast on population growth in Licpaja Region 5:28 Siting area for a new lanidfill Scale I :200.)0() 6:29 Zoning for a new landfill sitc selection 6:510 Location "Skede", Liepaja City 6:71 1 Location "Poligons", Grobinas parish 6:912 Fact data map, Skede 6:1313 Fact data map, Grobina 6:1414 Map of the Quatermary deposits. Skede 6:1615 Geological cross-sections. Skede 6:1716 Map of the Quaternary deposits in Grobina area 6:2017 Geological cross-section at the site "Poligons" 6:2118 Maximum concentrations found in contaminated groundwater 6:2519 Apparent rezistivity of water saturated sediments, "Skede" vicinity 6:2820 Wind roses in January and July 6:3421 Evaluation of biotops in "Skede" surroundings 6:3722 Evaluation of bitops at the site proposed for a new landfill at "Skede" 6:3823 Evaluation of biotops at selected site in Grobina parish 6:4524 Land use structure in Skede 6:5125 Land use structure at selected site in Grobina parish 6:5226 Landscapes at the site proposed for a new landfill at "Skede" 6:5327 Landscapes at the site proposed for landfill in Grobina parish 6:5428 Evaluation of visual landscapes spaces in Skede 6:5529 Visual landscapes spaces at the site offered for landfill in Grobina

parish 6:5630 Location of potential historical heritage and cultural monuments,

Skede 6:6331 Location of potential historical heritage and cultural environments,

Grobina parish 6:6432 Skede - existing landfill 7:733 Skede landfill - proposed layout 7:834 Skede landfill after closure 7:935 Grobina - existing landfill 7:1036 Grobina landfill - proposed layout 7:1137 Grobina landfill after closure 7:12

VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES

List of appendices

I Terms of Reference 1-I2 Reference from the State Hydrometeorological Agency -i3 Questionnaire used for data collection 3-I4 Public Consultation in Liepaja City. Minutes ol the Meeting 4-1

5 Statemeilt providledt b\ EIA State BuLeiaL -16 Descriptioni of -cological cross-Secti(on 6- 17 WcHi comlipletioni 7-18 Results of g-roundwater analyses. Lavima 8-I9 Results of groundwatcr analvses. Swcden '- I10 Results of Surlface water condUCtiVity ImeCaSUIreentCIIS 1 0- I11 Results of pumping tests. Skede I 1-I12 Results of vertical electrical profiling. Skiede 12-I13 Details on forecast tor future waste productioni 13-114 Photographs. biological diversity. Skede site 14-115 Photographs, biological diversity, Grobina site 15-116 Photographs, landscapes, Skede site 16-117 Photographs, landscapes, Grobina site 17-118 Description of water sampling procedure 18-119 Main data obtained during sampling of groundwater and surface water 19-120 Absolute heights of well heads and groundwater table 20-12 1 Socio-economic aspects 21-122 Appendix 98 to the Regulations no. 212 "Regulations on Nature

Preserves" 22-1

0-1

0 Executive summary

Background

The current report is the Amended Final Environmental Impact AssessmentReport of the Study "Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design and EnvironmentalAssessment of Sustainable Solid Waste Management for Liepaja City andLiepaja Region". The Final report was submitted on September 05, 1999 andthe Client and the World Bank have provided comments to the report. Thecomments, especially with regard to the financial aspects, have beenincorporated in this amended EIA report.

An addendum to the EIA report has been prepared after receipt of commentsfrom the Client and the MEPRD EIA Bureau and submitted on October 25,1999. The MEPRD EIA Bureau has approved this addendum.

The EIA was initiated by establishment of criteria for selection of a site for aregional waste treatment plant and a screening process to arrive at the two sitesin Skede and Grobina subject to this EIA. The report is compiled in accordancewith requirements stated in ToR issued by the World Bank, and later amendedby the ToR given by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and RegionalDevelopment (MEPRD).

The Project

Currently, the municipal solid waste is disposed at about 25 disposal sites inthe region. Most of them are small and receive less than 1(0,000 m3 of waste peryear. The largest disposal site is the Skede site in Liepaja which receives about80% of the total regional waste. Most sites are poorly located due to theirgeology and high water table, and none of the sites has an effective naturalbarrier or artificial lining to protect the groundwater against leachate pollution.The Skede site has been used since the 1960ies and the leakage of untreatedleachate and run-off water has caused evident groundwater contamination andserious pollution of the nearby Lake Tosmare.

The project includes the following components:

Remediation

The existing dumping sites shall be remediated and subsequently closed. Onlythe site in Grobina or Skede would remain open to be enlarged as part of theremediation so that it can serve as the regional waste treatment and disposalsite.

Technical and operational improvements

To establish a modem solid waste management system to meet internationalwaste treatment and sanitary landfill standards. It will include establishment ofa sorting area for separation of recyclable materials and separate areas for

0-2

storing of separated material as well as household hazardous waste, whichwould be transported to another site.

Installation of energy cells and a landfill gas collection system

Energy cells are planned for enhanced degradation of easily biodegradablewaste and accelerated production of landfill gas, containing about 50%methane. The landfill gas is expected to be utilised for energy production. Theresulting greenhouse gas emission reductions are planned to be sold to PCF, thePrototype Carbon Fund, under an emission reduction agreement

Installation of a power generator

An energy conversion unit of about 1 MWe capacity and running on landfill gaswould be installed and connected to the power grid. The power would be soldto Latvenergo under a power purchase agreement to be negotiated as part of theproject. The excess heat would partly be utilised for heating of the leachate andthe premises within the waste treatment plant.

Improvements of the collection and transport system

New containers and vehicles for collection and transport of the waste to theregional waste treatment and disposal plant are planned to be procured withinthe project. There would beat least one waste collection point in each pagast.

Findings and conclusionsA short review on the main findings and conclusions presented in all chaptersis given below.

General Data about the RegionThe Liepaja Region covers an area of 3,653 km2, with 147,890 inhabitants.112,898 inhabitants (76,3%) of the Liepaja District population live in townsand 34,992 (23,7%) in rural areas. There are 6 towns in Liepaja District:Liepaja, Aizpute, Durbe, Grobina, Pavilosta, and Priekule. The number of ruralmunicipalities (so called pagasts) is 25.

Existing waste management systemCurrently waste management services are provided for 101,747 people (68.8 %of total), and 6 municipal enterprises, 4 private companies and 3 housingestates carry out the services. Municipal councils provide waste managementservices in 15 municipalities.

114,759 m3 of solid waste was generated in the Region in 1998 and have beendisposed at 27 landfills. The largest of them - Skede - received 90,500 m3 ofwaste or 78.9% of waste generated within the Region.

Waste sorting is only practised on a pilot scale and unorganised sorting ofmetal scrap takes place due to unlimited recycling possibilities in themetallurgical plant "Liepajas metalurgs" located in Liepaja City.

0-3

The region has no sanitary landfills, and surface water and groundwatercontamination occurs. The highest contamination is found in surroundings ofthe existing Skede landfill.

Operational costs were about 282 thousand Latvian lats (Ls) in 1998, and theaverage tariff for waste disposal was 0.25 Ls/month per capita and 0.31Ls/month per capita in Liepaja City.

Legal framework

Latvia has started to develop legal acts on waste management rather recently.The Law "On Municipal waste" was passed in Saeima (Parliament of Latvia) inOctober 15"', 1998. Regulations supplementing and specifying the law startedto be passed to the Saeima in 1999. Therefore, it is necessary to develop legalacts governing waste management.

According the Law "On Self-government" municipalities are responsible forwaste management in their administrative area. The "polluter pays" principle isto a large extent introduced in the waste management field, and natureresources tax (0.25 Ls/m3) is paid for waste disposal (the Law "On NatureResources Tax").

Forecast on Future Waste Production

A forecast on waste generation is provided for years 2000-2020, and itenvisages that about 4.3 million m3 of waste will be produced. Taking intoconsideration that modern compacting vehicles will be used for wvastecollection and transportation, and further compaction at the waste treatmentsite, about 1.64 million m3 of will be disposed.

Characterisation of proposed waste disposal sites

After area screening for a new waste treatment plant location, the Liepaja citycouncil decided to initiate an EIA on the two sites: Skede (north of Liepajacity, where the existing landfill is situated) and "Poligons" (the former militaryarea, in Grobina pagasts).

The geological, hydrogeological and hydrological conditions, biologicaldi versity, landscapes and land value, historical environment and culturalheritage values have been investigated, and possible impact on water and airquality, landscape, human health, etc. have been assessed.

The statement was as follows,

- for the "Skede site, ": exclusive criteria exist (biological diversity, andcloseness of densely populated area),

0-4

- for the "Grobina site " - no exclusive criteria, although severalproblems: concerning land owner attitude, location of access road andproblems related to cultural heritage.

Due to problems with the land ownership at the first investigated Grobina site,the Client allocated a new, municipally owned area about 300 m east of theoriginal site. Supplementary investigations were carried out mainly to verifythe geological and hydrogeological conditions. The available land is about 27hectares and comprises mainly former agricultural lands and forest in the north-west. Five boreholes have been drilled and the groundwater level and qualitychecked. The details of the investigations have been presented in theAddendum to the Final EIA Report.

The additional survey shows that the natural conditions at the new Grobina siteare equally good as the original site.

The preliminary design at the new site has been adjusted from the earlier site tocomply with the requirement of a minimum distance of 500 m to the nearestfarmhouse, Vilteri. Moreover, the design includes a forested protection zone toprotect from eventual disturbances generated by the future waste treatmentfacility.

Therefore, the Grobina sites are recommended for a new waste treatment plantlocation from nature conditions, social and human health aspects.

Technological alternatives

Two alternatives have been anlysed for waste collection and transportation:direct collection / transportation with side loader and 2 steps collectionintroducing a number of simple re-loading stations. It was found that wastefrom the all region, excluding Liepaja City and Grobina town, can be collectedand transported by one vehicle. Liepaja City and Grobina town would requirereplacement of containers and vehicles during the first three years of projectimplementation.

Results obtained during the waste sorting, show that about 10-20 % of wasteare recycable with a good or comparatively satisfactory market. Therefore, itmight be considered that the disposed waste amount could be reduced per 10-20% rather fast, if a proper separate waste collection system will be introduced.

Six alternatives were considered for Skede and two for and Grobina, includinga baseline alternative. The proposed alternatives were classified in two groups:

- a new waste treatment plant with energy cells and a landfill gasextraction system,

- waste disposal without landfill gas extraction.

0-5

AlternativeA = Skede B = Grobina

Al - Gas extraction from existing landfill, combined with energy cells. Income fromelectrical energy. Closing of regional dumps.

A2 - Gas extraction from existing landfill, combined with energy cells. Income fromgas. Closing of regional dumps.

A3 - Gas extraction from existing landfill. Income from electrical energy. Closing ofregional dumps.

A4 Landfilling without gas extraction. Closing of regional dumps.

A5 Closing of the landfill.

A6 Closing of the landfill with gas extraction and flaring. Closing of regional dumps.

BI Gas extraction from energy cells. Income from electrical energy. Closing ofregional dumps.

B2 Landfilling without gas extraction. Closing of regional dumps.

The financial analysis in the Feasibility study shows two main alternatives tobe viable, namely Al and BI, which are compared with the baseline alternativeA4 below.

Financial analysis of the alternatives

The investment costs for the first six years are characterised in table below.

Alternative Base costs Including design,A: Skede B: Grobina contingencies and VAT

Collection, transport, treatment: Al - Gasextraction from existing landfill, combined 4 959 400 5 852 100wvith energy cells with sludge addition. Incomefrom electrical energy. Closing of regionaldumps.

Collection. transport, treatment:A4 Landfilling without gas extraction. 3 122 300 3 684 400Closing of regional dumps.

Collection, transport, treatment: B I Gasextraction from energy cells with sludge 5 365 000 6 330 800addition. Income from electrical energy.Closing of regional dumps.

T:he investment costs are the lowest for traditional landfilling at Skede (A4)and the highest for energy cell establishment at Grobina (B11), due to the factthat the Grobina location requires upgrading of the access road and separateleachate treatment. Moreover, the cost of closing Skede will burden the projectcosts if Grobina is selected. The operation costs show the same picture, A4 isthie least expensive and BI the most expensive. Revenues are generated fromthe landfill gas and from the tariff. When the capital costs of the investments,the operation costs and the revenues are analysed alternative Al will be the

0-6

most feasible. Annual revenues of about 130 000 Ls would be required to getthe same profitability in the Grobina alternative B 1. This would require a tariffof about 5 Ls per capita and year, representing a 25% increase of the averagecurrent tariff in Liepaja City. This tariff increase is considered to be affordablefor the major part of the population in the region.

Socio-economic aspectsThe attitude of both local governments towards a new waste treatment plant intheir area is positive. The attitude of people living in the surroundings of theprospective sites is basically negative. Therefore, public awareness campaignsshould be provided in order to change people opinion.

The local government where a new waste treatment plant will be located wouldundoubtedly benefit. It can be expected that value of natural resources receivedby the rnunicipality will increase from about 6.9 thousand Ls to 13.4 thousandLs from year 2000 to year 2020. All municipalities, especially the rural ones,should carefully consider the possibility for their people to pay for the wasteservices, i.e. the affordability has to be considered in all pagasts.

Comparison of alternativesThree groups of criteria were used to compare the two sites:

1. Natures conditions.2. Social and human health aspects.3. Economic aspects.

In order to make the assessment all criteria were quantified, and values from 3(the best option) to 1 (the poorest option) were devoted to the each criteria.Exclusionary criteria were given the value "0".

It was found, that the Grobina.site is significantly better - mainly from natureconditions and social / human health aspects. The total scores were 52 marksfor the Grobina site and 49 marks for the Skede site.

Sequence of the project implementation and materialThe logical sequence of the construction works, implementation schedules andlegal acts governing the quality of material and potential environmentalimpacts during construction works have been analysed.

Activities during the operation of the waste treatment plantLocal guidelines regulating the landfill management are required. Factors thathave to be incorporated in developing operating schedules are analysed.

The number of employees at the waste treatment plant for the operation of thesite varies from 13 to 17, depending on the selected alternative.

Security and safety measures are considered as well as general content of therequired monitoring of the environmental impacts.

0-7

Closure and post-closure activitiesFinal shaping and cover of the landfill, preparation of new surface runoffditches, control of landfill gas, relocation of leachate drains and ditches,leachate control and monitoring and environmental monitoring are considered.

Conclusions concerning site selectionThe evaluation indicates exclusionary criteria at the Skede site. They are thefollowing:

1. Site is not suitable from bio-diversity point of view, 15 rare specieswere found within the site and a wide range of valuable biotopes(7 endangered biotopes and 7 biotopes of European significance).

2. The distance to the summer cottage village is less than 500 m.

The result of the evaluation of the two sites is presented in the following table.r Criteria Skede Poligons

_]nvironmental conditions (5 criteria) 6 12.Social and public health aspects (10 criteria) 18 22Aspects of Economics (9 criteria) 25 18

tX TOTAL 49 52

The current study and data analysis indicates that:

1 The Skede site has at least two exclusionary criteria, which indicates thatthe Skede site is not suitable for a new regional solid waste treatment plant.

2. The Poligons site and the new site in Grobina pagasts is acceptable for thenew waste treatment plant, since exclusionary criteria do not apply to thesite or to the surroundings. Several issues at the site should be addressed fora successful implementation of the project (land ownership, location ofaccess road, inhabitants' attitude, character of the cultural heritage studiesetc.).

3. The local governments only can make the decision on the location of thenew waste treatment plant, i.e. the Liepaja City Council and the GrobinaParish Council.

l:

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The current report is the Filal Dralft Environmental lmpact Assessmlcnit Rcport Iromllthe Study "Feaisibiliil' Stuldy, Prclimimarv Design nid Environmentzl Assess,men't OfSiustainiable Solid Waste Alnagc 1em(nl fo Liepaja CitY cnd( Liepaja Region

The Contract Agreement for the Consulting Services between Liepaja City Counciland SWECO International was signed in December 1998, and an addendum contractrelating to additional services for the environmental assessment of two landfill siteswas signed in March 1999.

The study has been executed by SWECO of Sweden in association with SIA GeoConsultants of Latvia. The foreign costs of the Study have been financed by Sida, theSwedish International Development Cooperation Agency. and the local costs byLiepaja City Council. The Terms of Reference for the study has been prepared by theClient and the World Bank. which is foreseen as one of the financing institutions forthe implementation of the Project together with Sida and other international donoragencies as well as the Government of Latvia. The Environmental Impact AssessmentState Bureau of the Republic of Latvia (further - EIA Bureau) issued the Program forenvironmental impact assessment (see Appendix 1).

The Consultant's work has been supervised by Liepaja City Council (mainly throughthe Project Implementation Unit, further - PIU), by Sida and the World Bank. Severalmeetings and seminars have been accomplished to guide the Consultant's workthroughout the Study. The progress of the study has been reported in an InceptionReport, Progress Reports and a Draft Report. The Draft EIA Report was subject toscrutiny by the EIA Buireau of MOEPRD and other parties involved in the Project.Written comments have been received from Liepaja City Council, the World Bank,Sida and the other involved parties in the Liepaja Region through PIU. The commentswere discussed at a Steering Committee meeting oii 10 August, 1999. The Draft EIAReport was also presented at a public meeting in Liepaja on 15 July, 1999. Theminutes of the public meeting are enclosed in Appendix 22. Conunents were alsoprovided by the EIA Bureau, which provided a statement on the Draft EIA Report in aletter dated August 16, 1999 and the compliance with the requirements stated in theProgram for the ElA. The valuable comments from all parties involved have beenaddressed in the preparation of the Final EIA Report. New data and amendments havebeen incorporated to comply with the requirements of the study.

The study and the forthcoming project is part of the implementation of the NationalSolid Waste Management Strategy of Latvia. which has been developed since 1997.The Strategy aims at compliance with the EU directives and standards within the solidwaste management field to enable Latvia to becoimie a l'ull member oi' the ELuropeanUnion.

Other studies to implement the Strategy includc North Vidzeme Solid WasteManagement Project, Ventspils Solid Waste Management Project. Maliena anid Southl

1: '

East Latiale Regional Solid Waste Mana;clmlent l1rojects. all ol which are part ol theprocrarn .500 minus for implenmentation of lile National Strategy.

1.2 Structure of the reportThe report li-st presenits the objcctives ol thc EIA (Section 1.3). concelpts ol theFeasibility StuLdy (Section 1 4) anld general cata on tile region (chapter 2). The CurrtClI

waste management system in IhC regCion is dcscribed in chapter 3 and the legalltramework in chapter 4. A forecast on the waste generation and mana-ernent ispresented in chapter 5. The proposed disposal sites are characterised and theilrenvironmental conditions in chapter- 6 while the technological alternatives areevaluated in chapter 7. Economic aspects are presented in chapter X, while socio-economic aspects are descritbed in chapter 9. The evaluation of the alternative sites isshown in chapter 10 Implementation of construction and the impacts are presented inchapter I 1. Operational aspects are presented in chapter 12 and post closure activitiesin chapter 13. Conclusions on the selected sites are provided in chapter 14.

1.3 Objectives and tasks of the EIAThe objectives of the EIA are to ensure that environmental consequences related toexisting disposal sites in the region as well as remediation, and upgrading theexisting Liepaja disposal site to sanitary landfill status are evaluated and addressed,and that mitigation measures can be incorporated into the final design of the landfillsite. The EIA has been performed parallel to the preliminary landfill design andoperational plan prepared in the feasibility study and focused on the two sites, Skedeand Poligons after a preliminary screening during the inception phase.

A comprehensive program of site investigation works has been carried out as part ofthe feasibility study. Soil and water investigations, surveys of flora, fauna,biodiversity, geology, ground- and surface water, land use, landscape and sociological

aspects in the vicinity of the sites' boundary has been carried out to supplementanalysis during the feasibility study, and to further define the baseline environmentalconditions. The intention of these investigations have been to determine the extent towhich the existing and expected future waste disposal activities will affectenvironmental conditions in areas irmnediately adjacent to the sites.

1.3.1 TasksThe following tasks were specified in the original terms of reference:

* description of the selected location of the landfill sites addressing: (i)infrastructure of the service area; and (ii) facts about landfill development;

* description of the envir-onment by assembly, evaluation, and presentation ofbaseline data on the following: (i) physical environment; (ii) biologicalenvironment; and (iii) economic and cultural environment:

* description of existing legislative and regulatory frame work, and discussio n ofthe need for additional legislation to ensure the implemenitationi ot the NSWMS:

* determination of potential impacts of proposed location of the regional disposalsite;

* analysis of alternative geographical and techn1ical solutions to thc proposedsolution;

- development ol a management plan to mitigate negaitive impacts;* development of a monitoring plan incluLding perform-ance indicators:

l: 8

* identificat ion ol ilnstimlLiionzal iccds to (ilem eni the EA rcCOnInIendt ;l0ionis: nldld* inter-acency coordination d111(l pubblic/NGO al-I'liCipa,tiOn dUrIng pr-oject

preparationi. coordinated with the public participation iind communicationspecialist involved in te pr-oject.

Revised termns ol reference wevre provided by MOEPRD for this exctecndcd EIA and th'eoutline has becn revised to accommodate tlhcsc as specified in Appendix 1.

1.4 Concepts of the Feasibility StudyThe general objective with the study is to propose a regional sustainable solid wastemanagement solution for Liepaja City and Region. The proposal should aim atimplementation of a cost-effective solution including leachate conlrol, gas extraction,electricity generation and waste sorting and recovery. The future activities at theselected site should be environmenitally sustainable and the environmental impacts inthe surroundings should be thoroughly considered and proposed activities should aimat minimising these impacts.

The feasibility study addresses the following aspects to meet with the above generalobjectives and the specific objectives and tasks specified in the TOR for the study.

* Closing of the small regional dumps* A regional collection and transport system with new receptacles and compacting

vehicles in the towns and pagasts outside of Liepaja and Grobina town.* A collection and transport system in Liepaja and Grobina towns, similar to the

existing system, but replacement of containers and vehicles.- Continued emphasis on source separation and separate collection and management

of recoverable and recyclable materials.- Development of a regional waste treatment plant. Two sites have been considered

for the Feasibility Study and the EIA after a preliminary screening of several areasin the region. One site comprises remediation and improvement at the existingdumping site in Skede, Liepaja town and the other the recently establisheddumping site Poligons in Grobina parish.

* The studied alternatives compare traditional sanitary landfilling with forcedbiodegradation of the organic waste in energy cells to generate landfill gas andelectric energy. The waste treatment plant is expected to occupy an area of about20 hectares, out of which the energy cells require about 5.5 hectares. the landfill 6- 8 hectares and receiving areas. areas for temporary storage of sorted materials,internal roads. buildings etc. the remaining area. The final elevation of theproposed landfill will be 22 to 24 m above the surrounding land level.

* Different engineering solutions for the waste management. access roads. leachateand gas management, the environmental impacts and the environmental mitigatingmeasures are presented including cost estimates and a financial and affordabilityanalysis of the viable solutions.

* The planning period for the design of the waste management system. Ior costestimates and finanlcial analysis is 20 years.

2:1

2 General Data about the ltegion

2.1 Territory, inhabitaniits and adminiistrative division

The Liepaja District covers an area of 3,653 kn:2 which is 5./c% ol Latvia's territorv.147.89() people or (% ol Latvian piopulation are living here. The average densitv of

2inhabitants is 40.5 people per krri: the avcrage for this in Latvia is 38 people per knf.112.898 inhabitants (76.3 '%v) ol Liepaja District are living in towns and 34.992(23.7%) in rural areas 15. 53. 55. 561.

There are 6 towns in Liepaja District: Liepaja, Aizpute, Durbe, Grobina, Pavilosta.and Prielule. The number of rural municipalities (so called pagasts) is 25.Furthermore, there is one rural area belonging to a town (Durbe: see Fig. 1). Theaverage density of rural areas' inhabitants is 10 people per km2 bult his value variesbetween 4 and 22 people per km2 in the Dunika- and Grobina pagasts (see Fig. 2).

Table 2.1 gives an overview on the inhabitant distribution in Liepaja Region. TheTable distinguishes between 10 categories of settlements due to the amount ofinhabitants. For each unit the number of people living in each category of settlementis stated. The number of settlements within each category is given in brackets.

Tab. 2.1

Distribution of Inhabitants in Lie aa Re ionAdministrative Distribution of inhabitants and number of settlements

unit '>90.000 -5.000- 2-.0- 1.000- 500. i20-0- T-100 - - 50- 20- <-2010.000 5.000 2.000 1.000 500 200 100 50

Aizpute parish - - - - 324 192 58 12'7 501Aiz__ute_town _6082 (1) (1) (1) (4)Aizpute town - 6082 - - - - - - -

Barta parish 326 - - 104 430! ______________ ______ ______ (1) ______ (3)Bunka parish 446 178 - - 654. ___________________ I_______ (2) (1) _Cirava parish 672 - 126 63 45 791

________ (1) (1) (1) (1) 1Dunalka parish 307 - - 61 670

_________ _________ (1) (2)Dunika parish 501 - - 86 345I _______________ _______ (2) (2)Durbe parish 254 116 69 612

__________________ _ _ (1) (I) (2)Durbe town 435 -4- -

Embute parish . - - 407 - 67 224______ ______ ~~~(1) J _ _ _ (2)

Gavieze parish NO - - - 9 1O -9 139 510I_____I__ (I) (I)I I (_)

Gramzda parish - - 407 1 8x7 I - 72 305I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~(I) I(1) I l(2)

Grobina parish - - - 658 1268 - { 200 193 504I 1) I(3) I I(OI (68)I

Grobina town 4625 - - )- - _Kaleti parish - - | 334 171 62 3TS,

I_ (_)_2 I _ I _ _) IContinulatioii follows

2 : 2

Contili,i.on ol Fah. 2.I Administrative L)istributioni Of inhab)itants and number of settlenieniis

unit >90.000 5.000- 2.000- I 1.000- 500- 20)- 10 - 50- 201- < 20________________________ 10.010 5. O000 2.000 1.001 5001 -200 T 100_ J 50 __(- ___- -

Kalvene paLish 374 - 92 442I1) _ _ _ __ _ _ 1 (3)

Kazdangza -4( 325 155 (10 127 798parisli (1 (I) (I) I (4lLaza parish -- - - 349

(3)Liepaja city 97278 - - - - -

Medze parish - - 617 50 - 69 Xl 498_______(I)_ (1) (1) 12)

Nica parish 1259 207 372 324 231 553______________ _ _____ (1) (1) (3) (5) (6)

Otanki parish - 446 - 52) 95 8_____________ (1I) (8) (31)

Pavilosta town 139 - - -

Priekule parish 132 221 67 476..____________ (1) (3) (2 )

Priekule town 3139 - - - -

Rucava parish - 840 158 1I) 232 241(1) (1) (2) (7)

Saka parish - 287 75 58 349. .__ (2) (1) (2)

Tadaiki parish | - - - 550 - 273 - 403_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (1) I (4 ) Vainode parish - - 2412 - - - 315 166 - 192

________________ ! ! __ (1) (2) (3)Vecpils parish - - - L - 219 - 100 309

_______________ ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~(1) (3) _ _ _

Vergale parish | - - T - 446 410 124 20 815___________________ ________ _________ ________ ________ ________ (1) (3) 3 (2) (1)Virgas parish - | - - - 462 187 - 24 430i __________________ ________ _________ ________ ________ ________ (2) (1) )(I)

Total: 97278 6082 10176 2598 3886 8028 3555 2349 2152 11786I (1) (1) (3) (2) (6) (25) (24) (35) (65)

% of total I11 ' '- - - , ,

Total number of inhabitants 147890 (100%)

Number of inhabitants to be supplied with waste services 133952 (90,58% / 100 %)

(all settlements > 50 inhabitants have to be covered)

In towns 112898 (76,34% / 84.28%)

In rural area 21054 (14.24% / 15.72%)

All settlements with at least 50 inhabitants have to be supplied with waste servicesaccording to Latvian regulations. This means, that 133.952 people or 90.58% ofwhole Liepaja Region's inhabitants have to be served. All towns (112,898 people)must be covered as well as 21,054 people-of the rural population living in villageswith more than 50 inhabitants.

2.2 Inhabitants served by the current waste management system

Services of the current waste management system is provided for 1(01.747 people(68.8 % of total). including:

- for 86.141 people in towns (76.31%, ol total).- for 15,606 people in rural area (44.6 ( of totLal).

21, '30' ~~MCrogsIScale 1:400 000

4 X / / , Sa> OuBikas pag P/ Ar g LEGEND

- / n _.f * aaaa GravrCemsl rpadnstacnr

& '-2~ \ Zene ciellgit1 ~ ~~ ~-UPaveed roads

daRCB S ravlroads

_ g § 21°3DS DailrZocaedS213 22°00

Fig. 1: Administrative division of the Liepajas Region1. zim.: Administrativais jedalijums Liepajas repiona

2 1 '30' I Merogs/Scale 1:400 000

@#P~~~~~~~akas pagUUREJ Sali6 <* inae$

tS trka S 2) 24 20

ss l W c~~~~~~- S 1SO40

Lali pi POP2 a 114Q12 000

vev = rs pag 672 _ p l * 1 001-2 WD126

Fig. 2: Population density2. zim.: ledzivotaju blivums

2.3 Existing road netwoi rk

AlthougYh nioni-pa;ved roads azic domi natin- , the Liepaja Repion ha:s ;a rla-t it'Nel well-developed road-nctwork. The total lengti of all roads iS IhOtl 20()48 km. Thc r-oaddensity is 0).57 I;m/lkrn. The road standard is shown in Fig. 1. and thl-ce mrinicategories of road quality can be distingu21.1shed 151:

* Paved roads: 147 km or 0.08 kIm/km rn* Gravel roads: 432 klm or 0.23 km/knm2

* Soft-surfaced earth i-oads: 468 km or 0.25 kimlkm2

The maximum weight of fully loaded waste vehicles will be 18 tonnes. Therefore it is

important to evaluate the state of the bridges on the roads to be used for waste

transportation. The current state of bridges will not cause problems for current and

future waste transport (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2

State of bridges on roads supposed to be used for waste transportationg CharacterisationPoPCroadsersation_r_road

Road Type of construction Length, m Width, m Permitted load,1. Pavilosta town Reinforced concrete 54 6 60

2. Pavilosta-Grobina town Reinforced concrete 52 8 603. Grobina town Reinforced conCrete 36 8 604. Grobina - Nica Reinforced concrete 16 6 30

With metallicl __________________________ Foundation

5. Liepaja city - Nica town Reinforced concrete 34 9 60D 6. Grobina - Nica town Wooden 102 8 20

7. Grobina - Rucava town Reinforced concrete 14 9 608. Grobina - Durbe town Reinforced concrete o2 10 409. Grobina - Aizpute Reinforced concrete 15 7 5010. Aizpute city Reinforced concrete 12 8 60II. Durhe town Reinforced concrete IS 10 5012. Durbe - Skrunda town Reinforced concrete 22 10 9013. Grobina -Priekule Reinforced concrete 26 8 6014. Priekule - Rucava Reinforced concrete 28 6 J 3015. Priekule - Dunika Reinforced concrete 94 8 | 60

2.4 Hydrometeorological conditions

Precipitation, evaporation and runoff

According to the data provided by the State Hydrometeorological Agency the average

precipitation in the territory is about 693 mm/year. AlthougLh in the last ten years it

has fluctuated from 497 mm in 1996 to 886 mm in 19(0 (see Appendix 2).

The maximum monthly precipitation was observe(d in October 1997 - 192 mm: and

the maximum daily precipitation - in August 1994 - 35 mm.

The total cvaporation Iromii the soil sur-'LicC is about (5% 6(1 ol total prcci pitat oln or

appr oximiiately:

6z) mll/yvear x 0.65 = 45 1 immii/year

The average annual run-ofl is apprioximaizitely:

693 miml/ycar- - 45 I mm/year = 242 mm/year

At "Skede" there are bog-v deposits on the top. but at "Poligons'" there are claycydeposits on the top. Therefore, infiltration to groundwater is very limited and does notexceed 25-30 mm for glacigene deposits and 10 mm for boggy deposits. In view ofthe above mentioned, the water balance of both sites is characterised in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3Water balance at Skede and Grobina sites, mm/vear

Year Precipitation, Evaporation, Surface lnfiltration tommr mm run-off, mm groundwater, nim

I _______________________ ____________ S k edeWith average precipitation 693 451 232 10With maximal precipitation 886 576 300 10With minimal precipitation 497 323 169 5

. _____________________ ___________ G robinaWith average precipitation | 693 451 212 | 30With maximal precipitation 886 576 280 30With minimal precipitation 497 323 _ 149 25

W'izd direction and velocity

Recurrence of wind directions and velocity is characterised in Tables 2.4 and 2.5.During the summer period winds from the following directions mainly dominate:

* in June: West-Southwest (34.3% of observations) and North (8.1% ofobservations),

* in July: West-Southwest (37.4% of observations) and North (8.1% ofobservations),

* in August: West-Southwest (31.8% of observations) and East (7.6% ofobservations).

The velocity of prevailing winds in June - August varies between 2 and 4 m/sec (seeTable 2.5). The strongest winds are observed in the winter period, when average

monthly value reaches 6.3 - 6.4 mrs, although the daily wind velocity reaches 8-10m/s and even more.

Drainage conditions

Drainage conditions are different for "Skede"' and "Poligons'" sites.

The dump site ' Skede' is located rather close to the Tosmare Lake. andl therefore allsurface runoff and main part of leachate through connecting dithches is discham-redinto the Tosmare Lake (details see in Chapter 3).

Ta)i c 2 4l

Reoccuran;;ce of ffil!Ii(wtw;,i2"Oo,ftalf int::nber ('f ober!Pwitios!ts: (I989-!99R.)

-I I. I I -I J/J I I] I-gs i gzZI I I X' I VXI A Nil

AN 5.I 4,6 5,9 7,7 10, 8,X X.1 5,8 6.7 5.3 3.8 3.7

NNE 2.4 .1.7 3.7 5,5 6,, 4,8 5,5 4,2 6,5 3.,6 . 2.7

NE 2.6 3.2 4.7 7.7 7,5 4,0 3,9 3,9 6,,5 2.9 4.6 4.1

ENE 2,6 3.1 3.9 7,0 6,5 3,7 4,0 4,4 5,X 4.2 3.8 2.8

E 4.0 7.2 6.3 10.( 8,6 5,6 5.1 7,6 10,4 6.4 8.7 6.8

ESE 3.8 4.6 4,6 5,4 3,2 3,4 2,5 5.4 5,X 6, S.5 5.7

SE 5.3 3.7 4.6 6.0 3,9 3,2 3,4 5,9 6,6 7,9 9.7 6,

SSE 7.9 6.2 6.4 4,2 2,3 3,4 2,8 4,6 5.4 8,3 13.6 1 8

S 8 It. 1 10.6 6.0 5.2 6,4 4.2 6,2 6,o 7,9 9.6 I 3.4

SIV 4.9 7.3 8.3 6,9 5,5 6.3 5,( 4,3 3.1 4.7 3..9 4.4

S I V 7. 9 49 83 8.0 9,3 13,4 I1,I 7,7 5,3 8.8 4A.8 o,,

SJIV' 9) I 1.6 9.() 5.9 7,1 8,5 12,7 8,2 7.4 7.9 6.2 (.5

I' 20l.8 16.6 12.7 6.9 9.5 12,. 1.3,6 15,9 1 1.3 1 1,6 9.1 1 .5

11,1V_V 6.4 .3._ 3,9 X,6 7,5 4,7 5,9 5,6 4.2 5.1 3. 7 4.6

Nit' 5.5 3.8 3.( 4.2 4,3 '5, 7 5,9 4,9 4,1) 4,4 4.2 A

NVA'J' 4. 3 3.1 3.5 5,0 6,0 6,4 6,3 5,4 5,0 4.2 2.5 38

l(zamin' 0.0() 0),7) 0.4 0,0_ 0.9 2,8 4,1 03) 0,) 2,7 01) 07 2

Vo,,,i,,.l 1.7 I O 2.4 2 2 2.9 28X 4,1 3,4 2.6 2.7 1.7 _

-J1

Table 2.5

A verage JUind Strength per AMonth, in mns (I 989-1998)

I____ 3 11 3I111 ._III_I _ I" I' VIH J III lY. A' ll .'11

N 4.4 4.8 4, 4,3 3,7 3,4 3,4 2,9 3,1 3,7 3.6 4.0

N.E 3.6 2.7 3.1 3,9 2.9 2,5 2,5 2,3 2,9 2,7 2.9 3.2

.\E 2.3 2.7 2.7 3.0 2,9 2,5 2,2 2.2 2,6 2,4 2.5 2.3

EN'E 2.(1 28 2.5 2,6 2.7 2,7 2,3 2.1 2.4 25 2.5 2.1

E 1.9 1.8 2.3 3.0 2,7 2_5 2,3 2,2 2,7 2.1 2.8 2 7

ESE 1.3 2.3 2.5 3.( 2.5 2,7 2.2 2,2 2,.5 2,6 2.5 2.6

SE 2.3 3.7 2.6 2.8 2,3. 2,1 2,2 2,2 2,5 2,5 2.8 2. 3

US'.5E 2(.6 3.5 3.1 2,8 2,3 2,4 2,3 2.0 3,0 28 X3.3 3.3

S 4.1 4.4 4.0 3.3 2,4 2,7 2,5 3,0) 3,6 3.4 3,9 4.2

.SSl' 4.5 5.2 5. 4.3 4 0 3,6 3.8 4,2 3.9 4,8 5.1 5.5

,511' 5.7 5.2 511 4,2 4 2 3,1 4 4 o) 4,8 5.1 5.4 5.7

If`SI'U 6.3 5.( 5,8 4,4 4,1 3,9 4,2 4,0 4,5 5,9 5.5 6.4

If, 6.0 5.7 5.4 3,7 3,4 3,3 3,X 4.2 4.4 5,6 5.3 i .

1i'XI)' 5.2 3.9 4 4 3,3 3,) 3,I 3,5 3.3 3,9 4.5 41 46.

,NJ' I 4.6 4.3 3.8 3,7 2,8 2,X 3,2 3() 3,8 4.6 4.2 3.

A'AiN'l' A4.8 4.2 4.4 38X 3,5 3,1 3,4 2.9 3,4 4.1 4.2 3.7

- - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

,.

Tosmarc Laike is localte(l in thie PiejLral lowlandl, applroxillmately I Ill a1hov se;ia lvl.The arca occCLied by> lthI lake is aboult 4.05 - 4. 15 km). hutl the open Watlcr surl'ace iS

signifi cantly si smlici (oni\ 5) hectuscs) because the lke is OVCI"Al by reeds, IllSplot. coltsfoot. ec. Thc a\erae depth of the Lakc is only 0.6 m and thle maximmlllldeptlh is 1.2 m. The hasin airea is 73 kir2. Tlhcrc arc botanical restrictions at1 thcnorthern part ol Lake (detalls are presented in Chapter 6.6) 1541.

The dump site "Poligonsis is locazted in the Alanda river basin. The rivcr llows nclaithe Grobina town, along its soutlhern border. The distance 1rom ithe selectcd site toAlanda via ditches is about 3.5 km.

Alande river flows through the Bartava plain in the Piejura lowland. It discharges inthe northern end of Liepaja Lake. The total length of Alande is 24 km and thecatchment area - 241 km-. The average yearly discharge of the river is 4.35 m3/s.

Alande stream begins in tlhe Ploci bog North of Medze. To the southwest fromVergale settlement the Alanlde stream flows into Vartaja undulated plain. There itflows in a wide, well-formed ancient valley, and passes through Tasi Lake. On thebanks of Alande there are meadows, peat lands, partly overgrown by bushes. Alandehas several tributaries and the largest ones are [33, 35, 54]:

* right bank tributar-ies: Andzupite, Vezupite (both discharges into Tasilake), Kalisu ditch, Allupite. Cietoksna kanals (Fortress canal),

* left bank tributaries: Eile stream, Kazupe (7 km), Karlupite (11 km),Dzirnavupite.

3 Overview on the E.xisting Waste Nianagenient System

During, thed feasibility sltudILV Site surveys have hcen carr-ied OLut in all 111t111inCi)plit ics.

and all existinu waste disposal sites had lbeen visitct. Afterwards a background-documentation lhas becn compiled. A specially designed inveloly-qltesliolrc hasbeen used for the data collectioni (see Appeclndix 3) as well as CXiStin" referCeniccs[11.12, 48. 521.

The inventory of the currenit waste management included basic information abouLt:

* actors of waste collection and transportation.* waste amounts and composition,* technical equipment (vehicles and containers) used for waste collection.* waste reuse and recycling.* conditions at the existing dump sites,* evaluation of impact of dumps on environment and public health,* economic aspects.

3.1 Institutional aspects and existing infrastructure

In the project area solid waste management (further SWM) is carried out by:

a municipal enterprises (Aizpute and Priekule towns, Otanki, Vainode, Vergaleand Virga pagasts),

* private companies ("Tan", "Sikari", "Paisas" and "Vecpils"), housing estates("Ezerkrasts-2" and "Kara osta" in the Liepaja City), municipal councilsthemselves - in 15 cases (see table 3.1).

- inhabitants or other waste producers themselves - in 12 cases (see Table 3.1).

Only three waste collection companies serve more than 1 municipality:

* "Tari" - major part of the Liepaja City. Grobina town and parish, partly Medzeand Tadaiki parishes,

* "Paisas" - minor part of the Liepaja City and Nica parish,* Aizpute municipal enterprise - Aizpute town and parish.

Simultaneously, decentralisation of SWM system takes place in the largest town ofthe Region - in Liepaja. Currently there are 5 firms providin, solid wastemanaTement:

* "Tari" - collects about 69.5 IT of waste -enerated in the Liepaja city.* "Sikari" - 6.8 %.* "Paisas" - 3.6 %,* IHousing estate "Ezerkrasts-2 - 3.(%.* Housing estate "Kara osta" - 1.6 %/C.

* Waste producers themselves -14.9 %.

In In lct. all enterprlises deal in jib waste manneemeni. exitid iin "larK. del smll.and provide limied scopc ol' services (see Table 3.2).

Tahle 3IOrganisation of Waste Collection and -Transportation in Liepaja D)istrict

No lParish or town iProvider of services= 2 AizluItlc par. ani ltown Muninci pal enic-prise "Aizpu i es Wn)iunlai uziwinun Inn

3 Barta parish Mun icipalitv

4 Bunka parish Waste produlcer-s themselves

5 Cirava parish Municipality. agricuLIture school, inhabitants iliemseives

6 Dunalka parish Municipality

7 Dunika parish Municipality

8 Durbe town and r.a. Municipality' Embute parish Municipality and inhabitants themselves

I1( Gavieze parish Municipality

11 Gramzda parish Municipality and inhabitants themselves

12 Grobina parish "Tari" Ltd.13 Grobina town "Tari" Ltd.

14 Kaleti parish Municipality and inhabitants themselves

tS Kalvene parish Municipality

16 Kazdanga parish Municipality and inhabitants themselves17 Laza parish Municipality

18 Liepaja town "Tari" Ltd., "Sikari" Ltd., Farmer enterprise "Paisas", Housing estate"Ezerkrasts-2". Housing estate "Kara osta'. waste producers

19 Medze parish "Tari" Ltd., inhabitants themselves

20 Nica parish Municipality, Farmer enterprise "Paisas"

21 Otanki parish Municipal enterprise "Laura"

22 Pavilosta town Municipality and inhabitants themselves

23 Priekule parish Municipality and inhabitants themselves

24 Priekule town Municipal enterprise "Priekules pakalpojumi"

25 Rucava parish Municipality

26 Saka parish Inhabitants themselves27 Tadaiki parish "Tari" Ltd.

28 Vainode parish Municipal enterprise for communal services

29 Vecpils parish Cooperative "Vecpils"

30 Vergale parish Municipal enterprise "Vergales komunala" saimnieciba"31 |Virga parish Municipal enterprise -Virgas tehnika and inhabitants themselves

Almost each municipality has its own dumpsite (excluding Aizpute, Durbe, Grobina.Pavilosta and Priekule towns and Tadailki parish, see Fig,ure 3). Furthermore:

* Liepaja city has its own dump site "Skede". but some part of w'asle istransported to the dump sites located in Grobina and Nica parishes.

* waste from the Tadaiki parish is transportced to the "Skcde" although Durbe orGrobina dump sites are significantly closer to the waste oeneratioln centre.

Tlahic 32

Eiiterrrises providin;g waslt managemlelnt servicesEn nterp rise|( Colleted I:istl. otl [ % tal in Region [Sern'ict'd niliinilclpali ies

TARI 74330) 64.77 m unliipilpalifiesSIKARI 6800 5.93 I .iepaja (it!PAISAS 4000 3.85 I.iup.aja cit \. N ic, p.rish

R.e. EZERKRASTF S-2 3601) 3.14 Lipl%ijja ('it\,AIZI'UTE me.. 2216 1 93 Ai, z ipe lown IRn parish

He. KARA OSI'A 1600 1.39 Liepija City

PRIEKULE m.c. 1270) 1.11 Pricktilc townVAINODE mnc 650 0.57 V\'inodc settleinicntI

3.2 Waste amount and composition

According to the waste inventory data, in 1998 about 114.8 thousand m3 of solidwaste has been collected aLnd disposed in Liepaja Region. Information about wastecomposition is rather uncertain, but nevertheless, the current data allow the followingclassification with the related statements on waste amount:

* Municipal waste (solid household and comparable waste): 84.644 m3* Garden waste (from parks and gardens): 6.341 m-3

* Hospital waste: 1.870 m3

* Demolition waste: 5,299 m3

* Non-toxic industrial waste: 16_605 m3

Total amount: 114,759 m3

A waste registration system exists only for Liepaja' s landfill "Skede", during workinghours - also at the Aizpute and Priekule landfills. In accordance with informationprovided by the-Liepaja Regional Environmental Board, waste registration takes placealso at the Grobina landfill "Poligons", although during investigations carried out thearea we did not notice any person providing waste registration. Therefore, the totalamount of disposed waste in reality might be different than the above given value of

3114.8 thousand m3.

To evaluate the waste volume which is collected is rather difficult, because thoseamounts are not registered. Waste compacting vehicles are mainly used in LiepajaCity. Grobina Town and parish, partly in Medze and Tadaiki parishes, and non-compacted waste is collected in the Durbe, Pavilosta. Priekule towns and in the ruralmunicipalities.Thus. the collected waste amount can roughly be estimated as follows(in 1998):

* Municipal waste (solid household anid comparable waste) and hospital waste:compacted waste (average density - 250 k(g/m3) - 82,052 m3

and non-compacted waste (average density - 150 k/rm3) - 4,462 m3

* Garden waste (from pairks and gardens. average dlensity 300 kg/rn3) - 6,341 1113

* Demolition waste (average density - 1200 kgt /m') - 5,299 inm* Non-toxic industrial waste (averaie densitv - 450 kgi/rn3) 16,605 in3

Total amount: 114,759 nm3

3:4

Thtis, trolm thc abovc calculations the awill)tni of, collecte(l. trallnspored and(i disposcd

w'aste in lonnes in I 998 w) ill he:

* Municipal waste and h1ospita;l wastc - 221 Pt) loilnies* Garden waste - 1 902 toniles* Demiolitioni waste - 03579 tonilcs* Non-toxic industLrial wastc 7472 tonnesTotal amount: 37,833 or about 38 thiousand tonnes

Table 3.3 gives a specified overview on disposed waste amounts and comilposition foreach town and parish.

Table 3.3Disposed Waste Amounts and Composition in the Liepa ja Region (1998)

Parish or town Total G Per category (n ___(ni_) _Municipal _ Garden _ Hospital Demnolition Industrial

Aizpute parishl 150 1_( - - - -

Aizpute town 2.066 1.252 360 i5( 64 240Bar.a arish 0 '-)9) 10 - - -

Bunka parish 25 25 - -

Cirava parish 200 170 20 10Dunalka parish 11 () 11 - -

Dunika parish 50 30 20 -

Durbe town+rural area 384 334 30 20Embute parish 110 11o - - -

Gavieze parish 100 80 - 20

Gramzda parish 100 80 20 .

Grobina parish 700 580 100 - 20

Grobina town 3.200 1.950 1.100 50 50 50Kaleti parish 160 160 - - - -

Kalvene parish 104 104 -

Kazdanga parish 250 200 30 10 10Laza parish 80 80 -

Liepaja town 1I0.400 75,360 4.500 1.540 4,000 15.000Medze parish 152 140 - - 12 -

Nica parish 400 330 50 20 -

Otanki parish 500 465 - - 20 15Pavilosta town 600 350 30 20 200Priekule parish 66 66 - - - -

Priekule town 1.270 280 10 100 10 870Rucava parish 2.000 760 40 - 1.000 200Saka parish 150 150 - -

Tadaiki parish 500 470 - 30Vainode parish 650 59(0 50 10)Vecpils parish 100 1(( - -

Vergale parish 52 48 I _ 3

Virca parish 30 30 - - -

I _ 114,759 1 84.644 ] 6.341 [ 1.870 ] 5 299 11606015

In towns 107,920 ! 79,526_ 6,000 1,X87) ] 4.164 16,360In rural areas 6.839 5,118 341 [ 1) | 1,135 _ 245

The morphological composition of household waste hals been investigated in Licpai;jaCity in May, 1999. Two differ-ent areas were selected:

M a ulti-i1d tdLl IhouLs C e11ael.

* ;1n ind(ividlkual (lpri \';tC) hlouse areaC;.

The obtaincd results are pircscite(d n l Tables ,3.4 and 3.5.

Table 3.4WVaste geieration per capita

Sorting place Nuimber of Collection i Sorted waste Waste I)ensitv lI inhabitants time volume, m' weight. kg kg/im'l

Kurmajas prospekts 28/30 154 17.05.99 - 1.1 154.0 140(multi-apartment house) 18.05.99

Private houses (at the 72 different 1.1 248.5 226Cenkones. Miera. Nicas, (basically

Nidas. Plavu, Rucavas and once perDarza streets. in total 23 week)

houses)

Recalculating waste production per capita, the following figures have been obtained:

* for multi-apartment houses - 1.30 mr3/year,* for individual houses - 0.80 m3/year.

The obtained results are considered to be representative, since investigations carriedout in 1997-1998 in other Latvian towns have provided similar figures:

- for multi-apartment houses: Daugavpils - 1.2 m3/year, Smiltene - 1.09m3/year, Valmniera - 1.35 m3 /year, Ventspils - 1.4 m3/year,

* for individual houses: Cesis - 0.66 mr3/year; Smiltene - 0.81 m3/year.

Completely different conclusions are made on the waste density:

* waste density 140 kg/mr3 (multi-apartment houses) is extremely low,usually this figure varies between 190 - 230 kg/mi3 (depending on season).Likely, the low density was due to the presence of number of plasticbottles and branches (see Table 3.5), which have a very low density. Thus,the obtained figure - 140 kg/mr3 - cannot be used as a basis for a wasteproduction forecast, because it is too low. From experience, about 200kg/mr3 is a reliable average figure for non-compacted household waste [36],

* waste density 226 kg/rn3 (individual houses) could be valid, althoughpresence of slag and soil with weeds causes an increase of the wastedensity. Nevertheless, the slag input was about 8.2 %, which is rather usualwhen waste comes from individual houses with local heating system.Similarly, soil with weeds is often disposed into containers when weedingof gardens and flower-beds takes place.

The morphological composition of the waste proves that separate waste collectionmight be developed, since the waste contains a lot ol recycaibles, e.g. (see Table 3.5):

- glass - about 10% of total volume,- paper - about 10% for multi-storey houses rl-ea.- non-ferr-ous metals - about 1.5 %.

,3:(1

NMoreover. a1s follows mlmoll Table . thle waste COfltail ;s i n 0 ralto 0 ora -mici

IeSidUeS. which is important lol- tilC inOtrodUCtioC 1 ol thc eneie2v ccli tIcCilfllog SY

Table 3.

Morphological com osition of wasteMulti-apart- Indivlidiul

WVaste Morphologicail complosition Ilciit h(ouses j houses

Weighlt, % o 1 Neiglt. T % of'

Kg [total kg total

PuLtescible Potatoes (also) pelein-s). cabbages. onions. 74 48.1 54.7 22.0

bread, bones. bainana peels, carrots. beets lPaper Cardboard. newspapers. magazines, note- 15 9.7 5.0 2.()

books. books_

Glass Bottles. jars. windows glass 15 9.7 27.0) 1().9

Grass 15.0 6.0

Grass with soil Basicaliv soils with weeds - - 42.5 17.1

Other Mixed waste particles less than 2 cm (soils is 15 9.7 41.2 16.6

about than 5(01% in individual houses area)

Plastic Bottles, bags. Iiners. tetra-packs, telephone 11.5 7.5 4.5 1.8

apparatus

Textiles Old clothes, sacks. yarn, coat. 8 5.2 5.0 2.0

Slag and ash - - 2(.4 8.2

Demolition Gravel. tiles 4 2.6 18.2 7.3

Wood Branches. sawvdust 3.5 2.3 - -

Hazardous Paint cans, household chemicals, batteries, 3 2.0 5.0 2.0

_____________ pharmacies. sprays, one Hg-containing bulb

Ferrous metals Pot. lid. jug. car-bulb. 2 bearings - - 5.0 2.0

Non-ferrous Cans. lids 2.5 1.6 3.5 1.4

metal _

Ceramics Plates. dishes. the bottle 1.5 0.9 1.0 0.4

Rubber I Boots, slippers I 1 0.7 J 0.5 0.2

[ TOTAL: I T 154 1248.5 99.9

3.3 Waste Collection and Transportation

Only "Tari" Ltd., "Sikari" Ltd., farmer enterprise "Paisas", housing estates

"Ezerkrasts-2" and "Kara osta" and Aizpute municipal enterprise have specialised

vehicles for waste collection and transportation. Others use simple lorries or just a

tractor with wagon for waste transportation to dump sites. All vehicles are older than

5 years and most of them older than 8 years.

Containers of various size are used for waste collection, although 0.1. 0.5. 0.75 andM3

1.1 m containers are dominating in Liepaja city. Metallic containers are most

frequently used for the waste collection. The average age of containers is about 3 - 8

years. Almost new containers are used in Liepaja City. while the other municipalities

have rather old containers.

Table 3.6. rives information about the equipment and vehicles used tor wastc

collection and transportation in each municipality.

.3:7

Tah1c 3.0

Teciiniq(ues Used for W\'aste Collectioii anid Tranisp)ortation| Nou |Parish or vohille of Nniier olf' \viicks uise(d f-or wastv t raisportationNI I tomwn [contain ers containers

AizpuLtc 11. 1.0 II' 12 Lorry (i/A-5313.5 Il 3 Tractor IllNJ/. \\ ihi wae-;on

2 Aizpuie 1. 0.75 nliS I Russian vehicles: GAZ 53 M: 13V 6070.0.1 mi 270 GAZ -53 1401: K() 413: 1BU 1573

3 Barta p. - Tractor with watgon4 Bunka P. - Waste producers theiscielves5 Cirava p. 0.1 In' 16 Tractor MTZ xith wagon6 ( Dunalka p. - Tractor with wagon7 Dunika p. 0.1 In' 1) Lorry GAZ-538 Durbe t.and 0.1 Im' 28

rural area 0.S m' 12 Tractor MTZ -S0 with wagon9 Embute p. 5 rn'

9 m'3 I Tractor with w\agon. 7 InI

10 Gavieze p. 10 mn . I Lorry GAZ-5311 Gramzda p. 0.1 In' 8 Tractor with wagon12 Grobina p. 0.75 m ' 24 Serviced by 'TARI" Ltd.13 Grobina t. 0.8 ni- 56 Serviced by 'TARI' Ltd.14 Kaleti p. 9 m- 4 Tractor MTZ -80 with wagon

_18 m 3 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m l I

15 Kalvene p. - Sacks Lorry GAZ-5316 Kazdanga p. 1.0 m 17 Tractor MTZ -80 with wagon17 Laza parish 1.0 m' 5 Lorry18 Liepaja town 0,1 m' 890 "Tari": Mercedes Benz, Volvo - 8 units

0,5 m3 795 "Paisas": 3 vehicles "Volvo"0,75 m3 670 "Ezerkrasts-2" - I vehicle "Volvo" |1.1 m3 620 "Sikari" - 2 vehicles: "Kara osta" - I vehc.

19 Medze p. 0.75 m' 14 Serviced by "TARI" Ltd.20 Nica p. - 2 wagons Tractor MTZ -80 with wagon

_ ______ .(7 m3 ) "Volvo" (waste collected by "PAISAS")21 Otanki p. . - Tractor MTZ -80 with wagon22 Pavilosta t. 1.0 m' 27 Tractor with wagon

_ 0.6 m3 1023 Priekule p. 1,0 m3 5 Lorry or tractor with wagon24 Priekule t. 0,1 Imn 120 Lorry GAZ-53

0.5 m3 2625 Rucava p. 0.1 m3 35 Tractor MTZ-80 with wagon26 Saka p. - - Waste producers themselves27 Tadaiki p. 1.0 mr 9 Serviced by "TARI" Ltd.28 Vaiiiode p. 1,0 m' 14 Tractor with wagon

0.5M3 929 Vecpils p. - Wagon (7 m-') Tractor MTZ-82 with wagon30 Vergale p. 1.0 mI 6 Lorry GAZ

-0. M' 20 Tractor with wagon31 Virgap. 1,0 m' 3 ractor with wagon

T2!fl~~~Wagon (7 m')Most waste collection vehicles are older than 8 years, since the companies who startedto use compacting vehicles ("Tari]" 'Sikari" and others), havc bought old ones due 10limited financial possibilities. Therefore, those vehicles have to be replaced withinl afew years.

-rilC W;aStC COlICCiOfl fleCtini1Cy is varies colnsi(ldcrahl (see Table 3.7). allhliotw' it is

usually recogtiscei by [ihc local atlliolrilies and r esidlenits thl at tle n1it whr ol ConlaiInie's

and the waste collection) is satisl'ic't0oy. Diffcrent opinions have hbcn expressed inI

some arcas in Liepaja CitM servicedl by "Tarl" Ltd. Somc peoplc conisi(ler that iltenumber of containers is too few andi they arc qjuite olten localed at non-propel places.A futur-e efficicnt collection systemn should aim at a collection interval of mnimumone week, which is furtherdiscussed in the analysis ol the collection systelmr.

Taible 3.7Waste collection frequencv

No Parish or town | Waste collection IrequeiwvI Aizpute p. 2 times per month2 Aizpute t. 2 times per week3 Barta p. 2 times per month4 Bunka p. Occasionally, waste producers bring their waste themselves when

they want5 Cirava p. As required: usually once per 2 weeks or once per month6 Dunalka p. As required; usually once per montih7 Dunika p. Once per month8 Durbe t.and rural area Usually 2 times per month9 Embute p. As required10 Gavieze p. Once per 3 monthsI I Gramzda p. As required12 Grobina p. As required13 Grobina t. 2 times per week14 Kaleti p. 3 times per year15 Kalvene p. Once per week16 Kazdangga p. As required17 Laza parish 2 times per month18 Liepaja town Daily (multi - apartment houses) or more rarely. once per month for

individual houses19 Medze p. Once per week20 Nica p. As required21 Otanki p. 2 times per month22 Pavilosta t. Once per week23 Priekule p. Once per month24 Priekule t. Once per week25 Rucava p. As required: usually once per 2 weeks or once per month26 Saka p. Occasionally, waste producers bring their waste themselves when

they want27 Tadaiki p. Once per week

28 Vainode p. As required29 Vecpils p. As required30 Vergale p. Once per month31 Viraa p. Once peer montiI

3.4 Waste reuse and recy cling

Waste reuse and recycling is generally not or-anised in the Regioin. ahll.oughpossibilities for waste recycling exist. In July. 1999 the market for recycables can becharacterised as follows:

- cast il-on - the aNc ral- iprice is about 30(-33 Ls/t. aln il uniiiltel market, ti,.metalllurgical plant 'Licpajas mlitalurgss is located wit hin l iCpaj;1a City.

- othel ferrous mletalis - the avcraoc plicc is about I I L-S/t but theC price Cartfluctuate depending oni quality, the market is unl1limlilted (samen. falcLory1.

- non-lerrous mctalls, mariiket is unlimiited, thc aver;ugc pr ice is 240 Ls/t(mixture of non-lcrrous mctals); if metals are sorted separately the pricewill increase significantly. t-or aluminium - up to 4X() Lst (dependinfg Onquality), copper - up to 720 Ls/t (depending on qua]lv). etc..the plastics: factory "Formiika" in Riaa District can receive up to 3 t/day.plastics should be sorted: low pressure polyethylene is accepted for free.for plastic bottles the supplier should pay 30 Ls/L. Thle factory "Adazi" inRiga District can receive 5 tlday, the plastics should be soirted and washed,the material is accepted for free if the quality is acceptable. "Vita" in RigaDistrict accepts low pressure polyethylene. If carefully sorted and cleanedthe price can reach 70 Ls/t. but only for suppliers who have long-termdelivery contracts, for others plastics may be accepted for free or thesupplier has to pay for the delivery of plastics.paper and cardboard: factory "Ligatne" (Cesis District), factory inKlaipeda (Lithuania) and buyers. "Ligatne- can receive maximum 200tlmonth (the amount is gradually decreasing), the price varies from 9 to 24Ls/t, if the paper is sorted and clean; the factory can cover transportexpenses if cargo is 20 tonnes or more. "Klaipeda" takes baled paper /cardboard, the average price is 7.5 Ls/t, the amounts to receive arepractically non-limited, but the factory works only on contract basis. In thenear future the factory "VALPRO" 'in Valmiera will likely start to produceegg-boxes and will take 4-5 t of paper/cardboard per day at full capacity.The market is uncertain, because egg-boxes produced in Lithuania aresignificantly cheaper,

- the chrushed glass: factory "Grizinkalns" in Riga currently utilisesmaximum 400 t/month and the price is about 23 Ls/t. Transport of glassbottles to Riga is not profitable and usually glass collectors, e.g. Roja,Talsi district and Ventspils city, crush the bottles before delivery to Riga.

Nevertheless, informal waste sorting is taking place, i.e. by scavengers. The followingwaste is collected for recycling purposes:

* ferrous metals, since almost unlimited amounts can be delivered to themetallurgical plant "Liepajas metalurgs" located within Liepaja City,

* non-ferrous metals - delivered to buyers.* glass (only bottles) - delivered to buyers.* cardboard - delivered to buyers.

The waste amounts collected by scavengers for recycling purposes are unknown.

About one year of experimental waste sorting at site is taking place in:

* Liepaja - Dzintaru street 93 (containers are managed by "TARI"). Kokustreet 3 ("PAISAS"), on corner of Liela and Juras street ("SIKARI-'). Tisestreet 54 and Ugales street 6 (in both cases - "EZERKRASTS").

* Grobiria. Celtnieku street 40 ("TARI"),* Durbe. Skolas street 24 ("TARI").

3:11)

* DFubnC1i. KLuI-suL Stt'Ct 4 ("TAIZI").

* lZucava. pioj-ect has started just in May. I QQ9.

The waste sortin- at site incluides:* separate containers for g,lass. plastics anl metal.* one or more containers for rernamino wastc.

The number and size of conlainers usdcd for waste sorting. collectioni frequenlcy aindlnumber of involved inhabitaLnts is piresented in Table 3.8.

The obtained results are shown in Table 3.9. The separation efficienlcy varies frommonth to montih and March 1999 has been selected as representative in order toanalyse the achieved results.

Some important conclusionis on separate waste collection might be done:1. Glass sorting is successful, and re-sorting of waste (excluding Liepaja,

Dzintaru street) is not required. Therefore, it is essential to develop theseparate glass collection further.

2. Plastics sorting. except in Durbe town is rather problematic, because otherwaste is added as well. Re-sorting of the waste is required to get a properquality. Additionally, the market for plastic waste is limited, see above.

3. The real source separation of metals is already taking place, because themarket for this waste recycling is unlimnited, i.e. the metallurgical plant"Liepajas metalurgs" located in Liepaja city. Due to this reason, containersforeseen for metal are empty or filled with other waste. Nevertheless,containers for separate metal collection have to be kept in the future,because inhabitants should have the possibility to put this waste in separatecontainers. On the other hand - containers should be properly equipped inorder to avoid their emptying by occasional persons which likely takesplace currently.

Separate sorting of paper/cardboard might be relevant as well, since severalcompanies. are buying this type of waste.

Table 3.8Background data on experimental waste sorting at site

Tow n or Location of Number of Volume and Collection Servicingsettlement containers involved number of frequency company

(street) inhabitants containers

1. Liepaja city Dzintaru 93 478 t.I m' -5 4 times/week TARI

2. Koku 3 530 1.0 m -3 5 times/week PAISAS

| 3. Corner of Liela 400 1.0 rn- - 3 6 times/week SIKARIand Juras str.

4. Tise 54 1020 0.75 nm- - 6 6 times/week EZERKRASTS

5. Ugales 6 500 0.75 m - 5 5 times/week EZERKRASTS

6. Grobina Celtnieku 40 180 0.75 ni -6 2 times/week T ARI

town

7. Durbe town Skolas 24 55 0.75 ni' -I I timn'/2 weeks TAKI

8. Dubeni Kursu 4 460 0.75 ni - 5 1 time/week l'ARI

settlement

TlZlNC *.')

Results obtained during experimental wasle sort iigLocation G l.ass | :' Plastics Mt al__e_;

n11I/1ontlht (qiialitV I '/Imllontli (qualit _____ _ill_on__ _h tlail*

I l 2.20 dlil tIcrcin 3. 3 di licren t empln '-3 I .5) "ood 1.5() basicaiik' uood 1.75 ixewd waisl|

4 + 5 3.25 basicdllv gwood 3.75 poor c1iapv -

6 '()5 ,ood 2.75 basicalkl good cniplv -

7)0.6( ood (.9() cood cmiIV l

8 2.50 basically good 2.55 ditlereni cilipty

3.5 Waste disposal and existing landfills

In Liepaja Region there are currently 27 dump sites (see Figure 3). They are brieflydescribed in Tables 3.10 and 3.11.

There are only 6 dump sites. where more than one thousand m of waste weredisposed in year 1998:

- "Skede". Liepajas city - 90,500 m3 or 78.9 % of total,- "Poligons", Grobina parish - more 10,700 m3 or 9.3 % of total,- "Piladzi", Nica parish - 4,000 m3 or 3.5 % of total,- "Aizpute", Aizpute parish - 2,296 m3 or 2.0 % of total,- "Vidussils", Rucava parish - 2,000 m3 or 1.7 % of total,- "Dobelzibali". Priekule parish -1,336 m3 or 1.2 % of total.

Thus, 110,832 m3 of waste or 96.6 % of waste generated in the Liepaja region in 1998have been disposed at 6 dump sites. Remaining 3,927 m3 has been disposed in the 21small dump sites.

There are 9 dump sites with area 2 ha or more:* "Skede" - 7.5 hectares; currently about 3 hectares are used for waste

disposal,- "Bendorfi", Saka parish .- 5.7 hectares, currently 1.3 hectares are used for

waste disposal. Dump site is used since 1982 by the Pavilosta Town andSaka parish; 750 m3 were disposed in 1998,

- "Karjers", Kaleti parish - 3.0 hectares, currently only 0.4 hectares are usedfor waste disposal. It is the oldest dump site in the Liepaja Region, whichis in operation since 1950. Dump site is used by the Kaleti parish. andonly 160 m3 of waste were disposed in 1998,

- "Laivragi", rural area of the Durbe town - 2.5 hectares, about 0.7 hectaresare used for waste disposal. Dump site is used since 1988 by the Durbetown and its rural area, and 384 m3 were disposed in 1998,

- 'Daidzes", Dunalka parish - 2.5 hectares. currently only 0.4 hectares areused for waste disposal. Dump site is used since 1980 by the Dunalkaparish; only 100 mn were disposed in 1998,

- "'Upmali", Cirava parish - 2.1 hectare. about 1 hectare is used for wastedisposal. Dump site is used since 1972 by the Cirava parish; onlly 2009( m1were disposed in 1998,

- Aizpute" -.- 2.0 hectares,

MCrogs/Scale 1 :400 000

~~uoavasfpa ~ Skaspa

LaI00 0

I~~~~~ ,

ape ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 zi. 'zitue Lipfa re Ion zuv/anf

0 i Atkritumu apjoms 1998.gadsi, mal~~~~~~~r

'+:<,'s.i A R v a t W a te v o l u i 1 99B, m

S ,' . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IPU

Fig. : Wate dsposl sies i Lieajapegio

3. zim.: Izg3ztuves Liepajas regionfi~~~~~~~~~~56'

3:131

- "171zeZlIVC. Ga\ iezc parish - 2.() hectar-es. oni 0.-. hectal-es r11ec ulsetl o1r,wvastc disposal. DIump sitC is in uIsC siilc C 990( I\ theI (ial'iCZC Ie parish:; Only100 in3 were disposed in 1998.

- "Dobelzibali' - 2.0 hectares. aboout 1.2 hcCI;aIs ;1'e usCCd o'rll waste

disposal.

The area occupied by the clump) sitcs "Poligons" and "Pilazdzi". wlhere waste IromzLiepaja city is disposed. is rather small - only I hectare. since both dIumLp sites wereestablished in 1995.

Table 3. 1.0Dump Sites in Liepaja Region

Parish or Name of Serviced | Start of UWasteNo. town dump site population Status exploi- Area (ha) volume in

____ __________ I tation 1998 (m')1. Aizpuie p. Aizpute 630 Legal 199() ] 2.0 150

____ Aizpute t. 4500 Uses du p site in Aizplte parish 2.0662. B Krutes 836 Legal 1988 (1.5 1003. Bunka p. lzgaztuve ? Illegal 1995 0.5 254. Cirava p. Upmali 850 Illegal 1972 2.1 2005. Dunalka p. Daidzes 400 Legal 1980 2.5 1006. Makeni ? Legal 1990 1.0 107. Dunika p. Eglaini 238 Illegal 1986 1.0 508. Durbe p./ra. Laivragi 400 Legal -1988 2.5 3849. Embute p. Lidzibas 430 Illeal -1990 1.0 11010. Gavieze p. Izgaztuve 300 Legal 1990 2.0 10011. Gramzda p. Smilsi 350 Illegal -1986 1.2 10012. Grobina p. Poligons 1400 Legal 1995 1.0 700

Grobina t. 4625 Uses dump site in Grobina parish 320013. Kaleti p. Karjers 450 Illegal -1950 ] 3.0 16014. Kalvene p. Dzidras 200 Illegal 1994 j 0.2 10415. Kazdanga p. Cernkalns 400 Legal 1995 | 0.5 25016. lp. Izgaztuve 200 Uses mainly dump site in Aizpute p. 8017. Liepaja t. Skede 65000 Le-al . 1972 7.5 90000

5.500 Uses dump site in Grobina parish 68003500 Uses dump site in Nica parish 3600

18. Medze p. Dalini 250 Legal 1995 | 0.5 152Uses dump site in Grobina parish as well

19. Nica p. Piladzi 2820 Illel-al 1995 1.0 4002(0. Otanki p. Zurnieki 800 llegal |-1981 1.5 5()

Pavilosta t. 1284 Uses dump site in Saka parish 60(021. Priekules p. Dobelzibali 200 Legal 1 1970 1 2.0 66

Priekule t. 1300 Uses dump site in Priekule parish 127(022. Rucava p. Vidussils 1563 Legal | 1993 1.5 20()(23. Saka p. Bendorfi 30 Illegal 18 J .7 15()

Tadaiki p. 600 Uses LiepaJa's "Skede" landfill | 5t)24. Vainode p. Vechate 1.300 Illegal 1983 1.5 | 65025. Vecpils p. Liepnieki 3()0 Legal 1981 1.0 l()M26. Vergale p. lzgaztuve 20(N Lgal 1995 (1.5 5227. Virga p. Paplaka 606 jllCrgil 1995 1.3 3(0

1 101732 z45 1 X11475')

3:I 4

Tlhe 3.1 1

Location of 1)uinip Sites, EInmplovees. an(d Related Prolenims

_ towv( dump.) site the (dlill) site1 AiizpuLe parish Aizpules Withii licil. partly I guad duing i.inliled possihilitic.

at Ilte hog wol lig hours 1o0 ItithI eI disposal:

waSte p1ily1 disposed L

at( the hou,2. Barta p. Krutes Quarry No Non-coiltrolledi waste

duumping

3. Bunka p. Izgazuve Within licid, borde- Occasionally Non-conitolle(i waste_ _____________ ring with " forest bulldozer-drivcr dUrmping

4. Cirava p. Upmali Partly quarry and No Non-controlled wastefield L_dumping

5. Dunalka p. Daidzes In forest No Non-controlled wastedumping

6. Makeni Field and partly Occasionaliy Non-controlled wasteforest bulldozer-driver dumping

7. Dunika p. Eglaini Field. bordering Occasionally Non-controlled wastewith a forest bulldozer-driver dumping

8. Durbe town and Laivragi Quarry, bordering Occasionally Non-controlled wasterural area with a bog bulldozer-driver dumping

9. Embute p. Lidzibas Quarry Occasionally Non-controlled wastebulldozer-driver dumping

10. Gavieze p. Izgaztuve Quarry Occasionally Non-controlled wastebulldozer-driver dumping

11. Gramzda p. Smilsi Field 2 times per year Non-controlledbulldozer-driver dumping

12. Grobina parish Poligons Field, neighbou- 3 guards. I Non-controlled wastering with forest bulldozer-driver dumping, although

Liepaja RegionalEnvironmental Boardconsiders that landfillis guarded

13. Kaleti p. Karjers Quarry 1 time per year Non-controlled waste______________ bulldozer-driver dumping

14. Kalvene p. Dzidras Quarry 2 times per year Non-controlled wastebulldozer-driver dumping

15. Kazdanga p. Cernkalns Along forest 2-3 times per Non-controlled wasteyear bulldozer- dumping

Idriver16. Laza p. Izgaztuve Field No Non-controlled waste

dumping17. Liepaja town Skede Former wetland 4 guards. Close neighbourhood

2 bulldozer- to Lake Tosmare:drivers surface and ground-

water contamination18. Medze p. Dalini Quarry Formally Non-controlled waste

I guard dumping19. Nica p. Piladzi Quarry Occasionally Non-controlled waste

bulldozer-driver dumping

2(. Otanki p. Zurnieki Quarry along lorest 3-4 times per year Non-conltiolled wastebulIdozer-driver dumping

21. Priekule Dobeizibali Field Occasiona;ll Guarded dulingparish bulldozer-driver working hours

3: 1 '

('o01lin liohl ol'T'blc 3.1 1No. | Parishl (or Nail.; of Location T| .Li)0% ces at PIroblemstownl dulii) sitc ] I tile dIiii) site l

22. Rucava 1p. Viduissils Qllarr% illolne tile FormialkI N on -cirmoli lcd waste |________________ t'l)l't' I C L IaI(I i I,,, Upi n .g

23. Saka 1p. Ben(drl-l'i Fiel( withliin o'(rest Occasionallk Non-control lcd wastl._____ hnll dozer-drier eI- duniping

24. Vainode p. Vecbhle QuarTV Occalsionally Noni-contiollCLIbulldozer-driver dumping

25. Vecpils Liepniciki Wctliand Occasionally Non-conitrollel lb uildozer-driver dlumllpilng

26. Vergale p. lzgaztu\e Field Occasionally bulldozer- Non-controlleddriver, periodically drumping2 employees

27. Virga p. Paplaka Quarry Occasionally Non-controlledbtulidozer-driver dumping

There are number of problems typical at all dump sites, and the main ones are:

- all were established without any environmental protection measures.Usually, areas non-suitable for agriculture purposes have been selected forthe dump site location, i.e. quarries (13 dump sites of 27), forests (5 dumpsites of 27), bogs ( 3 dump sites of 27) or fallow lands (6 dump sites of 27),

* absence of fence and drainage ditches,* no care of leachate and surface runoff collection and treatment,* non-controlled waste dumping, which is taking place at 24 of 27 dump sites

(excluding "Skede", "Priekule" and "Aizpute"),* non-satisfactory daily operation of the dump site (somewhat better at

"Skede") - occasional levelling of the waste layer, absence of top cover bothat the earlier utilised and currently used parts of dump sites, etc.

3.6 Environmental and health impacts

Collection, transportation, and final disposal can cause the present impacts of the solidwaste management. These are briefly analysed separately below.

Impacts of collection and transportation

The present impacts of transportation and collection can be regarded as negligible -they are related with noise and gas emissions from transportation, odours and otherdisturbances related with collection. Presently people in the project area do notexpress concerns related to disturbances from collection and transportation (results ofthe inquiry of all municipalities in the project area).

Impacts front the lantdfills

None of the existing landfills comply with the existing environmental standards: mostof the problems are related with pollution of surface and ground water, as well as soilpollution. Part of the existing landfill "Skede" is located within zone ol[ the TosmareLake reserve.

1: I(

In all lanidfills wastc is burned occasionally. )aily or regular waste Cover is notprovided, excluding at the *'Skede" landfill. This cauises clistirances lr people iiilin the surroundings of' the landf'ills. The maajor pproblemns are relaied vitlh odoLr., anldthe minor with occurrence of rodents, cockroaiches and flies. Landfills are nol fenice(l.and the light waste fraction, plastics and paper is spread in thc vicility otih landfills.People complain that openl vehicles are often used l'or waste transportation, and thatwaste is spread along the access roatd to the landfill. Furthermorc, rathler olfen,. due toabsence of a control, waste is dumped in the forests adjacent to the landfills.

Water pollutiotn

In order to be able to identify water pollution, monitoring is necessary. However, dueto the size of the landfills. only one of them (Skede - the biggest one, which is used bythe Liepaja City) has a monitoring network. According to the results of investigationscarried out in 1983 (Geological surveY of Latvia 123]).1995 (by company Baltec Ass.Inic.) [23] and in 1998 (as a part of the Feasibility study) surface water andgroundwater in the direct vicinity of the landfill are strongly polluted (see Figures 4and 5). The pollution level has a tendency to increase.

The surface water contamination is extremely high - the electrical conductivity ofwater often increases to 5 mS/cm (maximum - about 35 mS/cm), and polluted waterflows directly to the Tosmare Lake through connecting ditches (see Figure 4). It isestimated that about 80% of surface runoff and leachate is discharged in the Tosmarelake. The shallow groundwater aquifer is contarninated as well, and the contaminationplume is directed towards the Tosmare Lake (see Figure 5). In the core ofcontamination TDS and COD exceed 3000 mg/l and 300 mg 02/1 respectively. Theconfined aquifer has an opposite flow direction, i.e. towards the Baltic Sea.

This aquifer is slightly contamninated to the west of the landfill - TDS and CODexceed 500 mg/I and 10 mg 0241 respectively.

The main problem is the surface runoff and leachate discharge to the Tosmare lake.Due to eutrophication the lake is overgrowing and extra recharge of nutrients willincrease the velocity of this process.

The polluted shallow groundwater does not cause human health problems. because thewater from this aquifer, due to the presence of boggy sediments, is not suitable forwater supply due to the high content of organic matter, high values of COD and Fe,etc.

The groundwater contamination in the first confined aquifer may cause more seriousproblems, although the water flow is directed towards the Baltic Sea and has notcaused problems for the local inhabitants. Furthermore, well no. L2 which is locatedon the border of the summer gardens (distance only 60 m from the landfill edge) does

not show any contamination. Sooner or later, if preventive measures are not taken,contamination will reach the Baltic Sea, where the aquifer groundwater discharges.

IiMerons linfOn s 1 .1 1 11Scale 1:10,000

- -u m mmer gardens

|~~~~~~~~~~~~ n lLnfil I ;

/ /_~~~~//// ~- ---- - - -- // j

II / '

1;wTPNA! -IAPZiME-JUMI /LEGEND

Virszemes uideni /Surface waterGavnepsroj§vilTiri vai lpti vfiji piesfirp,oti (EC<0,5 mSkm) Piessir,oti (EC=1.5-3,0 mS/cm) priet§nsvrin agajeClean or very slightly contaminated Contaminated Main discharge directions of contaminantsVaji piesarnoti (EC=0,5-1,5 mS/cm) Stipri piesarn,oti (EC>3,0 mS/cm) through the ditch-systemSlightly contaminated Strongly contaminated

4. AiM.: Virszemes uiden,u piesair,nojums, izg5ztuve "Skede"-Fvig. 4: Contamination of surface water, landrill "Skede"

W[Mrogs 1 10000 ' 9 } L-5 v Jl1Scale 1:10,000 Ir,5

] ,0 ,, I ' / ~~~~~~Summelrl oardens .

L a r

.WWTP/NAI_! v

Urbumi I Wells Pazemes uden,U ple5ar nojums / Groundwater contaminationT-1 * Izurtbti 1983 9. / Drilled in 1983 Gruntsfldelil / Shallow groundwater Artiziskie 0de ,ni / Confined aquifersB-1 e Izuroti 1995g. /Drilled in 1995 Tiri vai !°oi vaji piesam,oti (Sausne<500 mgAi; Cl <50 mgAI; KSP-Cr<100 mgO,/I) Tiri (Sausnec500 mgAi; Cl- <50 mgAi; ,KSP-Crc10 mgO2AI)L-1 * Izurbti 1999g9. /Drifled in 1999 1L I Clean or very slightly contaminated (TDS<SOO mgit; Ct.cs0 mg/I; COO-Cr<100 mgOzA) Clean (TDS<500 mg/I; CI-<50 mgAi; COD-CrcIO mgO2/I)

Ar ul*5fltra intlervalu spieddienadfeBnu horizoritos r < Vajil pes£irnoti (Sausne=5001 000 omg/i C =9;l50-1 00mgA; KSP-Cr<=1 00mgO,/1) Ar S~j pecrou pame

Ar filrtra intervlu bezsp'ediena iidens horizonta - a Piesirrnoti (SauSne=1000-3000°mg/I CI o10-500 mgq ;SPCOD 100-300 mgO/I) Withsignso sligts 9ctontamination <0mO4

(- j g g ., .,, i -. Stipri piesirnoti (Sausne>S000 mg/I; Ct >500 mg/i; ,KSP-Cr>300 mgOa,l1) Galvenie plesarn,oloso vielu pirvietosanis virzien,Pazemes udenu Iimei!f, m V.J l-*[5' $9 tongty contaminated (TDS>3000 mgAI; Cl[>500 mg/l; COD-Cr>300 mgOII) Main directions of contaminant transportGroundwater leveis, m a.m-s.i. E Z] SrGruntsuden,os ,|, Artezisikajos uden,os

r Spiedienudenu honizonti In =hnaIl.s groundwater I ofndnulr-1-aIn confined aquifer h a5 ztm. Paze~mes uiudenu pics£trvojums, izgaztuvep '"Skedp" -..- I ofndauf

2In waPter table aquifer Fig. 5: Groundwatcr contamination, landfill "Skedc"

3f: Il )

Therefore. in or-dci- to Imilitliite clnvironmiental impacts and rcmilidlation ol hlie ex]istill,Skcdc landfill is ncccssarN .

Groundwater contaminalioll was Invcsigzated also in two oiliel duLip sites

* Poli-ons. in Grohina parish.* Piladzi. in Nica parish.

The location of both dump sites is shown in Figure 3. and mailn flow dir-cctionl ofgroundwater and contamination at "Poligons" is shown in FiguLre 6. In both casescontamination of shallow groundwater aquifer is limited (see Appendix 8). Forexample. the maximum COD value reaches only:

* in Grobina - 200 i° 02/I,* in Nica - 48.4 mg O,/l.

Nevertheless, the impact of the groundwater contamination at Poligons in Gr-obinaparish has to be considered as high, since the dump site has been used only for 3years. Fortunately, the risk for spreading of the contamination are rather limited due tothin sand layers (usually less than Im) and the presence of till (loam, thickness morethan 10 m). Nica has been disregarded as a site for a new regional waste treatmentplant and is not further mentioned in the report

It is not possible to specify details of the environmental pollution caused by otherlandfills. However, since the amounts of disposed waste is small (50 m - 2000 m3 peryear), it could be assumed, that environmental impacts are minor and only of localscale that can be mitigated by closure and simple covering of the dump site from thetop using clayey sediments. Aizpute dump site may cause some problems, but thecontamination is likely to be limited due to fact that the landfill is located on till.

Air pollution

The Skede landfill provides significant input to atmospheric pollution. The amount ofbiogas emitted to the atmosphere is analysed in Chapter 7 (biogas amounts andpossible utilisation).

In a number of small landfills burning of waste is practised several times a year. Sinceamounts of burned waste are comparatively small, this causes only local short termenvironmental pollution. No concerns have been express by people related with healthdisturbances from air pollution except occasionally at Skede (results of the enquiry ofthe municipalities in the project area).

Conclusions

Present environmental impacts of solid waste management practices in the projectarea do not comply with the existing environmental reqLlirements. As the resultsurface and ground water pollution fiom the largest landfill Skede already causesserious impact to the Tosmare lake and can cause potential threat to the drinkinowater quality. Therefore in order to stop further leakage of pollutants into ground andsurface water bodies. remediation of this landl'ill is necessary.

- <.- I -""~c- C

.7. -,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I II I0

-~~~~~~~~~~Q QN -

N / ---- 0~~~~~~

0~~~~~~~~~~ /(i8

0~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0

0 00 o 00

0 0 0~~~~~~ 0

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*0I

SalIe I M6rogs 1:2000, o 0

19, Monitoring wells, to the righit - their number and heiglht in m a.m.s.l., to the left - C(D1) Mg( 2/1

l670 2 9 ,13 Monitoringa urbumi, pa labi - to numuri un absohtitis atzimes, m v.j.l.. pa kreisi - K~SP, mgO,fl

-50- isolines of COT) value, rngO,II I J,SP lieluma izolinijas, mgO,/l

0' Main groundwater flow directions / Galvenie gruntstidenu pluismas virzieni

Fig. 6: Groundwater contamination in the dumpsite t"Poijgons", Grobina parish6. zim.: (;ruintsiidcni~i picsfiriVoJims izgiiztuve "I"Oligons", Crobin~as pagastii

3: 2

Environmental and heleltli immpacts l'onm thec Slinai I landll'ils arc considcred to 1 climited. These can be mitiualted b\' Closine ol dtLump1 sites aild COVCe1 in t ot IlChWm with

clavey material.

3.7 Economic aspects

The data obtained re-ardinig nature rCsouLrce tax. ia-it'ais. and maniaenarent costs arepresented in Table 3.12 andl 3.13. The figures are based on the estlimlaitcd data ondisposed volumes at the arrival to the landfills in 1998.

The figures estimated for the nature resources tax do not always f'it with the officialones. The official figures reported to the Liepaja Regional Environmental Board arebased on the permitted annual disposal volumes. The actual disposed volumes differfrom the reported and since registration occur only at a few places. the figures do notfit. It should be emphasised that nature resources tax for waste disposal, according tothe law "On Nature Resources Tax", should not be paid for the issued limits for wastedisposal, but for the actual waste volume disposed at the landfills and the wasteweight is not considered. Moreover, the tax shall not be calculated on the collectedwaste volume.

Table 3.12Estimated Value of Nature Resources Tax

|No |Parish or town Name of dump Waste volume Nature resources tax (Ls)Site (mi3 ) Per m 3 1 Total

1 Aizpute parish Aizputes 150' 0.25 18.75_ izgaztuve

2 Aizpute town 2.066' 0.25 258.253 Barta p. Krutes 100 0.25 254 Bunka p. B. izgaztuve 25 0.25 6.255 Cirava p. IJpmali 200 0.25 506 Dunalka p. Daidzes. Makeni 110 0.25 27.57 Dunika p. Eglaini 50 0.25 12.58 Durbe town and Laivragi 384 0.25 96

rural areaEmbute p. Lidzibas 110 0.25 27.5

10 Gavieze p. G. izgaztuve 100 0.25 2511 Gramzda p. Smilsi 100 0).25 2512 Grobina parish Poligons 700' 0.25 87.5

13 Grobina town 3200' 0.25 40014 Kaleti p. Karjers 160 0.25 40

15 Kalvene p. Dzidras 104 0.25 2616 Kazdanga p. Cernkaiis 250 0.25 62.5

17 Laza p. Aizputes iz.(1.) 8( 0).25 20)

Continuation follows

- assuming thalt watste compaction ralte during collection is 2 times

3- -

( olito;10ioll o Il"i)lc 3. 12No I'arish or town Namate ooi'1ilp \VaSIv Nolume| Nature resources tlax (l.s)

Site (nII) l Per I ni' lotal li18 Liepaja townIl SkeWLC + T'PoIlisll 10W ()2 I I55(2l

12( .. l'ilatidi (2(0) l

10) Mcdze p. Dalinii 152 0(.25 31820 Nica p. PilalIZi 4()) (.25 0 021 Otanlki p. ZuLr-nlicki 50)) I 0. 25 _ 12522 Pavilostaw town Ben1Loifi (26.) 6()() 0.25 i5(23 Prickule parish Dohclz.ibali 66 0.25 16.524 Priekule town 1270' 0.25 158.7525 Rucava p. Vidussils 200)() 0.25 5(0)26 Saka p. Bendor-fi 15) 0.25 37.527 Tadaiki p. Skede (17.) 5(M)' 0.25 62.528 Vainode p. Vechala 650 0.25 162.529 Vecpils p. Liepnieki Il(X) 0.25 2530 Vergale p. V. izgaztuvc 52 0.25 1331 Virgap. Paplaka 30 0.25 7.5

Total: l 114759 14876.5- assuming that waste compaction rate during collection is 2 times

Thus natural resources tax in 1998 for waste disposal is estimated to about 14.9thousand Ls. The calculated disposed waste volume will decrease if proper wastecollection vehicles will be introduced. On the other hand, the sum may increase if thepractise of illegal waste dumping will be reduced and the number of servicedinhabitants increased. Therefore, the presented figure will be used for the calculations.

Table 3.13 shows information provided by the municipalities on tariffs. operationalcosts and financing.

Data presented in table 3.13 allows to conclude that average yearly operation cost isabout 300 000 Ls/year. In fact, this figure rather well fits with average price for wastedisposal in Latvia in general, which is about 2.6 - 2.8 Ls/m3 . In Liepaja Region caseit will be:

300000 Ls: 114759 m3/year _ 2.61 Lslm3

Table 3.13Operation costs

Parish or town Expenses for (Ls) Actual situation, Financing requiredNo Ls/m3 per ar (Ls)

Collec- Disposal Tariffs Actual Collection Disposaltion costs

I Aizpute parish ? ? () 0 - 15( 752 Aizpute town -2000 -300 0.45 Ls/m3 1.11 3() 60))3 Barta p. 320 100 0 4.20 54() 5004 Bunlka p. ? ? () 0 50 255 Cirava p. 634 0 3.17 5()( 600)6 Dunalka p. 2) 0 08 0 I)()

ConlinLiationi f'olloWS

2 - particular tariffs can change from () to 4.80 Ls/m3

(Colnitinatuion ol 'Tahlc 3. 13,

EXj)fenses [or tsI .. ) Actual situalion, F'in;iainig reqliiredNo I'arish ir town ._____ I.N3 per vear i.(s)

l t zx~~~~~~~olhe- |DIispos;l Ta.rill:s A \zXlua( Coletn Iisposa;l ~~~~~~~~~titUll Co (4sts9

7 Duiuika 1p. 10 s *0 2.4 Ls/ mn' 2.76 1 388 Dulhe to\\n anid . 4.68 Ls/ m' 2001)

rural ar;ea_

9 Emnbute p. 72 60( () 1.2(0 72 1()10 Gavieze p. 120 1.56 Ls2 m' 41) 150 50II Gramzda p. (0) 200 0.91 Ls/ m- 2.60 5000()(' .5(H)12 Grobina parish 2795 -To-(-LsL,/ m 3.99 32001 3 Grobina town 8IOO 6500 3.00 LsI ml 4.56 8100 13800'14 Kaleti p. 270 320 0 3.69 27( 60015 Kalvene p. 600 260 ).5( Ls/mi .27? 600 16()16 Kazdangai p. 325 175 0 2.00) I( 3(N)17 Laza p. 18( 0 2.25 12(0'18 Liepaja town 245000 2.40 - 4.80 2.44 245(0()

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L s/m 3

19 Medze p. 1512 3.00 Ls/rn' 9)95?2 151220 Nica p. 496 0.52 Ls/m' 1.24 60021 Otanki p. 160 1 50 0 0.62 160 [ 20022 Pavilosta town 1000 8(0 3.00 Ls/m- 3.00 1000 | 80023 Priekule parish . 0.70 Ls/m3 ? 20024 Priekule town 2700 200 3.36 Ls/m' 2.28 4000 200025 Rucava p. 500 1500 0 0.80 500 150026 Saka p. 0 0 0 ?..... 45027 Tadaiki p. 1500 0 3.00 150028 Vainode p. 1751 2.40 Ls/m 2.92 180029 Vecpils p. 100 50 0.60 Ls/m3 1.50 100 | 5030 Vergale p. 430 360 0 15? 600 50031 Virga p. 30 0 1.00 60

_____ TOTAL > 281808 305912- do not fit with real collected waste amount or indicated waste amount is too low

2 _ announced collected wasfe volume is too low3 - average costs ( from Tari, Sikari, Paisas. Ezerkrasts-2, Kara osta)

Some important conclusions can be made from the figures provided in Table 3.13:

1. Fifteen local governments of 31 have not introduced tariff for wastecollection, transporting and disposal. Thus. all related expenses arecovered from municipal budgets. This would be necessary to reconsider inthe future when a new waste management system will be introduced.

2. Some local governments obviously declare too low waste volumes orapply too low limits for waste disposal (at least Kalvene. Medze andVergale parishes).

4-1

4 Acquis of legal requirements and requirements for proposed activities

4.1 EU legislation requirements

European Union envir-oinienital leislation hizis developed over IhC last 3() years and(lcomprises today sorne 300 lCgal actS. nClUding directives. IcgULatiOn1S. CIC;SIOnS a111nIrecommendations. However, the body of EU environmllental legislation. with whichthe associated countries in Central and Eastern Europe eventually will have to aligntheir national legislationi and administrative practises. as a conditioni for membershipof the European Union - the so called environmental acquis - is considerably smaller.It mainly about 70 directives - some of which, however, have been amended severaltimes and supplemented with "daughter" directives and 2 1 regulations 19.21,41].

Activities in field of the non-hazardous solid waste management regulated by limitednumber of directives and regulations. They are following [21]:

1. Non-White Paper legislation:Directives:

- Municipal waste incineration for existing installations, 89/429/EEC and fornew installations. 89/369/EEC

* The landfill of waste, 1999/31/ECRegulations:

* None2. White Paper legislation:

Directives:* Waste Framework directive 75/442/EEC amended by 90/656/EEC,

91/156/EEC and 91/692/EEC* Sewage sludge and soil, 86/278/EEC amended by 91/692/EEC* Packaging waste, 94/62/EC

Regulations:* Regulation on Supervision of shipment of waste. EEC/259/93 amended by

120/97/EC

Council Directive 75/442/EEC and its further changes state that Member statesshould:

* control waste disposal on a national level;* promote preventive activities with waste and reduction of waste amounts by

reducing their harmfulness. developing clean technologies, providing technicalimprovements of products and improving disposal techniques, as well aspromote waste recycling,

* prohibit waste disposal, dumping or illegal discharge, they (Member States)should develop integrated and relevant network of waste disposalinfrastructure,

* develop waste management plans as quickly as possible.* state that waste disposal costs should be covered by waste holder (owner) or)

by previous holder of waste ("polluter pays" principle).

Council Regulation 259/93/EEC (Supervision of shipment of the waste) sets a conitr-ol

4-2

syselm ro- waslc flow. The L3asel con vent'1in is related to the IL[IZ/.LOUS WaIste 0ni.,but those Regulations cover shipmntlct ol nonl-loxic w.asie as wvell.

Council di-ective 1999/3 1 fEC ol 20 Apr-il I 999 on the landfill (il waste cnv'isa2CSamong other rc-ulations. that:

* all waste should he treatcd hbeore disposal:* disposal of houseloldk and hazardous waste in one place is exCludcdl.* costs for landlill ClOSUlC and post-closuUre activities. as well as costs tor

handling of landfill area 50 years in future should be included in wastedisposal costs.

* amount of biodegradable waste in household waste disposed at the landfillshould be decreased,

* methane gas should be collected and utilised or burned fi-om existing andnew landfills.

Directive 85/337/EEC regulates Environmental Impact Assessment. Recently somechanges in the Directive have been made with Directive 97/1 l/EC. which shouldcome in force in 1999. The directive promotes preventive approach in environmentalconservation and states that development projects, which could have significantimpact to environment, are subject to an EIA before state institutions make theirdecisions.

4.2 National legislation and responsible institutions

There is a lot of laws and regulations in Latvia, that could be regarded in this project.Some of them refer-to the time period of the first Republic (1919-1940: Civil Law).Other were adopted during the Soviet time (1940-1990) and some are modern newlaws of Latvia, implemented and adopted during the last years. It should be mentionedthat until recently legislation concerning waste management was very fragmentary,and Law on Household waste was adopted at the end of 1998. This is a rather generallaw, therefore elaboration of regulations to this law is planned until July 1, 2000.

The following legal acts could be directly referred to the solid waste management and

they have been taken into consideration within the current study:

* Law On environmental protection (August 6, 1991) states that industrial andhousehold waste should be collected, stored and disposed at the specially preparedsites for that purpose (Article 29) [27],

* Law Oni Environmental Imipact Assessmlenzt (October 14. 1998) [26] lists thoseactivities where EIA is required. According to the Annex of the law, where thoseactivities are listed, waste disposal sites are among them (Point 14 and 15 of theAnnex). The law states the procedure of the EIA and responsibilities of diflerenlinvolved parties. Articles 17 and 19 of the law set obligatory requirements for thecontent of EIA Draft Report and EIA Final Statement. Those requiremenits ar-efollowed during elaboration of the current project and will be conitinuled in thefuture.

-1-3

* The Lall o*, Prot'uion bc1.s (Feb. 51'. 1997) 1*1I (dcli nes speciflic physical7linin?c, restrict ions that. inevitabl v. are aIIso relevant con1cern 11il site Sc'tClionsbor waste dlisposall- and treatment installations. 11 sets ceIrai n limiiitat ions 101cplanninsg and pcrmitting anly actiVities that mIltht Cause negtS ie impaCIt to tlCar-eas respectively objects descrihcdl in the law or to tlheir designated functionality.Another type of protective zones inltcnds to prcvent uLndesir-aiblc impact ol riskobjects or -sources to the environment. huLma1;1n life. hcalth or propeity. Conceingiil<8this the law requires also establishment of protective zoncs in thc surroundings ofgarbage disposal yards and waste storage facilities (article 28) in order to cnsure

the protection of their neighbouring territories. As mentioned in article 61, no 7,such protective belts have to be kept in a fire safe condition.

* The Law on1 Natural Resource Tax (1995) [30] identifies waste as a taxable item(article 5. no.2). It fixes the tax rates of 0.25 Lats per m3 to be paid for non-hazardous waste disposal, 1.50 Ls/m3 for hazardous waste, and 50 Ls/m3 forextremely hazardous waste (annex 3). The tax revenues shall be used exclusivelyto finance measures and projects of environmental benefit (Article 3. part 1), e.g.implementation of compensating measures to equalise impairments to theenvironment or to make restitution of environmental qualities going to be lostconditioned by the intended activity. 40% of the proceeds shall be transferred tothe Environmental Protection Fund at national level and 60% shall be allocated toa special environmental protection budget of the related municipality (article 3,part 2 and article 11, part 1, no.1 and no.2).

* The Law on Self - Governments (June 8'h, 1995) [32] declares that localgovernments are liable to organise basic services to the inhabitants. Amongothers, such municipal obligations also cover the management (here: collectionand disposal) of household waste (article 15, no.1).

* The Law on Municipal Waste (Oct. 15 h, 1998) [29] regulates the state- and localauthorities' areas of competence regarding solid waste management (articles 4 -6). It also defines certain duties of legal corporations or persons dealing withcollection, storage, treatment, transfer, transportation, recovery (recycling), and/ordisposal of municipal waste (articles 9 - 15). The law further describes theobligatory procedure of issuing permits for recovery and disposal of municipalwaste (articles 16 - 18). sets the basic financial principles for solid wastemanagement (articles 19, 20), and points out the municipalities' and stateinstitutions' controlling function concerning municipal waste management (article21).

* The Lauw ott Hazardous Waste (Mar. 3 0 th, 1993) 128] gives a detailed definition ofits subjects (different sorts and characterisation of hazardous waste: seeintroduction of the law and article 2). Doing so it clearly separates issues to bedealt with under this law from those to be regulated by the Law on Municipal(Solid) Waste.

Recently the following three regulations were implemented to supplement and specifythe instructions given by the law on Solid Wastc Managemnent:

4 --I

* ReMIlktions No.,,8: ReCLIklltOlIS Onl Cons SIRuCeiIl. minaiMI-ellIcill and ehO"sll c ol

Waste disposzil silos (lFebruary 9). 199(9)

* Regulations No 31) on Classiflicalion ol' Solid F-lowsehold Waste ( Flc. 9J',1999') 1431

* Regulations No. 230: Regnllations on recycling and disposal typcs ol'household waste and on permllitting order l'or recycing- and disposal of'household waste (Junle 29. 1999)

Regulations No.38 are important and they were prepared to harmonise nationallegislation with relevant requiremenits of EU, including requirements of the CouncilDirective 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Chapter 2(Construction of waste disposal site) of Regulations No.38 contains requirements forconstruction of new landfill sites and the most important that should he mentioned arethe following:

* Landfills cannot be constructed in bogs, where the thickness of peat layer ismore than I meter (Article 4.2),

- Landfills cannot be constructed in areas where the groundwater table iscloser than 1 meter from the land surface (Article 4.3);

* The land surface in the landfill area shall at least be 0.5m above the waterlevel in the nearest water body (Article 5).

All those requirements are will motivate rnitigating measures at the Skede wastedisposal site.

According to the current legal acts, the responsibility for solid waste management is

divided as follows:Self-governments within their borders are responsible for collection,transportation, disposal and treatment of solid waste. That does not meanthat municipalities themselves should provide those services - theseactivities could be carried out on a contract basis according to the Law OnState and self-government order. Municipalities make decision on locationof the waste disposal site. They can adopt local construction regulationswithin their competence, including solid waste management.Municipalities may set fees for waste collection. Municipalities in generalare responsible for environmental protection and control within theirborders.

* Waste producers in general are responsible for waste treatment in a waythat is not harmful to the environment, human health and private property.

* Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Developmenit(MOEPRD) is responsible for development of legal acts, it elaborates solidwaste management strategies and implementation projects.

* Subordinated institutions of MOEPRD - State Environmental linspectoratcand Regional Environmental Boards (in project area it is the LiepajitReuional Environmental Board) - control waste management (incluldingreview and confirllation of monitoring programs). They issuc limits for

4-5

wastc amllountis tiat coul d he disposCd anfld 1ctil ki 1011 l'ol ti-CtilclnIt of,leachate and surfacc run-off waters.

* The Environmental lilpazct Assessmllenlt Stat,11C BuTreau (also suh)Ordi 1Cledl

body ot MOEIRi)) is responsible loi hlle EIA approval.* Regional Environmental Health Cenitr-es. subor-dlilnatcd bodies ol tile

Ministry of Weltfare. ai-c resp onlsible for issLIes rclate(d to the occupationalhealth and working conditions.

In addition to the above mentionied laws and regulationis, the National Solid WasteManagement Strategy w as elaborated in 1997, and accepted by the Cabinet ofMinisters on June 30. 1998. The basic goal of the Strategy is to create sustainablewaste management system in Latvia. which gradually should comply with the relevantEuropean Union requirements. Among others, the Strategy states:

* Establishment of a sustainable waste management system so that at least* 100,000 inhabitants are provided with some elements of the system,

* Latvia is divided in 10-12 regions where regional solutions could beapplied. Taking into consideration the economical situation in Latvia, 10-12sanitary landfills will be designed and constructed. Simultaneouslyelaboration of relevant waste collection and transportation systems will becarried out based on existing or new institutions (analysis of institutional,organisational. technical and economical aspects was provided),

* Waste reuse and recycling should be developed. It is promoted by theReport on current situation (investments, tax reductions etc.),

* "polluter pays" principle should be applied to all waste producers in thestate, including rural areas, where most of inhabitants do not pay for wastemanagement services.

Program 500 minus is national or state program that was designed to ensureimplementation of the National Solid Household Waste Strategy and requirements ofEU Directives for waste management. To a certain extent it is an Action Plan forupgrading of solid waste management practices and reducing impacts of onenvironment and health. Currently several projects are carried out within the Program,and those parallel to the Liepaja Project should be mentioned separately:

* North Vidzeme waste management project (investigation of possibilities.establishment of new inter-municipal waste management organisation. siteselection for a new landfill site, EIA -are finished), the total proposedinvestments is evaluated at about 9 million Ls.

* Ventspils waste management project (designing of the new landfill is goingon). total investments are evaluated at about 3.7 million Ls.

* Maliena Region (North-eastern part of Latvia: site selection and elaborationof ToR for Feasibility Study is going on), total proposed investments arcevaluated at about 4.5 million Ls.

4-6

Table 5.1

Review of Latviani legislation oil constructionj of solid liousehold waste disposal sites

Laws or hy-laws/ Isstues conitrolled Requi relnnents Restrictioiis Adlitionial regulationis,

legal acts co_ IIIm eiIts

Lawv On etivirontmental Basic law for environmental Dctermines that industrial and

protection (August 6, 1991) protection, sets out basic household waste should be

principles and tasks for collected, stored and disposed in

environimilenital protectioni in special sites adopted for this

Lalvia purpose (Article 29)

ILaw Oni self-governlmenis (June Basic law regulating activities Deterinilies that munlicipalities

8. 1995) of self-goverinments are responisible for providing ofmuniicipal services within theiraicta. It meanis that mullicipalityshiouild organise lotuselholdwaste collection and disposal

__________________________ (Article 15, chapter 1I)L.aw On Entvironmental Impact Determines activities, where According to the Annex of the Adoption of the law is

Assessment (October 14, 1998) Envimonmental Impact law, where activities requiring deteriniile(d by Re-ulations of

Assessmenit (EIA) is required EIA is listed. Among them Cabinet of Ministers No. 213

waste disposal sites are "Order how to assess impactmentionied (Articles 14 and 15 to the eniironimileuit' (Junle 15.

of the Annex). Law sets out FIA 1999)procedure as well and(lresponisibilities of involvedbo(lies. Articles 17 and 19 of thelaw determine obligatoryrequirements for contenits ofEnvironinental ImpactStatement and Environmlental

_ Impact Assessment

4-7

Law On particuilarly protected Deterimlines classification Article 7 sets d6finition for I-aw is explained hy

nataire a-eas tMaa-cli 2, 1993 systelIl of particularly protected restricted areas: nature Regulatiowns ol Cahinct of

withi changes On Octoher 30, nature areas, as well as complexes that have becn Ministers (No. 354)

1997) requireinents for protection of changed in different stages,those areas deposits of rare and distinctive

local species, culturallandscapes that are unique orcharacter-istic lor differenitregions of Latvia, especiallyinice nature areas.Law deterimlines that natureprotection plans are necessaryfor thosc arcas (Art. 18) and

. zonationi of area should be made(Art. 19), as well as sets outrestrictionis for exploitation (Art.

. 16) and planning anddevelopment (Art. 21)

Regulatiois of Cabinet of Determinities general regulations Article 38 determines Article 38 says: "Economic and Therc are Io ildividutll

Ministers No. 354 General for protectioni and exploitation significant restrictions and otlier activities are allowed in regulations on protection aid

regulations on protectioii and order prohibitions nature restrictionis if they do not exploitation lfor restricted area

exploilation of particularly interact with purpose of the of losniare lake: aimns and tasks

protected nature aleas rcstriiction and its tasks and are for this cstricstcdat i ae a ic ii not

(October21. 1997) envisaged il individual determinied

protection and exploitationregulatiolis arid natureprotection plans:38. 1. scientific research;38.2. constructionI ofinforrnation tracks and viewareas:383. conservation measures forrare species arid their habitats.and, if necessary in specialcases, to achieve tasks set out innature plrotection plan - cattlepastullring. buniing and cutting

of old( grass anid reeds:38.4 contr-olle(d keeping anidexploitation of boats and motor-boats in lakes and rivers;38.5. fishintg and angling inrestricted areas for conservationolf water birds accordinig to theindividual regullations onprotection and exploilation ofrestricte(l area.

Article 39 foresees possibility toestablish seasonal arid othertypes of restricted areas, butArticle 40 determines 13

______________________ _________________ __ _different groups of prohibitions. _J

4 -9

Regulationis of cabinet of Thliose reguilationis determinie Determines restricted nature Pro[hihitions are determined by Descriptioni of horders is not

Ministers No. 212 Regulations par1ticularly protected nature area "'T'osmare" and provides Regulationis ol' Cabinet of' correct (at least oIIe pojinlt is

on restricted nature areas areas - restricted nature areas description of borders Ministers No 354 inissiiig) and existinig of this

(June 15. 1999) restricted area withlini theborders of' Liepa'ja city is notagreed with City CLounTcil. L-anidallocation is deteriiincd asLiepaja lorestry - Medzc parish- Grobina fortestry

Law Otiiprotecriont belts Determinles special restrictions,, Determ-inles tasks and types of

(February 5. 1997) and niuisanices for spatial environiment and naturcplanniniig and related land usage rcsources protectionl belts (3.p.).that can be regaided to waste It is necessary to establishdisposal and treatmiient facilities. protection zones around wasteIt sets out soI11e restrictions for collectioni and disposal sitesplanning anid perm.littiing' of (Art. 28) witlh aim to protectactivilies that can cause neighbouring areas, Article 61.negative inpact to the chapter 7 of this law deteriminessurroundinig area. Descriptioni of that those zones shotild besuch objects is provided in the fireprooflaw or couldl be derived fromii itfullctionally

Law Ont protection belts Baltic Sea and Riga Gulf coastal Determines thr-ee types of Changes in land use is 'I'hose restrictionis are

(February 5. 1997) protectioi belt (Art. 6) protection belts: prohibited if not proposed in compulsorx lor land o%\ ners and

co,tiniuiatioi - protectioni belt of coastal spatial planniniig. decision of land users.zones, their width depend on Cabiiiet of Ministers is required Some exceptions could he made

width of dune zone but not less each timiie (Art. 36.1.3) in coastal drunle zone if the\ arcthan 300(m; proposed in spatial planllinL- sea protection belt that Drainage works are prohibited (Art. 36.3.1includes beach and underwater without approval ofshelf, buLt not less than 300m in environieniltal protectionthe sea, in1stitutioIis (Art. 36.1.5)- belt of limited ecoiiomical In protectioni belt of coastalactivity up to 5 km wide that is dunes is prohibited (Art. 36.2):determinied according to the to build new houses. industrial

4-I1)

natural conditions buildinlgs and houses, to makeclear cuttinigs, to transformforest lands, to extract useftlminerals

Law Ot protection belts Protectioi belts of water bodies Mitiimal width of protectioil Prohibited (Art. 37.2): Cabinet of Ministers have

(February 5, 1997) and streams (Art. 7) belts are determined (Art. 7): - to establish waste disposal prepared relevant methodology

coiiilif7atioii - in rural areas (10-25km sites, to determine protection beltslong rivers) not less than - to carry out construction

50m from the bank, but for works (list is provided)up to 10km long rivers -not less than I (n fromeach bank;

- for lakes with area miorethan lO())ha - not less than5(00m,

- for lakes with area 101-lO((ha - not less than300mii,

- for water streams and waterbodies withi well-for-miledflood-lanids - not less thanwhole width of the llood-land irrespective of other-requirements;

- in densely populated areas- accordinig to the legal actsregulating spatial planning,but not less than 20in on_ach bank

Law On protetion belts Protectioni belts (protection, If protection belt is not Restrictions within protection No mcthodoloay is deteriniicei

(Februarv 5. 1997) zonles) around cultural determined, minimal width belts (protection zones) around

cottiontation moniumilenits (Art. 8) should be: cultural monumenits (Art. 38):- in rural areas S()(m; prohibit location of waste- il towns- I()Om. disposal sites, location of

dangerous objects, to work withstroking equipmenit, to make

4-11

aniy kinid of excavations ominierals, to store and hanidlechemically active and corrosivesubstances etc. 6bnt o

Protection belts around water Determines number of Prohibit (Art. 39, 35) location of Cabiet of Milisters has

abstractioni sites (Art. 9) restrictions (Art. 39, 35) waste disposal sites, location of prepared relevant methiocdology

dangerous objects, to work with to determinc protection belts

stroking equipment, to makeany kind of excavations ofminerals, to store and handlechemically active and corrosivesubstances, carry out works thatcan cause noodiiig and rising ofgroundwater table etc.

Protectioii belts around If protection belt is not Location of waste disposal sites No methodologv is deteimined

recreation zone (Art. 110) determined, minimnal width is is prohibited (Art. 40.2)

1km (Art. 10)Forest protection belts around Not determined Location of waste disposal sites No methiodology is determidic

towns (forest parks of green is prohibited (Art. 41.2)

zone) (Art. II) . . . _

Lawv Oni protectio,g belts Exploitation protection belts II types of protection belts are Location of waste disposal sites Cabinet of Ministers haS

(February 5. 1997) (Art. 12-23) determined, includiiig - is prohibited (Art. 47.1) prepared relevant miethodology

cohitiiliiatioii protectionl belts arouinid to deteriniile plrotection belts.

drainage buiildinigs attd facilities(Art. 18) Some ulicertaintics ale

regarding protcctiohl l'elt

aro,M(d gas-pilpes (Art. 22 andrequiremcnits not locate astedisposal site in this area (art.56). that do not allow to conniectboth items - to construct gas-

pipe froii waste disposal site.

Sanitary protection belts (Art. 4 types of protection belts are Prohibited (Art. 55): No methodology is deteriniiledl

24-28) deterimlined, among them - - to block acess roads and_protectionz belts arouind vaste entiances to waste disposal

4-12

disposal sites, waste storage sites, waste storage sites

sites and water treatment sites and water treatment sites;

(Art. 28) - to cany out works that canl

cause flooding or rising ofgroundwater table.

Safety protection belts (Art. 29- 3 types of protectioni belts are Prohibitions are specified just

32) determined (Art. 29), including regarding quarriesprotectioni belts aroun1d quar-riesan1d otlher objects withlh'ighlened risk

Regulations of Cabinet of Deterim1ines methiodology and( This protection belt is Prolhibitionis are determined in Commissionl is niot established

Ministers No. 283 order how these protection belts determined by commission Law on Protectioll belts and borders arc not determined.

Methodology to determine should be determinled made by Ministr-y of theefore lini ite(d econonli cal

protection belt of Baltic Sea Environimenital Protection and activities \\ithin thc protection

and Riga Gulf coastline . Regional Development, but belt of 5kml are riot conitrolled

(Auguist 4, 1998) borders in territorial plans aremarked by experts in localmunicipalities (Art. I)

Regulations of Cabinet of Deter mines methodology and Those protection belts are Prohibitionis are determined in

Ministers No. 284 order how these protectioni belts determined and mapped in Law on Protection belts

Nlethodology to deteriniiie shoul(d be determinie(d territorial plans by experts of

protection belts along *water . local municipalities after

bodies and water streams adoptioni by Regional

(August 4. 1998) Environmental Board (Art. I)

Regulations of Cabinet of Sets out methodology for Protection belt of 10-20mn is Prohibitions are determiled in Regulations reter only to state

Ministers No. 236 Regulations determinatioln of protection belts determine(d Law on Protection belts and comm11on(-use huildines and

on methodology for Iacilities. and to itheir protection

determiniation of exploitationprotection belts arounddrainage facilities onagricultural arid forest lands(Jurie 30. 1998)Regulations of Cabinet of Deterrmiires methodology and Land owner or land user of A lot of restrictions is Most of zones can be

Mlinisters No. 8 Nlethodology order how these protection belts water abstraction site organise determi-ned, differenitiated deterinilled onls bv

to determnie protection belts should be determined determination of protection belt depending on water abstraction matheimatical calculations.

4-13

around u ater abstraction sites (Art. 4) source, its character and type of currently calculation Methods

(January 5, 1999) Several protection belts are protectioni zone. are not compulsory

determined around suLrfacCwater abstraction sites (differentfor water bodies and waterstreamils) and aroundgroundwater abstraction sites:- strongly protected zone;- bacteriological protection

zone;- chemical protection zone.

Law On natural resoutrces tax Sets out tax, its amount, order of Determines that waste is taxable Requirements ol the la%% are

(September 14. 1995 with payment, compensations and good (Art. 5.2). It determines adapted by Rlegulationis of

changes in December 19, 1996) accumulation of money in local that amount of tax is 0.25 Ls/m3 Cahinet of Niniisters No. 211)

fundis an(d Environmenital for non-hazardous wastc, 1.50 (June 20. 1996). No. 214 (Julle

Pl-otection Fuid of Lalvia Ls/n 3 for hazardous waste and 17. 1997). No. 188 2la\ '5.

50 Ls/Wn3 for extremely 1999), as wkell as DIecree of

hazardous waste (Ann1ex 3). State Incomiie Service (April

Income from the tax could be 15, 1997) arid Letter of the

used for financing of Service No. 2/5437 Manv 14.

environimentally beneficiary 1997).projects (art. 3.1), i.e., projects This law envisages collecting

where compensation measures tax from waste depenidinig on its

are carried out or quality of volume in (i]I), bLut La%v On

environment is rehabilitated by Solid waste arid rclevanit

some actions. It is stated that Regulations of CoM requires

40% of the tax goes to that Waste should be s%ei2htcd

Environimental Protection Fund (in tons).

(national level) and 60% shouldbe accumulated at localmunicipalities in special budgetsfor environmental protection(Art. 3.2 and 11.1, 11.2)

Law On hIousehold waste Regulates division of It sets out responsibilities for Art icle 19 (dCt(criniC that

(October 15. 199Y8) responsibilities among state private or juridical persons that . hlloutsehlold itaste ialnal,ra cm '

4-14

local instittitions regarding solicd deal with collectioin, storage, co.ss are set (,ft /by (itnf,.ii

waste mani agenicnt (Art. 4-6) h;iandling, tranusportation, Coupnil (Wlariih Cololw iIJ

recyclinig (rcuse) and/or disposalof houselhold waste (Articles 9- Article 20 det'rminoe's that

15). In following articles law hloutseliold ivatste maiiageni'nt

describes obligatory procedure waliJif should covler costs fi)rto obtaini permllits for waste collectioni, tral yOlitatioln,

recyclinig an(d waste disposal treatllent aldl di.sposal o/

activities (Articles 16-18), sets Iioiiselioltl itO tie (incltlfllgn

out financial principles or waste costs J0r closure a/ iO wate

inanagemilenit (Articles 19 and di.sposal sile andil post-ilostloe

20), and states funictions of statc actii itie s. ad1f1 or eunviron;nic,111

and muniicipal institutions for nmonitoringJ

contiol ol houselhold waste.. managemenit (Article 21).

Determines (Art. 14) thatmlanlagemiienlt of waste disp6salsite is organised by local

tuinicipalit'v wvhere the landfill

. is located or where it is planinedto locate tvasle disposal site.

Law Ott liazardoius wvaste Provides detailed definition of Requiiremilenits stated in this law

(March 30, 1993) the sulbject (different types and are strictly separated from those

characters of hazardous waste: stated in Law On houselhold

see Introductioni of the law in waste. It is determined that

Article 2). those differenit wastes should bemanaged separately.

Law Eiergy law Basic law in encrgy sector of Determines that (Art. 40.2.): Example vith "(etlini" landfill

(September 3. 1998) Latvia Licensed enterprise for shows that there arc technical

distribution of electrical energy problems to adapt this issue.

within area of its licence buyssuiplus energy, that is lelt overalter meetinig their own needs,from other generatinig facilities,

4-15

utilisi ig geothermal eneigy,bio-fuel (except wood and peat).wood-waste, household waste ortiheir processed products(biogas), if their capacity do notexceed 7MW and which arestarted before January 1, 2005;this energy should meet nationalparameters for electricity; tlhegenerated energy is purchasedfor 8 years by the licensedenterprise for price 1.5 timeshighier thaii average price ofimiported eniergy. Afterwar-dsprice is determined according totlhe agreenleilt between botlsides.

Regulations of Cabinet of Determiine order and basic Chapter 11 (Construction of Regulations prohibit several Regulations No.38 al-eMinisters No. 38 Regulationis requir-emilenits for construction, waste disposal sites) of actions and exclude specific important and the% "cereon contstructioni, mnaniagemitentt management and closure of Regulations No. 38 contains conditions prepared to obtain

and closure of waste disposal waste disposal sites requirements for construction of harmonisation of nationalsites (February 9. 1999) new waste disposal sites. legislation with relevant EU

requiremiienits, icludinC.

Directive Project on waste

Includinig: disposal t(CONI)97)105 -lhalJl.

Regulations of Cabinet of Arrangement of waste disposal Waste disposal site could be Waste disposal sites cannot be Requiremienilts set out in

Ministers No. 38 Regulationis site (Chapter 11, Art. 3-27) constructed (Art. 3): located (Art. 4): Constructioni La,,%. inont construction, imianiagemitent - out of borders of towns and - at grouiidwater discharge regulationis ol Cabinet of

and closure of waste disposal settlements, taking into sites like a springs: Ministers iNo. II' and No. 62sites (February 9. 1999) consideration location of - in bogs, where peat layer is are regarded to the constructioncoW nrinu(ation paved, gravel or unsurfaced more than I m; of waste disposal sitcs.

roads with high carrying - in areas, wherecapacity; groundwater table cannot Construction desigiiins should

- on lands not used or not be kept more thian Imr be carried out in t%o stages.suitable for agriculture; below land surface; design shouldl be submlitted to

4-16

- downstreamil water - in zones ol active karst; the State Constructionabstraction places, fish - in periodically flooded Inspectorate for expertise.

spawning areas, anid sites areas:used for fishi farmirg: - i areas. wlelre it is 5 zones are set out %%itlil(i the

- in lee-side regarding prohibited by legal acts. waste disposal site (Art. 5).

settlemenits. requirements for those zones are

Art. 5 - Land surface at thle site dlescribed in Art. 14-25.

should be at least 0.5mi higlherthiani water level in nearest Installationi of separate sewalmge

stream or water body. system (Art. 16.3.1 ). Icachiate

Art. 6 determines to prepare collection antd discharge system

Feasibility stu(dy for the waste (Art. I1 .3 ). scw aec *' atcr

(lisposal site and informiation collection arld dischalgc sxstc ii

about at least two alternative and treatment fhacilities (Art.

sites. Specific inforimiationi on 18. 1.4). gas collection an(d

lthose two sites should be dischiarge system (Art. 18.1.5J.

prepared according to the added is required.

list (Art. 7).Art. 8 dleteriiiies that Art. 2 1 determiines thiat collccte(d

Feasibility study is accepted and leachate water should be

decisioti made by local discharged to the treatmaenit

IIuLnicipality where proposed facilities or sprayed oni disposed

waste disposal site is located waste.

and agree with municipalities___________________________ where waste will be collected.

Regulations of Cabinet of Management of the site Determiines: What cannot be accepted for

Mlinisters No. 38 Reguilationis (Chapter 111) - life-time of the site should disposal at the landfill (Art. 32):

on construction, maiagemient be 20 years or more (Art. - hazar-dous waste (if there is

and closure of waste disposal 28); no special equipment or

sites (February 9. 1999) - only those types of waste storage);

contintlaOtion(o listed in waste disposal - sewage sludge frompermit could be accepted at different types of treatment

the site (Art. 29); plants if water content in

- maniager of the waste sludge exceeds 70%;

disposal site prepare action - organic food waste, if it isI an and technical passport not used for compostin1o;

4-17

of the site (Art. 30). - wood processing waste, if itis not used for composting;

- inert waste if there is nospecial place for its storage;

- non-chopped car tyres.Monitor-inig and contr-ol of Sets out requirements for

Regulations of Cabillet of environimilenital conditiolns at ionitorinig anid its duration - atMinisters No. 38 Regitlationis waste disposal site and its least 30 years after closure ofon constructionz, inanagentellt surloulidings (Chapter V) the site (Art. 45-48).arid closutre of waste disposalsites (February 9, 1999)co,lti,iluatio,1

Regulations of Cabinet of Determinie set of requirements Regulations determine set of Discharge of non-treatedMinlisters No. 155 Regulationis for water usage and discharge of technical requirements, that contaminated waters andon water usage permits (April sewage water could be adapted to sewage waters to environment is22. 1997 withi chianiges in requirements for leachate water prohibited.Regulations of CoM No.17 from treatment set out in RegulationsJafiuar-y 20. 1998 and of CoM No.38 Regitlations onregulations of CoM No.437 conistruzction, mianagernent anidfrom November 17. 1998 closure of waste disposal sites

(February 9, 1999) - Articles._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 16, 18, 21. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __16_ _2 1

Regulations of Cabhiet of Determine structure of state MEPRD or relevant regionalMinisters No. 415 Regulations monitoring, financial sources, Environmental Board, accordingoni State environniiental Comm1lilon0 co-ordination of to the legal acts, determinemonitoring (Deceniber 16. monitoring and access to the enterprises, where emission's,1997) itilniorationi background contaminiation's

and other monitoring should becairied out.

Regulations of Cabinet of Regulate classification of Determine: IFull classilicatioll is prox ided ill IMinisters No. 39 Regulations houselhold waste - order of classification of Aniex.on classifying of hzouselhold household waste,waste (Februarv 9. 1999) - classification of

lhouselhold waste

4-18

Regulations of Cabinet of Determiine order how REB Following should be mentioned Indirectly it ieans that those

Ministers No, 205 Regulations shotild register private or in registration: requirements shouldl he

on registration of private or juridical persons dealing with - information on household implemented when new waste

juridical persons that deal collectioni, handling, reloading waste systetn (5 positionls): miana.gement system or its

with collection, landiling, or triansportation olf household - intfor-mationi on storage of elemenits are developed. so that

reloading or transportation of waste, household waste (3 pos.); somebody can really apply for

lhouselhold waste (June 8, 1999) - information on handlinig of exploitation.

household waste (5 pos.);- informationi on reloading

places of houselhold waste(5 pos.);

- informatioll on wastetransporting vehicles (typeand number).

Regulations of Cabiiet of Deterininie types of recycling Deteriniiie that those activities

Ministers No. 230 Regulations and disposal of houseliolt waste are possible only after obtainlilng

on recycling aid disposal and periniltinig order for relevant permit.tvpes of houseliold w aste anid recyclinig and disposal ofoni permitting order for household waste Require determining any of 5

recvcling and disposal of waste recycling types and any oflhousehold waste (June 29. 2 waste disposal types.

1999) . . _ _

PROPOSAI, of Regulationis of Deteriminie widths of menitionied Protection belts are set out from Protectioni belt should be free of

Cabinet of Mlinisters protection belts the border of the site (§3). waste

Regulations on methodology Width of the protection belt isfor determination of deter mined as follows:protection belts around wvaste - 500m around waste

disposal and storage sites disposal sites;- I 0(m around waste

storage sitesRegulations of Cabinet of Determine national standards of Determine air quality standards Codes of polluting substances.

Ministers No. 219 environimental qual1ity regarding (Art. 3), that set out permitted standards, thiesiol(ds, criteria

Regulations on air quality air quality, as well as order for level of pollutioni for sulphiur and aims for data qualitN and

(June 15. 1999) assessment of air pollution and dioxide, nitrogen oxide, character-istics on information of'

protectionl measures to avoid, nitrogen dioxide, dust, lead and inhabitants -are ,pro\ ided in

4-19

prCvCnt or minlimise negative ozone. Annexes of RegUl.ation1s.

impact of air pollution to Dctermine (Art. 19)environiment or human healthi development of programs for(A t. 2). improvement of air quality

(should be provided by localmunicipalities) as well as access

______________________________ _____ to the information (Art. 30-37).

Decree of MEPRD No. 44 fromil Basic documenit for Determine: Document sets out great number Document is not in force. hut

April 2, 1997 environimenital inspectors in - required documents for of technical restrictions has great contradictions with

On recommendations for their control work. ,, arranging of new household Regulations of CoNl adopted in

control of constructioni and waste disposal sites; 1999.

maniagemenit of houselhold - requirements for proposedwaste disposal sites houselhold waste disposal Documlilenit is compuklsoiy only

sites; fo,r employees of MET'RI) andoperation regulations for subordiniated bodies.

household waste disposalsites;

- control of household wastedisposal sites;

- responsibilities fortresspassing of legal acts inenvironmental protection

4.3 Local legislation and instructions

Curr-ently none of local imunicipallities wilhiln the project aicea have adopted loca;lbinding regulations on waste management issucs. Never-lhless. Liepaja City hasstarted elaboration of locall reg.ulations. Scope of work is that in the f'utur-c theseregulations may become compulsory for all the municipalities during implementationof the project.

These regulations should set out that all private or juridical persons are responsible tomake contracts for waste manacement services. Moreover, they should developcontrol mechanisms on the implementation of these regulations. The following pagessummarises the Latvian legislation on household Waste.

4.4 Need for additional legislation

The "Law on Municipal waste" states that until July 1. 2000 a number of regulationshave to be elaborated in order to determine permissible and acceptable activities in thefield of solid waste mana-ement. On the other hand, harmonisation with relevant EUdirectives and regulations must be provided as well [details see in [14]. Therefore,first of all, the following regulations are recommended:

- on waste sorting and reuse. This legal act should also consider economnic aspectsof the problem, otherwise implementation and enforcement of the requirementswill not be possible,

* on supervision on waste shipment. Elaboration of this act is rather urgent, sincefrom time to time Latvia has been used as "waste disposal site". For instance:plastic waste from Germany in 1996 (formulation: for recycling), old medicalsfrom France in 1998.

* on household waste incineration, because the last 2-3 years discussions on thisquestion is rather active.

Additionally, the regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No 39 on Classification ofSolid Household Waste (Feb. g9h, 1999) have to be re-elaborated, because they includepart of hazardous industrial waste.

5. FORECAST OF FUTURE WASTE PRODUCTION, COLLECTION,TRANSPORT, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

In order to be able to estimate a nutmbler- of technical aspects. such as requilrcd landlfillcapacities. required number of truckls and containers, dlesign of optimal wasiccollection system, the waste amounts to be landfilled should bc known. Inlormationion the present waste productioni has been presented in Section 3. On basis of thcpresent waste productionl the future production has been forecasted, and further, theamounts of waste to be treated and landfilled has been calculated.

The forecast of future waste amounts is based on a forecast of the population growth(official statistical data). and economical development trends (as forecasted by theMinistry of Economics) [5. 7, 531. Moreover, to estimate the amounts for landfillingthe number of serviced people was taken into account (based on the targets forupgrading the solid waste management in the project area).

5.1 Amount of waste

The following assumptions have been made for the forecast on waste production:The population decreases' since 1992. Nevertheless, taking intoconsideration the age structure of the inhabitants and the possibleeconomic development of the Region ( Liepaja as a harbour city) [50], itis expected that the number of inhabitants will stabilise after some 5 yearsand a slow increase of the population will take place There are differencesbetween Liepaja city, towns and rural municipalities and the forecast onthe population growth is provided separately for all towns and rural area(see Figure 8). The data is presented in Table 5.1,

* The economic development in the Region will be different: the towns willhave a faster development than the rural areas. Therefore, differenteconomic scenarios elaborated by the Ministry of Economics are applied:the base scenario for the urban areas and the pessimistic scenario for therural areas (see Table 5.2),

* The number of inhabitants receiving services of a centralised wastemanagement system will gradually increase and will be 100% in thetowns in 2005 and 80% in rural areas by in 2020 (others are living insingle farm houses or small villages with less than 50 inhabitants, seeChapter 2),

* The amount of collected and disposed household waste produced percapita will slightly increase, although this increase will be compensatedby waste separate collection and recycling activities.

* The amount of hospital waste will increase proportionally to thepopulation growth.

* The amount of demolition and garden waste will remain on same level.* amount of non-hazardous industrial waste wvill increase proportionally to

economic development. This part includes also waste from the harbouLr.which has a rather fast development.

140000 l__

120000

1 00000- _

80000-

° 60000-

E 40000- ___ | Liepaja

20000 Rural areas

o - , . . . ~ . . .0 . . . . . . .

ON ON ON 0N ON O O 0 0 0 ON ON ON ON ON 0 0 0 ~0 C,- 0 0) 0 0 0(> e4 !s e~ (4 (M Ci Ci (v4 Ci

Actual Forecasteddata data

700

6500

6000 -

5500

5000

z 4500

| 4000-

l 3500

. 3000- .-

g _ _ t ~~~~~~~~~Aizpute|z 2500 __

. 8 ~~~~~~~~~~Grobina 2000

1500 - Pavilosta1500 I - Prielcule

1000

500 -_

0o- , 0 N O . -, , , , ,, ,, '0 N N ' N O

O_ ON ON ON O 0 0q O 0

ON O ON O ON O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Actual Forecasteddata data

Fig. 7: Forecast on population growth in Liepaja Region7.zim. Prognoze par iedzivotiju skaita pieaugumu Liepajas regiona

TIa h1 I c 5. IForecast on population growth and service(I populationl

Year |In urban areas |Iln rural areas T IotalNumber [ Servi ed inhab. Number Serviced inihal). Numnber Serviced inh.

1991 131397 382811992 130167 381231993 124058 .365491994 120393 _ 361691995 115965 359831996 114105 354331997 112898 86141 (76.3%) 34992 15606 (44.6%) 147890 1017471998 111712 85236 (76.3%ik) 34164 15237 (44.6%) 145876 1004731999 110758 84508 (7(6.3%/ ) 34231 15267 (44.6%) 144989 997752000 110048 83967 (76.3%/( ) 33944 15139 (44.6%) 143992 991062001 109570 87656 (80%) 33657 15011 (44.6%) 143227 1026672002 109328 92928 (85%) 33370 16685 (50%) 142698 1096132003 109316 98384 (90%) 33178 18248 (55%) 142494 1166322004 109536 104059 ( )5%) 32987 19792 (60%) 142523 1238512005 109762 10976> (100%7) 32892 21380 (65%) 142654 1311422006 110105 110105 ( 100%°) 32795 21645 (66%) 142900 1317502007 110452 110452 (100%7) 32699 21908 (67%) 143151 1323602008 110801 110801 (100%) 32661 22209 (68%) 143462 1330102009 111268 111268 (100%) 32623 22510 (69%) 143891 1337782010 111738 111738 (100%) 32623 22836 (70%) 144361 1345742011 112208 112208 ( 100%) 32642 23176 (71%) 144850 1353842012 112683 112683 (100%) 32680 23530 (72%) 145363 1362132013 113273 113273 (100%) 32738 23899 (73%) 146011 1371722014 113869 113869 (100%) 32814 24282 (74%) 146683 1381512015 114468 114468 (100%) 32910 24683 (75%) 147378 1391512016 115065 115065 (100%) 33025 25099 (76%) 148090 1401642017 115664 115664 (100%) 33159 25532 (77%) 148823 1411962018 116267 116267 (100%) 33312 25983 (78%) 149579 1422502019 116982 116982 (100%) 33484 26452 (79%) 150466 1434342020 117703 117703(100%) 33675 26940 (80%) 151378 144643

Table 5.2

Forecast on economic developmentYear cenario Year Scenario

Pessimistic 3ase :)ptimistic Pessimistic 3ase )ptimistic.1996 100% (f.) 00%(f.) 00%(f.) 2009 112.43% 140.41% 203.12%1997 103.90% 103.90% 106.03% 2010 112.43% 143.92% 214.49%1998 107.02% 107.02% 111,54% 2011 112,43% 147.52% 226.50°k1999 109.16% 109.16%/ 118.24% 2012 112.43% 151.21% 239.19%2000 112.43% 112.43%/c 124.39% 2013 112.43% 154.99% 252.58%2001 112.43% 115.24%/t, 131.35% 2014 112.43% 158.86% 266.73%2002 112.43% 118.12%X 138.71% 2015 112.43% 162.84%k; 281.66%7||2003 112.43% 121.08'X 146,47% 2016 112.43% 166.82%. _

2004 112.43% 124.10% 154,68% 2017 112.43% 170.80%)/c20(05 112.43% 127.21 %1 163.34% 2018 112.43% 174.78% 2006 112.43%] 130.39%r 172,49% 2(019 112.43%7.) 178.76%e =____ _

2007 112.43% 133.65%Y} 182.15% 2020 I 1 2.43 % 182.74%/ _ _

2008 112.43°i 136.99%k 192.35%7__

5:4

In order to dcteiriniei lurmher acti\'ilics in tlhe W;SIC m:tnaCem tfelN id. ii is importantilto separate the waste amounts to be collected lrom thc voluime to be landlillecl. Bolifigures are presented in Table 5.3. D)ctails of forecast are provided in Appendix 13.

Table 5.3Forecast on waste amounts to be collected and disposed. in m)

To be I1)1 he l'otal toYear Collected in Collected in Total disposed disposed he dispo-

urban areas rural areas collected from urban from rural sed(nolt areas areas (com-compacted) pacted)

1998 10_79)20 (6839 114759 41327 2931 442581999 109(80 (990 116070 41794 2997 447912000 111685 7139 118824 42759 3060 458192001 119398 7079 126477 45653 3034 486872002 129619 7S68 137487 49487 3372 528592003 140555 8604 149159 53585 3688 572732004 152218 9332 161550 57948 4000 619482005 164451 10082 174533 62518 4322 668402006 168952 10208 179160 65142 4376 695182007 173567 10331 183898 65806 4429 702352008 178337 10)473 188810 67526 4488 720142009 183414 10615 194029 69359 4550 739092010 188646 10)768 199414 71249 4615 758642011 194024 10930 204954 73191 4685 778762012 199589 11094 210683 75200 4755 799552013 205492 11270 216762 77333 4830 821632014 212151 11450 223601 79729 4907 846362015 217889 11639 229528 81813 4989 868022016 219041 11835 230876 82246 5073 873192017 220172 12039 232211 82671 5159 878302018 221323 12252 233575 83102 5252 883542019 222667 12473 235140 83607 5346 889532020 2 224026 12703 236729 84128 5444 89572

TOTAL 4064216 234013 4298229 1536173 |100302 1 1636475

In order to determine the waste amount to be disposed, the following assumptionshave been made:

- compaction rate of household, commercial and hospital waste will be - 3.5.- compaction degree of parks - garden waste will be - 2.0,- compaction degree of demolition waste will be - 1.0,- compaction degree of non-hazardous industrial waste will be - 1.5.

In order to analyse the transport requirements it is important to determine the wastedensity. It has been done by considering the following:

* the average weight of 1 m3 of collected municipal / commercial andhospital waste is about 200 kg; after compaction - 700 kg.

* the average weight of I m3 of collected parks - gardens waste is about 300kg; after compaction - 600 kg,

* the average weight of I m3 of collected demolition waste is 1200() k; sarmeafter compaction;

* the a\erage weight of I ni of collectcd induLstrial wastc (it is sulpposed thatslag and contaiiiiatcd soil will not be landllillcd) is about 45(0 kg; aftercompaction - 675 k-g Or abroult 70() kg.

Assuming- that the amouLtll of demolition and parks / garden w\aste will bc constaniitduring the coming 20 years. the total weight of waste could be determinied:

* production of demolition waste, years 1999-2020:5299 m3 x 22 years x 1.2 = about 140 thousand tonnes

* production of parks gardens waste, years 1999-2020:6341 m3 x 22 years x 0.6 = about 84 thousand tonnes

* the remaining part of waste will be represented of household / commercial,hospital and non-hazardous industrial waste:

1636475 m3-44258 m (year 1998)-(5299 + 6341/2)m3 x21 year =1414357 m3 or 1414357 x 0,7 = about 990 thousand tonnes

Thus, total weight of landfilled Waste will be about 1,214 thousand tonnes by years1999-2020.

5.2 Future collection and transport system

Two alternative systems for collection in the pagasts and towns outside of Liepaja andGrobina town has been analysed, one container system with a few transfer stationsand a system with direct collection of smaller receptacles.

The future system is proposed to be managed via a system with 750 1 receptacles andone side loading vehicle, with a loading capacity of 5 tonnes. In most of the area acollection interval of 14 days would be sufficient. The transport analysis shows that inthe areas where a higher frequency is required there is sufficient time for the proposedvehicle to manage the collection. Thus, the system without transfer stations isproposed.

In Liepaja and Grobina towns the collection system is proposed to remain similar tothe current, but investments are proposed in new containers and vehicles. Thecollection frequency should be maximum once a week in order to minimnise the costs.The proposed collection and transport system is further analysed in Section 7.1.

5.3 Area and handling requirements at the new waste treatment plant

The area requirement for the 20 year period depends on several factors, e.g. the fillingheight, the methodology for separation and landfilling, use of energy cells etc. Anarea of 20 hectares is the minimum requirement for the new waste treatment plant.The energy cell technology enables a rapid decomposition and utilisation of materialafter the decomposition. Thus, the area requirement is less when the energy celltechnology is used and 20 hectares would not be sufficient if traditional landfilling isutilised. The details of area disposition are presented in Chapter 7.

w V

6 Characterisation of the proposed waste treatnment sites

This chapter includes the lollowing:* history of site selection for a new landfill.* site selection crileria,* information on land ownership and owners attitude on the new waste

treatment plant.* characterisation of nature conditions,* analysis of possible impacts and measures required for their mitigation.

6.1 History of site selection

Initially, in November, 1998 Liepaja city and Liepaja district councils provided 3areas for a new landfill location:

* within Liepaja City - in connection to the existing dump site in "Skedes",* in the territory of the of the Aizpute parish (location was not specified),* in the territory of the Nica parish (location was not specified).

The analysis of the suitability of the proposed areas for a new landfill location gavethe following conclusions { 1 1,121

* the area of the Nica Parish is not very suitable for a landfill location due to thegeological - hydrogeological conditions (thick sediments consisting of sandand sand-gravel deposits) and the closeness to the Baltic Sea;

* the territory of the Aizpute Parish is suitable for a new landfill location fromenvironmental viewpoint. However, it is situated at a distance of about 45-50km from Liepaja,City. Obviously, it is preferred to locate the landfill closer tothe waste gravity centre.

Therefore, it was decided that a new site should be located closer to Liepaja City, andthe areas of Grobina, Medze and Vergale parishes were identified to be investigated inorder to find an alternative site for "Skedes". Later, on January 4, 1999 anothermeeting was arranged where a new approach on site selection was discussed. TheLiepaja District Council, in general, approved the idea on site selection. Authorities ofconcerned parishes also confirmed that they were ready to discuss this question wherea methodology of division of the territory in areas of suitable and non-suitable for alandfill location was adopted.

Supplementary to the three above mentioned parishes, the area of adjacent parisheshas also been investigated. Thus, the total area of investigation was about 1100 km2 orabout 30 % of the total area of the Liepaja Region (see Figure 8).

6.2 Site selection criteria, procedure and results

The overall strategy in searching for a location of a new landfill includes threeprincipal aspects:

APZIMEUM1t-- -I -LEGEND-, Sr~is !SaS o3

Ms/l11r Megtrlogmi/Sa-d-Fra. depsr- ;

M.-- oai/Dl=r 's / Cir

Kiudra / Pe t

Udcusgutpas /Well fxidsJor CSA polfO=p- piedn,a tDS vrs/ "r

Ste,s pro~pTd for D oe I,stVe treatment plant

k ~~~~~~Zieiiiupe 11- 11- c u

VWrgnJ

P \ f>X>lcsa unlRDbeziu'e ka

~~N Medre1 I~ - ~* Plocupurvs~2e 'E/J ? /PI/

1Skede

Es~~' DO,,,.BE v

I t / ~~J. \ M5terj; 1, *i . \

Kapsmd W

# t - ; ; i '4' \': t't'~~~..Dus,

I J 1g ">: \~~~GROBINA/. r

\ (AS] J ^ ~~~~~~~Dilel) e; g/

\ 1 ,$ \ 128-V t 127-G

} ,1 >tRude j j F' >d)

Fig. 8: Siting area for a new landfill.. Scale 1:200,0008. zim.:Izpetes rajons jauna CSA poligona ierikosanai. Merogs 1:200 000

1. The environmental hllipact of a landfill has to be as low as possible.2. The waste disposal intlcests should not conllict witlh othlcr intlcests3. The selecied site Should be reasonable from economic viewpoint.

Takin- into consideration the above aspects, the division ol the land in areas suiitablcand non-suitable for location of a new landfill was based on the following criteria:

1. Geological structure and hydrogeological conditions:* areas where Devonian sediments are outcropping. till or other clayey

sediments are not distributed in geological cross section and where boggysediments have been developed are not suitable for a landfill location,

* a new landfill cannot be placed on deposits of useful minerals,* a new landfill cannot be situated in well field areas, i.e. potable water interest

should not be damaged in a long-term perspective,* a new landfill may be located in areas where clayey or sandy deposits are

developed (if the thickness of the bedding clayey deposit is >5 m).

2. Distance to urban areas:* a new landfill should be at a distance of at least 1.0 km from towns and

settlements with 100 or more inhabitants;* a new landfill should be at a distance of at least 500 m from the nearest

villages or farm houses.

3. Distance to the Baltic Sea and surface water bodies:- a new landfill should be located at a distance of >3 km from the Baltic Sea

coastline (this requirement has recently has been cancelled),* a new landfill cannot be placed within the borders of the protection belts of

rivers and lakes (the width of the protection belt is 500 m).

4. Location of particularly protected nature objects:* a new landfill cannot be located in: state nature reserves, national parks,

complex nature reserves, botanic-, bog-, cranberry- and zoological reserves,nature parks and protected landscape areas,

* areas of geological and geomorphological objects, parks and dendrologicalplantations, plants, fungi, lichen and wildlife species cannot be used for wastedisposal,

5. Compliance with physical planning demands:* a new landfill cannot be located at areas foreseen for other land use.* a new landfill cannot be located at areas where it can cause problems for

planned future objects.

6. Current and future land use:* a new landfill cannot be located at agriculture lands of high value,* a new landfill cannot be located in areas occupied by forests of high value.* preferably, as far as it is possible. already damaged areas should be used for

a new landfill locationl.

r):4

7. Municipalitics attitudle. land ownershilp anid transfOrmationl:* a IIew lanidfill cannOt be located in an ar-ea which is not accepted by tic

muniicipality, aI positive aittitude of thie particular 10cal Illt1llicill;lity is

precondition for anl analysis of the site suitability.* a new landfill can not bh located in an area whel-e lanid ct Iransfornmtion or

compensation problems can not be solved.

S. Size of the area offered for a new landfill location:* 25 - 30 hectares.

9. Waste transporting distance and a length of access to a new landfill:* area for a new landfill should be located in distance, as maximum, 25-30 km

from Liepaja, whei-e about 90% of waste are generated,* among equal sites preference should be given for site having the shortest

access road to a new landfill.

Taking into consideration above mentioned criteria, about 1100 km2 or about 30 % ofthe total area of the Liepaja Region (see Figure 8) was investigated in order to findsuitable sites for a new waste treatment plant. The results of the area zonation is sownin Figure 9. Three additional sites were found in Grobina, Medze and Vergale perishand the Grobina site was considered to be the best. The Client accepted to proceed thestudy on two of the sites

* the indicated location at Skede (south of the existing Liepaja city landfill* an area in Grobina parish (the former military area where the Grobina

landfill is located).

It was decided to provide an environmental impact assessment for both sites. Duringthe EIA process (March-August, 1999) the legislative acts were developed, andregulations no. 112 "Regulations on nature preserves" have been passed by theCabinet of Ministers in-June 15, 1999. This directly influenced the process of the siteselection and the EIA, since the originally proposed site for a new landfill at "Skede"was located within the protection zone of Tosmare Lake.

During the EIA it was clarified that:* the area proposed for a new landfill location at Skede belongs to the Liepaja

City municipality, and the City Development Plan foresees utilisation ofthis area for an extension of the existing landfill "Skede",

* The land proposed for a new landfill location at "Poligons" is private.although the Grobina Pagasts municipality initially announced that the landbelonged to the parish. The land owner is Janis Alens, the land is registeredin the land book (name of property - "Mazbertuli". registration no. - 427.and it is registered in the Liepaja Division for the Land Books. Mr. Alens inaccordance with an application sent to the Grobina Parish Council in June17, 1999, agrees that a new landfill can be situated at his land, if he will beinvited as a share holder in the new company wlhich will operate the newwaste treatment plant. Shares have to be provided for the required land area.Grobina Parish has no official plans for furtller development of this area.although already in 1995 a new landfill was starte(d at the western part ofarea,

APZIMEJUMI I LEGENDAiziiegt&s tertorilas! A _Restricted areasTeritorijas. kur izplati mortnnogu.um /Aroas with till deposits

- Teritorijas, kur zplatti smil§aini nogulumi! $ '?

Areas with sandy depositsJaunajam CSA polngonam piaediit5s vetasl sov leSit3s proposgd for a new waste treatment plant;s ;f \ Z m

Merogs I Scale 1:200000 ., .........

:~~~~~~~~~ I

Fig.9: Zoning for a new landfill site selection9. zim.: Teritorijas rajonesana jaunai CSA poligona vietas izvelei

0:0

Due to some difficullies duringc negations hctwcein the parties. Grohilla parish o0CfeCedan extra area acdjacent to the carlicr indicated ar.ea. Thle ew aiicI occupies 57.8hectares of whichi:

- 43.3. hectares is a piroper-ty of the Grobina parish.- 14.5 hectares belong to the State Forestry.

Initially, only municipal land was offered, but during discussions in the parish councilit was concluded that the area is located rather close to the farm house "Vilteri'(distance is only about 300 m). Due to this reason, it was considered that the StateForestry lands possibly might be used in order to keep the distance 500 m between theborder of a new waste treatment plant and the farm house. However, the StateForestry did not approve of this suggestion.

6.3 Hydrological conditions

The surface water bodies located in the vicinity of the proposed sites are generallycharacterised in Chapter 2. The specific situation at each of sites is presented below.

6.3.1 Methods and scope of work

The following was executed:* visual inspection of the drainage system at Skede and Grobina sites. The

total length of inspected ditches was about 3 km and 4 km for Skede andGrobina sites respectively,

* measurement of water tables and flow measurements by the weir methodat Grobina site. 10 water table and 2 flow measurements have been done atthe Skede site,

* calculation of water balance based on data obtained from the StateHydrometeorological Agency.

6.3.2 Skede site

There is rather well developed system of drainage ditches between the landfill andTosmare lake, and the length of ditch running from the south-eastern corner of thelandfill directly to the lake is 470 m (Fig. 10). The outflow of the ditch is notaccessible, and therefore the slope of the water table was measured for a distance of410 m. It was only 24 cm or 0.59 mlnkm. The catchment area of the ditch is very even,and the gradient indicates that the discharge from the landfill area is significant.Measurements of the electrical conductivity of the water confirm a highcontamination degree of discharged water.

Due to the legal status and actual condition of the Tosmare lake, it is obvious that thelake can not be used as recipient for treated leachate. Hereto. Liepaja city wastewatertreatment plant is located only at a distance about 1)100 in. and the leachate might bcdelivered to that site.

The leachate generation may be estimated from the following assumptions:* average yearly precipitation - 693 mm.* average yearly evaporation - 451 mm.

tS0~~~~~~~~~~~c 02

I~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ As >. ,r / . I I , ,,, ,% , , , a-% X<- 1

, * 1}/ | C - ; a 0 Oo , ; * I _ 6 ~ ~ s . o oO \ a

%t: 00°> ToVeckarks' C, 4-

San Jurn lOgas I ~0I a \ *

Dma"Tos

_~~ ~ Site prpoe fo e adil

C,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~40

Fig.~~~r-I 10 Lctin Sed" Lepj Ct

(Th Eso ~ 10 ziamt.: Existinanfl "Skede",Leaa'ist

4 Jaunajm poligoam pied7.t& vietSite proposed for a new landfill~~~~~~~~t C

Fig. 10: Location "Skede"~~~~~C, LieajaCit10. zi.: Viea "SI~e", Lip~jas iIsCA

W

* average yearly runoff' - 242 mIml.

* inhfhliration into the waste layer- with non-covered surlfaice - ahout 80%( ofrniloff or abouit 14 mnir/vear.

* active area of thc landfill - about 2.8 hectares.* infiltration into the waste layer with covered surf'ace overgrowvn by

vegetation - about 20 % ol' total runoff or 48 mm/year,* non-active area of the landfill - 4.7 hectares.

and the annual the leachate production is:

28000 m2 x 0,194 m + 47000 in2 x 0.048 = 7688 mn31yr or about 21 m3day,

which is less than 0.1% of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) capacity. Therequired standards for delivered leachate quality will be set by the MunicipalEnterprise of Liepaja City "Liepajas udens". Usually, the main concern is the contentof heavy metals in the leachate. although in this case due to negligible volume ofreceived leachate it could be assumed that treatment is not required. Otherdisturbances may occur, e.g. by the nitrogen content of the leachate. Nevertheless, theofficial approval of "Liepajas udens" will be required if Skede site will be selectedfor a new waste treatment plant.

If a new site will be located at Skede about 6 hectares will be used for waste disposal,although only 1 hectare will have an open surface. Thus, the expected leachateproduction will be:

- for a year with average precipitation:10000 m2 x 0,194 + 50000 x 0,048 = 3594 (m3/year)

- for a year with maximum yearly precipitation.10000 m2 x 0.248+ 50000 x 0,062 = 5548 (m3/year)

Therefore the maximum leachate amount will not exceed 5600 m3/year.

Above mentioned figures, comparing with capacity of the WWTP, are negligible. The

design figure for the leachate treatment are presented in section 7.

The drainage conditions of surface runoff are poor at the surroundings of the existinglandfill. A bogging-up process takes place and flooding of rather large parts of thearea occurs during strong rainfalls and snow melting. The basic problem, if site willbe selected for the waste treatment plant, will be drainage of surface runoff. becausethe area is very even and the water outflow is rather low.

6.3.3 Grobina site

A system of drainage ditches is comparatively well developed at the Grobina site.Depending on the final location of the landfill, the distance between selected site andthe river Alande varies between 3130 and 3500 m (see Figjure 11).

The surface water table was measured in both ditches running from the proposed ar-eas(before their confluence, on the border of the proposed sites) and at the place where

Kht_

;-Vent:pils! ses6,~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 h :\<aIt

Xr~~~t X<_ > iA t ek -

.~~~Aags *;7. .,- )

0:<~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

LEGEND/APZiMEJUMI

QO Private land ____Possible access to the landfillPrivatipasums : espejamrais pievadce!s uz pdligonu

Access road has to be constructed

16 Valsts me2a zeme Jubibaasc!Direction of treated leachate discharge

2,4 Municipal land Attirlta infiltrita novadisanas virziens

Ptuas at zm

Municipal forest Area foreseen for a new waste treatment plant3s Pagasta mezs \/ Tentorija jauna CSA poligona ienikosanai

Fig. 11: Location "Poligons"t, Grobinas parish11. zimi.: Vieta ''Poligons'',Grobilpas pagasts

(l: Ml

the dilch discharmes into the river Alanda. The ditlTreiice betweein thc walcr tableswas inore tila I() Im. and(i (lhe ohtaincd -radients werc 3.71 irn/kmii and 3.83 ini/kmii wcstand east of the proposed silcs.

The discharge of the ditch in May 3. 1999 was:- at the confluence of the two ditches - 33 I/s.- at the outlet to Alanide river - 72 I/s

The size of the area occupied by the new landfill at Grobina will be similar to Skede.Thus leachate production will not exceed 5600 m3 /year. Comparision of generatedleachate amount with discharge of the ditch and Alanda river is provided in Table 6.1

Table 6.1Comparison of leachate, ditch and Alande river discharges

Alande river Ditch, at site Leachatem-/day % to Alande m3/day % to Alande mday % to Alande375840 100 2851 0.76 15 -4.1 x I0o3

l ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~% to ditch0.54

Table 6.1 shows that the average leachate flow is small in relation to Alanda river andthat treated leachate may be discharged. Standards for the discharge will be stated bythe Liepaja Regional Environmental Board.

Presently, the potential recipient of treated leachate is used only for surface runoffdrainage, and there are no plans to use it for other needs. Therefore potential conflictsare unlikely.

It is noticed in the Statement provided by the EIA State Bureau that one of theperspective development variants of wastewater treatment (in frame of the Program800+) in Grobina Town may be discharge of wastewater to Liepaja City WWTP.Currently COWI, Denmark carries out the Feasibility Study, and it is impossible tomake definite conclusions. However,- if Grobina site will be selected for a new waste treatment plant, and- if the Feasibility Study will confirm the feasibility of connection to the WWTP,the possibility to deliver pre-treated leachate to the Liepaja WWTP has to beconsidered in the detailed design.

The site is located far from large surface water bodies, and due to a relatively steepwater gradient towards river Alande the flooding potential and bogging up potential isextremely low.

The area potentially suitable for a new landfill location is crossed by number ofdrainage ditches. Some land preparation works will be required. depending on whicharea to be allocated for the landfill. There are 2 small pools in western part of area.and if this part will be selected for the landfill location, it will be necessary to 1Xll bolhpools with clayey material.

6.3.4 Possible imilpacts anid initigatioin im',.stires

PossiNlC impacts:1. Thc "Skede" site:

* construction of a new waste trcatment iplant ill ihis area. especially ilit is occuipies 25-30( hectares. may comzplicatie tlhe unsatislfactoryconditions of surfacc runoff and may J:asten the logging-uip process.The existing landfill already contaminates surlace water andgroundwater, and creation of a common system for leachatecollection and treatment will significantly improve the existingsituation.

* a new drainage system must be designed to convey the water, becausethe area is very even and strong or durable rainfall (the maximum canreach up to 20 mm/day and 192 mm/month) as well as a fast meltingof a snow may cause flooding problems at areas south and east of thelandfill.

2. The "Grobina" site:* location of the landfill at this area will change surface runoff

conditions. and also may require filling up two pools located at theproposed area (depending on the final location of the landfill).

Mitigation measures:1. The "Skede" site:

* the mitigation measures should be carefully studied and require:- hydrological investigations in order to determine the possibilities forand design criteria for' surface runoff improvement and- proper design and construction of an adequate drainage system.

2. The "Grobina" site:* mitigation measures are comparatively simple: a creation of drainage

system-around the landfill and filling up ditches and, if necessary,pools which are located within the area.

6.4 Geological structure and hydrogeological conditions

Investigations of geological structure and hydrogeological conditions included:collection and analysis of all available information on locations 'Skede", inLiepaja City and "Poligons", in Grobina Parish [10, 15, 16, 18, 20]. TheQuaternary map for the area has been compiled in scale 1:50 000,detailed investigations have been carried out at the "Skede" - 25 boreholes(including 3 of them screening the Muri-Akmene confined aquifer) and 19wells have been left for further monitoring observations. Pumping tests havebeen carried out in 9 wells (for data processing software AquiferTest hasbeen used: in 7 cases recovery method after Theis & Jacob and in 2 casesslug/ball test analysis, Bouwer-Rice's method). Groundwater table andaltitude of well head were determined for all wells.detailed investigations at Grobina includecd - Installation of 5 wells (tlhey arcleft for further monitoring observations) and 4 wells drilled by the hanlldauger. Groundwater table and altitude olf wcll head were determined in allcases.

(l: 1 2

Thc detailed data on Skede and Grohirna is presentcd in Fi2uIe 12 ind 13..

6.4.1 General features on geolo-ical structure and hvdrogeological coinditions

Geological stlucture and. conseqtucnltly, hydrogcological conldiltioils in the areabetween Grobina parish and thc Baltic Sea arc rathicr- differ-enlt. ThIC tppelr p1art thc olgeological cross-section. in most cases. consists of Quaternlary dcposits which coverthe Upper Devonian deposits.

The average thickness of the Quaterla-y sediments varies between 15-25 m. but canlocally be missing (area to north-east of the Tosmare lake) or can reach thickness 35m and more (east of Grobina). The major part of relief forms has been formed duringabrasion and accumulation processes of the Litorinic Sea and Baltic Ice lake.Therefore, the cross-section of the Quaternary deposits can characterised ascomparatively simple (see Table 6.2).

The Pre-Quaternary deposits consist of Devonian sediments in the upper-part of thecross-section.

Contemporary geological processes are very slow and the only exception here andthere might be bogging-up and abrasion of the Baltic Sea coast. Bogging-up processoccurs at very even areas where surface runoff is hindered or at inter-hilly areas if tilldeposits lies on the ground surface.

Table 6.2Characterisation of geological cross-section

Deposits Geol. Lithological composition Distribution Thick-svmbol ness, in m I

Proluvial. delluvial pdQ4 Sand, gravel, sandy loam Very limited 1-2Lake IQ4 Sand. clay. sapropel,lake mud Very limited 1-3

Alluvial aQ4 Sand. silty sand, gravel Limited 0.5-1.5Boggy bQ4 Peat Limited Up to 4.5Marine mQ4 Sand Narrow belt Usually <1

along the Sea I

Eolian vQ4 Fine sand Along sea cost Up to 7-8Marine, Litorinic MQ41t Fine or silty sand Between the Usually

Sea Baltic Sea and 3-4Tosmare lake

Baltic Ice Lake IgQ3ltvb Sand. silt. clay Rather wide Up to 9Lacustrine IgQ,ltv Sand. silty sand, clay Rather wide Up to 12Glacigene gQ3 1tv Loam and sandy loam Almost Usually

,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ elsewhere 5-10

The following main aquifers, which are separated by till. are developed:- the Quaternary water table aquifer.- the Joniski - Akmene confined multi - aquifer.

The shallow aquifer consists of mainly fine-grained sand. Groundwater table usuallylies at depth 0.5 - 2.0 m, although it could be 0.1-0.3 and 6-8 m in boggy and eoliandeposits. The transmissivity of the aquifer usually varies between 8 and 20 m2/day,while permeability ranges between 5-6 and less I rn/day.

Here and there the shallow aquifer is used for loca;l waler supply needs.

. Merogs 1:1 0000Scale 1:10,000 . aL-Sj 1-5

t/ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ m m e r g a r d e n! s

f s_' l 2 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 L-6

'.4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

/ / f B 4 + L-11 t'3 L/1

LEGEND /APZiMEJUMI ……l / L-i2 Lb

Boreholes /Urbumi

Year of drilling / Urbsanas gads

[1 1982 0 1995 0 999_

Rokas urbumi gruntsOdenu limenanoteiksanai (09.08.99) /Boreholes drilled with hand auger to /determine groundwater table (09.08.99). L-24

Interval of screening / Filtra intervals / T8 *In Devonian aquifer RD. .Devona Odens horizonta L-25 coIn Quaternary aquiferKvartara Odens horizonta L-26

_ In the waste layer coAtkritumu slani L-29 ,

Surface water sampling pointsVirszemes Ode,nu paraugosanas punkts

. Area covered by vertical: , electrical sounding

r Vertikalas elektriskas *

zondesanas laukums

Area proposed fora a'..".....................new waste treatment plant ......Jaunajam poligonam

~ piedavata teritorija

Fig. 12: Fact date map, "Skede"12. zim.: Faktiska materiaia karte, "1Slde"

_ K S Stepn;eki

- \ '-~* . t\Skuliat,

30,

KR mtkli ' discharge

W;~~~~~~~ _ 12 h<X g JataS _ ~ -

CDbitag w /Mo ucill

Debtaugasjmi

Measurements of water EC/ Area foreseen for a new waste treatment plant* Odens elektrovaditspbjas menijumi \/ Teritorija jauna CSA poligona ierikosanai

* 3 Sampling points of inhabitant's wells/ledzivotaju aku paraugosanas punkti

Fig. 13: Fact data map, Grobinas parish13. zim.: Faktu materiala karte, Grobivias pagasts

(,: I

6.4.2 Skede site

The geological structure of the Skede silC can he charactei'sed zIs ollows, see FiUire14 and 15:

othe Quater-niary sedimenits (total thickiness usually is 15-3() ni):* technogenic deposits (thQ4) at the landlill achieve 12-14 m (see

Figure 14), and consist of waste layer represented botlh byhousehold / commercial and industrial /demolition waste. Theresults obtained during installation of 3 bore holes, proportions ofboth waste groups are approximately equal,

* boggy deposits (bQ4 ) consist of peat and developed east and southof the existing landfill. The thickness of the sediments do notexceed 1 - 2 m. Boggy deposits are not developed within the areaforeseeni for the new landfill,

* eolic deposits (vQ4) consist of fine sand and developed west of thelandfill. The thickness reaches 7-8 m,

* marine deposits of the Litorina Sea (mQ4') consist of sandinterbedding with silt and mud and are developed west, north andsouth of the landfill. Thickness usually is 3-4 m,

* glacigene deposits (gQ3 ltv) of the Latvian Formation are developedall over the area and consist of loam with admixture of gravel andpebble. The thickness of the deposits usually varies between 7 - 20m.

> Upper Devonian sediments:* Mufi formation - has been found only south-west of the existing

landfill. It consists of alternating dolornite and clay layers.Thickness of deposits does not exceed 5 m (see Figure 14),

- Akmene Formation is developed all over the area. It consists .ofalternating layers of dolomnites, dolomnite marl with thininterbeddings of siltstone. The thickness exceeds 15 m.

The following aquifers, which are separated by till, occur in the upper part of thegeological cross-section:

> Quaternary water table aquifer,> Interglacial confined aquifer and

* Joniski - Akmene confined multi - aquifer.

The Quaternary water table aquifer is represented by marine fine-grained sandalternating with silt and mud, stretching by a till layer. Quaternary water table aquiferincludes the upper part of the till in a small zone (400 x 100 ni), elongated SW of thelandfill.

Till is re-washed within this zone (loam particles are removed) and the tipper pailt ofthe Glacigene deposits consists of a sand - gravel - pebble mixture. The thick}ness olthe sand -gravel - pebble deposits does not exceed a few meters. because the inflowof groundwater to wells L-24 and L-25, screened in this layer, was very limited'.

Hand-operated auger can not pass the sand - gravel - pebble deposits

/ .< W~~~~~~~~~~gQ3Itv.

vQ4 ~~~~ -~~~ Q4

Medzes~~~~§rg pagasts :200

4mQ

L;2'thQ

I*\PZiMEJUMI / LEGEND

LI i s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

VQ4-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

MLsrogs IScale 1:25000

APZTMEJUMI ILEGEND

Tehnogenie nogulumi (thQ,) Atkritumi Atk dum

Tehnogenic deposits (thQ,) Waste Wat.

Ezeru nogulumi (1Q) Smits, mals, sapropelis duDas SmdtsLake deposits (IQC). Sand, clay, lake mud, mud * Sand

Aluvitlie nogulumn (aQ,). Smihts, aleirTtska smits, grants AleirTtiska smitsAlluvial deposits (aQ,). Sand, silty sand, gravel Silty sand

Eoie nogulumi (vQ,) Smits K6ldraEolic deposits (vQ,) Sand Peat

Purvu nogulumi (bQ,) Kudra . D3raina smitsL Bog deposits (bQ,). Peat ' Muddy sand

lesp6jarnai zgiztuves vietaLitocrnasjdras nogulumi (mQ,') Smilts un esoa ezgaztuve

Litorina Sea deposits (mQ,) Sand ¢ , , Proposed wste treatment siteand existing landfill

LitorTnasljras lagitnu nogulum (m'Q,). Smilts, aleirTitiska smiltts --. AdministratTvfs robezas

Litorina Sea lagoon deposits (rm'',). Sand, silty sand Administrative borders

Glacigdnie noguluri (gQCItv) Moreinas malsmilts un smilials N _ S tzeolopka griezuma ItnijaGlacigene deposits (gQ,itv). Sandy and loamy till Geological cross-section

Pirmskvaratlra nogslumu. Auglidjais devons (D,snk-tg) L-28 Urbums us ti numursDolomtti. in'ii smilkakmeni Borehole and its numberPre-Quaternary depostsUpper Devonian (D.snk-zg). Dolomite, clay, sanstone

14. zlim.: Izgaiztuves "Seide"kvartAra nogulumu karteFig. 14: Map of the Quaternary deposits, "Skede"

Scale/Merogs:

verticaUvertikalais 1:500

horizontaVhorizontalais 1:1D000 0 _mN m LEGENDIAPZIMEJUMI15 15 L-12 1 HOLOCENE/HOLOC-NS

Technogeniic depositsTehnroginie noguium.

10_ 10 b Boggy depositsb Purvu nogulumi

i~tDrine sea deposits

5 L-2 L-22 mQ4 ° Lltorinasjuras nogulum

L-21 ~~~~LATVIA FORMATION / LATVIJAS SVITA

Fluvioglacial depositsaQJ VFluvioglacialie nogulurmw

Glacigene deposits-5 - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 Glacigitnie nogulumi

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~UPPER DEVONIAN AUGSDEVONS

15-I 0 o- -; Murufornat-on

~'jvAkmene formationAemenies svTta

a) b)IWells

I I Urbumi.-20 - -20

D °a-W 0j(; /2° Jr Groundater tablelt-25- a o -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GuntsOdeDu lrnens.

______ ~~~~~~~~-5LITHOLOGY /LITOLOQIJA

VVa ?ste IAtrum30 - 30 Peaty sand I Krdrana smitst

S Sand / SmIrt''i;Sand-gravel-pebble deposits /

Scale/Merogs: . Smilts-grants-olu nogulumi/7o77 Sandy loam and loamy tll I

vertical/vertikfllais 1:500 *t, .t' Mor&nas smilsmils un m.lsmiltshorizontal/horizontalais 1:10000

-H-_:clay / MAle

1S L-11 1S m SiltstoneIAleiroriti

F s r ̂hXDobmte I DolomTt

10 11|1 i10 9 [Pt Dolomte mardl1ocmTrergel,

,0 .f,,0 - m,

10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

20

~4~~-25- _f -25

-5 30

Fig. 15: Geological cross-sections of landfill "Skede"iS. zim. Geologiskie griezumi, izgaztuve "Sk~ede"

ft- IS

Thc total thickness of watler bearing, sedimcnts does not exceedl 3 m in sectionl ol tillisaquifer. see Figure 14. The transmissivity of the aquifer- varies Irom '() to < 8 m2/(lalvand permeability from 5 - 6 to < I rn/day, see Appeindix 11 The tiralsillissivity islower towards the east duc to reduccd thickness and grain size ot sanld.

The depth of the water tablc does generally not exceed I m, see Appenidix 20. Witllinthe area for the proposed waste treatment plant the groundwater level exceeds Im inmost of the area. The maximum depth is observed west of the landfill within thedunes. Water table is close to the surface within marsh south and east of the landfill.

The regional flow of the shallow groundwater is directed southeast towards theTosmare Lake. Contaminants can also migrate from the landfill towards south - westdue to-the local characteristics of the shallow groundwater table. see Figure 5.

The groundwater gradient is very small downstream of the landfill. Therefore, thevelocity of the shallow groundwater flow is very low. Taking into account thehydraulic gradient (0.001) and the permeability of the sediments it does not exceed0.015 in/day.

The water table aquifer is practically absent between the landfill and Tosmares lake,because thickness of sand is reduced to O.lm in this area, and below the mud layerloamy till is distributed, see cross-section of borehole L-28 (Appendix 6). It should benoted that the mud is low permeable, and the ditches cut the mud deposits down to theloamy till. Therefore the migration of contaminants in the shallow groundwater, incomparison with the flow through ditches, is very limited in this area.

The interglacial confined aquifer is represented by a sand -gravel interlayer inside thesection of Galcigene deposits. This 2.5 m thick aquifer is distributed sporadically andwas found only in well T-6 drilled in 1982.

The Jonisku - Akmenes confinied aquifer is consisting of Upper Devonian fissured andfractured dolomite interbedded with marl and clay. Transrnissivity is associated withfissures and fractures and varies from 30 to 100 m2/day, see Appendix 11.

The top of the aquifer is located at the depth 14 - 32 m, and it is elevated towardseast, see Figure 14. Flow of artesian groundwater is directed to north-westperpendicularly to the Baltic sea coastline (Figure 5).

The difference between the groundwater table elevation and the piezometric head inDevonian aquifer reaches 4m west of the landfill, and 3m within the existing landfillarea , which causes a downward groundwater migration. The boggy area east andsouth of the landfill is a discarge area, where there is an upward groundwater flow.

Water supply

All existing and planned well fields for a central wvater supply are situated far awayfrom the landfill "Skede'.

0: N

"Lauma" is the ncarest well fieil situated on the cast shore of Tosmare Lake. The wellfield provides water to Liepaja City hy withdrawal Iromii the GaUja and 113rtnlieku

Devonian sandstone aquifers. The nacri-est abstractioni well is locatted at a distance of1050 m from the landfill "Skede". Contamination of thc abstr-aiclt(e watcr by thelandfill is impossible. because:> The artesian groundwater flows in the opposite directioni from the landfill site,> Contaminated shallow groundwater can not reach the well field area. because it

drains to the Tosmare lalke;> Contaminated water of Tosmare lake can not infiltrate to the Dcvonian aquifers

due to the upward flow of the artesian groundwater in the lake surroundings (seeabove);

> Aquifers used for water supply are very deep (abstraction wells are screened from250m depth and more) and confined by the thick layer of impermeable Devoniansediments.

Shallow aroundwater is widely used for irrigation needs within the summer gardenslocated north of the waste disposal site "Skede". although drinking water is mainlytransported from Liepaja City. Nevertheless, based on existing data, it is possible toconclude that the shallow groundwater is not seriously impacted by landfill, seebelow.

It is possible that within the summer gardens Jonisku - Akmenes confined aquifer isused for water supply as well, because the piezometric head of the artesiangroundwater in well L-2 is significantly lower in relation to wells L-1 and L-3.

6.4.3 Grobina site

The geological conditions at the Grobina site are less complex than in Skede. Thetotal thickness of the Quaternary sediments is 10-15 m. and at the proposed site morethan 50% of the cross-section consists of till. Only four types of Quaternary sedimentshave been found (see Figures 16 and 17):

* technogenic deposits (thQ4), which at the landfill "Poligons" achieve 2-4 m,

comprising a waste layer of household / commercial waste,* alluvial deposits (aQ4) consisting mainly of sand. Sediments have a very

limited distribution and their thickness does not exceed 1.5 m,* lacustrine deposits of the Latvian Formation (lg Q3 ltv) are located all over

the area adjoining the landfill, and consist mainly of sand and silty sand.Maximum thickness of deposits reaches 4.7 m. Those deposits are foundalso within the till where their thickness achieves 0.5 m (bore hole G5),

* glacigene deposits (cQ3ltv) of the Latvian. The formation is developed allover the area and collsist of loam or sandy loam with admixture of graveland pebble. The thickness is 7 - 12 m. Interbeddings of sandy material (upto 0.5 m) might be found within the till.

Groundwater table lies on depth 1.2 - 1.8 m below the ground surface, and riscs to0.5-0.6 m south-west of the selected site where the surface runoff conditionis areunsatisfactory. The groundwater flow is directed towards Alanda river. i.e. in south -

eastern direction.

A ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~A I

% - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..

APZIMfEJUMI /LEGEND Merogs/Scale 1f'SOOO

' 'Tehnogiuie uoguilumii (tthQ4). Atkrituiili Glacigenie uogulumni (gQ,ltv). Mvriuas malsrniilts un smnilsmalsTehinogeiiic deposits (tlhQ4). Waste = Glacigene edeposits (gQl1tv). Snndy and loamny till

Proluvialie uu deluvialie uogulumir (pdQ,). Smilits, grants. mallsmilts -- ,,Pursu noguluini (bQj. KidraProluvial auid deluvial deposits (pdQ,). Sand. gravel, sandy loam X:: ,Bog deposits (bQ3). Peat

-_ Alhsvialie noguluiiii (aQ,). Smilts, aleiritiska smnilts. gmnts lespijarnA izfirazttuves vietaL _4Aluvial deposits (aQ,). Sand. Silty sand, gravel Possible location of the waste treatment plaut

Baltijas ledus ezera noguuiiliii (]gQltv'). Smilts, grants, oJi, aleirits N'NV SE CQeologiskh griezuma linija... Baltic Ice l.ake deposits (lgQ31tv'). Sand. gravel, pebbles. silt Geological cross-sectiou

Ezeru noguluiii (IQ,). Sinilts. mails, sapropelis. duUias 3 Urbums un tai numuLrs.. _. Lake deposits (IQ~). Sand. clay, sapropele, mlud ' F Borebole aud its numnber

16. zim.: Grobinas apkairtnes kvartaira nogulumnu karteFig. 16: Map of the Quaternary deposits in Grobina area

NW SH, in m a.m.s.l. ScElerogs

32 H, m V.j 1. vertikalaishertical 1:200 32horizontalais/horizontal 1:2000

30 IgQ3 tv 30

28 - Bt 4 .'.:..2 128

26 - Q o 000 0 0 . O r - 26

24 0- g V 0 o 0000 0 00 24

022 0 0Q 0 0 0 0 0 0220

20 -~~~~~~~ 2.00 . . 0 .0 . 0 .

18 LEGEND APZIMEJUMI 18

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LITHOLOGY /LITOLOGIJAHOLOCENE I HOLOCENS

Technogenic deposits. Waste, sand embankment

Tehnogenie nogulumi. Atkritumi, uzberta smilts Waste, sand embankment /Atkritumi, uzb§rta smits

LATVIAN FORMATION / LATVIJAS SVITA-:.* -. *-. Fine grained sand / Smalkgraudaina smilts

Lacustrine deposits. Sand, fine grained[g9 s3 t]V Limnoglacialie nogulumi. Smalkgraudaina smilts L w a

_ /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O/ o Loam with admixture of gravel and pebble!/

..... . . . / /. / /. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Smil§mals ar grants un olu piemaisijumu':: Itv I Glacigene deposits. Loam with admixture of gravel and pebbles S ar g u o! pGlacig§nie nogulumi. Smilsmals ar grants un olu piemaisijumu

2- -_- t _. ̂ Groundwater table / Boreholes and their numbers

Gruntsaidenu limenis Urbumi un to numuri

Fig. 17: Geological cross-section at the site "I'oligons"17. zim. Iecirkn,a "Poligons" geologiskais griezums

6.4.4 Possible impacts and mitigaitioin measures

Possible impact:1. The "Skede" site:

* marine sand deposits occur in the arcai piroposedl l'or ai nlcw wastetreatment plant. There are n1o peat layers within the arca and thcgroundwater table is more than I m below the ground surface inmost of the area. The groundwater is contaminated by the existinglandfill "Skede" (see Figure 5), and the main direction ofcontamination flow is towards the Tosmare lake. Therefore, theleachate penetration into shallow aquifer from the existing dumpmust be mitigated,

* the shallow and first confined aquifers are separated by till, but thedifference of water tables in mentioned aquifers is 3-4 m, andtherefore contamination from the existing dump slowly migrates indepth (slight contamination traces are found in wells L3 and L7).Therefore in the future, if proper measures are not taken, furthercontamination of confined aquifer will take place.

2. The Grobina site:till deposits are developed at the area, but at a few locations the areais covered by a few meters thick sandy layer. Therefore, ifgroundwater protection measures are not taken, contamination willoccur in the future. It is already confirmed by investigations carriedat area of existing dump site "Poligons", where slight contaminationhas been found (see Chapter 3, Figure 6).

Mitigation measures are similar for both sides, and should includef* installation of 1.5 - 2.0 mm thick liner or clay between the ground and a

new landfill basement,* creation of external drainage system around the landfill in order to avoid

surface runoff penetration into the waste layer and to avoid a start orincrease of bogging-up processes.

* installation of a leachate collection system and a system for surfacerunoff collection from the waste treatment plant and landfill area,

* additionally for the "Skede" site - to fill up the ground at areas wherethe groundwater table is less than 1 m below the land surface. Thisrequirement is stated by Regulations no. 38 (February 9 th 1999).

6.5 Surface and groundwater quality

The investigations of surface and groundwater quality included:at "Skede": sampling of 17 new and 5 existing wells. 22 samples have beentaken in March - May, and additional analysis of samples in accordance withthe requirements of ToR issued by the World Bank. pH and electricalconductivity have been controlled during the pumping process. Othel-parameters have been analysed in the Environment Quality TestingLaboratory of the Hydrometeorological Agency of Latvia and in thelaboratory of SWECO,

(b.23

* at SSkedc: 1-I ani eleci-iczil conductivily V Caslilureents iII dilClS

connecting thc lanldfill and Tosmare lake (66 �(z measurelcnclts), samplin- olsurtace watcr at 2 poilts (pool closc to the landfill and I()() In hefore centralditch discharge into thc lake). Analysis ol water samiples have bee providebv thc Environmllenit Quality Tcsting Laboratory ol the HlydrornteorologicalAgency of Latvia.

* at "Grobina": 5 \vells have been sampled and samples hadl becn taken andanalysed (procedur-e was analogous to the "Skede" site),

* at "'Grobina": 6 measurements of pH and electrical conductivity have beencarried out.

6.5.1 Skede site

As mentioned in Chapter 3. high surface water and groundwater contamination hasbeen found at the Skede site " I. It is obvious that contamination is caused by theexisting landfill, due to leachate discharge from the waste body.

Surface water quality

The natural chemical composition of surface water was not studied during this project.Nevertheless, data obtained concerning the electrical conductivity of surface watercan be used for evaluation of TDS content, see Appendix 10.

Surface water is not contaminated in the ditches west of the landfill, which aresituated upstream of the landfill and not connected with it. Electrical conductivity ofthis water varies from 13 to 29 mS/m. Based on relationships obtained by chemicalanalysis of groundwater samples, TDS of non-contaminated surface water can beestimated at 100 - 200 mg/l, while chloride concentration not exceeds 20 mg/I.

Samples of this water-were taken in 1983 from the ditch near well T-2 and thefollowing results were obtained: TDS 62mg/i, chloride 16 mg/I, and ammonia 0.2mg/l, COD-Mn 16 mg 02/1.

Surface water in ditches situated south and east of the landfill are contaninated.Depending of content of leachate, the electrical conductivity of this water varies from40 to 370 mS/m, which corresponds to TDS 300 - 30,000 mg/l.

The strongest contamination of surface water was found in the pool adjoining, thelandfill body in SE, which contains almost undiluted leachate. This pool was sampledand the results are given in Appendix 9 (sample No 136564).

The ditch connecting the pool with Tosmare Lake is the main conductor of leachatefrom the landfill. This was clarified through conductivity measurements of surlacewater. It should be noted that this ditch catches contaminated water, both surface andshallow groundwater. from almost the whole area between the landfill and TosmliareLake.

Nevertheless, the water is almost stagnant in this ditch due to the small gradient and(the flow velocity do not exceed 0.001 m/s. Taking into account the section area ol theditch, the discharge of contaminated surface water to the lake does not exceed 40

0:24

rm/day. Moreover, IhC rael of cointminiiated w ri wactCr ilforIscs aor sIort t rin e (;nlecspring snow ielting.

The contamination degree in above-menltionied ditch Idecreases exponentially withincrease of distance from the landtill since thc strongrly conitaminatecd w\aler is (ilutedby relatively clean water f-om adjoining perpendicular ditclhes. The following valuesof EC of the water were founid oni 2"' March, 1999:

> 37 mS/m at distance 35ni,> 9.8 mS/m at distance 200m,> 6.8 mS/cm at distance 331m.

Surface water in the last point was sampled and the following results were obtained:TDS 6,100 mg/l, chloride 2.900 mg/l, COD-Cr 720 mg 02/,1 BOD7 18 mg 07/I andammonia 140 mg N/l. These concentrations can be taken as a background for anassessment of landfill input to the contamination of Tosmare Lake.

Groundwater quality

The chemnical composition of the native shallow and artesian groundwater is similar.Bicarbonate calcium type of groundwater is prevailing both in the Quaternary andPre-quaternary aquifers. The content of the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) typically isless than 500 mgA/, while the chloride2 concentration does not exceed 50 mg/I.

Nevertheless, there are some differences between the shallow and artesiangroundwater. Typically, a shallow groundwater is characterized by lower content ofTDS due to a smaller replenishment rate of the groundwater in the aquifer. On theother hand, groundwater contains high concentrations of dissolved organic acidsoriginating from mud and peat (high COD, color, low pH), as well as inorganicproducts of biodegradation (ammonia up to 1.6 mg/i, phosphates up to 0.5 mg P/1).

COD-Cr, BOD7 and color of native shallow groundwater can reach 190 mg 02/1, 7.7mg 02/i and 550 PCU respectively: The biodegradable part of the organic matterconstitutes in average 2- 3 % of the total3 , but the average content of humicsubstances (mainly fulvic acids) is around 40% of the organic matter4.

Due to the high color and ammonia content native shallow groundwater is not usefulfor drinking purposes in the area.

A high salinity in the shallow groundwater was found SW of the landfill within zone.where sand - gravel - pebbles deposits are located (see chapter 6.4.2). The content ofTDS in the groundwater reaches 800 mg/l, see Appendix 8.

2 Primary parameter characterising presence of leachate in groundwater. since chloride concentration inleachate is very high. Chloride is a conservative component. whicil does not participale in biological.sorption etc. reactions, and the concentration decreases only dtue to dilution.3This conclusion is made by analyzing the ratio between COD-Cr and BOD7.This conclusion is made by analysing the colour and COD-Cr valiues, uSing relationships obtainedl on

similar Latvia's objects.

(0: 15>

This hydrgoeochemalical anomaly. see Figure 8 8. was established by verlical electricalsounlding alreacdly in 1983. ancd exists zalso today. This is niol duiie to groulndwatercontaminiation fronm the landfill, hecalusc:' The concentration of chloridle in -roundwater sailples taken from wells L-24 andlt1

L-25 is normal. see Appendix 8.r The zone of hiah (roundwater salinity has not spread since 19835.

Apparently, the high concentration of calcium bicarbonate in the groundwater givcsthis anomaly. Leaching of water bearing sediments by aggressive groundwatersaturated with carbon dioxide6 causes the calcium bicarbonate increase.

The groundwater in the Jonisku - Akmenes confined aquifer is characterized by anotably lower concentration of organic matter and ammonia (COD-Cr 5 - 11 mg O,/lBOD7 <0.5 - 0.58 mg 02/1. ammonia 0.32 - 0.53 mg/I). In general, the quality of theartesian aroundwater is satisfactory for drinking water supply, except the high ironcontent7.

However, the ammonia content is higher than the background value, because usuallythe concentration of ammonia nitrogen does not exceed 0.3 - 0.4mg/I. Apparently, thesource of ammonia is located 1 km east of the landfill, where Devonian sedimentsoutcrop and Jonisku - Akmenes aquifer is recharged by shallow groundwater.

The water table aquifer is strongly contaminated in the vicinity of the landfill. Theresults obtained by well L-23 characterize the spectrum of contaminants present in the,groundwater. The spectrum of contaminants found in groundwater is typical for alandfill containing household waste, see next Figure.

1000 _

C-I =

> 100 ___________________ E

IC)0. C.

Maximum concentrations found in contaminated groundwater

sThis conclusion is based on the recenit data of vertical electrical sounding carried out dUring thisproject.Carbon dioxide is product of mud and peat biodegradation.

7 Not determined within this projectl but i is a typical problem for ariesiall groundwater in LaIvia.

0:20

Fig. 18: NMaximum concentrations found in contaminated groundwater

The highest concentrations, hundred timiies the hackground valIus. al-e melasurCd IMor

chloride. sodium and potassiumll. Additionally, considerable conltamllinaniits andlcontamination indicators are cadmiumii. lead. ammonia. COD-Cr an(d alkalinity (duc topresence of the ]ow-molecular organic acids - waste destruction products). Theconcentrations of the mentioned components exceed the background concentrationstens of times. TDS content rcaches 7,100 mg/I in the core of contaminant plume.

The analysis by SWECO laboratory in April, 1999 of heavy metals, polyaromatichydrocarbons (PAH), benzene toluene. etylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) in a surfaceditch, well B-1. B-2, L-5, L-20 and L-'3 shows the following, see further Appendix 9:

The samples contain very low concentrations of metals except iron (1.3 - 13 mg/l) andmagnesium (9 - 160 mg/I), which may occur in natural conditions. Cadmium is belowthe detection limit <0.1 utg/l in all samples and mercury is low <0.02 - 0.29 Aig/l. Alsoother heavy metals occur in low concentrations, e.g cobalt <0.01 - 0.01 mg/l, copper<0.0 1 - 0.04 mg/l, chromium <0.01 - 0.18 mg/l. Zinc concentrations vary from 0.02 -0.o8 in all samples except one which is 10 mg/I. The latter is probably due to samplecontamination. The analysis of PAH shows very low concentration, all but one sample(2.6 ,tg/l) is below the detection limit, 2.0 ,tg/l. Furthermore, most BTEX analyses arebelow the detection limit, 0.1 gg/l. Only B-2 shows significant elevated xyleneconcentration, 9.3 pg/1 and well L23 show trace of the sameO.74 ,ug/l.

To summarise the results of the water sampling and analysis, the leachatecontamination seems typical for household waste and the impact from the industrialwaste is rather limited. Thus, biological methods for leachate treatment are proposed.

The main hydrogeological and hydrological features determining the distribution ofcontaminants in the groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill Skede are listed below:> A very low hydraulic gradient due to the flat terrain prevents to a large extent the

migration of the contarninants with groundwater flow.o The ditch network and the decreasing Quatemary aquifer thickness prevents the

flow of contaminated shallow groundwater from the landfill. The contaminatedshallow groundwater is conveyed by the ditches to the Tosmares Lake.

r The presence of the very thick till layer between the Quaternary and pre-Quaternary aquifers plays an important role in protection of the deeper aquifers.

> The existing downward gradient of hydraulic heads can transport thecontaminating substances down to the Devonian aquifers within the landfill area.Percolation of the contaminants in surroundings of the Tosmare Lake cannot takeplace since this is a discharge area with an upward groundwater flow.

The variable native salinity and the chemistry of the shallow groundwater complicatesthe interpretation of results of the chemical analyses, because elevated concentrationsof several compounds may originate both from natural and antrophogenic sources. Forexample, increased ammonia and COD content. which is very typical for laindfillareas, occurs also due to bog water impact.

Figure 5 (see chapter 3) shows the contaminant distribution in the groundwater. Fourclasses of groundwater quality are determined based on the contamination degree.

t: 27

Boundaries between ditifc-ent classes wele delineated ft ronm all dati (1htained atgroundwater sampling and vertical clectrical soundillns as wcll as mcaLsureMenclts ofelectrical conductivity (see Figure 19).

Strong pollution of the groundwater was fouLid in the Quaternary aquifer withill tleclandfill area and also south and southeast of the landfill. The arcai of stron-lycontaminated groundwater is elongated in SE direction corresponding- to tilegyroundwater flow and reaches Tosmare lake.

Due to the limited thickness of the water table aquifer. the discharge of contaminatedgroundwater to the Tosmares Lake is rather small in relation to the discharge throughthe ditches.

The total extent of the contaminated area is 1 km. The area of groundwatercontamination is about 45 hectares. The groundwater contamination does not spreadto the north, where the summer gardens are located. The groundwater contaminationis located in the water table aquifer. and the volume of contaminated water is about100 thousand ml.

The shallow groundwater is slightly contaminated in the areas around wells L-4 andL-6. but this contamination is not generated by the landfill. A manure pile located atwell L-6 causes. high BOD level in the ground water. The origin of the high zinccontent in the well L-4 is uncertain.

Incontestable contamination of the artesian groundwater was not found in the sampledfour wells. Relatively high values of COD, BOD and ammonia were found in well TI.Insufficient cleaning of this old and contarminated well before sampling may havecaused the analytical results8.

Relatively high TDS (720 mg/l) content and chloride concentration (75 mg/l) in wellL-3 may be considered as an indication of a very slight contamination.

The artesian aquifer might be contaminated NW of the landfill, if the contaminationpenetrates through the till layer within the landfill area. Signs of contamination(chloride up to 130 mg/I) in the confined interglacial aquifer were established in 1983in well T-6 screened at depth 15 - 21m. This well does not exist today.

The existing data indicates that the artesian groundwater is not seriouslycontaminated. Nevertheless, an additional monitoring well NW of the landfill isproposed to clarify this question.

The historical extent of the contaminant plume can only be based on the investigationsfrom the 1980-ies. Only a few wells remain from that period and new sampling is thenimpossible.

The casing within the screen interval in this well is covered by stones andl rbbish. The high-capacilysubmersible pump used for sampling of this well was plugged, and sample was taken with a puimllp olsmall yield.

0:28

Contaminationi of -roundw;ater W;as fouLnd alrad-c;y in 1 982 whcn the first iionilorillnwells were drilled. The chloride and( TDS concentr-aitions reachicd 700 mu/l and 2.60()mg/I in the shallow well drilled witlhin the landfill. Regular grounldiwaterf monlitolrin

A11 5 sizmBazdeIn- i

1020300 2 3 8 Area proposed for

O K o I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a new landfill _|

A B Profile of electrica..profilingnajamgpo1:10000

El / tomgr~fijs profilScale 1 pied:va000teritorija0

-5 . 5e / i / p Izgaztuvelan

-10 .:, ,., -0 /#// / /

_15 113 0 /

3Smilts,aleiritsiSand, sift D)ak DolomitsODolom-te ;< i|/>/

Q=z Smilsmals/Sandy loam F}3 iesarnoti iezi/ t| X . wi> // zQ+D,ak Simsmals, mals/Sandyblam, clay f Contarr'nated dsediments; 26

Apparent resistivity of sediments, Om^m /letuelektriskii pretestiba, Om^nlmJ/lVt>t\| 9 O t- 20' 320 35 40 50 60 710 810 90 2|0 / \/ \ S)t /////

LEGEND/APZiMEJUMI 9a >( \299/ / ///

Elektriskas zondesanas punkti 36 ) \ ! _+/ // / /

T6Electrical profiling points 45// /1111 10Elektriskas prdfilesanas punkti > t\° 1

~s Equipotentials of apparent resistivity, Om^m ' { f1 54///// / l IElektriskfis pretestibas izolinijas, Om'm r O 52 /I//// //>1

A BProfile of electrical profiling i Me-rogs 1:10000 e ////// /1- Elektriskaistomografijas profils 'Scale 1:1I0,000i ////////

Fig. 19: Apparent resistivity of water saturated sediments, "Skede" vicinity19. zim.: Udens.saturoso iczu elektriska pretestiba, "SkedMes" apkairtne

was not pr-ovided in 80-ties. New shallow monitoring wells WCIC installed within tihclandfill area in 1994. It that Thc salinity of the leachate was determincd to 37.00()mg/l. chloride concentration - 15.000() mg/l and( COD - 3.0()0 mgO./I.

The present groundwater contamiinlationi within the landfill area in the thrcc remainilCwells. drilled in 1994 and sampled in 1999. is approximiatcly of' thc samne range as in1994. The shallow groundwater was clean in the remaining- well T-3 botth in 1982 andtoday.

The groundwater contamination from the Skede landfill is not a major problem,because the major part of the contaminants is transported directly to the Tosmare Lakethrough ditches. Therefore, the dimensions of the groundwater contaminant plume aswell as the volume of contaminated groundwater are considerably smaller comparedwith other large landfills in Latvia.

Impact of the landfill to the Tosmare Lake

The ditches into the Tosmare Lake discharge the major part of the contaminants. Theimpact of this process is estimated below.

The volume of the discharged contaminants into the lake may be determined in twoways:1. Based on the estimated leachate runoff and2. Based on rate of surface water and groundwater discharged into the lake.

The area of the landfill is 7.5 hectares, and 6.0 hectares are covered by waste. Thelandfill officially operates since 1972, and initially until rid-eighties about 3 hectareshave been utilized for waste disposal, and the adjacent area has been used since then.

An average value of the annual runoff may be estimated from the assumption that80% and 20% of the runoff penetrates into the waste body at the open and coveredwaste disposal areas respectively. The total leachate production during 23 years maybe estimated at approximately 150 thousand m3 or 18 m3/day (assuming that theleachate production during the first 3 years was very limited).

The infiltration conditions at the area are poor due to aboudant peat and till.Therefore, the main part of the leachate generated by the landfill is discharged into theTosmare Lake.

A correct evaluation of the ratio of contaminated water discharged into the TosmareLake and infiltrated into deep aquifer (below the till) is impossible without long-termobservations. However. experience from similar objects (for example, in L.Tirelupurvs, in Tukums District) gives the rate between runoff and infiltration to be about4:1 (a system where bog ditches cut through peat and a sandy aquifer). Thus, thefollowing may be estimated (evaporation from land and water surface is notconsidered):

80 % of the leachate and contaminated surface runoff is discharged directlyinto the Tosmare lake in year 1975-1998, i.e. 120 thousand m3 of' Iclchateand 80 thousand m3 of contaminated surface runoff.

(o:. I

20% of thie Iclachate and conitaiiiilLlncad sulirface ILilnol has in Fllitl-late( ilnto-roundwater, i.e. 30 thousand1 Salnd (20 thousand m-i respccti\ ce! .

Well B-3 and B-5 characterizes thC outflow of, Icalchate l'roma thc landfill and theaverage concenitration of pollutants in the Icachate. Thesc arc 700 nna/l of- TOC). 20(ma/l of total nitrogen, and 3 mn P/I ol' piosphates.

The daily input of the landt'ill to the lake is estimated at 1() kg of TOC. 3 kg of' totalnitrogen and 0.04 kg of phosphate phosphorus from the above figures.

The volume of contaminants discharged into the Tosmare Lake may also be estimatedby the total rate of contaminated surface water and groundwater.

The total rate of contaminated groundwater will not exceed 0.5 m3/day, calculated forthe bottom part of water table aquifer, which is thin sand layer (0.1m) between thepeat and the till. This flow is negligible compared with the discharge of contaminatedsurface water.

Contaminated surface water is discharged into the Tosmares Lake through one ditchonly with a rate less than 40 m3/day, see Section 6.5 (Surface water quality).Concentration of pollutants in the ditch water sampled closed to lake is the following:TOC 270 mg/l, total nitrogen 180 mg/i and phosphate phosphorus 0.02 mg/l.Therefore, the daily input from the landfill to the lake contamination may beestimated at 11 kg of TOC, 7 kg of total nitrogen and 0.001 kg of phosphatephosphorus.

The results obtained by the different ways of calculation are simnilar for TOC and totalnitrogen and may be used for an estimate of the total amount of pollutants dischargedto the lake since 1975. Approximately 90 tons of TOC and 40 tons of total nitrogenwere discharged to the Tosmare'Lake during the 23 years. This represents a pollutionload of approximately 300 - 600 people.

The relation of the natural nutrient load to the landfill impact is unclear, but thelandfill impact should be considered. The lake overgrows very fast and the leachatecontribution may accelerate this process.

6.5.3 Grobina site

As mentioned in Chapter 3, no surface water and slight groundwater contaminationhas been found at the site "Poligons" used by the Grobina town and parish, as well aspartly by the Liepaja City (Sikari Ltd.).

Suirface water

Surface water is not contaminated, and electrical conductivity of water does notexceed 450-500 mikroSJcm.

' Calculalted from the COD-Cr.

:2

Groundwvater

Groundwater contamination has beeni found aroullnd lexisting dmIL site ''ol igon1s''(see Figure 6). It has rathler limitcd distribution (abouL 0.6 hectzir-es). and the followingparameters characterise thc contamination level (well no. 5): COD - 200 mng"O2/l. NHI4- .5 mg/l. although values of TDS and chlorides arc low - only 390 mg/i and 22 mg/l(natural background values).

6.5.4 Possible impact and miti<g,ation measures

Background on possible inmpacts

The impacts on surface water and groundwater may be divided into two groups:1. Inevitable impacts:

- generation ot leachate,- change of natural runoff from the area, where the waste treatment plant

will be located (if treated leachate is discharged into surface water),- change of the chemical composition of surface water (if treated

leachate is discharged into surface water body).2. Preventable impacts:

- contamination of surface water, if a collection and treatment ofleachate will not be provided,

- contamination of groundwater: permanent, if liner is not installed;secondary - if contaminated leachate is discharged into surface waterbodies recharging groundwater.

Percolation of atmospheric precipitation through solid waste and extraction ofdissolved or suspended materials always takes place in all landfills. When waterpercolates through the solid wastes that are undergoing decomposition, bothbiological materials and chernical constituents are leached into solution. Thereforeleachate collection and treatment is a pre-condition for any waste treatment plant andlandfill operation.

The data on generated leachate amount are presented in sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3, whileinformation about the existing and possible future leachate composition ischaracterised in Table 6.3.

The precipitation penetrating into the waste will be consumed during the anaerobicdecomposition of the organic constituents in the solid waste to generate landfill gas.The mass of water taken up per weight unit of dry organic waste consumed can beestimated as follows [17]:

C68H 1105 N + 16H,O = 35CH4 +33CO + NHA

The landfill gas is usually saturated by water vapour. The quantity of water vaporescaping from the landfill can be determined by assuming that the landfill gas issaturated with water vapor and applying the perfect gas law.

Therefore, the actual amlounlt ol lcachate wvill bc less than it is staied in 6.3.2 and(l6.3.3, but the water consuimption lor landfill gas production and waler vapourescaping the landfill has not been consi(dce-ed in our calculation.

The data presented in Tatble 6.3. especially concerning cxpccted composition. couldbe different, since the chemical composition of leachate varies substaiitiallydepending on the actual waste composition. the precipitation and its intenisity. age ofthe landfill, etc. Nevertheless, the figures presented in Table 6.3i may be used asbackground information for evaluation of the chemical composition of the leachate.

Table 6.3Leachate composition

Parameter Skede, Grobina, Expected compnosition' Maximumunit well no. 10 well no. 4 First 2 years After 10 Content at

l 2vyears Getlini, Riga2

pH 7.7 6.7 4.5.-7.5 6.6-7.5TDS mg/l 35200 630 39000Na+ 13600 69 200-2500 100-200 15000I K+ 4)0 7.8 200-1000 50-400 50M2 o 16(0 33 50-1500 50-200 92

Ca' 230 105 200-3000 100-400 220HCO3 20900 23000

so4 - 120 73 50-1000 20-50 120Cl_ 9380 47 200-3000 100-400 9700

COD mgO2/1 2150 200 3000-60000 100-500 5500BOD 7 120 15 - - 180

BOD5 - - 2000-30000 100-200N/NH4 mg/I 520 6.9 10-800 20-40 4500

Nt 0, 840 9.7 9900

P/P0 4 9.5 0.065 12Cd uig/l 3 0.09 8

Co 52 0.10 I 670

Cr1t0 240 1.0 7400Hg 0.1 0.06 <50Pb 9.2 0.30 <100Zn 1200 39 930

Therefore, the leachate has to be collected and treated.

Background on mitigation measures

In general, mitigation measures include:- creation of a system for surface runoff collection in order to avoid runoff

entering from the surrounding areas to the landfill, and in order to collectnon-contaminated runoff from the surface of the landfill.

- installation of liner to limit or eliminate movement of leachate from thelandfill site. The type of liner system selected depends to a large extent on

Source: George Tchobanoglous, Hilary Theisen, Samuel Vigil. Integrated Solid Waste Malnagement.Engineering Principles and Management Issues. Singapore. McGraw-Hill, Inc.. 1993. Page 418. table11-13.2 Source: Feasibility Study and Preliminary design of Remediation and Continuet Operation ol iheGetlini Disposal Site, Latvia. SWECO in association with Geo Consultants Ltd. and SKAFAII. 19)7.Page 4:14, table 4.3.

6,:34

the local geological conditionis anld envir-onlmienital requirerrments. and bothnatural (clay) and synthetic miaterials could be used. In both cases. to avoi(lthe accumulation ol' leiaclate in the bottom of' a l:indfill. the bottoml areahas to be g,raded and a collection system established.

- creation of a leachate collection system. Leachate coliection pipes have tobe placed lengthwise directly onl geomembrane. To promiiote efi'ectivcdrainage , the bottom needs a gradient of 1.2 to 1.8%,

- construction of a leachate holding and treatment facilities. The capacity ofthe holding tank depends on the type of treatment facilities and themaximum allowable discharge rate to the treatment facility. Typically,leachate holding tanks are designed to hold from I to 3 days of leachateproduction during the peak leachate generation process.

- establishment of a control and monitoring system.

Sk-ede site

Discharge of the treated leachate into Tosmare lake or to the groundwater aquifers isnot possible. Therefore, the collected leachate has to be delivered after pre-treatmentto the Liepaja city waste water treatment plant (further - WWTP) for treatment. TheWWTP is located in distance about 1 km from the selected site.

Leachate has to be collected from both the existing and the new area. The Feasibilitystudy offers a common leachate collection system for both sites.

Grobina site

The treated leachate has to be discharged via ditches into the Alanda river (see section6.3.3).

6.6 Air pollution, noise and vibration

Air pollution at waste disposal sites are generated by:- vehicles and machinery at the site,- landfill gas emission from a landfill.

The machinery is generating noise and dust by its action at the landfill working faceand in the energy cells. Two or maximum three vehicles may operate at the sitesimultaneously. The number of collection vehicles that on the average will arrive atthe waste treatment plant is estimated at twenty per day. Private vehicles that bringtheir own waste will also occur. Air pollution, noise and vibration is both anoccupational health as well as an environmental issue. The occupational healthaspects are presented in Section 6.11.

The recurrence of wind directions and wind velocities are characterised in Tables 2.4and 2.5 (see Chapter 2). The prevailing wind directions are shown in Figure 20. lIoththe summer garden society "Skede" (north of the area proposed for a new wastetreatment plant) and -'Ataugas" (south-west of the proposed area) are located on thelee-side of the proposed plant and are not expected to be disturbed by odours.

N NNNW 25.0 NNE NNW 25.0 NNE

NW 20.0 NE NW 20,0 NE15.0 15.0

WNW 10.0 ENE WNW 10.0 ENE

W 0 E W 0 E

WSW ESE WSW ESE

SW SE SW SE

SSW SSE SSW -SSES S

Wind rose, January Wind rose, AprilVeja roze, janvaris Veja roze, aprTlis

N NNNW 25.0 NNE NNW 25.0 NNE

NW NE20.0NW 20.0- NE NW ,NE15,0 , 15,0

WNW 10.0 ENE WNW 10.0 ENEW~~~~~~ E~N

W E EE

WSW ESE WSW ESE

SW SE SW SESSW SSE SSW SSE

S S

Wind rose, July Wind rose, OctoberVeja rose, julijs Veja roze, oktobris

Fig. 20: Reoccurrence of wind directions

20. att.: Veja virzienu atkiarosanias

(0: ;4)

6.6.1 Possible impacts and mitigation imealstires

Impacts

The local impact from the chicdes and equipmllenlt is cdiffCICllt at Ske(lc and Grohillasince the number of potentially disturbed people is larger in Skecle. The air pollutionfrom frequent burning of the waste is a disturbance as well as dust Iromli the operation.which will have to be mitigated at the luture waste treatment plant.

The landfill gas generation at the landfill has both a local impact and a global impacton the environment. Landtfill gas may cause explosion at the site if not properlycollected, vented or utilised.

The global impact is due to that the anaerobic decomposition of the waste gencratesmethane, which is released to the atmosphere if not controlled. The methane in thelandfill gas is a very potent greenhouse gas with an effect of 21 times that of carbondioxide.

Mitigating measures

The local disturbances at the landfill will be controlled by disposal of the waste insidea berm, which will constructed from demolition waste and other inert material to anelevation of about 3 m towards the north at Skede and towards the east in Grobina.The energy cells will be covered in a very short period to avoid that the waste isexposed to the atmosphere for a prolonged time. The berm will not only protect thesurrounding inhabitants from the impact of the noise and dust, but also the visualimpact of the waste management operations.

Secondly, the introduction of proper covering of the waste will reduce the odour, riskfor accidental fires and release of gaseous emissions.

The impact on the atmosphere will be reduced by collection and utilisation of thelandfill gas. In the feasibility study the maximum collection of landfill gas isestimated at 6.6 million m3 per year from the landfill and the energy cells at Skede,while in the Grobina alternative 5.9 million m3 per year is estimated when no sludgeis added in the cells.

6.7 Assessment of Biological Diversity

Two Dotential sites for Liepaia waste treatment plant were investinated. the formermilitary training area in Grobina parish and area next to Skede in Liepaia Citv.

Investigations were carried out in April and May. 1999. as well as an additionalsurveys in Skede in August, 1999.

0:37

6.7.1. Introduction

An inventory of biotopes. VLZCtfltiOn. flora an11d faUna wa'IS Made to aISSCSS the

biodiversitv ot'the arcas.

The assessment of the hiotopes was based on the naltu-c of thc ve-etation structulcand they are divided in 3 categories:

1. Valuable biotopes - biotopes. where important landscape and naltul-e valucs arepreserved, including rare species and the species of the Red Data Book,

2. Less valuable biotopes - biotopes. where the natural structure has been degradedto various extent due to human activity;

3. Artificially-created (man-made) biotopes - biotopes, where natural vegetationhas been fully extinguished to set up fields or where ruderal plant communitieshave appeared, as well as places where agricultural or other activities havestopped but no significant nature values have been restored.

The assessment of the flora and fauna has been carried out at the potential wastetreatment sites and their sUIlToundings, using the route method. The main attention waspaid to species of the Red Data Book, as well as to species that are indicators of valueof biotopes. Only the interesting species are mentioned.

The location of biotopes and their assessment is shown on a map, Figure xxx. izmest!

6.7.2 Potential site in Skede

The potential waste disposal site is located in the territory between the north-westshore of the Tosmare lake and Skede road. During implementation of the study theproposed site was moved further away from Tosmare lake, and the new site wasvisited and investigated in August, 1999.

Ch aracterisation of nature values of the potential site

The nature values of the larger area and potential waste treatment site are shown inFigures 21 and 22.

The site is located in the area that is included in the list of CORINE Biotopes(Important biodiversity areas in Europe) [63]. It means that nature values of the areaare important not only for Latvia, but also for Europe. The potential site borders thevery northern corner of the protected nature object - nature reserve "Tosmare lake".that is approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Republic of Latvia in June 22, 1999.The potential waste treatment site lies within the borders of two sites important forbiodiversity - "Tosmare Lake" and "Medze beach" that were determined in twoprojects carried out by World Wildlife Fund [58]. It means that the importance of thearea is confirmed by biologists of different specialities and by the government as well.

by establishing nature reserve of state importance in the vicinity of the site.

Biotopes andflora

Experts of the Biology Institute of the Latvian Unliversity have made investigations olthe flora in the selected area since 1972 during investigations ot the flot-a in the

, -' .., - j~~0*,~~ ~ ~'~0-'...

/. ~~~- ,a < .t;/F-=N i

MaScdnei \L C6 T~~~-

CO Ej Ve., cka -_ ; 6 , ,r:di.00& , ..

~~~\ = t _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Reg _ 7oivriibooileuatrtrj

Sil Mavri itp

-T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7

01~~~~~~~~~

Are~ ~~~~~o 7au itp

Site~~~~~~~~~ seete orwsedratet lnDabs legaTos mares roezasJ

4,~~~~~~~4

1000 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~rgsSae :50

1 f Bordery hig valure bitprservhn e staricioae

Ma.zvrim.: Biotopui oetjusSFdFig. 21value ationtfoitospnSkd

00 ~ ~ ~ IzNU tdtm plb ana ait

21. zrn.: iotop nov~tEj0m. 9.0

Fig. 21 Evalution o bioop iSed

it ;d~> /j/ Sum m mer gardens

I'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ~~' ~',, -t /,

~~~ /~~

APZIMPJUMI/ILEGEND Merogs/Scale 1:10000

Augu sugu atradnes/Localities of plant species1 - Baltijas donislJuncus balticusIBaHic Rush 9 - Sikais abolifnsllrffolium dubiumfLesser Trefoil * 6. 9. 14. IS.2 - Gada staipeknisLycopodium annotinumAnterrupted Clubmoss 10 - Sikziedu ±ibulitislEuphrasia micranthaiEyebright species * 3. S.3 - Galvainais donislJuncus capitatusADwarf Rush 11 - Sipolinu donislJuncus bulbosus/Bulbous Rusn 0 3. 4. 5. 11. 12.4 - lesirma kapsmildzene/Corynephorus canescensAGrey Hair-grass 12 - Skrajais donis/Juncus squarrosus-leath Rush 3. 5. is.S - Linu starenRe,Radiola tinoidesl 13 - VaIlu staipeknislLycopodium clavatumlStagshorn Clubmoss * 1.t0.

§ j >5.(.9 6 - Pakalnu neaizmirstuleAMyosotis ramosissima/Early Forget-me-not 14 - Vinkalnu sipolslAlium vinealelCrow Garlic * U 9 10 15.7 - Parasta eLIrvmirteAVyrica gale/Bog Myrtle 15 - Agra airalAira precoxIEarly Hair-grass

-Smarziga naktsvijole/Platanthera ifolia/Lesser Buterfly Orchid

(Z) Purvmirtes kromaislBog myrtle stand 2 Sausa plava (smilKu krupis, sila kirzaka) _ ,,Tosmares ezera dabas lieguma robeza'-.-.1 Dry grasslands(Natterjack, Sand Lizard) Border of Tosmares lake nature reserve

Sauso p!avu un virsaju komplekss ar retajim dzivnieku sugim Liepajas pils. un Medzes pag. robeza(smilsu krupis, sila kirzaka, raibspirnu smiltisisenis, parkskis) Esosa izgiztuveLandill _.- Administrative border between MedzeDry grasslands and heaths with rare animal species Teritorija jauna CSA poligona ierikosanai parish and Liepaja City(Natterjack, Sand Lizard, Band-winged Locust, Red-winged Locust) Area foreseen for a new waste treatment plant

22. zim. Retie biotopi un sugasFig. 22: Rare biotops and species

Picjura lowland. Growilts of Early For1ctl-ll- not Allvsxois r(alo.fissilna, D)warf lRush

lIJucis (c/pilaus, Evehrihill species i1uphrSis(I n)ci(/U')Itha aind Rod(Iioll( lifilde's were

known in this arca until 1'903, \'Ver important Was the location ol DI )warf Rullslh .Iu,uuclscapitaluts in 1988. because it was Supposed as extinict in Latvia unltil thlat year. DLIIinigthe detailed flora investilations in April-May. 1999 14 species ol thle Red Data Bookwere found in the area:

Baltic Rush .JuMCUs bahllicis (in heath and dry grasslands)Interrupted LYcopodiiuin (in wet pine-common alder forest)Clubmoss au111oz)iuniDwarf Rush Junciws capiltalus (in depressions in heath and dry

grasslands)Grey Hair-grass (in dune grasslands, on sandy roads)

Corynephoruscanescens

Rtadiola linoides (in depressions in heath and drygrasslands)

Early Forget-me- Mxsotis rcmosissinzia (in dune grasslands)notBog Myrtle Myrica gale (in forests, shrubs)Lesser Butterfly Platanzhera bifolia (in common alder stands)OrchidLesser Trefoil Trifoliun dubium (in dry grasslands)Eyebright species Euplirasia micr-antha (in dry grasslands)Bulbous Rush Ju2cits bulbosus (in wet depressions)Heath Rush Juncuis squarrosus (in wet depressions)Stagshorn Lycopodium (in wet pine-common alder forest)Clubmoss clavatumiiCrow Garlic Allilmn vineale (in dry grasslands).

Among them there are:- 1 species of Category I in the Red Data Book,- 3 species of Category II in the Red Data Book,- 7 species of Category III in the Red Data Book,- 3 species of Category IV in the Red Data Book.

The locality of Early Hair-grass Aira precox in Skede heather-lands and dry meadowsis unique for Latvia. This species was included in the academic edition of Latvia'sflora [61] and in the Plant determinant [64]. Existence of that species in Latvia couldnot be proved. as none of herbarium samples was left and no specific locality wasknown. Therefore, this species was excluded from the list of plant species in lateroverviews of flora [65. 62]. Due to the above mentioned, Early hair-grass is notincluded in the Red Data Book. So, just in 1999 the existence of this species is provedfor the first time in Latvia. As the growtlh at the Skede site is located near the easternborder of distribution area, conservation of this only known locality is important lorthe distribution of the species in general and tor the biodiversity of the flora in Latvia.Early hair-grass is found in several places across ihe site. Significant and rar-e cellletof heath communities is Creeping Willow Salix repeis.

:11 I

ImIpOrtanlCC ol SpCCiCS found across (hle area for diversity of' l,alvia's flora iS

characterised by thCil enclosueC inoll( oIroLupS ot' slpecies rarlivy (ivi(le by 1. Fatarc.

Among the \ery rare species of, Latvill's tloral. includcd in CiropJ I ol qtiat tilaliyvcdistribution l(()l. Dwarf rush is foundel in the area, fromii the CGoupl ll of quanlitalivcdistributioni 4 species arc fouLLd (Girey Hair-g(-rass. Evebri ght species Euplhrasio:micrantha, Radioa linoildes, Creepineli Willow), but tf-om lhe Girou(op Ill - 7 species(Crow Garlic. Rockcresses species Arabis g,erarthi. Bulbous Rush. Hleath Rush. EarlyForget-me-not. Bog Myrtle. Lesser Trefoil). Baltic Rush should be added to thoseflora rarities. which is incluLded in Group 11 lor rare littoral species common for thePiejura lowland. Out of the species found in the proposed area, it could be concludedthat at least 13 species could be suggested as rarities of Latvia's flora.

The locality of the Dwarf Rush is very rich and stable. The flora is unique- a very richcomplex of annual plant species ol this area is composed by Dwarf Rush togetherwith Radiola linoides, Eyebright species Euplirasia niiicranitha, Early Hair-grass andEarly Forget-me-not.

The territory features a rich mosaic of biotopes. Heath and dry grasslands should besuggested as very valuable biotops.

Heaths. No large continuous areas are covered by heath in the possible site. Foreststands and grasslands are located among them. Heath communities at Skede havericher biodiversity than inland heaths. The Baltic Rush - included in the Red DataBook, typical only for Piejura lowland is found in this area. Very rare CreepingWillow grows in the area as well. Early hair-grass and Eyebright species Euphrasiainicrantha could be found on sandy roads and on sparse places in the heath, as well asRadiola linoides and Dwarf Rush in depressions in the heath. In some places the heathchanges to dune grasslands, but that change is not very sharp so Early Forget-me-notand Lesser Trefoil, more typical for dry grasslands, could be found there. This is animportant biotope for several insect species (mainly hymenopterans and grasshoppersand locusts), including the Red Data Book species - Red-winged Locust Psophutsstridulus and Band-winged Locust Oedipoda coerulescens.

Heaths are very rare and vanishing biotopes in Latvia. It is included in the Annex"Dry heaths of Europe" of EU Directive on Protection of Natural Biotopes, WildlifeFauna and Flora from May 21. 1999. That means that the biotope is threatened acrossEurope and special attention should be paid for its conservation by establishingprotected areas.

Dune grasslands are located on the higher elevations, surrounded by heaths andforest clusters. Typical grasses as well as lichens and mosses dominate there. Speciesfrom the Red Data Book are found here - plants (Grey Hair-grass. Early Forget-me-not, Eyebright species; fauna (Red-winged Locust, Band-winged Locust andNatterjack). This biotope (with the name "Inland dunes with open grasslands ot hair-grasses and spear-grasses") is included in the Annex I of EU Directive on Protectioniof Natural Biotopes, Wildlife Fauna and Flora. That means those biotopes are otinterest for European Council and for their conservation network of protccted areasshould be established.

o-d-

AmoniIlic the lorests wel coimniloil alder and pine fOrests (dni ite. as well as iii xcdpine. bi-ch and comlmoni(iii al(der stands. Tecy a1r verI' yoLIIg. dCVCeloCed in thledeprcssionis. In manVy places those stands covcrI artiflicial depressions with deeperholes inside. Despite secondary type of thosc loi-est stainids, several lRect Data Bookspecies are l'ound: Bo;. Myrtle. Lesscr 13utterfly Orclid. InteCruptcd Clubmlloss adllStagshorni Clubmoss. Alihouch localities oi' those spccies are nlot very rich. tileyenrich this forest as well as the flora diversity of the wholc areia.

Bog Myrtle scrub. One of the most original biotopes is the Bog Myrtle scrub. whichconsists of dense, up to lin high Bog Myrtle bushes. This species is included in theRed Data Book of Latvia.

Ponds. Dug holes of different size are filled with water continuously or intermittently.Vegetation of ponds or periodically drying pools is typical there. Those water bodiesenrich the biodiversity of' the area. Beavers live and Grey herons feed there.

Shlort clharacteristics of the fauna

The invertebrate fauna is rather diverse, mainly represented by very common,ecologically plastic species of mollusks, insects and other invertebrates. The onlyexception is dune grasslands and heaths where Band-winged Locust Oedipodacoerulescenis - species from the Red Data Book Category 1, and Red-winged LocustPsophuts stridulus - species from the Red Data Book Category 3, are found. On theforest edge Poplar Admniral Limnenitis populi - species from the Red Data Bookcategory 4, was found.

Dune grasslands are habitat for protected amphibian and reptile species found in thearea: Natterjack Bufo calamita - category 2 of the Red Data Book and Sand lizardLacerta agilis - category 4 in the Red Data Book. The last one lives also in duneforests adjacent to the grasslands.

The bird fauna in the area features a rather significant diversity. Presently, thecommon so-called background species dominate in forest.

The chosen area is inhabited by a small number of ecologically plastic species ofmammals that are typical for the described biotopes. In a pond the introducedAmerican Mink Mustela visoni is found that have become an unwelcome saboteur.

Short characteristics of nature values in thze larger area

The Tosmare lake with its shoreline is one of the most significant areas for thebiodiversity in Latvia. The sionificance of this area has been evaluated, developingseveral nature protection projects. It is included in list of the World Wildlife Fundproject "Nature Protection Plan for Latvia". Medze beach is included in that list aswell. The Tosmare lake has also been included in the "CORlNE Biotopesl project1631. which contains information about the places with the grealest sionificancc lorthe biodiversity assessment of Latvia.

The area is characterised by extremnely great hiotope divel-sity. inclutding miotopescharacteristic of the coastal lowland, and also biotopes that al-e rare elscwlhci-c in

Latvia. All types of mirkes arc repre-sened here. iuciudil rgichi lfens. Thc areal featIILIs ;I

Hi-, efiveSitI' of' era1SSlandl1lS: Various tvpes ol wet grasslands Iresh ;111(i dry 'Irassiands.

Therc are also woodedi nmeadows adll(i NusIhy pastures. The forests alre relativCl y oula.with swamipsl and somt'e otthel types of wet fOrests predomiinating. I)rlier forests ol'te1feature single oaks. Apart fromI 'irasslarilnS and wet forests the lake floodplain ischaracterised also by reed beds and clubrush beds. The stanl(ds of' Greaet Fen Sed-erCladiuni inariscus) are of particular significance. The formner connlectioIn of' the lakewith the sea determines the presencc of several species, which are characteristic ofbrackish soils and bracklish waters. At lcast seven of the biotopes described in thenature reserve area are rare or endangered (close to extinction) in Latvia:

- Rich fens with Brown Bog-rush,- Phytocenosis with Great Fen Sedge,- Bog Myrtle Scrubs.- Dune grasslands with Grey Hair-grass,- Wooded mead<ows.- Dry calciphilous grasslands,- Wet calciphilouis grasslands.

At least 7 biotopes endangered in Europe and included in the European UnionDirective on Biotopes (habitats) (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on theconzservation of niatural lhabitats anGd of wildfaunla andflora) are found in the area:

- inland dunes.- Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrate- Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils- Lowland hay meadows- Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion

davallianae- Calcareous fens with Schoenus ferrugineus- Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno Padion,

Salicion albae, Alnion incanae).

21 species, recorded in the Red Data Book of Latvia, have been found:- Batrachiumii baudotti- Carex demnissa- Cladiun mnariscus- Dactylorhiza baltica- Dacrylorhiza incarnata- DactvlorhiLa fuchsii- Euphlrasia rnicrantha- Euphoorbia palustr-is- Genrianella utliginosa

- Gynmnadenia con opsea- Iris sibirica- Junlcius balticulis

- Laserpitiurn pruttenicum

- Myrica gale

- OphrYs inse lifera- Prinilula fjarinosa

- ScIhoeniis ferugineus- Serrntula tinctoi*f

- 7Trc1A hl -111) IcUhIplosir

- TriI0/ hut IhllriIimIuml

Some of' the above species are of spccial significance: Fl r Orchid O)phrvs isecl!('iur,which is found only in two morc localities in Latvia now. and PrOUSian SerloUn.tail

species Laserpitiunn pruticnicum. for which it is one of tvo existin; locailities. For theprotection of these species the shorc ol' the lake Tosmare is a very important area.Very rich cenopopulations of the vital and therefore very significant ior the protectionof species Great Fen Sed,c Clad iumni inia-iscus and Marsh Spurge Eqplhorbia palutstriisare growing in the direct vicinity of the potential waste deposit site.

The following species among those recorded in the Red Data Book of Latvia havebeen found in the Tosmare area: I species of mammals (Stoat Muistela erminiea). 6species of birds (Bitterm Botalarus .stellaris, Common Crake Gr-ls grus, Black ternChllidonzias niger, Savi's Warbler Lociustella luscinioidcs., Bearded Tit Panzurusbiarmicus, Penduline Tit Remi:z pendulinus), as well as 2 species of insects (mothAgonopleryxr bipunctosa and Poplar Admiral Limiienzitis popuili) and I mollusk species(Mossnail Cochlicopa nitens).

The whole Skede beach, where dune grasslands are left in large areas, is importantterritory in terms of biodiversity. Wet inter-dune depressions and open sandy spacesare typical for this area. Very rich complex of annual plant species is found there.Besides the above-mentioned species of dune grasslands and heaths, Spring VetchVicia lathvroides should be mentioned. It is a rare species and it is included in the RedData Book. Dune Gentian Gentianella uliginosa is found in wet depressions, but Henand Chickens Houseleek Jovibarba sobolifera - in the dry grasslands. Among rareand The Red Data Book species should be mentioned also Toadflax species Linarialoeselii. At least 13 rare and protected plant species are found here. Besides otherabove-mentioned animal species found in dune grasslands of the potential site, TawnyPipit Anthus campestris - the Red Data Book Category 3 species - is found here.

Assessment of access roads

The envisaged access road to the site is along previously built streets and roads. Moreintensive traffic could cause additional load to air and noise pollution on theecosystems of the nature reserve. as well as wet forests and other wetlands that aresituated to the west of the reserve and are a significant element of biological diversityof Liepaja.

Potential impact of the waste treatment site on biodiversity

Establishment of a waste treatment site in the area will destroy at least 2 biolopes thatare rare in Latvia and endangered in Europe.

Establishment of the waste disposal site will destroy localities ol'at least 14 protectedplant species and 2 very rare plant species. Besides, tor one of those rare plant speciesthis is the only known locality in Latvia. Localities of 3 protectecd insect species. one

(1:4 '

amphibiall species and ol1C rcplitIc specics hi e (Iestiove(i as wcll. 1-[or Band-win.ocdLocust OL'(dip)oda co'ndI sc'e,lis this locality is onic of two. Known In Laitvi a.

The operation of thc landfill will halve a significant adverse imilazct on thc contdlitioni olat least 21 rare plant species and biotopes (7 hiotopes rar-c or close to extinctioin ILatvia and 7 biotopes ot European significancc).

The operation of the landfill will have a significant adverse imnpact on localities of atleast 9 rare animal species.

The operation of the landfill will cause an additional load on the territory of TosmareLake nature reserve and biotops ol Skede dunes. sands and grasslands. Plantcommunities of dunes and sands are especially vulnerable to invasion of weeds andalien plant species. Close to the cities and recreation areas weeds and alien plantspecies invade on free spaces not occupied by local plants. Waste disposal site mightincrease that process, by disturbing the natural stability of plant communities and atthe same time promotin- distribution of alien plant species around the landfill innatural plant communities. The seaside plant communities could be very appropriatehabitat for that.

The Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 354 (October 21. 1997): paragraph 40.1.provides for the prohibition of any activities that damage, transform or destroybiotopes, wild plants, and habitats of animals and ecologically or aestheticallysignificant elements of landscape in the protected territory of the Tosmare reserve.The proposed waste treatment plant is located in close connection to the protectedarea.

6.7.3. Potential site in the former military training ground, Grobina parish

Characteristics of nature values of the potential site

The nature values at the potential site is characterised in Figure 23. Potential site islocated in the former military training ground. Former agricultural lands constitute thelargest part of it and former homesteads as well as the remnants of different armyrmilitary infrastructure objects.

Biotopes andflora

The former military training ground occupies the largest part of the area. Itsvegetation is formed by species typical for abandoned agricultural lands. commonacross the country. There is a significant proportion of synantrophic species.introduced as a result of human activity, including adventive species that are alien tothe local flora. The most significant component is the orchards that have beenpreserved and some isolated fruit trees. Some small water reservoi-s play a certazinrole. The character of the biotope leads to the conclusion that the presence ot' rare orprotected species in the area is rather impossible. It is not possible to gel a completepicture of the flora in the chosen area at the beginning of vecetation scason.Nevertheless, it is not impossible that some species characteristic to SeIm1i-natl1ur}al

biotops could be found. Those species are rare across Lalvi;a. btL somlc werc found in

1 PCjki< 3E -dki 7~~> K ,~ S ine ki '---

X ,%' \ . < - X ,/ '', ~gSkuiavEr#,rFr2S ,,' , ,, ,'ja Ih4P>

\ -,/ , I oO~ n .X, <3,

iKra ,| 1,\,-~ ,iW ~ s, .} , /

> | ,, S _ 28 n - 8 111 .2, .-

1 I _ _ _ > 1 23 8 ~ EJBij. armijas |

--'r- f , -e: s g alas teritorija(Met be rtfi) 6

6

~vjiteri

1 iLW < 1A = *,A~~~~

v ;as-i rani I >S

APZIMEJUMiA.EGEND

_ - ~~Vertigs meza biotops ar dikstu vipoliti_ - ~~Forest biotops of high value marshy violet

| | Mazak vertigs meAa biotopsForest biotops of lower value

|Cilv§ka veidoti biotopiE t Human made biotops

- _ ~Izveleta atkritumu apglabEsanas vietaSite selected for waste disposal

23. zini. Biotopu novertejums atkritumu apgabasanai izveletaja vieta Grobi,as pagastaFig. 23: Evaluation of biotops at selected site in Grobina parish

.

Liepaja vicilliltv. However. consideringr thc strulcture of Hiotopes and tlh iecent historyof the area. it miehit not he of priolrity i pil;nC rilom the point oi vie\\ ol Iflorli andvegetation protection.

Available botanlical literature does not givc any inform-lation about thc presence of raecor protected species of planits in thc chosen area.

Faunia

The invertebrate fauna. judging by the analogy with similar biotopes in other places.could be represented only by very common species of mollusks, insects and otherinvertebrates that have adapted to living in biotopes, strongly influenced or created byhuman activity. There is no evidence of any rare or protected species, and nosignificant diversity of species can be expected.

The avifauna is represented only by the most common species. There is a possibilityof breeding on the territory of former military training ground, of some species,recorded in The Red Data Book - Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) and Corncrake(Crex crex), as well as Red-backed Shrike (Lan2ius collurio) which is significant in theEuropean context. The likelihood of the presence of rare or protected species in theselected forest area is small otherwise.

The chosen area is inhabited by a small number of species of mammals that arecharacteristic for open biotopes, among them predominantly rodents. Some forestmammals, e.g. Red Deer (Cernus elaphus) and Roe Deer (Capriolus capriolus) feedin the area. Carnivores are represented mainly by Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes).

Nature values in the larger area

To the north and the west the area is enclosed by a forest under the administration ofGrobina Sub-Forestry of Liepaja Forestry. Draining has left a significant impact onthe forests. Birch, spruce and pine stands are dominant. The forest features a relativelylarge variety of biotopes: rather old pine stands, wet birch forests as well as saplings.Many sectors of the forest feature a significant presence of oak-trees. In general manysectors of forests have preserved a natural structure. Their plant communities areformed by species that are common and typical for these forests. The rare andprotected species are represented by violet specie Viola iuliginiosa that is found in theforest area. Breeding of Red-breasted Flycatcher (Ficedkla parva) significant speciein the European context is also possible in those areas.

Assessment of access roads

The envisaged roads are crossing human-created biotopes. which do not contain anyrare species of plants, animals or areas in need of pr otection.

Potential inmpact of waste disposal site on biodiversity

Establishment of a waste treatment plant in the area will not destroy any sensitivebiotopes or rare plants. The presence of some rare bird species, quilte Co111111011 iI

(:-45

Latvia. is piossihWc. allhou.zh not optimal hiotopes lor those species arc represclle'd inthe area.

South and cast ot the clhoseni arca biotopes afectctd by huLulnil activit dom1inate.featuring only biologically plastic species. So. the estahlishlmlcnit ot ai wastc ielalentItplant is not likely to have any significant impact on ihe composition) of the plallt ziandanimal species or their living condiionls.

In the adjacent forest n0oth and west of the chosen site, where intensive forestryactivities take place, an invasioni of plant species, not recorded in the area previously,is possible. The spreading of the species brought along with forestry activities, can beenhanced by the use of forestry machinery during the period when the soil is notfrozen, thus causing the progression of the newly introduced plant species deeper intothe forest.

Greater transport intensity is not likely to have a significant impact on typical speciesfound in open country landscape. The migration of adventive plant species is likely toaffect mainly secondary biotopes and human-created biotopes.

The impact on biodiversity in the area of the waste deposit site can be divided into 3belts:

* 500 m - invasion of synantrophic (including adventive) plant species ispossible in natural and semi-natural biotopes. Direct exposure to dust andchemicals can affect plants and invertebrates;

* 1 km - the site will attract insectivores, rodents and small carnivores, scarelarge carnivores and herbivores;

* 5 km and more - will attract species of birds that feed on the landfill;

Potential discharge of contarninated waters from the landfill into ditches could affectthe composition of the species of aquatic organisms and the proportions of differentspecies in various distances, depending on the season. the character and the amount ofcontaminated water as well as the hydrological characteristics of the site.

The fauna in the landfill area can be affected indirectly in the case of spreading ofdifferent chemical substances and compounds or disease agents through the foodchain or through direct contact. In this case the affected area and the range of theaffected species could be much wider than above-mentioned.

Measutres to reduce the impact of the waste disposal site on the biotopes of the area

To reduce the impact on the biotopes in the area, it is necessary:

1. To retain the present run-offs without blocking the ditches and streams butdirecting, the run-off around the former military training ground to preventcontamination of the ditches.

2. To prevent, as far as possible, the access of animals to the landlill by settingup special fence for mammals around the site and net for birds.

During the operation of the wasie disposal site it is proposedl:

(, :4 ()

t To develop a systcm ot wterlcourse Cualilty assesSileIll ;1id to carrV outwater hiolowflCal qLualiy\ tCsts rc-ularly.

2. To develop a monitorinn programn and methods for repilar conltiol of' ithcnurnhers of certainl animazl groups and species (rodents, foxes. seacuilfs aildcorvids), the contlellt of pollutants in animal tissuLes and the hcalth status olthe animals.

3. To carry out a botanical inventory, once every 3 years. around the wastetreatment plant (0.5krm radius) and the access road. to detect and prevent thepotential invasion of the expansive plant species in the natural biotopes of thearea.

4. No forestry activity is recommended within 0.5-km radius from the wastetreatment plant.

5. Forestry activities in the forests located from 0.5 to 1km from the site shouldbe carried out only when the soil is frozen, to reduce the possible impact offorestry machinery on the ground layer and the progression of adventiveplant species deeper into the forest.

After the closure of the site it is necessary:

1. To carry out afforestation with local species of deciduous trees in thesurrounding and lower vegetation on the landfill..

2. To encircle the site, along its borders. by ponds and ditches with no run-offto other waters and with abundant vegetation of caulescent plants for a fasterdecomposition of nutrients and pollutants that reach the waters.

3. To carry out botanical monitoring of the site once in 3 years, in order tocontrol cenopopulation dynamics of the adventive species and to prevent thepotential spreading of expansive species outside the area of the closed-downlandfill.

4. To continue botanical monitoring of the site once in 5 years of the biotopeswithin 0.5 km radius of the site, to control the dynamics of the adventivespecies of plants.

6.7.4. Comparison of the potential sites

The comparison of the potential sites has been made on the basis of quantitativecriteria. The six criteria have been used for the comparison of the sites (see Table 6.4).

The point svstem means that the highest sum shows the most valuable area. Moreover.a greater impact on the environment will be caused by the waste treatment plant to themore valuable area.

The potential waste disposal sites are very different regarding the biodiversity. Awaste treatment plant in Grobina will not cause any serious decrease of hiodiversity or

adverse impact on the surroundino biotopes. The situation is completely opposite inSkede. Important species and biotopes for Latvia and Europe will be destroyed andoperation of the waste treatment plant may cause i-r-eversible clhanges in the Tosmarelake nature complex and in the Skede dune vegetation and animiial communities.

Tahlc 6.4Characterisation and (quantiticatioln of l)iological criteria

Criteria Characterisatiom ol' criteria Quanlifi-I | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~catiotn

Ovel '20lh 51. Proportionl of very valuahle I0-2()'i' 4

Ibtaiotopes UDa)p It()'/' 3

1.25 and over 52. Index of the natural and 1-1 25 4

man-made biotopes 0.75-1 30.5-0.75 20.25-0.5 1 11Less than 0.25 0

3. Assessment of fauna in points The Red Data Book Category I species 5_||The Red Data Book Category 2-4 species '-Species important in European scale I

4. Assessment of flora in points The Red Data Book Categories I and 2 species 5The Red Data Book Categories 3 and 4 species 2

Significant impact (sites with natural., minor changed 3biotopes) I

5. Impact of roads on the Medium impact (sites with human impacted biotopes, 2migration of plant species e.g. forestry activities, peat excavation)in the area I

Minor impact (sites with specially man-made biotops) I

Significant impact (sites with natural, minor changed 3biotopes)|

6. Threat to the vicinity Medium impact (sites with human impacted biotopes, 2of selected sites e.g. forestry activities, peat excavation)

Minor impact (sites with specially man-made biotops) I

The comparison of the selected sites is provided in Table 6.5.Table 6.5

Comparison of biological diversity for potential sitesCriteria

Number of pointsl ___________________________________________ G robina SkedeThe proportion of very valuable biotopes 0 5Index of the natural/man-made biotopes 0 5Assessment of fauna 5 15Assessment of flora 0 40Impact of roads on the migration of plant species in the 1 2areaThreat to the vicinity of selected sites 2 3Total | 8 70

6: 5 I

Colnclutsiolns

SkedeFrom biological diversitv viewpoint it is not advised to establish a waste lcltilreiatplant in the Skede vicinity in Liepaja city.

Grobina1. No rare or protected p lant species have been found in thc potenitial waste treatmcnt

plant in Grobina parish. It is not located within any borders of particularlyprotected areas.

2. Breeding and feeding of some protected bird species is possible in the potentialwaste treatment plant area. However, considering the fact that these species arerather common in Latvia and the site does not feature the optimal biotope of thesespecies, the impact on these birds is not likely to be significant.

3. The potential impact of waste treatment plant on the biotopes in the nearest areawill not cause big or significant losses to the biodiversity.

4. If the suggested impact mitigation measures are observed, the establishment of awaste treatment plant from the biological diversity aspect is suitable.

6.8 Land use, land values and landscape

The section includes:- characterisation of land use and land values (see Figures 24 and 25),

landscapes (see Figures 26 and 27) and evaluation of visual landscapespaces (see Figures 28 and 29) at both proposed sites,

- conclusions on site's suitability for a new waste treatment plant location,- comparison of the proposed sites.

6.8.1 Skede site

Structure of land use

A new regional waste treatment plant for the Liepaja region has been proposed to belocated to Skede in the northern part of Liepaja city southwest of the existing citylandfill. At present birch trees and meadows that are overgrown with different typesof bushes cover the proposed landfill site.

A mixture of peat and sand covers the northern part of the existing landfill. A summergarden co-operative is located further north (1st photo in Annex 16). A newly plantedforest of birch trees, black alders and pine trees is found north -and east of the plannedwaste treatment plant.

A proposal for a new nature reserve in the area is under preparation. The territory iscurrently extensively used. The landscape and the biological diversity in the area aresignificant criteria for awarding it a status of' national importance. The laindi use isshown in Figure 24.

- c7~~~~~~~~~~~~S~~kuke_ ~ ~~~~~ 111.C S USu hvII ;,a Bodnielid, i5 / a eOG a , > , , , S S SU9GS X oO ,;

}{~~~~1 ,, a ^0 /7 . , '1' Itr kn ki .... ..

I~~~~~~ -e /"

APZiMEJ UMIILEGE NDMrosaI12OO

r | ~Mazvertigas plavas Nosedu dTkiI_ Meadows of low value Pool_ ~~MazvertTgas meza zemes Plavu transforma&cijas virziens

Forest lands of low value krumapos un meza zemes

~~ ~Liepajas pilsetas atkrHtumu izgaztuve D>irection of meadows transformationLandf ill of Liepaja cit into bushes and forest lands

r Vasarnicu tipa apbuve I I ~~~~~Potenciala izgaztuves teriHorija

Vasarnicu nasbJv

timerpardnulig [ j! Potential area for wasteSummer gardens buildings ~~~treatment plant

24. zim.: Zemes izmianto.sanas struktulra SJ*deFig. 24: Land use structure in Skede

I

i t I x,O-2::' -.

M rogs/Scale 1:25000APZIMEJUMI/LEGEND

MazvertTgas lauksaimniecib§ izmantojamas zemes (ganibas un krujmaji)Agriculture lands of low value (pastures and bushes)

IVid§jv§rtigas lauksaimnieciba izmantojamas zemesm I Agriculture lands of medium valueVid§i vgrtigas melior§tas lauksaimniecib5 izmantojamas zemesDrained agriculture lands of medium value

Mazvertigas meza zemesm I Forest lands of low value

Vid§i vertigas me2a zemesForest lands of medium value

F.-77. Potenciali vid§i vertigas meza zemes (kr0mAji)g-Rf '-_.-.- Forest lands (bushes) of potentially medium value

'Mazbertulu" auglu darzsOrchard belonging to "Mazbertuli' farm

Grobi,nas pils§tas atkrtumu izgaztuveDump site used by Grobina town

Viens§tasSingle farms

Aug!u darzu un mezu puduriClumps of orchards and forest

rII Parpurvotas teritorijasWetlands

Buvju graustim I Ruins of constructions

Tentorija jauna CSA poligona ierikosanaiK/ Area foreseen for a new waste treatment plant

25. zim.: Zemes izmantosanas struktfira poligonam izveletaja vieta Grobinas pagastaFig. 25: Land use structure at selected site in Grobina parish

-_ N*I" W.~~ ., - ':o

---- a ~~~~Skukes9.

Mo a j adni'kij \_ 0f spr;_c - 10 rX a - ~ oca-0>1 3_ 0

;~~~~E 0-' ^ La J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ aa

a. ' _ An 7

8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ari .: ...*XsD< opa ... \ °aa |a g-

Vckark hi== 8 1,0 0

Pornerani ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Bac ale.arhlndcp

L ~ ~ ~ ~~' -. -I Coee ladilIBrce ars ladsap

.~a

.j 'O~~~~~~~a

C , L Ansuses

C A-

a~~~~~~~

L- - H aeiUkst

a~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O

Merogs/Scale 1:25000APZIMEJ UMI/LEGEND

2t6.itumu izgaztuveit.andf ill __________ Melnalkinu dumbrtju ainavu telpasWig. 26: Landscapes at the site proposed for a new w Black alder marsh landscapeI I Apberta atkritumu izgaztuve jBe5rzu dumbrdju ainavu telpas[ ~~~Covered landfill J Birches marsh landscape tla

[111111 Di~u ainavu tlpas/ Pools landscapePines and birches coniferous forest landscape______Griilu plavu un bEirzu puduru ainavu telpas Priedes un bgrzu jaunaudzes ainavu telpas[ ~~~Sed'ge meadows and birches clumps landlscape Pines and birches saplings landscape

ainavu telps/Bushes lndscape I I Vasarnicas apb0jves ainavu telpas[.i ~~Krumaju aiautlaL 1se adcp Landscape with summer housesr n ~~~Virtu plavas ainavu telpas -, PerspektTivais plgnHeather meadows landscape L..........J Prospective waste treatment plant

26. zimi.:Ainavu telpas poligonam piedfivitajii vietii "Is'kde"Fig. 26: Landscapes at the site proposed for a new waste treatment plant at "Skede"l

Dum s/t use by Grbn tow

wEgbs>_5Eg e

. DiISiunai p&proa v \etas

* ~~Merogs/Scale 1:25000

APZMEJUMI/LEGEND

Grobinas pilsetas atkritumu izgaztuve__Dump site used by Grobina town

PSavu ar krDbmu un koku puduriem ainavu telpaMeadows with clumps ot bushes and trees landscape

D,ki un parpurvotas vietasI IPools and wetlands

Sekundaro eglu, b§srzu un priezu audzu ainavu telpaSecondary landscape ot eagle-trees, birches and pines

W [ Saurlapju kDdre,nu ainavu telpaNarrow-leaved peatmarsh landscape

Eglu un priezu audzu ainavu telpaEagle-trees and pines landscapem Lauksaimniecibas zemju ainavu telpaAgriculture lands landscapem Melioritu lauksaimniecibas zemju ainavu telpaDrained agriculture lands landscape

Auglu dArzu un mezu puduriClumps of orchads and forestViensetasSingle farms

Buvju graustiI I Ruins of constructions

-9- Novadgravis~I Ditch

Teritorija jauna CSA poligona iefiko§anai\/ Area foreseen for a new waste treatment plant

27. zim.:Ainavu telpas poligonam piedavataja vieta Grobi,as pagastaFig. 27: Landscapes at the site proposed for landfill in Grobina parish'

f < 4 a ~~C- ; SkuXes ,,u,,c, F

Ss52~ , i -' 2 :; truk9rnek, 4\:

2 '1 ' * 49 - PTh,n-

nisk-~ ~~~~~1

' '4 '* :; ig' " ' X~~~~~~~~~~gk

:2Bangas..

R.g .

c° X /J /¢ f t he < R l T ~~~~~~~~~~~i O

S~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~S

a cr- a *-

/ w/ t t~2 o ;,I U"1!G)

t0<0

Merogs/Scale 1 :25000

APZIMEJUMIILEGEND

-.- T ¢ Vvizuali augstvertiga ainavu telpa l zcilas skatu perspektives^^ ^- >- 1Landscape space of high value Excellent view prospectives

0 ~~Vvizuali neitrala ainavu telpa Potenciala izgaztuves teritorijaVisually neutral landscape space Potential landfill area=! Vizuali piesam~ota ainavu telpaVisually polluted landscape space

28. zim.: Vizualo ainavu telpu vertejums Skede

Fig. 28: Evaluation of visual landscape spaces in Skede

M6rogs/Scale 1:25000

APZiMP-JUMIILEGEND

VizuAli piesAmota mnozaikveida ainavu telpaVisually pblluted mosaic-like landscape space

ZjVizudli n9itrAla atkl&ta lailksaimnnieCibas zemju ainavu telpaVisually neutral opened agriculture lands landscape space

Vizugli neitrdla mozaikveida laiksaimniecibas zemju ainavu telpaVisually neutral mosaic-like agriculture lands landscape spaceMe2u ainava telpaForest landscape spaceAinavu-pies&rnojuma elementi (bDvju grausti)

Ainavu

Eements of la'ndscape pollution (ruins of constructions)Ainavu piesArnojuma elements (atkritum u izggztuve)Elements of la ndscape pollution (landfill)Auglu dArzu un melu puduriF Clumps of orchads and forestsSkatu perpektives no viensGstam

~< View prospectives from farmer houses

~~ ~Te ritorija jaunt CSA poligona ieriko§anaiArea foreseen for a new landfill

29. zim.: Vizuiili ainavu telpas poligonam piediviitajii vietii Grobigias pagastiiFig. 29: Visual landscapes spaces at the site offered for landflill in Grobina parish

(0:7s

Thc designated (nature protectioni recime ol thc area is an minportant l'actor that niakesthe transformation of l'orrest and nicadows into ;1 waste Ir-eatmnellt plant less suitable.

L~and value

The cadastre value of the Skedc lanndfill and surroundings is one of' the lowest inLiepaja City because ot' the location in a remote district, the existing land uscrestrictions, pure engineering- geological conditions and lack of infrastructure. A newmethod for estimation of land value is under preparation, however, location, land-userestrictions and other factors make an increase in value less probable.

Con clutsions

The cadastre value of the area is low.

Landscape

Ecological chtaracterisationi

The project area is located in the Piejuras coastal lowland. The sand plain of theLitorina Sea with the lagoon type lakes (for example Tosmare Lake) sets the characterof landscape. The plain relief of the landscape has favoured the formation of bog soil.

Moist meadows with birch tress dominate the proposed waste treatment plant. Otherlandscape types found here are firstly sedge meadows with osier (2nd photo in Annex16) and birch tree clumps and secondly meadows with heather. Earlier, the meadowswere used for mowing. Now they have not been mowed for a long time and aregradually transformed into a forest ecosystem. Some old opened melioration ditchesstill remain but are gradually overgrown. Basins located next to the old landfill (3rdphoto in Annex 16) drain to the ditches and the water in the ditches and in the basinsis polluted. The landscape classes are presented in Figure 26.

A fen with birch trees and black alders is located to the south of the proposed wastetreatment plant territory (4th photo in Annex 16). A melioration draining ditch, that isconnected with the basins flows through it. The fen is one of the most valuable typesof forest vegetating conditions from the biological and landscape point of view. Thefen in Skede is very typical with characteristically micro relief. A fen with birch treesand black alders is located also in the West from the landfill that, by a gradualincrease of relief, is transforming into pine growth. Eastwards from the proposedwaste treatment plant area a birch trees vaccinziosa nmel. is located.

The existing landfill (located to north from the proposed new site) is partly covered bya mixture of peat and sand. It forms a hill of anthropogenic origin in the plain relief.The presence of the old landfill has caused the following changes in the surr-ountingarea:

* hydrolo-ical Iregmllel is Chaw'ed(l aronld a landfill. and as a r'estl ic\aCl ofCrlW(lLl]d\?atCr Ihs iS Ca;sdU.(l.

* plants to non-cliaractrlcst ic f'r forest, micadows ind swamips ecosylstclleShave spread in the' area adjoining to [he existino laiil(lli.

Evaluation

The existing natural meadow landscape will, as a result ol sucCeCssion, in a certaillntime to be transformed into a forest ecosystem dominated by birch tress. Thereforebiological and landscape diversity will be reduced. It might be expected that lurtherbogging-up of the area will take place due to overgrowing of drainage ditches.

Enlargement of the existing landfill to the South direction will destroy the currentexisting biological and landscape values of relative natural meadow. From landscapeecology viewpoint, it is tvpical example showing how meadows are overgrowingwhen mowing of grass does not take place.

At the same time a meadow together with a nearly existing fen, form an interestinglandscape complex that assures a life for a number of animal types.

Colnclusionis

The proposed waste treatment plant site is located in a landscape complex where fensmixes with meadows in a way that is typical for the coastal lowland in Latvia.Generally, the value of the fens around the Tosmare Lake meet the criteria, proposedfor areas having high biological and landscape significance in European scale.

Therefore, the following conclusions might be done:

* To improve the environment of the area, it is necessary to design and carryout the rehabilitation plan for the Skede landfill.

* To keep the existing landscape complex, it would not be desirable to expandthe landfill to the south, but to the west the conditions are better.

* If, after the evaluation of alternatives, a decision is made to construct the newwaste treatment plant in Skede, then, for the providing a normal functioningof forest and meadow ecosystem, the melioration ditches have to be cleanedup.

Visual characterisation of landscape

The visual landscape is characterised by an extensive presence of meadows and blackalder- birch clusters. Just foregrounds, which stumble upon forest walls or hills oftrees and bushes, are dominating in the proposed waste treatment plant territory. Thelandscape pattern is typical of forests and wetlands in the coastal lowland. The visuallandscape is presented in Figure 28.

If the visual pollution of different solid waste is ignored then a good view includingmeadows forests and the Tosmare Lake opens up from the oldI waIste heap. (5th pilotoin Annex 16). In the future the landfill maly serve as a good viewpoint.

Eshniat101io1

1. Fromoi a VisLal landscape viewpollit. area propose(d for w\sle disposal is petCty

successl'ully located. because it is hiiddlell flroml thc Wider SU.rOunl1dinlls by ioIest

and the existing landtfill. By arranging a Inew waste treatment plail it \will bcpossiblc to close and tid\' tip the existing landfill ar-ca.

2. Aesthetically high valuable open forests with great biological and( landscapediversity arc located near the proposed site. Constructioni of thc waste treatmentplant could reduce this value.

Conicllusionls

The landscape does not have a high visual value with the exception of fens overgrownby black-alders and birch trees.

The potential waste waste treatment plant location between the thick forest and the oldlandfill is successful from a visual aspect. However, taking into account the aestheticvalue of the landscape of fen, birch trees and black-alders it would not be preferableto install a new waste treatment plant to the south of the existing landfill, but furtherto the west the conditions are more suitable.

To keep the Tosmare Lake valuable landscape complex. which is significant not onlyin the regional or state context, but in a European context as well, it is not advisable tolocate a new waste disposal site in'Skede.

6.8.2 Grobina pagasts

Structure of land use

The alternative site, which has been proposed for a new regional waste treatment plantis located in Grobina pagasts on Mezbertuli household land. According to the landorganisation plan, the total area is 92.6 ha, 42.9 ha of which are pasture land, 38.3 ha -forests, 3.0 ha bushes and 0.6 ha swamps.

However assessing that situation realistically it is very difficult to call the use of thatland for pasture or forestry. The proposed waste treatment plant is located in theformer Soviet Union army rocket base where some collapsed buildings, rocket ramps(total area 0.9 ha), as well as army roads (4.4 ha) remain. The major part of theterritory is consists of neglected agricultural land, partially overgrown with forest andbushes.

Grobina town landfill is located in one part of the proposed-waste treatment plantterritory. State forest land is located to the west and north of the proposed site. Therest of the territory left by the Soviet Union Army is not used and is graduallyovergrown with bushes. Neither Grobina pagasts. nor Liepaja region has anyterritorial plans how to use this land. The land use is shown in Figure 25.

0}:(' I

Conicluxsions

The poor cnvir-onimlcltal conidition and the dCficienIt usc Of theil aeCa is onC plrecond(ilionfor usiln a part of the land 'for waste disposal. The regional planning IhSa 10 include aprotectioni zone according to the legislation of thle Republic of Laivia. 11 thc wastetreatment plant would he constlrcted, a new access road has to he built outsidedensely populated areas (Gr-obina town and Purani and Liepakali).

Lanzd value

Clay loamy soil dominates in agricultural land of the potential territory. Mezbertulifarm was a model farm in 1930ties. The land cadastre valuation indicates an averagevalue of 1 ha Mezbertuli household land to be 162.2 Ls what corresponds to averagevalue of agricultural and forestry land. Considering the land pollution and bogging-upseveral land pieces. the cadastre value could be less. At the same time after clean-up,here can be one of the most valuable soils in Liepaja region. in that case land valuewill exceed 50 points.

The area proposed for the waste treatment plant has a land at an average value. Theland value is reduced due to presence of halfway destroyed buildings left by theSoviet army, poor drainage of land pieces and compact bush vegetation. Nevertheless,he potential land cadastre value for the territory is high.

Coniclusion?

The current cadastre value of the land and potential value can not be considered asserious argument against a location of a new waste treatment plant at this area,because extremely high investments are required for the land sanitation, its cultivationfor agriculture use or afforestation.

Landscapes

Landscape ecological characterisation

The proposed waste waste treatment plant is located in the Vartaja wavy plain on theborder with the coastal lowland in a basic moraine plain. The territory is plain withseveral moist hollows, were a bog-formation process is observed. The soil parentmaterial is moraine loam. Sod-podzolic clay soil, sod-clayzolic soil is found in severalplaces. The major part of planned waste treatment plant is covered with secondaryorigin landscape of white alders and pines, as well as abandoned agricultural landwith clusters of pine trees and different deciduous trees. Forests of vacciniosa rierfimal. type, where a mix of pine trees with fir trees and birch trees dominates, is formedon a swampy peat soil south-west of the area. The forest is meliorated. A drainingditch flows near the existing Grobina town landfill. The ditch is polluted by waste. Aforest west of the waste landfill, is dominated by firs and pines The forest is of' theMyrtilloso-polvtrichosa and Myrtilloso-sphogosa f'orest type. Meliorated andintensively used agricultural lands are located south anld east of the landfill. Thelandscape classes are shown in Figure 27.

Otn the abandoned ancicultiiial klands9 inI IIIC hITeilrN 0o of pmlO)OSCd Wast i-CaInI)tll pti llnt

a mosaic landscapc has lbcen established. Fromll ecoloicail lIoini o0 vicw suclhlandscapes ar-e cl1assilid as di\CIfSI;Cd la111dSCaIpe. However. chanl(ed lCvel o*'groundwater. as well as contaminated enviroriment r-edCLIeC 1h1C eCOlogical value of, thiclandscape.

Colnclu.siolns

The localisation of a waste disposal site to the proposed site Inl Grohina pagasts willnot essentially influence the normal fuLnctioning of the existing landscape. However,the melioration system has to be restored in whole Mezbertuli land, and the Grobilacity waste landfill has to be modified.

Characterisationz of visiual landscape

The plain relief with several different steps (7th and 8'h pictures in Annex 17) forms avisual landscape of the landfill territory. The landscape has a marked mosaiccharacter. Destroyed constructions left by soviet Army essentially reduce the aestheticvalue of the landscape. At the same time landscape has such elements, which cancause an emotional experience to number of inhabitants. For an example, floweringfruit-trees on the ruins of army constructions (lOth picture in Annex 17) formerorchard of the Mezbertuli household behind a rocket storage bunker (11lh picture inAnnex 17).

Close-up and middle sight views dominate as there is no hill or other elevated pointfor wider views. The visual landscape is shown in Figure 29.

The proposed waste treatment plant has to be evaluated in two ways:

1. Presently deteriorated the visual landscape after a waste treatment plantconstruction will not change much.

2. However, there is a number of valuable landscape elements, which may beused for tourist attraction.

Conclusions

The proposed waste treatment plant area from the landscape point of view is locatedvery properly, because it is hidden from a wider surrounding by forest and treeclusters.

The waste treatment plant will be located in vision of view for four households:Kalisi, Piladzi, Egli and Purani. Trees should be planted to obscure the view of thearea.

Visual construction debris has to be removed, at the same time reserving interestinglandscape elements that show Latvian culture heritage and history should be saved.

Fi,ial coIZcll(sioii

Construction of a waste treatment plant onl a lanld ol MeAi.hul i h)OLSCe1o1(i ill Grohi Ipagasts. will niot deteriorate the environment coniditions 1nd( at tile samiC tlimc it will hc

possible to restore the aesthetic view ol the territory.

6.8.3. Comparison of the potential sites

The comparison of potential sites may be based on the basis of qualitative crilcriai.

Therefore, 2 and 3 criteria describing land use / value and landscapes hlave been usedin order to compare the potential sites:

1. Land use and value:- dominating land value,- land use.

2. Landscapes:- landscape characterisation,- incorporation in visual landscape,- essential factors of landscape ecology.

Findings are summarised in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6Comparison of land value/use and landscape for potential sitesCriteria Characterisation of criteria

Skede site | Grobina siteLand use and value

Dominating land value Little value Middle valueLand use abandoned meadows abandoned aoricultural land

LandscapesLandscape characterisation Typical landscape of Not a typical landscape for Latvia.

lowland wet forests and Visually polluted, abandonedmeadows. agriculture land.

Incorporation in visual Visually hidden Visually hiddenlandscape

Essential factors of landscape Great biological and Territory is suitable for installationecology landscape diversity and of a waste treatment plant

value at the same time

The overall evaluation of the two alternatives shows that the land of Mezbertulihousehold in Grobina pagasts is the most suitable site for the location of a waste wastetreatment plant.

6.9 Cultural and historical heritage and protection of cultural environment

Two sites have been assessed:- Skede, in the territory of Liepaja city,- "Poligons" in Grobina pagasts parish.

Location of potential historical heritage and cultur-al cnvironmiients is shownl onFigures 30 and 31.

0y64

Fhzurc 30

e -r -jz - / tt2;am / 0 $§kult s/ Po,it,I \-

// KaJ4 - ' -- /\ZuY

'~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ / ' uIS Se_ _ ai . ,,' , 0 /c I -- *~~~~~~tOAe~~~~- d

[~~~~~~~OA~~~~~~~~~~'idi -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

/ Vasarnicas

I- , N l / I6), .,/I

. : Cb : .j - )$ [>slDdoni iS} APZiMEJUMI/LEGEND

-I - -\< \ / 2 aI Ukiii 1 \ \\ / D Existing landSII

'-' / I /'' > ~, f ~~_ / n Eso/ita\ \ }/ 1 rz5Pnotapoligonateritorija

L.J Area proposed for new landfill

/' ,.;:,----_ _ a \Kukp rs\F; D 3 km zonas robe2a

S km zone

Tosmareq eZ. Aizsarg&jamie r kultras pieminekii

/\ \s/lil/ Protected culture environments

| Lpn~d~ I EfP A J A ' c: f \ . .r - . ; ) \ / 30. zim.:Potencialas senvietas vaiZ.'WVA senlietu saarupatradumu vietas~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~Potenlial historical heritage

ID7 or single pisces with antiquities finding

13 W~~~~~~~~~~~~Mrogs/Scale 1 -25 000

Fig. 30: Location of' potential historical heritageUmd ~~~and cultural environments, Skede

30. ztm.: Potencittliis senvietasA ti~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ n kulittiras pieminekli, AkEde

12k- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~Dreirran i

/ N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MAki

a RUdzIAI ~~~' '16

v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

N ~~~~~~~~~~~~Skuianftf T '

~~~~~~~~ / N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Abelesftne ~~~~\Kiaudil

KrilMi

li. aimljs

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ V,lferi lbp

7'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

c Egies - - - - - - -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ae freen o anw adfl

Exislintg lanrdpfill m ea

orsigea pfaresee witr antiquitiesfindin

AJzvAIi and cuPtotetal cltr environments, rbnsprsIN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3.zm:Potencialgs senvietasva

Dzen R.bini.ki~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nklurspemnki Goiis aat

6.9.1. Potential waste deposit site Skede

The study of the matei-ials available at the Documrentation Centr-e of thIc State CulturalMonuments Protectioni Inspection (heniceforth - DC SCMPI). tilc archives alid tlicfunds of the Department of Archaeology of Latvia History MuscuLml (henceforth -LHM A), the Register of State Protected Cultural Monuments. in force as of1998.29.10. (Latvijas Vcstnesis No. 369/372; 375/380), has yieldcd no evidcncc ofthe presence of any state protected cultural monuments at the potential waste depositsite "Skede".or at roads. leading to it or in its direct vicinity. Likewise, there is noevidence of any findings of separate archaeological artefacts that could be an indirectproof of a potential archaeological site.

The study of the cartographic materials (Russian army map of 1947 (withamendments in 1977) C-50-16-A-a, M 1:25000; Russian army map of 1982, C-50-16-A-a-4, M 1:10000 et.al.). the potential waste deposit site and its direct vicinity is lowand marshy. Next to the site; to the north ; is the presently operating Liepaja landfill.Within three km are around the potential waste treatment plant there are two possiblearchaeological sites.

According to the LHM archive data, in, 1842 Fr. Krauze has recorded a hillfort on thewest shore of the Tosmare lake (LHM A - Liepaja city file, PN 1533/24; alsoNicrolivonica, Table 61). E.Brastins. who visited the site in the 1920-ties, has foundno evidence of a hillfort in the dunes at the lake. (Latvijas pilskalni. I.Kursu zeme-pagel33).

Among the archive materials there is a report by J.Sudmalis of 1933 about boat-shaped stone mounds at the northern end of the Tosmare lake. (LHM A- Liepajas -district, Medze pagasts,file, No.490).

LHM displays 10 stone axes. that have been found around Liepaja in different periods(LHM - inventory No. A 1781; A 7393:1-3 et.al.). There is no information as to theplace where the artefacts have been found; however, it seems that they have notoriginated from the marshy and swampy area around the northern part of the Tosmarelake.

The visit to the potential waste deposit site leads to the conclusion that the landscapeto the N, NE and E of the present Liepaja landfill is of no cultural or historical value;the area to the S and SE is marshlands, and to the E - low grasslands/meadows. (Fig.1-3). The terrain to the NE and N is slightly higher; although there is also relativelywet thicket/shrubbery. The area around the present landfill is littered with householdwaste.

Measures to be taken to protect potential cultural mzonuments

If the site is chosen for a waste treatment plant, the west shore and the area around thenorthern end of the lake should be checked by a qualified archaeologist.

Su,nnitarv and opiiiioii

1. The landscape at lhe potential waste deplosit site anld its VicinIIly is of no cult ur,al orhistorical value.

2. There arc no state-protected cUIltural monumilents or information abouit aInyfindings of archaeological arteflacts at thc potential waste deposit site or its directvicinity.

3. Within 3 km area there are no cultural monuments under the stiltc protection.4. Within 3 km area there are 2 potential archaeological sites that have to be checked

before setting up a waste treatment plant.

From the cultural and historical perspective and cultural monuments' protectionaspect, there are no objections to the establishment of a new waste deposit site to theS. SE of the currently operating Liepaja landfill.

6.9.2. Potential waste treatment plant "Grobina"

The study of the materials available at the Documentation Centre of the State CulturalMonuments Protection Inspection (henceforth - DC SCMPI), the archives (henceforth- LHM A...), and the funds (henceforth - LHM ...), of the Department ofArchaeology of Latvia History Museum, the Register of State Protected CulturalMonuments, in force as of 1998.29.10. (Latvijas Vestnesis No. 369/372; 375/380)(henceforth - state protection No....), has yielded no evidence of the presence of anystate protected cultural monuments. Likewise, there is no evidence of any findings ofseparate archaeological artefacts that could be an indirect proof of a potentialarchaeological site.

The study of the cartographic materials:- the Map of the Republic of Latvia, Liepaja district, Grobina pagasts of

1990,- Russian army map of 1947 (with amendments in 1977) C-50-16-A-g, M

1:25000,- Russian army map of 1983, C-50-16-A-g-2, M 1:10000 et.al.,

shows that the potential waste disposal site lies on a scarcely populated, flat area,encircled by forests.

However, the vicinity of the potential waste treatment plant is saturated with culturalmonuments and archaeological sites have yielded archaeological artefacts.

Following artefacts have been found within 3 km area:- the northern part of the Grobina town (town-construction monument of

national significance - state protection No. 7439.; Map 2:1).- Grobi,a Lutheran church and castle ruins (architectural monument of

national significance, state protection No. 6408., castle ruins - alsoarchitectural monument of national significance - No. 1343.: Map 2:2.3).

- Grobina hillfort (Skabarzu mound) with an archaleological sitc -anlcienttown (also archaeological monument of national significance. No. 1340.:Map 2:4).

Ancient burial site - Porninu (PHir5nul.) senikai is locatcd in less than onle kmi Iromil thesite proposed for the wiiste treatment lll (ancicelnt cemlieter.y achaClCO[O'iCal 111oni1meCIn! ol

national significance, No. 1344.; Map 2:5).

Separate archaeological ar-lefacts lhlave been found withliln 3 km there are l-lpaces wherc:- in the town of GCrobilna (spear - LHM. inv. No. A 851 6:- bracelets - LHM. inv. No. A9702. 12554 et.al.: Map 2:6).- near Apogi (coins - DC SCMPI inv. No. p10753 1; Map 2:7),- near Rolavas (amber pendants - LHM. inv. No. A 9958:1-2,- iron axe - LHM. inv. No. A 10238:1; Map 2:8).

Number of ancient burial sites located very close to the 3 km border:- ancient burial site Smukumu senkapi (archaeological monument of

national significance, No. 1345; Map 2:9),- Priedienas senkapi (ancient cemetery; archaeological monument of

national significance. No. 1342; Map 2:10),- ancient burial site Atkalnu senkapi (archaeological monument of national

significance, No. 1341; Map 2:11),- ancient burial site Strautinu senkapi (ancient cemetery; archaeological

monument of national significance, No. 1373.; Map 2:12).

Number of separate archaeological artefacts located very close to the 3 km border:- llgi manor (LHM A, Liepaja distr. Grobir,ia pagasts file; Map 2:13),- Gravinjas (DC SCMPI inv. No. 14040/3183-4 I; Map 2:14),- Lauri (DC SCMPI inv. No. p 10404 1; Map 2:15),- Maki (LHM A, Lieptja distr. Tdgu pagasts file; Map 2:16),- Purini (LHM A, Liepaja distr. Tasu pagasts file; Map 2:17),- Grantir,i (Map 2:18).

The 18'h century mapor houses complex (architectural monument of nationalsignificance, protection No. 6426.) is situated about 2 km to the NE from the selectedsite. and in the same distance to the NW - ancient burial site Kapsedes senkapi(archaeological monument of national significance, protection No. 1366.).

The concentration of cultural monuments in Grobina and its vicinity can be explainedby its long-term intensive population. A burial dated 2nd millenium B.C. has beenfound-in the archaeological burial site Atkalnu senkapi; In 7 h _8 1h centuries Grobinawas an important Scandinavian port on the banks of the Aalande river; three largeScandinavian burial sites - Porani, Smukumi un Priediena - also date back to thisperiod. Later Grobina was an administrative centre of Courland (Grobinta hillfort withancient village), but starting with the 13th century - a fortified German settlement(Castle of the Order). Therefore Grobina is a significant area, rich in culturalmonuments, widely known in the world.

During the site visit to the potential waste treatment plant it was found that thelandscape has been degraded, the terrain has been changed, adapting it to the needs olthe Russian military base (ditches, fortification walls, bunkers have becn set up). Thearea features numerous half-rUined buildings, it is randoomly littered witlh hotselhol(dwaste. This area is at a discord with the cultural environment of Grobina town and isan unattractive background for the ancient burial site - Poranu senkapi.

It is a paradox. but it seems that the area in fact could be clecanecd and tidic(l up. setlingup a modern waste treatmient plantt. It must he noted that the Northlerni part of thepotential waste treatmetlt plant is already being used as a dumpsite Ior the towni olGrobi na.

Measures to be takent to protect cultutral environmnent

Although there is a high concentration of cultural monuments in the vicinity of thepotential waste deposit site, the establishment of a waste treatment plant would beacceptable provided the following measures are observed:

- the degraded environment on the landfill site and in the area has to becleaned up (the half-ruined buildings have to be pulled down, thedeformed terrain has to be levelled, unauthorised dumping of waste outsidethe site has to be prevented);,

- on the south border of the site trees or shrubs/bushes have to planted toensure protection,

- the road leadinc to the landfill, near the ancient burial site Porani senkapi,has to be relocated or a protecting border has to be set up.

All the waste treatment plant establishment designs have to be approved of by theState Cultural monuments inspection. Any road relocation or land excavation workhas to be carried out under the guidance of a qualified archaeologist. In the event offinding, new, previously unknown artefacts their exploration has to be ensured.

Summary and opinion

1. The potential waste deposit site is of no cultural or historical value.2. There are no state-protected cultural monuments; there is no information

about any potential cultural monuments.3. Within 3 km area there are 4 cultural monuments under the state

protection.4. Within 3 km area there are 2 archaeological sites that have yielded

artefacts.5. Close to the 3 km area border there are 4 cultural monuments under the

state protection and 6 archaeological sites that have yielded artefacts.

The establishment of a waste treatment plant near Grobinta would be acceptableprovided the following measures have to be strictly observed:

- the degraded environment on the site and in the area is cleaned upon the S border of the site trees or shrubs/bushes are planted;- the road leading to the landfill, near the ancient burial site Porani senkapi.

is relocated or a protecting border is set up.

All the waste treatment plant establishment designs have to be approved of by theState Cultural monuments inspection. Any land excavation work has to be carried outunder the guidance of a qualified archaeologist but in the event of f-inding lnewartefacts their exploration has to be ensured.

0:70

6.9.3 Comparison of the potential sites and conclusionis

The comparison of potential sites maly bc doIne on the asis of' qua;Iitative crliterial.Therefore, five criteria (see Table 6.7) have been used lor thc colmpaliisoll of thepotential sites.

Minimum and maximum numbers respectively show suitability or non-suillability ofsite for proposed action.

Table 6.7Comparison of cultural and historical heritage for potential sites

Indicator Evaluation resultsGrobina site I Skede site

Value of cultural and historical landscape (10 3 3points ) | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Number of cultural monuments under protection 5within the 3 km areaNumber of cultural monuments under protection 4close to the 3 km area l IPotential archaeological sites within the 3 km 3 2

Potential archaeological sites close to the 3 km 6 l

area border I I

Total: 21 j 5

The comparison of the quantitative indicators leads to the conclusion that from theaspect of cultural and historical environment and landscape protection, Skede inLiepaja is a more appropriate site for a waste treatment plant. No cultural monumentswould be endangered but the survey of the two potential archaeological sites on theshores of the Tosmare lake would not incur big costs, and the evidence of the sitesprobably would not require further archaeological exploration.

With a view to the cleaning of the cultural environment around Grobina town, i.e. inthe area of the former Russian military base and provided the above conditions andthe landfill operating rules are scrupulously observed, the establishment of a wastetreatment plant would be acceptable also in Grobina, if it not possible to clean up theformer military base in some other way.

The choice of Grobina for a waste treatment plant site causes a much greater risk tothe cultural environment, and the cost for the preventive measures would be higher

(archaeological surveillance, possible excavations etc.)

From the aspect of cultural environment and with a view to the protection of culturalmonuments, Skede in Liepaja is a more appropriate site for a waste treatment plant.

If the environmental, nature protection and other factors give a substantiatedpreference to setting up a waste treatment plant site in Grobina. it could be acceptablefrom the aspect of cultural monuments protection aspect. All design plans. in thiscase, have to be approved by the State Cultural Monuments Protection Inspection. Allthe requirements stated by this institution concerning the waste treatment plant design.its implementation and operation, should be observed.

(o:71

6.10 Impacts on humnan healtlh

This section covers the humlian healith aspects for thc populatiOn In thC suLr0ndin(1il1C s ol

the landfill while next section covers the occupzationial helelth aspects for thc workeirsat the site.

The most important risks to human health, comfort. welfare or lifc quality associatedwith a MSW landfill are as follows:

- diffusion of chemical contamination,- noise from transports and machines,- infectious and parasitic diseases.

To estimate potentially harmful health impacts of the proposed waste treatment planton people in the neighbourhood, social, technical and environmental aspects should beconsidered. Different conditions strengthen or reduce this impact by acting directly orinteracting. The most essential of them are described further.

6.10.1 Description of harmful impact

Possible risks

Air pollutanzts

- Gases formed by decomposition of organic waste i.e. methane, carbondioxide, nitrogen oxides. (These gases are dangerous only in very highconcentrations - in a closed room they can cause hypoxia). Other gaseswith irritant effects are produced in small amounts.

- Substances, which emanate from non-separated hazardous waste. Thesewaste should not be accepted at the site. The most important are: benzene,carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-dichlorethane, chloroform, ethylene dibromide,tetrachlorethylene, methylene chloride, 1,1,1 -trichlorethane,trichlorethylene, vinyl chloride, polychlorinated biphenyl etc. (Thesesubstances can harmfully affect different systems of the human organism.Many of the mentioned substances are suspected carcinogens, genotoxic,or teratogens).

- "Waste smell" that is caused by a mixture of air emissions such as dust,aerosol, smoke and other gases (these emissions may cause discomfort andasthmatic or other allergic reactions).

Soil, groundwater and surface water chemical pollution is possible by the followingsubstances in hazardous solid waste

- Heavy metals (Pb. Cd, Hg, Cr etc). which can harmfully affect severalsystems of the human body

- Ammonia, nitrate and inorganic salts (these substances mostly deterioratethe organoleptic qualities of drinking water).

0:72

Noi.s

People who live and work- in the neiiehbotir-lhood are exlposecd to noise from activitiesat the landfill and from transpor-ts. The IMain souIces of noise arc wastc trans"portvehicles, bulldozers and fronlal loaders. The noise is irregular and disconltinILouswhich is relatively more annoying in silent surroundings than if it is continuous.

Diseases

Landfills can be a source of some infectious and parasitic diseases. The mostdangerous of them are spread by mammals and insects.

Infectious and parasitic diseases, which are directly or indirectly connected with alandfill, are leptospirosis. Yersinia infections, rabies, gastric infections, toxocariasis,trichinosis, spirillosis, and to a lesser extent - tuberculosis, tularemia, cat-scratchfever etc.

Expositioni process

The magnitude of discharged pollutants depends on disposed waste volumes, contentand management methods but also on meteorological conditions.

The main transmnission routes of pollutants are:

- by infiltration to groundwater,- by air emnissions- by leakage to surface waters,- by vectors such as insects, rats, birds.

The main physico-chernical qualities that influence transport and circulation of thesubstances in the environment are as follows:

- solubility in water,- vapour pressure,- ability of bio-concentration,- ability of transfornation and degradation

The main local-specific factors that influence transport and circulation in environmentare as follows:

- wind speed and direction,- geomorphologic nature,- surface water channels,- land cover,- vegetation,- animals,- human factors.

Human exposure is possible by:

- using of polluted groundwater fromii priv.itc wells.- using of polluted surface watler in lood preparation or for swimiiin.- inhalationi of dust of polluted soil and direct conitzict of skin wilth polluted

soil. workino in the surroundings of a landld'il.- inhalationi of polluted air when living or working in thc surrToundin,gs of a

landfill,- eating vegetables grown in polluted soil,- eating animals that have eaten plants grown in polluted soil,- eating fish from polluted watercourses.

6.10.2 Description of the existing situation

Two sites are examined: Skede in Liepaja town and a former military base in Grobinapagasts.

Skede

Inlhabitanits

The Garden co-operative 'Skede" with cottages and small gardens (about 1580 landpieces) is located near the selected site. Currently the co-operative has obtained statusof "summer gardens settlement" (the decision no. 3 of the Medze pagasts councildated by March 9, 1999).

Land use anld resources

The inhabitants of the co-operative use the area mainly for recreation and gardening.Drinking water supply is provided from drilled wells in Skede town. The bogcontaminates drinking water in those wells.

Health data

There are no official statistics data on the presence in the area of such diseases thatcan be connected to the waste treatment plant.

Water supply

The existing landfill does not likely influences the groundwater quality at the "Skede"

summer garden co-operative. The natural water quality is poor due to presence ofmuddy and boggy deposits. Therefore, people do not use this water for drinking, andbring water from Liepaja city.

In the future, if an extension of the landfill in "Skede' will be accepted. it can berecommended to install 2 water supply wells screened in the Joniski - Akmneneaquifer.

0:74

Grobina pagasts

In1habitan1ts

5 residential houses - "Ataugas". "Egles", "Purani". "Piladzi, "Kalisi" are located ata small distance from the proposed area in Grobina pagasts. The distance toresidential areas in Grobina town is approximately 2 km.

Land use and resources

The area immediate to the proposed waste treatment plant site is not used foreconomic activities. The terrain next to the living houses is used for agriculturalpurposes (mainly for pasture) and gardening. Households keep livestock and poultry.Drinking water is provided from private wells.

Health data

No information on leptospirosis, yersiniosis, rabies, acute enteritis, toxocariasis,trichinosis, spirillosis was found in Liepaja region. There are no official statistics dataon the presence of such diseases.

Water supply

Inventory of wells used for drinking water supply in the vicinity of the site proposedfor a new waste treatment plant has been carried out in August, 1999. Obtained resultsare characterised in Table 6.8.

Table 6.8Results of well surve at the Grobina site

Head Water table, EC,Name on in m liS/cm

of Owner Type of a Depth, land From From pH andfarm well in m surf., land head to, °C

in m surface

Ataugas Lukjanskis dug 1 3.13 0.60 1.54 2.14 7.35 564Eglitis 14.0

Piurani Laimonis drilled 7.74 634BErzin_ 16.1

Pl15d2i Fjodors dug 0.20 1.56 1.76 7.25 727Golovanovs 1.97 21.0

KariTi Petrevics dug 4.57 0.55 1.66 2.21 7.16 109520.8

Vilteri Talis dug 3.52 0.30 2.50 2.80 7.00 1605Bergranis 12.7

Egles dug 3.95 0.50 1.32 1.82 7.00 879___________________ _____________l___ 13.8

Five of six farms use dug wells and only "Purani" has a drilled well. A submersiblepump is installed in the well, therefore measurements of the depth and water tablewere not possible.

(7:75

EC measurements show that the water at the farms "Vilteri" and "Kalisi' almostcertainly is contaminated, since the EC value reaches 10(5 and 1095 p1 S/cm. Tlliscorresponds to a TDS value of about 1.5 and 1.0 g/l respectively. A possibleexplanation could be that this contamination is related to earlier activities of the armlyat the area located northwest of the farmhouses. The contamination has likelymigrated via drainage ditches from the earlier training area, and the wells have beenrecharged by the water from the ditches, since they are located close to the ditch.Further careful and detailed analysis of the water suitability for drinking purposes isrequired.

It is rather possible that the army has left some water supply wells which are notplugged, although such wells have not be found at the site proposed for the wastetreatment plant and 0.5 km surroundings of the site. If the site will be approved forconstruction of a new waste treatment plant an inventory of abandoned wells has to beprovided.

6.10.3 Conclusions

Skede

1. Children live permanently in the neighbourhood of the proposed site. They areplaying near the landfill, and may be exposed to and accumulate contarninatedsubstances. Children are more sensitive to the exposure of toxic substances.

2. The landfill is a potential breeding place for rodents, wild dogs and cats, whichcan increase the number of animals infected by rabies, which potentially exposethe inhabitants, in particular, homeless people and domestic animals.

3. Taking into account that inquired people from the nearest houses did not mentionspecific concern about their health (asthma, allergic diseases, and chronicwindpipe diseases), the inhabitants do not experience any risk to the human healthas high.

4. As no indication on the occurrence of infectious diseases related to landfills wasregistered in Liepaja region for the last years, no essential increase in suchdiseases is expected in the future if the proposed mitigation measures are effected.

5. Increased pollution of drinking water is not expected, if the proposed mitigationmeasures are effected.

The air pollution near to the landfill can not cause harm to human health because ofthe following:

* gases like methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, that are generated bywaste decomposition, are in an open area not dangerous for human health,

* other gases that are caused by the decomposition of waste do not exceed1% of the total gas amount, therefore the concentration in the air will besmall;

0:70

* thc cxpcctcd aniount oi toxic substaSn1c1s Will not he sillltniCicnt. lclausethe amount ol' hazaldous solidCI waste do not cxcce( 1-2 ol lotal MSWvolume and the concentration ol'dan-crous substances in air will be sinall:

* Permanent rcsidcnts in lhe territoryv next to the wastc tii-ci-eamlet plant is notforeseen.

6. Persistent pollutants l'rom the landfill are not expected to IrcICh the nearestgardens.

7. Neighbours may experience nuisance because of the noise from waste transportnear their houses.

8. The noise levels arising from activities at the landfill will most likely not causehumans health disorders, however, long and increased levels can influencepeople's well-being and comfort.

9. It is possible that inhabitants use Tosmare Lake for recreation purposes, andexpansion of the landfill, if preventive measures will not be provided. may increasethe water contamination and cause danger to the human health. Hazardoussubstances accumulated in the lakle fish used for food may become detrimental topeople's health.

Grobina pagasts

Most of the comments provided for Skede will also be valid for Grobina, and also:

1. The small forest that separates the proposed waste treatment plant site from livinghouses will retard waste smell and dust.

2. Nearby surface waters are not used for food preparation or for recreation needs,therefore estimated contamination levels will not endanger people's health.

6.10.4. Recommended mitigating measures

Skede and Grobina surroundings

1. To reduce bad smell, contamninated leakage water and dust coming from landfillwastes, as well as to reduce the spread of infectious diseases, the waste pile shouldbe covered with a daily soil cover.

2. To reduce the possibilities of spreading diseases, rat extermination should beperformed at regular intervals.

3. To prevent domestic animals from getting infected with rabies, carefulimmunisation has to be provided.

4. For gardens, which are not farther than 300-40() meters from the waste treatmentplant border, quality control of soil is proposed at least for once a year.

6 ,77

5. Reular quality COntrOl of drikig waler iII thC nearby Wells shold hC pCI i'O111Cd.-Depending on thc decisionl onl sitC secection, two nlcw wells screelline IhcDevoniai aqluiifer should he instlliCL at thiC SUlilmllelr gardelns co-operative '"Skded'.

6. The water quality at i'Vilteri" andci "IKalisi farms in the Grobina parish is ralthcr-poor. If the site will be sclected for a new waste treatmnent plant. water qLuality hasto be checked carefully and. likely, that the dug wells havc to he replaced byartesian wells. Additionally. inventory of area of the earlier army base has to heprovided in order to find any abandoned wells left by the army.

7. To reduce noise caused by waste transport passing living houses, trees and bushesshould be planted or other noise barriers should be arranged along access roadsnear permanent residential houses.

8. To limit the level of acceptable noise in the area of the permanent houses andinside them measures should be taken reduce noise caused by activities carried outat the waste treatment plant.

9. Work in the landfill has to be organised in the way that eliminates outflow of toxicsubstances.

The waste treatment plant has to be fenced in order to prevent people and animal fromentering the area.

6.11 Occupational health aspects

This section includes description of risks and assessment of preventive measures.

6.11.1. Description of risk factors

Chemical factors

The actual exposure to harmful chemical substances at the MSWL managementprocess is mainly connected to hazardous waste that has been mixed with commonhousehold waste. As stated above these wastes should be prevented from entering thesite. The most important characteristics of municipal hazardous waste are toxicity,causticity, combustibility and flammability.

Chemical agents to which staff of the MSWL are exposed could be divided in thefollowing categories:

- gases;- mineral dust;- polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);- polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);- organic nitrogen compounds;- synthetic polymers;- organic solvents and similar substances;- metals.

0:7S

Substances present in hazardous \aste L'can raise a wide spectrum ol helielil haar..ARds

from skin irritation to acultc poisonino to cancer.* Acute cxposure to high closes of harmlf'ul substances nmalinly happens dluc to

accidents or omiltingz safety rules.

* Chronical intoxication couldl happcn through uptake of small amnounts olharmful substances during ai long timc. Clinical symrplomns in tilis case canbecome apparent after very long latent period. The lirst ildicationis can blehidden for a long time period (urp to 40 years).

It is difficult to assess the impact of harmful substances on human health, because itdepends on interaction of several collateral factors. The main factors are thefollowing:a) factors connected with employees:

- sex;- age;- general state of health;- previous expositions;- individual tolerance;- high sensitivity:- life style and manners;- keeping the precautionary measures;- others;

b) not connected with employees:parameters of exposition;

- content and ratio of chemical substances; -

- simultaneously existing physical, biological, psycho-social and otherhealth risk factors;

- synergistic effects of different chemical substances. Synergistic impactsare the most dangerous for human health and it is hardly to assess them.

Noise

Working in an environment with high noise level can lead to failing or loss of hearing.Long exposure to noise levels not impairing hearing can develop functional disorderof the circulatory system like asthenic reactions. Working long time period in adverseconditions can cause stable changes of arterial tonus promoting the development ofhypertension.

Vibration

Work-ers who are subjected to impact of vibrations for a long time can developdisorders of the central nervous system such as asthenia.

Typical symptoms of general vibration influence are vestibulopatia what becomesapparent as headache, giddiness, noise in ears, sleepiness. The most stable changesappear in lumbar and sacral vertebra becoming apparent as deforming osteoarthrosis.

Ergonomical aspects

(:7')

Work in MSWLb nmnallernlent is conneected with several inclors, which call flicilitatedamages of stay and motion systemi ol pcople. This prohlemn mostly is colInIcCted WEiih

ergonlomical aspects. Th.e maini croollomilical lactols that call imprlact employees Inlandfill are:

- physically hard work;- static pose:

- bending and twirling;- lifting of weight and motions requiring use of big power'- vibration.

Health problems connected with the above mentioned risk factors are pain of differentgenesis in shoulders, neck and back. Even if the neck is kept in a slightly bentposition, it can create a discomfort if the pose is kept for a long time. Such discomfortin working place can lead to chronic pain. The exposure to vibrations in driver'scabin when the engine operates can be a significant risk factor for development ofpain in the lumbar and sacral part of back.

Working outsidePeople working in open-air all the year are exposed to different weather conditionsand consequently freezing. overheating, rain and wind are health hazards.

Employees working in the open air in hot summer days can be subjected to sunstroke.Disorders of the body water-salt balance as result of profuse sweating can causespasms (cramps).

Local and general cooling of the body during cold winter days can cause frostbites,diseases of the peripheral nervous system and muscle damage. Repeated cooling ofthe body can cause chronic diseases (rheumatism, bronchitis, pielitis and others).Cooling also reduces the human immune system facilitating so called cold diseases -bronchitis, tonsillitis, pneumonia and others.

Stress

An important factor impacting on human health is occupational stress. It consists ofseveral stress factors, different by genesis and type of impact. Employees involved inMSWL management can be subjected to the following stress factors:

- changes in temperature;- noise;- vibration;- unhealthy odours;- unsafe working conditions;- isolation.

There are no precise methods for assessment of occupational stress but impact ofstress can facilitate development of some diseases and other pathological states. Itshould be borne in mind that all kinds of harmful impacts acting simultaneouslystrengthen the harmful effect.

ON)

6.11.2. Assessment and preventive IUclEaSUI2'S

The followino employees zIrc exposed to thc dif-fercnt healthi risks at MSWLmanagement process:

- drivers;- drivers of bulldozer and drivers of fronot loader;- workers:

- guardsmen.

Drivers

The waste treatment plant will be served by waste transport drivers subjected tooccupational risk factors: such as vibration and sitting pose as well as to biologicaland chemical pollution from exhaust gases and wastes.

PrevenitionzIn order to protect drivers' health it is necessary to observe the safety rules and whenthe drivers cannot avoid contact with the waste - special protective clothes should beused.

Drivers of bulldozer andfront loader

Drivers of bulldozer or front loader in MSWL will be exposed to several occupationalrisks.

* Equipment for processing and compacting of waste will create noise.* In the work cabin, drivers of bulldozer and front loader will be subjected to

vibration of engine.* During operation drivers will be in static sitting positions.* As work will go on all the year and working conditions are close to conditions

outside, drivers are exposed to changing weather conditions.* There is also a risk of exposition to harmful chemical substances from MSW

through inhalation of dust and direct contact with waste.

Additional stress factors are bad odours, unsafe working conditions and isolation inwork cabin.

PreventionIn order to protect the health of drivers of bulldozer and front loader it is necessarythat the driver's cabin is maximally isolated from noise and vibration produced by theengine. Hearing protection should be used e.g. tampons and antiphons. Thearrangement of the driver's cabin should be ergonomically favourable. In order toreduce adverse impact of vibration drivers of bulldozers should be allowed regularbreaks. Bulldozer drivers should be provided with protective clothing against adverseweather conditions and direct contact with waste.

Workers

Among the MSWL staff, workers are most affected by occupational helalth risks.Wor}kers will be exposed to the following risk factors:

* Noise from equipment for processing and pressing of waste.

0:8 I

* Exposur-c to halml-nful Chemicial SUbStallCCS Iflrom MSW by ihllallatioln oIgases. dust par-ticles as well as through absorption by skini conlact. Thlepossibility of inCestion ol halul substanices also exists.

* For work momeints thal involve bending anid lifling hi; N plysical cXCtlioni issometimes needed.

* Work goes on outside all year.* Bad odours and unsafe working conditions create additionlal occuLpational

stress.

PreventionWorkers should strictly observe work safety and sanitation rules. Special protectiveclothing protecting from direct contact with wastes and ensuring against unfavourableweather conditions should be used when sorting wastes and operating the wastetreatment plant. Activities demanding big physical exertion, lifting of weight andsimilar activities should if possible be done using technical equipment.

Guardsmen

Guarding personnel in the MSWL can be exposed to noise and unhealthy odours aswell as experience isolation in the working place.

PreventionGuardsmen should not stay in close vicinity of the waste if not required. Theguardsmen should use protective clothing if they have to handle waste.

Operating regulations

The operating regulations should contain details concerning occupational healthaspects and preventing of occupational hazards.

Arrangement of buildings

In order to ensure good working conditions in MSWL it is necessary to include intothe project the following elements:

1) rest room, which should be heated, ventilated and equipped with artificiallighting,- a place before rest room where to take off clothes,

2) kitchen, which should be heated, equipped with, sink, water supply, hotwater and ventilation

3) toilet, equipped with artificial lighting, hot water supply and ventilation4) shower room, heated, equipped with hot water supply and ventilation5) room for changing and cleaning clothes with space for keeping of work

clothes, separated from other rooms heated equipped with artificial lighting.hot water supply; and ventilation.

Rooms foreseen for a rest and kitchen can not be designed as communicating rooms.

6.12 Summary of impacts, mitigation measures and site suitability for a newwaste treatment plant

The summary on possible impacts can be divided into 3 groups:

(: , 2

1) impacts durina COIlStuctiOII peCI iOdt,

2) impacts during oleralioti.

3) impacts alter closure.

The impacts and the possible miti-atioll ImlC.lSLUrCS are Su111mmariSed in Tables 6.9. 6. 1 0and 6.1 1.

Table 6.9Impacts and mitigation measures: construction period

Impact Mitigation measuresChanges of hydraulic Construction of a surface runoff system, avoiding water logging in the vicinityregime of a new waste treatment areaSurface water and Spills of oil products should be avoided at the site of construction works,groundwater washing of vehicles and other polluting activities cannot be allowedcontaminationAir pol]]tion Impact will be negligible and does not require mitigation measuresNoise Proper organisation of works carried out at the site (activities have to be carried

out only during day time)Impacts related to raw Selection of proper suppliers; purchase of sand-gravel and clay material onlymaterial production from quarries where excavation is permitted (limits are issued), for both sites itand suppy is likely the Dubeni (sand-gravel) and Rolava (clay) quarries.

Table 6.10Im acts and their mittigation measures: operation period

Impact Mitigation measuresSurface water contamination Proper operation of surface runoff and leachate collection system.

Discharge of collected contaminated water to WWTP (Skede) ortreatment at site (Poligons). It is possible that in the future "Poligons"can be also connected to the central wastewater treatment system inLiepaja. Minimisation of the open waste surface at the wastetreatment plant and regular covering of waste layer. Establishment ofw monitoring system and regular discharged and treated water qualitycontrol

Groundwater contamination Establishment of a liner, where needed, at the base of the wastetreatment plant. Proper operation of surface runoff and leachatecollection system. Minimisation of open waste surface at the wastetreatment plan and regular covering of waste layer. Establishment ofa monitoring system and regular water quality control at least twice ayear. Control of the water quality in wells used for water supply,within I km from the waste treatment plant

Air pollution Minimisation of open waste surface at the waste treatment plan andregular covering of waste layer. Introduction of forest belts along thewaste treatment plant boundary (where they do not exist). Extractionand utilisation of biogas.

Changes of species Mitigation measures are problematic, although forest belts along thewaste treatment' plant should be introduced (where they do not exist).Minimisation of open waste surface at the waste treatment plan andregular covering of waste layer. Fencing of the landfill area. Paving

l______________________________ of the access roads. Monitoring of species changes.

Continuation f'ollows

W 83

Continuation of Table 6.11

Impact Mitigatioll measuresDecrease of land values Cainnot he avoided. although drainage syslemll ind accesses lo arca

COUcld e ii)jprovedInfective diseases and spreadine Mininmisation of opcn stirf.ace aniid rLCOular Cover of waISte avCer-.of parasitic diseases Fcncine of ar uea. Extinction of rats. Immnunisattion ol livestock.

Provision of the proper operation of drainagc system

Degradation of forest ecosystems Provision of the proper operation of drainagce systemDecrease of landscape's visual Introduiction of forest belts (where forest is not developed currently)value along the waste treatment plant boundary and neighbouring vicinityIntoxication of inhabitants with Regular control of drinking water quality. Awareness and educationharmful substances on people

Table 6.12

Impacts and mitigation measures: post-closure periodImpact Mitigation measures

Groundwater contamination Regular control of cover layer conditions. Collection and treatmentof leachate. Monitoring of groundwater quality

Surface water Control of runoff water quality from the site area. Regularmonitoring of possible leaking from waste body. Control of thetreated leachate quality. Monitoring of recipient water quality.

Air pollution Landfill gas collection and utilisation (or flaring)Changes of species Afforestation of surrounding area (lower vegetation or grass-land on

the landfiil). Control of the drainage system conditions. Monitoring

of the changes of species.

Decrease of landscape's visual Afforestation of area (or grass-land preparation). Establishment of

value Irecreation area, eg.for skiing

The compliance of the sites to the legal requirements stated in Regulations no. 38(February 9, 1999) is presented in Table 6.11. All requirements stated by the"Regulations on household waste landfills installation, operation and closure" can beobserved with one exception - the Skede summer gardens settlement is located closerthan 500 m.

The following main conclusions can be made on the limitations of the sites "Skede"and "Poligons":

1. "Skede":- the summer garden settlement Skede is situated at a distance less than

500 m. Therefore, site could be used only if most of the permanentinhabitants of the settlement accept the new waste treatment plant.

- the biodiversity in the area is very high ranked. and the nature preserve"Tosmare Lak-e" lies very close to the selected area. Therefore, the areafor a new waste treatment plant can not be recommended.

2. For "Grobina":- the cultural environment in the area selected for a new waste treatment

plant has no high value, although a lot of historical heritage objects arelocated in area adjacent to the land property "Mazbertuli".

- the access road should be carefully assessed considering the interestsof the local inhabitants.

7:1

7 Technological alternatives

The descriptioni ol't he technological alternatives covCrs:* waste collection and transportation.* recycling. separation ainld recovery.* baseline alternative for waste treatment and disposal.* final disposal with and without biogas collection.* gas abstraction system.

7.1 Waste collection and transportation

Since the proposed Liepaja Eco company is not expected to be direct engagedin primary collection, but will co-ordinated that through subcontractors, thestudy has focused on transport of the waste from those areas in the region thatcurrently dispose their waste at the local dump sites. The assessment and theproposal for investment covers, however, the whole region.

Collection and transportation are major parts of the waste management system,both in terms of organisation and cost. At present the cost for waste collectionand transportation in Latvia reaches as maximum 60%, although normally inthe Europe it reaches from seventy to ninety percent of the total wastemanagement budget.

The collection and transportation system is closely linked with other parts ofthe waste management chain. Consequently, any changes in treatment,recycling and disposal will have great impact on the system. Important factorsinclude population density, housing, street and road condition in the wastecollection area.

The household waste falls within municipal responsibility. The waste iscollected at source by the municipal organisation or private companiescontracted by the municipality, together with commercial waste. Conventionalhospital waste, similar to household waste is expected to be collected by thesame vehicle fleet as the household waste.

Industrial waste is mainly transported by private contractors or the industrialcompanies themselves.

]Demolition waste and garden waste amounts are not included in the volumestransported by the proposed vehicles.

Compacting vehicles are today mainly used for the transportation of waste.Side loaders are also being used. In the pagasts lorries and tractors withwagons are dominating, see Table 3.6.

In order to reduce the cost for transportation to the treaetmlent plant or disposalsite transfer stations can be used, but in case of the Liepa'a Regioni it was ioundthat transfer stations are not required.

Collectiolnl aid tanlsportation ol' wate f'rom Licla'ja and (rohlniza tolwns to thedisposal sites at Skcdce or (irobilna atra expectel to he cdone ais today. i.c. Inainlyw1ith compact ing vehilcles Ind side loaders. It wvill he takeln for Oranted Ha'llnon-served inhabitants in Liepaja oif today will bc served in IheC luItuel-C as

specified in the w,aste pro,g,nosis. Table 5.3.

For collection and transportation withill Ihc rcl1ionl outside Licpaija and Grohilnatowns two alternatives have been asscssed.

Alternative A Collection and transportation with side loader

Alternative B Local contractors (in small pagasts the inhabitants) deliverthe waste into bigger or smaller containers collected bycompacting vehicles. A number of simple re-loading stationsare required

The frequency of collection is very important relating to the costs for collectionand transportation. Collection at 14 days intervals instead of weekly onesgives normally a cost reduction of 30-40 per cent and the capacity fortransportation will rise.

The comparable combination in Table7.1 indicates the required number of bins750 1 and number and volume of containers for weekly as well as 14 daysintervals. Table 7.2 shows time consumption for collection and transportation.

Number and volume of 750 1 bins(alternative A) and containers (alternative B):Alternative A Automatic side loading vehicle for one-man-operation

Small container; volume 750 1Alternative B Container vehicle for one-man or two-man-operation

Table 7.1Household waste collection and transport in parishes and towns

(except Liepaja town and Grobina towns)Household waste Alternative A Altemnative B

Parish or town Number of 750 1 bins Number and volumeof containers

.M3 Tonnes weekly fortnightlv weeklv FortnightIAizputespag 150 30 5 9 1 x4 2 x 4Aizpute town 2000"1 4401" 55 110 8 x 6 15 x 6

52) 8 1x4 2

) 2 x 4 'Bartas 100 20 4 7 1 x 4 2 x 4

Bunkas 25 5 2 2 I x I I x 2

Ciravas 200 40 6 12 1 x 5 2 x 5

Dunalkas 110 22 4 7 t x 4 t x 5

Dunikas 50 1( 3 4 1 x 2 1x 4

Durbes town + rural ar. 384 77 12 22 2 x 5 3 x 6

Embutes I l(o 22 4 7 I \4 x 5

Gaviezes MO) 20 4 7 1 x 4 I x 5

Gramzdas W(1 20 4 7 1 . 4 I x5

Continuatiion followvs

7:,l

(onh1in1Iu 0oll ol "Fahlc 7.1HouehtoiSOd \N; asv Alleivnal-itc A AI'nialivc I |

IParisl) n11r ImN .w NntilllbCi' o1 750 1 bins Ntu h.r ;'nl di I ||mo1I) i'lolnlcs \vt'KI For1i,hik \vLek,\ lon I)n II

Grobina pag 7700 1401 20 3 8 3 \S 5 x 6

KaIlCI 160 .32 6 1() I x4 2 x4

K:alvenes 11)4 2I 4 7 I x 4 I x 5K/dManq:-,s 250 5) S 14 2 x 4 I x 4LIz7.1S 81) I6 4 6 1 x 2 I x 4Med7Cs 152 31 5 I x 4 2 x 4Nicasc 4(( 5( 12 22 2 x 5 3 x 6Otanki-i 9)) 97 1 5 30 3 x 4 4 x 6Pavilosta town 630" 120( 18 33 3 x 5 5 x ( I

. . o) 32 lx12L 1x22

Priekitles nag 66 1 3 5 1 x2 I x 4Prieklies lown 136o0,' ,,) 36 75 5 x 6 9 x 6Rtic.axs 2001) 41)() 56 110 7 x 6 14 x 6Salks 151) 3() 5 9 1 x 4 2 x 4Tndaikn, 501) 100 15 30 3 x 4 5 x 5Vainodes 651) I1( 20 38 3 x 5 5 x 6Vecnils I10 2( 4 7 1 x 4 I x 5Vergales 50 11 3 4 1 x 2 1 x 4Virgas 30 6 2 3 1 x I I x 2

Total bins. 750 1 I I . 350 661

Total containers

I m3 3 -

2 m' 4 34 m 3 21 195 m3 14 146 m3 20 63

"including waste similar to household waste from hospital2, in hospital

Table 7.2Time consumption for collection and transportation

Collection and transportationAverage speed, km/h Skede Grobina

_ ~~~~~~~~~~hourlweek | ~hour/year hourlw |Hourya

Alternative A: weekly intervals, bins 750 160 25.7 1 340 22.6 1 18050 29.6 1 540 25.9 1 35040 35.5 1 850 30.9 1 61030 45.4 2 360 39.2 2 04020 64.9 3 380 55.9 2 910

Alternative A: forthnightly intervals, bins 750 160 18.2 950 15.7 82050 20.8 1 )8(1 17.8 93(040 24.6 1 28(0 2(0.8 1 (18030 30.9 1 61(0 25.9 1 35020 43.7 2 27) 36.2 I S8

Alternative B: weekly intervals, containers6() 27.6 1 4411 24.5 1 28(150 31.5 1 64(0 27.8 1 4514L 37.4 I 950 32.8 1 710

ColItI.ltiolll fol lows

7:4

COMLKti1101tio o"Fi tlhic 7.2('ollectioti ain tranisportationl

A.crage qvd. lilh Sperlv k (.oh,inlhlor/week I hour/year I hour/week houlrlear

30 47 .32460) 41.1 141)20 ('7.1 349) 457.8$ (M

Alternative B: fortniiglitly intervals, containiers60 1N.4 1 (M1(1 16.9 87050 21.9 1 140 18.9 993

40 25.7 1 340 22 1141

30 32.1 1 670 27.1 1407

20 -44.8 2 330 37.3 1 940

The calculation of the roulte plan for the proposed vehicle is based upon avehicle loading capacity of -5 tons and the geographical areas within which thewaste is collected and tranisported to the disposal site are presented in theFeasibility Study together with the, actual routes for both alternatives.

Alternative A involves automatic side loader for one-man operation andalternative B compacting container vehicle for one-man or for two-manoperation. Two-man operation is preferable.

The operating cost for side loader and container vehicle will be of the samemagnitude.

The cost for the 750 1 bins in alternative A, weekly intervals as well as 14 daysintervals, will be lower than the containers in alternative B. To alternative Bmust be added the cost for local collection and transportation to the, containersand construction of simple transfer stations.

Thus the information given above indicates that the lowest cost for collectingand transportation can be obtained from alternative A, fortnightly intervals and750 1 bins. Compared with weekly intervals the cost reduction for fortnightlyintervals will be around 30 per cent. In districts where 14 day intervals are notsuitable 1 week collection period is proposed.

7.2 Recycling, separation and recovery

The results obtained during experimental waste sorting are presented inChapter 3. The waste sorting at the sites is proposed to continue. and a tariffsystem supporting separate waste collection may be introduced in the future.The system established during the experiment during the first half of 1999 canin the future be expanded with separate collection of paper. In order tofacilitate the development of a separate waste collection system education andinformation campaigns are necessary.

Recycling has been detailed described in Chapter 3. and the markiet is ratherlimited in Latvia. Currently, there is a good mar-ket t'utr following recyclables:

ferrous and non-ferrous metals - unllimited.

7:'

e cardboard and paper - Iii itedil, while still profilahle it' Cardhoard isbailed.

* glasss - limited. becaiusc the closest recycling factory "(irizinikalns" islocated in Riga. Nevertheless. collection of' glass mi;ght be plialyfinianced thlougLl tariffs in order to rcducc wastc volume.

d plastics - limited. but ver-y unstable because all activities of plasticsrecycling completely dpcend on donations 1From the LatvianEnviron-mental Protection Fund. Likely. that this will occur probably alimited time, like the recycled material are rather expensive and havevery limited market.

Recycable materials which have good or comparatively satisfactory market(metals. glass. paper and cardboard) in the project area constitute:

- -lass - 9.7 - 10.9 % of total waste weight,- paper and cardboard - 2.0 - 9.7 %.

- metals - 1.6-3.4 %. or

about 13.3-25.0 % of total waste weight. Therefore, it might be considered thatdisposed waste amount can be reduced per 10-20 % rather fast. if a properseparate waste collection system will be introduced. In the future, if the marketfor recycables develops further, this figure might increase significantly. Again,further information campaigns are required to accomplish this improvement.

7.3 Baseline alternative for treatment and disposal

The baseline alternative is usually defined as the 'no-project' situation, i.e. thecurrent situation without any changes. In this particular case, however, thebaseline is defined as the rninimum requirement according to the NationalSolid Waste Management Strategy [36] prior to the new Regulation of theCabinet of Ministers "On Establishment, Management and Closure of SanitaryLandfills" (February gth, 1999) [43].

Thus, the baseline alternative has been interpreted as closure of the small dumpsites and establishment of an environmentally improved regional landfill withleachate collection and treatment, but no gas extraction. This alternative iscalled A4 below and has been compared with all other alternatives.

7.4 Alternatives for final waste treatment and comparison of them

The outcome of the field investigations points out that there are two alternativesites of great interest for exhaustive studies, namely Skede and Grobina.

At Skede the existing deposit occupies about 7 hectares. of which 3 hectaresare in operation. The proposed area for expansion is -15 hectares, but theavailable land area south of the site is substantially laroer. about 20 hectares, ifthe future expansion is limited to the forest boundary in the SOUth.

About 45 hicctares opCfl land was originallY available at tih (iGrobina site olwhich - I hectar-C is useLl blr CuIIrIrenit operat ions. Thc total land area inlcltudilng

surrouniding forest is abouLt (5 hectari-es.

The EIA has provided infornmation on restrictions iromii scveral viewpioinlts. C.o.land access in Grobina. biological piotection arcas. water-lopin1 1 problems

and groundwater contamination in Skede, which manke the available area;smaller than anticipated.

For the conceptual design, the planning period of 20 years has been used forestimating the required area for final treatment and disposal and about 15hectare at each site is utilised.

The Energy Cell technique makes it possible to extend the lifetime of the sites.Traditional landfilling has been compared with energy cell technology for the

organic waste while demolition waste and inorganic industrial waste will belandfilled separately.

The alternatives considered for the two sites are characterised in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3Alternatives considered for the Skede and Grobina

Alternative Sub-alternatives Comments Remarks-Alternative A, Skede

Alternative Al Gas extraction from existing landfill, Income from See Figurescombined with energy cells, without clectrical no 32.33.34addition of sewage sludge energy

Gas extraction from existing landfill.

combined with energy cells, with

addition,of sewage. sludge

Alternative A2 Gas extraction from existing landfill. Income from

combined with energy cells, without gas

addition of sewage sludge

Gas extraction from existing landfill.combined with energy cells, with

addition of sewage sludge

Alternative A3 Gas extraction from existing landfill Income from

electricalenergy

Alternative A4 Landfilling without gas extraction _

Alternative A5 Closing of the landfill

Alternative A6 Closing of the landfill with gas

extraction and flaring .__ ,_

Alternative B, Grobina

Alternative B I Gas extraction from energy cells. Income from See Figures

without addition of sewage sludge eleciric; l no 35,36(.37encrgy

Gas extraction from energy cells. witlh

addition of sewage sludge l

Alternative B2 Landfilling without gas extraction -

/ ~~~~~~~1 0 00

-~~.--.--- V

9 ~ ~~~4 49.11< _0; g .1600

t49 04 ,/8 ^/ s % ( , J X 8 d - > "Y 4 915987

9.04~~~90

LEGEND/APZiMEJUMI - _ gI <4901 +14853 A44849 .j48 j 490 3 17

ai +~~~~~~N 1448(8Existing constructions/Esosas ekas un bOves 49

0 20 40 60 80 100 m

EmbankmentAJzberums 4883

Fig. 32: Skede - existing landfill

32. zim. SIcEde, esosais poligons

I

E=Gaspump/Gazessuknis~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ' /.2f - ° /I 1 -1

C=Administrrdtirn/6affbuildng/Adminisrativaeka / ! _ /, ,, ,, o o o // ( U \ ;6' {' ( 4 j- \' ' / 18t5-rD H

E = WoCkshoplRemontd~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~arbic / ---- i Bg /\*~

~~ Inerto mabnalu pagaidu uzglabasanas laukums -- CtQS / [ - / 7

~~~~~~~~~~~~~8 Izkrt'aeaupgiuugaaaa aks-.t

A =asengiineA8e sot n e reiAtkntum pinmaa un 49r§ns akm 4fe L = eahae atrpumpingweniltraea asuknesansubm < M = Ernistraince4eeat buln/dnnsrtv jti / / 0 0100 m

E - Extr ispfeotigcldarbrucain o ediin '9FF -Hosed Noreccing aresekas uzves atrtm hsrie akm

13 I Ha Prdpouwsted oragdistamo tlonritmuglbsnladm -. [B 149

Preojoektertfis egikau ugabian a buv suk

lzioo mnsweill stGfizes urglbuminalakm

L11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P

I =Leaia water pmimnt1ga pumplningf wels/Cnifianas urt,umnns ubm

Proposed ~ ~ ~ ~~ ig 33onkdesarfil-cropsensaou

33.LIIm. Poligons "S ,kedc" - principiala shema

0 Expu peiG mestal gas pmigwlsOie flfnAnsubm

D = e-ghriFg/Svce tits gs

Inerto matedlilu pagFi.a33:Sdedezagdail anprposedlayou

L Leachate water pumpin33.giw. PAnfgons Stadc" - prin ipiiiiaurhums

LEGENDApZIMJUM / tA

m

E~D Existing conStruCtions,E-SOti C-kas un btives

a L LeachateWarPmpnWelInitiaasOkndtanas urbums

Leachate water pipe, pem Dn 90,B

tntintrita savdk~anas caurutes, 90 m3 DN

Gaswelgs /G4zes urburmi

204 6 8

Embankment /Uzbsrums

'ig. 34: Skede landfill after closilre

34. zim. Poligons "Sk Je-9 p 9c sJegsanc8

Io 00~o ? '._1S')' 'l ,

~~~~~~ 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~, ~E oti k s nbje

,'__ '_______________ '9_o

l ~~~~~~~~~~EmbankmenWAzbbrumsO 20 40 60 80 tO0 m|

Fig. 35: Grobina - existing landfilll35. '9m. Grobina, esosais poligons

\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *%

A

LANDFILL AREA

EXISTING ATKRITUMU KRATUVELANDFILL -

ESOSA -IZGAZTUVE u'

\ ' = w - t ', :,, .... x\ t-... , J 'LEGENDlAPZiMEJUMI

A = Industrial waste t Rupnieciskie atkritumiB = TIernporary storage / Atkritumu pagaidu uzglabasanas laukums

LEACHATE WATER - C - Municipal waste / Sadzives atkritumiTPEATMENT AREA i D = Receiving sorting area /Atkritumu pienemsanas un iskirosnnas laukums

E = Workshop / RemontdarbnicaINFILTRATA I F . Administrntion/staff building /Administrativae ka\ APSTRADES 1 \ 1 l ,, . l G - Weighbridge / Svaru tills\ LAUKUMS | 4 6 S 1 t i, H = Gnspump / Gazes suknis

J = Gasengine /Gazes generatorsK = Entranoe / leejaL = Waler suppli well / Udens apgades urbums

ENERGY cELLS / ENERGIJAS SLJNAS Proposed constructionsl

Projekt8t5s ekas un buves

Existing constructions for demolition/0 20 40 60 80 100 m Noiaucamis ekas un bives

Gnswells / Gazes urbumi

Embankment / Uzberums

Fig. 36: Grobina landfill - proposed layout36. zim. Poligons "Grobiia" - principiiiaa shenma

\ LEACHATE WATER : |~~~~~ ........... .... ......... .....GEDAPiEJM

LEGEND/APZiMP-JUMI

Existing constructions/I-T, Esosas ekas un bOves

APSTRADESX

\ LAUKUMS > 11 o Gaswells /Gazes urbumi

Embankment / Uzberums

0 20 40 60 80 100 m

Fig. 37: Crobina landrill after closure37. zim. Poligons "C'robiga" pic slegsanas

7:1.'

Details on the each alternative ;re provided in thc Fleasihility St L(ih. and iii

general they can he described as follows:

r Alternative ". Skedc:In ordci- to provide a rational utilisation of the cxisti ng laindfill ar-caand to prolong its lifetime, it is proposed to cicalsc the total alreal anldutilise the space between the old an current landfill.the existing landfill will be covered and a suriace anld icachatecollection system installed. The cover shall have a sufficienltly lowpermeability to give a net infiltration of 50 mm/year. In alternativeAl. A2 and A3 a gas extraction system will be installed,suitable filling stage will be to complete the present landfillinig area,raising the level to +160 m in the local level system especially forthis report. The local level +150 is set at a benchmark, approximately5 m a.s.l. The landfill slope will be 1:3. The second stage will be tofill up the space between the old landfill and the present landfill whenit is finished,

- all landfilling should ideally be made inside a berm to minimise noiseproblems as well as to improve the visual impression of the site. Theberm shall be constructed of inert material such as crushed buildingdebris excavated soil or similar. The height of the surrounding bermshall be 2-3 metres and waste will be disposed in approximately 2 mlifts inside the berm,

- to prevent wind spreading of the waste, bird gathering, smellspreading and gas emnissions directly to the atmosphere, the activearea shall at the end of each working day be covered with a 10-15 cmthick layer of non-degradable material and intermediate cover appliedas soon as each lift is completed.

- the leachate will be collected from the existing landfill, new landfilland the energy cells and treated.the chosen technology of waste treatment alternative Al and A2envisages waste disposal -into energy cells. Non-degradable.substances such as glass, metal and hazardous waste, not suitable foran anaerobic treatment process, will as far as possible be separatedfrom the organic waste prior to disposal.

- parallel to construction of the energy cells, waste still needs to bedisposed at the existing landfill during the initial years ofimplementation. In the future only non-degradable materials (inertwaste and residual waste after decomposition in the energy cells) willbe disposed at the landfill,the energy cell can be constructed on natural ground or filled upground, in the same way as ordinary refuse deposits. The bottom islevelled, slightly sloping towards a low point and sealed with a layerof fine earth with lowt permeability compacted with a roller. In thelow point, a plastic drainage pipe is laid in a shallow, open trenchl iorcollection of the leachate.

- the heating system is a closed circutit andl designed for supplyingenough energy to keep the inner part ol the cell at a lemperatulc ofabout 37TC.

7. 14

- theC 'refUSC ImuLISt bC fl;'Cnlete(l. p;II'liiLllal thlle dollcestic re lutse.betfoIC bcill, disposed at the lllfinisCI hottoill m laCer. 'Thlls iS hest

achieved by!N ai shredder/bta opener. The flramnltedllecl rieflisc iscareuilly spreaid in layers o0n thc finiishiedi bollon-m surflace. A beltconvcyor- is uise(d fol tralnlsport of the waste m-omil l sic Shredder to thleenergy cells. Fuirthler compaction besides that ol movin velhicles isnot required.

- after shredding the waste sludge from the sewage treatment plant cainbe added to and mzixed with the waste.

> Alternative B, Grobina:- In a new regional waste treatment plant at Grobina filling in stages

will be practised. In the first stage, say about 2-3 hectares the existinglandfill can be excavated and included in the new landfill area with abottom liner and a leachate collection system. Organic waste shall beseparated into the energy cells. The first stage proposed to raise up to+155 in the local level system especially for this report. The locallevel +150 represents approximately 28 m a.s.l.

- when the first stage is finished intermediate cover will be applied andthe second stage starts up in connection with the first step. The samefilling system will continue when stage two is finished and stagethree starts up. Since organic waste will be treated in energy cells thelandfill will not be equipped with a gas extraction system,the operation of the landfill and the energy cells will be the same asproposed for Skede.

The main features of the alternatives are presented in Table 7.4.Table 7.4

ComIparison of waste treatment alternativesAlternative

Al A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 1 B1 B2

Cover of landfill X X X X X X X X

Leachate collection and treatment X X X X X X X X

Gas extraction from landfilt X X X X

Gas extraction from energy cell X X X

Electricity generation X X

Gas torch X

Entrance. weighbridge, receiving.sorting area X X X X X

Areas for storage of sorted material X X X X X X

Areas for storage ol inert waste X X X X X

Administration, staff building,workshop X X X X X X

7.1

7.5 Gas extractioni System

The gas extractionl systeim wvil1 cotsist of two systems, o0ne fO Ih llndFill andone for thc encr;v cells. The gas cxti-actioln systel lor I0hc enlery cells isequipped with an injection leachate system.

7.5.1 Gas abstraction systemz in Skede

The landfill gas extraction system at Skede will consist of steel gas wells; gaspipes, regulating stations and main gas pipes.

Gas wells will be drilled vertically into the landfill body. The well will beconstructed with perforated steel pipes with a total length which is almost thesame as the depth of the waste pile. During the phase of disposal of waste andcovering of the landfill the gas wells and pipes will be constructed inconjunction with the other works.

Each gas well will be connected via a gas pipe to a prefabricated gas regulationstation where the gas from each well will be regulated and condensateremoved. The regulation station is connected to the gas pumping stationproviding a sub-pressure in the landfill body.

7.5.2 Gas extraction system in energy cells at Skede and Grobina

The gas extraction system for the energy cells will be constructed in principle-is the landfill gas extraction system, but will also have a pipe system to enableinjection of leachate into the energy cells.

The system will consist of similar equipment as in the landfill gas system suchas gas wells, gas pipes, regulating stations, removal of condensate and a maingas pipe. The leachate injection system consists of injection wells and pipes.The flow of leachate to each injection well will be regulated in the regulationstation.

The injection wells are made of perforated steel pipes and they are drilledvertically into the energy cells. The injection wells will be fed with heatedleachate from the injection leachate pumping well.

7.5.3 Assessment of gas extraction systemt

The assessment of the gas extraction system efficiencv is provided in theFeasibility Study. The results of the calculations arc provided in Table 7.5.

7:10

Ta1Ic 7.5The total g,as ei ergy froiii landfill aid enerm cells in Sk-ede and (Grobina

| Year + Wase to b (.as irom f (..as I om Gas fromt ANVh/ !y:I r g:Fs lor utilisationcnergi cells energy cells landfill sludge AlternativeTonnesIvear NMi WhkIV MWrVIVvear NINVIVNIear A I A2 A3 11

20)() 22'77()-0 - - - - -

20)()' 23491) (.f.()() o160) 3001) 150 ()() AsAON A11)1) 961!)200(3 2408( 11600 5701) 310(0 2030)0) 570)0 1460(0(0(04 2455(0 1670(1 54(( 30(00( 25 1(K) 540(0 19700(1

2005 24850 1990 s I (X) 3(M 28)000 50 I 221002006 25470 2040(0 4800( 30O0) 2820() 48(X) 234002007 2610(0 21000 4500 30(10 285(N1 4500 24(0)2008 26750 2140(0 420)0) 3(0() 28600) 42))!) 244(02009 27450 22000 390)0) )000 289(X) 39()( 25001)2010 28160 225(0(0 36(00 3(100 291(X) 360(0( 2550)02011 28900 23100) 33)1) 3000 294(1(1 33)))) 2610)0)2012 29660 2370(( 3000 )()00 29700 3(1() 267(X)20 13 30460 244(h) 27(0(0 3000 30100 27(0(1 274(K)2014 31290 25000 240)0 3000 30400 240)1) 280(X)2015 31920 2550(0 21()0 3000 30600 210)0) 285002016 33030 26400 1800 3000 31200 18(X) 294002017 33800 27000 151)0 3000 31500 15(1)( 300002018 34880 27900 1200 3000 32100 12(X) 309002019 35870 28700 900 3000 32600 900 317002020 36900 29500 600 3000 33100 600 32500

Without sludge in the energy cells the quantity of MWh/year for utilisation inalternative Al, A2 and B 1 will be 3000 MWh/year lower.

For the first year the production of gas from the energy cells is calculated tozero, for the second year to 35 per cent. for the third year to 60 per cent, for thefourth year to 85 per cent and the fifth year and thereafter to 100 % of the totalpotential gas energy.

S-l

8 Financial analysis of the alternatives

Thie financial analysis of 'hlc alternalivcs incildels:- reviewe of the investmenlt costs.- review of thc operation costs.- review of the affordability of increased tariffs.

8.1 Investment costs

The investment costs comprise three elements:- investments required for improvement of the current waste collection

and transportation system,- investments required for the existing dump sites remediation and

further monitoring.- investments required for establishment of a new waste treatment

plant.

The data on the required investment costg over the 20 year planning period arecalculated in the Feasibility Study.

- The base investment costs for vehicles and container for the proposedsystem is Ls 3,277,000.

- The base investment cost for remediation of the existing dumpsexcluding Skede is Ls 747,300.

- The base investment costs for the different waste treatmentalternatives varies from Ls 844,300 for alternative A4 to 2,285,700 foralternative B I, see Table 8.1

The investment costs are presented as base costs and inclusive contingenciesand VAT (18%). All costs are presented in 1999 price level.

Table 8.1

Investment costs for solid waste treatment in Liepaja regionAlternative Base costs Including contingencies

and VAT

SKEDE Al Gas extraction from existinglandfill. combined with energy cells. Income 1 769 850 2 610 529from electrical energy

A2 Gas extraction from existing landfill. 1 834 85() 2 706 404combined with energy cells. Income from gas

A3 Gas extraction from existing landfill. 1 183 050 1 744 999Income from electrical energyv.

A4 Landfilling without gas extraction 844 300 1 245 343

A5 Closino of the landfill 249 000 367 275

A6 Closing of the landfill with gas extraction 407 350 600 841and flaring

GROBINA B] Gas extraction from eneigy 2 285 70)M 3 371 40)8<cells. Income from electrical energy

lB2 Landfillin- without gas extractioni 1 343 900( I 9)2 253

Tlhius. depcnding on alternative l'olk waste tr-etniiilt speciflied in 'Tleh 8. l . tlc

total requil-ed hasc invCstlmelt will Ce:

- ililillni-n (imn p rovermrent ol' tlhe CLurrcnti waste Collcl io n atnd(itran'sp9ortation sVstem. remnediation ol tihe existill cLtdlml siltes, allalternative A4) - 3.277.000 +8443()00 + 747.30() = 4,868,600) Ls.

- maximum (improvement of currenlt waste collection andCtransportation system. rcmen-diation of' the existina- dLlmpn sites, andalternative Bl)- 3.277.00() + 2.285,70() + 747,30() = 6,310,000 Ls.

8.1.2 Total investment costs

The initial base investment costs and the costs including contingencies andVAT for the first 6 years for collection and transport. closing of the dumps andall analysed alternatives are presented in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2

Total investment costs for LiepAja waste management, year 1 -6

Altermative Base costs Includingcontingencies and

VAT

Collection, transport, treatment: Al - Gasextraction from existing landfill. combined 4 024 120 2 610 529with energy cells. Income from electricalenergy. Closing of regional dumps

Collection, transport, treatment: A2 - Gasextraction from existing landfill. combined 4 089 120 5 195 227with energy cells. Income from aas

Collection, transport, treatment: A3 - Gasextraction from existing landfill. income from 3 437 320 4 367 115electrical energy

Collection, transport, treatment: 3 098 570 3 936 733A4 Landfilling without gas extraction

Collection and transport and A5 Closing of 1 670 000 2 121 735the landfill

Collection and transpori and A6 Closing of 1 828 350 2 322 919the landfill with gas extraction and flaring

Collection. transport. treatment: Bl Gas 4 805 933 6 105 938extraction from energy cells. Income fromelectrical energyv

Collection. transport, treatment: 3 615 133 4 593 0261B2 Landfilling without gas extraction l

The table shows that the least expensive alternative for a new regional wastemanagement system includes traditional landfilling at the existing Skedesite(A4) and that the highest costs are related to energy cell technolooy atGrobina (B 1).

8.2 Operation costs

The curr-ent operation costs arc 2181.80S Ls (see Chapter 3. Table 3.13). Anumber of muniicipalities do not know actual costs, because wAIStC SCIvVices arecarried out occasionally and completely covered from the municipal budoet.The current operation costs is estilmalcd to be abLout 300.000 Ls.

The operation costs will increase in the future due to:- replacement existing containers and vehicles,- operation of the new waste treatment plant- increased number of inhabitants serviced by the central waste

management system, and consequently -an increased amount ofwaste to be collected and transported. The value of the natureresources tax for waste disposal will also increase.

- increase of waste generation per capita,- requirements to develop waste sorting at source and waste recycling.

The prognosis of the operation cost for the proposed collection and transportsystem is presented in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3

- Operation costs vehicles and waste containersYear Operation costs vehicles O/M costs Total operation costs

Ls containers, LsLs

l________ Skede Grobina Skede Grobina2001 130 440 132 220 1 800 132 240 134 0202002 141 51) 143430 3600 145 110 1470302003 163 050 165 276 5 400 168 450 170 6762004 163 050 165 176 5 700 168 750 170 9762005 169 500 176 500 6 000 175 500 182 5002006 169 500 176 500 6 000 175 500 182 5002007 169 500 176 500 6 000 175 500 182 5002008 185 190 187 700 6 000 191 190 193 7002009 185 190 187 700 6 090 191 280 193 7902010 185 190 187700 6090 191 280 1937902011 185 190 187 700 6 090 191 280 193 7902012 185 190 187 700 6 090 191 280 193 7902013 185 190 187 700 6 090 191 280 193 7902014 185 190 187700 6090 191 28(0 1937902015 187 640 190 200 6 090 193 730 196 2902016 195 660 198 330 6 300 201 960 204 6302017 195 660 198 330 6 300 201 960 204 630

12(018 195 660 198 330 6 420 202 080 204 7502019 195 660 198 330 6 420 202 080 204 7502020 195 660 198 330 6 420 202 080 2204 75(

The operation costs for the proposed waste treatment plant are presentedbelow. The costs varies during the 20 year period and a span is provided foreach alternative

Alternative Al 11) 15 - 134 115

Alternative A2 123 5Q * 8 - 138 28

Alternative A, 115 (63 I

Alternative .A4 74 54S

Alternative A5 I 000 - 1o 963

Alternative A6 ' 000 - 27 657

Alternative B I 116 957 - 137 157

Alternative B2 78 368

Thus, the total operation cost for the proposed waste management systemincluding collection, transport and treatment will vary from minimum 206 788Ls per year for Alternative A4 to maximum 356 757 Ls per year for AlternativeBl.

8.3 Revenues

The revenues in the new waste management system are generated by the saleof gas or electricity and through the tariff. A tariff of 4 Ls/year in fixed pricesover the 20 year period has been applied in the financial analysis in theFeasibility study for all alternatives to give a reasonable financial rate of returnfor the most viable alternative.

The income from sale of gas or electricity varies during the years due to theincreasing waste volumes and the construction time for each alternative. Thepotential income is summarised below

Alternative Al 103,950 - 248.325

Alternative A2 63,000 - 150,500

Alternative A3 4,950 - 49,500

Alternative Bl 54,450- 243,375

8.4 Financial viability and affordability

8.4.1 Viability

The financial analysis in the Feasibility Study shows that Alternative Al, -Gas extraction from existing landfill in Skede. combined with energy cells.income from electrical energy - is the most viable alternative. The analysisgives a financial internal rate of return (FIRR) of about 7 % in the base case.The main assumptions for the analysis were the following;* Investment cost on the site* Investment cost for vehicles and containers* Staff, operation and maintenance costs on site and lor collection of waste* Cost of closing down regional dumps* Cost of closing down the Skede station (A5) in case ol B 1 and B2

* Cost ol the up-raded aiccess road iln case o B l i alld 2,3* Costs for walter suprply to the Skedel SUmLIeIlr colon! in casc ol A I - A4.* ReVenUC fIrOm11 SaleC ot as whnlil applicable- 25Ls/MWh f0 or electr iciv\ andl

5Ls/ MWh lor gas* Tariff of waste collection. treatment and disposal - 4 Ls per capita and year

The analysis also shows that the tariff level has a strong imrrpact on thcviability of the project. If the tariff is reduced to 3 Ls per captita and year theFIRR would be 0.6 % for Al. Cost escalations of about 27 % WOuld give aFIRR of 2.8% for Al.

The analysis also shows that an increased tariff of about 25 % would berequired to cover the extra costs to establish the regional waste treatment plantin Grobina. or 130.000 Ls per year.

8.4.2 Affordability

The tariff level used in the Feasibility Study, 4 Ls per capita and year,represents an increase of only 5 % in relation to the average tariff in LiepajaCity in 1998.

The tariff level with an increase of 25 % to 5 Ls per capita and year that wouldbe required if the proposed plant is established in Grobina is still reasonable.The proportion of the average national household income for the wastemanagement services would be less than 0.6 % calculated for the period 1998to 2003.(Stubenitsky, May 1999, Affordability of increases in household wastecollection charges [66]).

Thus, the proposed tariff level is considered as affordable for the averageincome household and also for the low income household that currently payfor the waste management services. The calculation is based on theassumption that all inhabitants that will be part of the new managementservices also will have to pay for these services. For the lowest incomehousehold the payment of the tariff may be a heavy burden, estimated at 1.5 %of the household income for the poorest 20% of the population.

') I

9 Socio-economic aspects

This chaptcr analyses the attitudc olfthe local govcrniments arnd people towvirdsestablishina a waste disposal site. impacts of the new wastc treatment planttowards development possibilities in tlie area. impacts ol) landl owners. imllpactson budget of local governments and houschold budget (aflordlability). Theseaspects are analysed for thc two sites: Skedc. in Liepaja city and P'oligons. inGrobina parish.

The World Bank consultant Mr. Alan Hancock has executed several attitudesurveys. organised public meetings, specialist surveys and analysis of themedia coverage of the project. SWECO and GeoConsultants have participatedin the presentations at the public meetings and complemented some of thesocial surveys.

In accordance with ToR (see Appendix 1), a supplementary survey was carriedout. and the findinas are enclosed in Appendix 21.

9.1 Findings of Mr Hancock's study

The main findings of Mr Hancock's studies are cited below: "Each section ofthis report has been followed by a set of conclusions, which will be drawnupon when finalising a public participation and, information framework for themain project to follow. In this final section, therefore, only a few main findingsand inferences will be singled out, which seem to have general significance.

If Skede is finally chosen as a site for the central regional landfill, thesummer co-operative needs to be treated with especial care. Itsmembers, and in particular its Board of Directors, should be kept fullyinformed, and as- far as possible involved in the planning process (notsimply as a matter of public relations, but because they have an intimateknowledge of the site and its characteristics). Some benefits for thecommunity may also be considered (e.g. improved water supply), butthese should be identified with the active participation of the co-operative.

* Only those directly affected by the project have strong feelings about sitelocation at this stage, but this may well change once plans become moreconcrete. Residents near the Grobina site, on the whole, prefer thestatus quo, but any anxieties about excessive expansion should be metthrough regular consultation and briefing. Among the general NGOcommunity, opinion is more positive towards the Skede site, but theenvironmental NGOs are much less certain. feeling that they lack thedata needed to form a judgement. Opinion should harden. however,once the feasibility study is complete. and economic and ecologicalarguments can be balanced.

* Public consultations certainly should continue into the implementationstage, but they should be planned selectively and focused downi.Location, timing and content all need to be contextuzalised. Some

trainino; Ior ComImI11unLity oflfcial s shIouldl hc colisiKrel-cCl in the skill,s ofsocial animation.

* If attitudes are to be changced elfectively. this shotil(d be seenl ;1S ;1 klol-

terni process, beginning in the scLhools aInid CduCation, CeCnlrCs. For thisprocess to work. high-qualityz and approp riate materialis aIlre necessary

* Waste management should bc conisidered alongside otlhci env ironmentalissutes. and a holistic perspective adopted.

* The NGOs are a key resource in mortlding. re-inforcinog or clhangin1gpublic opinion, and they should be co-opted at the earliest possiblestage. They are most likely to respond positively if they are involvedand kept informed while planning continues

* The involvement of local media is also a critical factor. The project needsboth a realistic information strategy, and the resources and full-time'staff to carry it out, so that an effective communication network can beformed. This will also necessitate some training

* Even though the pilot projects on waste separation have not beenadequately integrated into the project, and some confusion has beencaused as a result, it will be important for the waste managementproject to incorporate some elements of waste separation. Without this,the goodwill and active support of the environmental community isunlikely to be maintained. At the same time, the thinking underlyingthe project should confront long-term waste separation and energyconservation and replenishment needs in a practical way, not considerthem to be an independent or marginal factor."

The surveys also revealed concerns both in Skede and in Grobina about theimpacts from the current dumps and the future waste treatment plant,especially with regard to water supply, smoke and dust. A majority of therespondents in Skede were strongly against the proposed project and only 20 %were in favour.

At Skede improvement of the water supply and the creation of a buffer zonebetween the colony and the waste treatment plant considered important aspectsifor the acceptance of the project.

i'n Grobina the attitude is more positive and an improved or alternative accessroad was mentioned as the most important issue to be managed to avoiddisturbances.

ARecommendations1. Skede:

- for the Skede alternative the requested buffer zone has beenconsidered in the preliminary design of the waste treatment plant andlandfill. Moreover, the landfilling activities will be executed behind asoil berm to avoid wind blowing of waste and the waste will becovered. Open burning will be prohibited,

- there are possibilities to or-anise local water supply for the suLmmercolony if so required and the budget in the Feasibility Study includesthe costs for two wells.

2. Gr-obilIla.,

- r ilC ziccess road is planned to be imiprovcd ito a hard surfaced r(oa ;d,- thiLre aIC also two Options oir loczatiooIl o>a new access road.

depending- on1 the tlinal sitilne ol't ie area.

9.2 Attitude of local governments

The attitude of both the Liepaja City Council and Grobina Pagasts Couliciltowards a new waste treatmeint plant siting and the project implementation in

general is positive. Furthermore.- the Skede site is already allocated for waste disposal in the "Liepaja

City Development Plan", and the use of area for a new wastetreatment plant does not coniflict with the city development plan,

- when the problems arose with land owner, the Grobina pagastsCouncil found a possibility to allocate municipal land for a newlocation (see chapter 6).

The attitude of rural municipalities towards the project realisation is notsimple:

- they recognise that improvements in the field of waste managementare required, because the service level is low and illegal wastedumping takes place,

- on the other hand. they are afraid that the costs related to a newsystem will be non-affordable due to a long transport distance. It isthe official explanation. However, a large part of rural municipalitiesdo not collect tariff for waste collection and do not pay natureresources tax for waste disposal. If a new waste management systemwill be introduced, the municipalities will have to pay and to chargeinhabitants for waste management services.

9.3 Attitude of people

The attitude of people in the. vicinity of the two proposed sites (within a radiusof 3 km of the area) was clarified during enquiries carried out in May, 1999.

Generally people are afraid of different potential disturbances - traffic(especially in Grobina), pollution, scenic disturbances, birds, smell, noise andsimilar. People are generally against a new waste treatment plant location (seeTable 9.1 and Appendix 21). However, in the case of Grobina site there areless complaints, and they are mainly related to disturbances caused by heavytraffic (dust, noise, smell). Therefore, public awareness campaigns should beprovided. Otherwise the public attitude may cause problems for the project oreven halt the implementation.

Table 9.1Attitude of people towards a new waste treatment plant

Site For Against No opinijonSkede 3 2)1 6

Grobina parish 3 6 2Grobina town (alono 3 lII -

access)

9.4 Impacts on developinent aad land owners

The local governiment whel-e a ne\ waste treatmiienlt plant will he locatecd willundoubtedly benefit. Financial beniefits will be described furt-her-. hut next todirect financial bienefits there will he someothers:

- in terms of employmiient it is expected that 13 to 17 (depending- on theselected alternative) people will be employed at the waste treatmentplant, of which the major part can be employed locally,

- some infrastructure improvements will be made mainly in terms ofaccess to the waste treatment plant (in Grobina),

- improvement of the surrounding environment, when the existinglandfill in Liepaja or Grobina will be established and recultivated.

Introduction of unit new waste management system will not disturb any localbusiness in towns and pagasts, where waste services are provided by municipalor private enterprises, because it is supposed that the new company "Liepaja-'Eko' will subcontract most of the waste collection and transportation.

Impacts on landowners are different for Skede and Grobina:- no problems in Skede because the land is municipal and has been

foreseen for an extension of the existing landfill,- land is private in Grobina, and the owner would like to be share

holder in a new company if his land would be used for a wastetreatment plant location. Therefore, the Grobina pagasts Council (seeChapter 6) has proposed one other land area owned by themunicipality. This area may be used in case if consensus will not bereached with the landowner.

Decrease of land value is not expected, because:- the area foreseen for the Skede site has never been in use during the

last 50 years,- the area foreseen for the Grobina site was earlier occupied by the

Soviet Army. which left a number of constructions demolished bylocal inhabitants (only ruins are left). Therefore, significantinvestments are required for the existing structure demolition andarea clean-up, if the landowner wants to increase the land value.

9.5 Impacts on budgets of local governments

Impacts on the budget of local governments should be analysed separately forthe self-governments where the waste treatment plant will be situated and otherlocal governments:

the municipality where the waste treatment plant will be situated:- will receive 60 % of the nature resource tax (from 6872 Ls in

year 2000 to 13440 Ls in year 2020),- income tax of those living locally and working- in the waste

treatment plant.A- other local governments:

- tormallv. inI vie\V ol intr'OdCut ioCn ol the 'II I tlers 1CS pa'

principle. there shioLul(d niot be llny bUrde Oll teil bItIhid-cl ollocal -overu-lImClnts CuILIsed by a nlew wA ;ste imlnlacnient

system. Hereto. public information ancdt awareness campaigns

will be reluired. becLausC the major patrt ol people in rurailmunicipalities currenitly do not pay for waste scrviccs.

- in view ol the low afbordability level the pagasts may have tofinancially support some of the poorest households.Therefore, all municipalities, especially the rural ones, shouldcarefully consider the possibility for their people to pay forwaste services, and to plan future measures to provide theenforcement of the waste management system (for instance,introduction of binding local regulations on wastemanagement).

9.6 Impacts on National Budget

The project implementation and operation will have an impact to the NationalBudget:

- negative: support from the National Budget - about 30% of the

Project costs,- positive: income to the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund (as

nature resources tax for waste disposal), about 163.5 thousand lats inyear 2000-2019, and income for the central government (e.g. VATpayments).

9.7 Impacts on household budgets

The project implementation will require a tariff increase of 5 - 25 %(seechapter 8).The tariff may increase from 4 to 5 Ls/year per capita or 0.33 - 0.42 Ls/monthper capita. Assuming that the average size of household in the Liepaja Regionis about 3.2 persons, the tariff for waste services will be 12.8 - 16 Ls/year or1.07 - 1.33 Ls/month.

This is considered as affordable in the Liepaja region. The households with thelowest income levels may however have problems to afford the tariff.

- l

10 Comparison of alternative sites

The comparison and evaluation ol two alterniative sites incldced thc followin- phascs:1. Elaboration of', ener-al criteria for site selectionI 1121.2. Evaluation ot 4 sites of which the Liepaja city Council selectecd 2 (Skede,

in the Liepaja city and Poligons. in the Grohina parish) for envirollnlentalimpact assessmlent.

3. Investigation of both sites and preparation of the draft report onenvironmental impact assessment. The report includes comparison andassessment of both sites.

Liepaja city council decided to carry out environmental impact assessment on Skedeand the alternative site in Grobina parish.

During the first phase, it was stated that site "Skede" has 3 problems:- closeness of the Tosmare lake. The existing landfill is located in the

protection belt of the Tosmare lake, although a new waste treatment plantwill not conflict with the mentioned zone

- closeness of summer gardens society "Skede" to the existing landfill andto the new site.

- distribution of boggy sediments, and consequently - high groundwatertable, in the vicinity of the existing landfill. However, a new site can notbe located at area where boggy deposits are located.

For the other site in the Grobina parish another problem has been found:- the access road should cross rather densely inhabited area or has to be

constructed from the Liepaja - Ventspils highway side that would requiresubstantial investments.

10.1 Evaluation criteria and. comparison of the two sites

In order to compare the two sites, it was necessary to create a basis for generalisationand analysis of the obtained results. Therefore, a number of criteria have beendetermiined, and systematised in 3 groups (for details see Table 10.1):

- nature conditions - 5 criteria,- social and human health aspects - 9 criteria,- economic aspects - 9 criteria.

It is difficult to provide a quantitative evaluation of the major part of the criteria (forinstance, geological structure. landscapes, etc.). Therefore, a semi-quantitativeapproach has been used, and for each criteria I to 3 points have been allocated.

- high -the site is suitable - 3 marks,- medium -the site is acceptable - 2 marks,- low -the site is unsuitable - I mark.

Thus, the site with the maximum marks is preferred for location of the new wastetreatment plant.

The evaluation system does not show exclusionary criteria, although they exist to alarge extent in Skede. Formally it is not forbidden to establish a waste treatment

Iable 1(0.1

_________________ Criteria for comparison of locatio..s

Group of Criteria Description and topicality

criteriaGeological Landfill may be located in the area, where clay sedimenits are distributed upside the ground or under the covcr of thin sand layer

structLurc (less than 5 m) or peat layer (less than 0,5 m), and separate shallow and confinied aquifers. Thickness of clayey deposits (till - sanldy

loamn or loam, clay of differellt origin) should be at least 5 m. Thickness of peat can not exceed I m

Nature Hydrogeological Desirable groundwater level - 5 in or more under the grounid, the highest permissible - I m below the land surfaces. Land(f-ill cal riot

condi- conditionis be constructed in the bogs, whiere peat layer exceeds I m, because excavation of peat layer and continiuos lowvering of groundwlater

tions table is required. Furtheriimore, last two factors cause drastic increase of landfill construictioni anid especially operatinig costs. Landfill

always caUses potential damage for grounidwater arid territories, where groutrdwater is only source of a drinkinlg water, are riot

suitable for a landfill constructionl-lydrologic Drainage of area, capability to canalise surfalce water and treated leachate (existing water courses, their discharge and slope ofl tire

conditions watercourse)Density of hiighily Erom biological variety viewpoinlt, it would be recommended to avoid areas with a high density of *valuable biotops. \Valuahle

valuable biotups hiotopes are standards of natural Ilor-a and fauna, dwelliig-places of rar-e and protected species. They are forriiio base for

preservation of biological variety. Accordinig the resolution No. 107 of Cabitiet of Ministers of LSSR on 10 April 1987 afrv action

causing straight exteriiination of protected species aiid chaiiges of circumstanices necessary for their existence is proliibited. as w ell

as currency compensations for destruction of valuable fields is def inled

Protected areas Tile landfill can not be located in any protected areas, including protection belts along rivers, lakes and the Baltic Sea

Value of visual As landfill during exploitation and post-closure period is considered as significant element of the landscape leaving effect on natural

landscape landscape; thus this criterion is considered as relevant in landfrll site selection procedure.

Social Quantity of cultural Ilhe area within 3-km radius around the selected sites had been analysed, and constructioni of the landfill is not allov ed in cases. it the

and monuments cultural monuments can be damaged or destroyed. Furthermore, perception of the monuments in direct nearness can be stronrgly

human affected by the chaniges of visual latidscape, increased traffic and other consequences caused by landfill.

health Land use Current and possible future land use has been analysed

aspects Populationi in area In order to expose population as little as possible to possible damage catised by landfill, it should be located in thie areas % ith a loh

of f (0.5) km radius population deinsity of the following prolectioni zones shall present: I kim around inhabited areas with population mbor-e thani 10(

around landfill inhabitants, and 500 m around inhabited areas with population less than 100 inihabitanits, including individual houses.

Epidemiological Location of landfill increases infectious risk in surrounding territory. Implemnentationi of the project is not recoiiimenldcd in areas.

security where the numiLber of risk factors is characteristic. The inost relevant are - dtinikinig water wvells, housinig areas in the directioni of

dominianit winds, farms, roads with intensive traffic.l.o he CO()UnCie

Continuatioi of Table 10(.1

Attitude of local Positive attitude of inhabitants against project implementation is a relevant coidition for the acceptance of proposed project.

Social inilabitanltsand Attitude of local Positive attitude ol the local government is a pre-condition for site selection for a new landfill withinl the administrative borders of

human government the mullicipalityHealth Threats to the Location of the landfill is not allowed in the areas, whele shallow and conl-inied aquifers used for water supply aie ili hydraulic

aspects artesian drinking connection(cont.) water aquifers

Threats to the Installation of the landfill is not allowed in the areas, where surface waster is only source for water supply. In remaininig areas the

surface water possible effect of the landfill on the surface water objects should be considered and risk of water pollutioni shoul(i be evaluated

objecls

Possibility of air Number of inhabited and individ'ual houses, which could be affected by air pollution. Direction of dominating winds an d numher ol

pollutioni in 3 krn affected peopie should be taken into account by evaluation of possible air pollution

radius aroundlandfillDeposits of useful Construction of the landfill is not allowed in the areas where deposits of useful minerals of State importance are located . If thiere is a

Eco- minerals deposit of regional significance, resolution on the landfill installation can be taken only by the Council of the municipality

nomical Value of Cadastrial value of the soil and forests has been determined based on State Land Service data on potential soil productivity. It shouild

aspects agricullural land be taken into account by selectinig the site for project implemenitationi. The most recommiiiienided site a landflill location w%ould be aLrcLa

and forests not available for agricultureAvailability of area Present owners, their willingness to sell or not the land for landfill construction. Cadastral and commercial value of land. costs

for a landfill related to forest transformationlocation

Access roads Costs for the access roads constructionLand preparation Comparative costs of: clean-up of the area from trees and bushes, costs of ground excavation, relocation of watercourses around

costs landfill

Revenue from Comparison of revenues at the specific sitebiogas abstraction _________________________________Regional or city Current and future plans for the area use; disturbances to those plans which may be caused by a future landfill

planning aspectsCosts of waste Distance and comparative operational costs of waste tranisportation

I transiportation

plin at tilC area with a hp-lh bioLoical )rotection valuc. but it cannot he adLvised toutilise the ar;ea lor ihis purpose where Eaily Hfail. - grass A11ra p)rncox is localcd. sincethis plant is unique lor Lat\via. Further. it may be possible to agree with tlhe pmrajor rtof the inhabitantts of the surImeCr earden scttlemcnt that collstluction of a necwv wastctreatment plant will improve the envir-onmcntal conditionis of thc area, sincc thc duImpwill be upgraded.

Two main limitations exist in "Skede". They are the following:1. The site is non-suitable from biological diversity viewpoint, because in the

area selected for a new waste treatment plant 15 rare plant species havebeen found (see Figure 22). The Nature Preserve "Tosmare Lake" is alsosituated rather close. The opinions the real location of the preserve borderdiffer, due to the uncertain determination of the borders of reserve (seeAppendix 22). The biologists who carried out investigations for this studyconsider that the southwest corner of the proposed area is located withinthe Preserve. The border determination has been based on the mappublished in the governmental newspaper "Latvijas vestnesis" (seeAppendix 22). which clearly shows that the proposed area is outside of thePreserve's borders.

2. Site is located closer than 500 m to the earlier summer gardens co-operative "Skede" which currently has status of a "summer gardensettlement" (decision of the Medze parish Council no. 3, March 9, 1999).

There are no such exclusionary criteria that apply to "Poligons" in Grobina parish.

Both criteria are indicated as "zero" in Table 10.2. From this viewpoint, the "Skede"site is not suitable for location of a new waste treatment plant. However, the localgovernment only can make the decision on location of a new waste treatment plantwithin its administrative borders. This decision can be made by the Liepaja citycouncil (on the Skede site) or by the Grobina parish council (on the Poligons site).

The results of the evaluation and the comparison of the two sites are presented inTable 10.2. The criteria used for the site evaluation and the marks may be discussed,although the 3 main groups - nature conditions, social and human health aspects andeconomnic aspects - will remain and must be evaluated in any sting exercise.

The results presented in Table 10.2 show that:

1. Two exclusionary criteria are valid for the Skede site. Therefore, thegeneral conclusion is that Skede site can not be recommended for a newwaste treatment plant location. The economic aspects are more favourableat Skede,e.g. the costs related to remediation of the existing landfill will besignificantly reduced. Further, additional revenue would be obtained frombiogas utilisation. If "Skede" site would not be selected for a new wastetreatment plant, the investments required lor biogas extraction only fronmthe old landfill would be too high).

2. The site Poligons is suitable for a new waste treatment plant location, sinceno exclusionary criteria are valid there. The main problems arc related tocultural and historical aspects and partly to the land ownershiip. A 1iiial

a;(yiccnicnt u ith ttic 1iando\vner is iiot vet iII place. a1lit l ghl a p|'' iv piIaaI(necrcnlt has heen silnel.

Table 10.2Evaluation and tcomparison of sites

Criteria Skede PoligOnlsNature coinditions l

Geological StrluctrIelC 2 3Hydropcolocgical conditions 2 3

Hydrological conditions 2 3Biotopes of high value 0 3

Total: 6 12Social and human health aspects

Landscape value 2 3Cultural and historical aspects 3 ?Land use 3 3Number of in inhabitants ( in radius of 0.5 kim) 0 2Epidemiological safety I 2Attitude of local inhabitants 1 2Attitude of local governments 3 3Threats to artesian water aquifers 3 3Threats to surface water bodies 1 2Air pollution (in radius of 3 km) 1 2

Total: 18 23Economic aspects

Deposits of useful minerals 3 3Land value 3 2Availability of the area for a landfill location (ownership) 3 2Land preparation costs for a landfill construction 2 2Access roads 3 1Landfill construction costs 3 IRevenues from biogas abstraction 3 2Transportation costs 2 2Regional or city planning aspects 3 2

Total: 25 17Grand total: 49 52

The advantages and disadvantages of each site are characterised in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3Comparison of main problems for the Skede and Grobina sitesCriteria Skede Grobina

Exclusionarv criteriaBiotopes of high value Can not be avoided No problemsNumber of inhabitants Summer gardens settlement No problems since inhabitants

*Skede" is closer than 500 m of the "Ataugas- flarm are notagainst the location of a new

!_______________________________ waste treatment plantTemporarv exclusionarv criteria

Geological structure: peat has to No problems No problemsbe less than I mHydrogeological conditions: Embankment should be made at No probleimscround Nwater table has to be area approximately 7.500 m2

deeper thal I ni f rom theground surface

Contintiation iFollow,s

I J)-(.

('0o11itIat ion ol T'hic 10(.3

Criteria Skede Gr(oil.a

)Other criteria !Culltural and histor-ical Vu11Le 1 No prohIcnis Access ro011d Ca111 not1 cO aloneg

ancient burial site 'Pora;inlsenikapi"

Epidcmiological satety Risk is rather high dlue to Risk is comparativel\ lo\kCIOSelICSS of tilC SLIlimmerl

Eardens settiemenit 'Skede''Attitude of local inhabitants Partil ne-ative Less negative tilan in "Skcde".

excluding -people living alonlgthe possible access road fromthe Grobina's town side

Threats to surface water bodies High to the Tosmare Lake Medium to the Alande RiverAir pollution Risk exists due to closeness of Risk is iower than for "Skede"

the summer gardens society"Skede"

Availability of area No problems Owner wants be a share holderin the new company which will

.________________________ _ . . own the landfill

10.2 Conclusions

1. The Grobina site is clearly preferred due to the natural conditions and humanhealth and social aspects.

2. Two exclusionary criteria are valid in "Skede", the biological diversity and thecloseness of the summer gardens society "Skede". Some rnitigation measures arepossible, but the conflict cannot be avoided. However, the current contaminationat Skede should be considered when a final decision is made on the site selection.

11 Sequence of the project iimplemiienitation aind materials

In general. thc proccduLe of design1,ing1 andl sCquenCe1 oC ' th1 pOjCectimplementationi is regulated by the Regulations no 112 (Aplril 1'' 1997)"'General Regulationis on ConstLructionl" 1441. The sequence lor the pirojectimplementation should be followi ing:

1. Decision by the Liepaja City on the selection of the site lor a newwaste treatment plant.

2. Obtaining all initial requirements to design works from the relevantauthorities and organisations (duty of the Client).

3. Bidding on the design works.4. Design works, including a preparation of the procurement packages.5. Obtaining approval of the design from the relevant authorities and

from State Expertise for Construction Works (duty of designer).6. Implementation of the Project.

The procedure of obtaining initial requirements, the general content of designworks and obtaining the final approval from the State Expertise forConstruction Works is clearly stated in the above mentioned regulations no112. Therefore, only the construction phase and materials will be furtherdiscussed.

11.1 Implementation of the construction works

The proposed layout for the Skede and Grobina waste treatment areas andlandfills are presented in Figures no 33 and 36. In each layout the followingfacilities are included:

- entrance road, entrance gate and fence,a receiving area with weigh bridge and control building,* administrative and staff building,-. sorting area for household and industrial waste, and temporary

storage of separated material,* energy cell area and landfill area with leachate collection system and

diversion of run-off water,* area for separation and receiving waste from households,* internal roads, drainage ditches, water well and other utilities,* gas extraction material, regulation equipment, pumping station and

distribution pipe,* gas engine and transformer, when electricity is generated from the

gas,* leachate collection, pumping station and pipeline (at Skede) and

treatment plant (at Grobina),* water supply well at Grobina* area for cover material,* surface and groundwater monitoring system.

I I-2

The sequence olt work,s to le car-ried OLLt is characterised iii Table I 1.i . Tlcsequence ot works mikht to some exteilt he chlan-ed depending oin tile selectedlocation and alternatiVe.

Table I 1. I

Se tience of constructioii worksActivity Skede G(ro)inIa

Construction of the acccss Limiited. about ().4 knm About *. kmlTerrain preparation Limited preparation of Demlolitioni of riniis left by the

cmbankment; limited Soviet Arm'y: reme(liation olf thcdemolition of old buildings: existing dumnp site. levelling of thelevelling of area, covering of areatihC existing dump site

Inventory and improvements Limited. because treated Existing ditches between the siteof the existing drainage leachate will he delivered to and the Alande River should besystem the Liepaja city WWTP carefully investigaLted and, if

required. treated and deepenedExternal supply Power supply. telephoneEnergy cell area and/or Construction of energy cells, Construction of energy cells.landfill area. leachate including leachate collection including collection systems forcollection system and system both from the existing leachate and surface runoffdiversion of surface run-off and the new landfill;

improvements of the existingditches and digging of

_ ______________________ required new onesCreation of gas abstraction Installation of wells,and collection system from equipment, pumping stationthe existing landfill and distribution pipeLeachate treatment system Leachate collection system, Construction of a leachate

pre-treatment, pumping treatment plantstation and pipeline toWWTP

Entrance road and gate, fence Depending on selected Yesalternative: both for theexisting landfill and for thenew waste treatment plant oronly for last

Receiving area with weight For both sitesibridge and control buildingAdministrative and staff For both sites'building_Sorting area for household For both sitesand industrial waste, andtemporary storage ofseparated materialArea for waste received from For both siteshouseholds separationlnternal roads. ditches, water For both sitessupply well. and otherutilitiesArea for cover material For both sitesBiological. surface and Viciniity of both existing and Vicirity of new waste treatmcalgroundwater monitoring a new landfill should he plant. and ditch at the distaince ol al

covered least lkem 1rom the treated lealchaltedischatrge

Gas engine and transformer. For both siteswhen electricity is generatedfrom the gas

II-3

11.2 Implementationi schedule

For alternative Al anid B I thc followingz implemrientation schedule is envisaged.The phasing of the construction ol he cnlergy cells aie shown in Figures 33 and36.indicating, the use of cell no IA for the first six months, IB fo tihe nlext sixmonths until VB for the last cell the fifith year.

Implementation of the project includes not only construction of a new landfill,but also other aspects (see Table 1 1.2).

Table 1 1.22ipmlementation Schedule

Activitv 2000 2002 12002 ] 2003 [2004 1 2005 12006 [2007Remediation of Xold landfill l

Construction of X x Xnew landfill l

Construction of X x X x x x xenergy cells I I IPurchase of X x XlandfillequipmentClosure of old X x XdumpsI I II

The proposed implementation schedule will start with the environmentalimprovements at the Skede site, irrespective if Skede or Grobina is selected forthe future operation of the regional site. If Skede shall be closed the remedialactions will convert to closure, comprising final cover, leachate collection andtreatment.

11.3 Materials

The quality of materials to be used for a new landfill construction or existingdumps remediation is generally stated by two regulations:

- no 112 (April 1't, 1997) "General regulations on construction" [44].- no 38 (February gth, 1999) "Construction, Operation, and closure of

household waste disposal sites" [43].

Simultaneously, the requirements stated by the relevant European Unionguidelines [9, 40 and others] should be observed.

The available natural material that may be used for the construction works andldump sites remediation have been investigated. According to 167], the LiepajaRegion has:

- 98 sand and sand-gravel deposits with a total amount of (categor-ies3A+B+Cj) - 40.358,1 00 m3,

- 8 deposits of clay with a total amount of (categories A+B+Cl)6,946,600 m3 .

I 1-4

The sand and claiy deposits rathei- e\Cnly distribuLed Within thC (district. TheCclosest availahile Luarr-oly01ClIV and( sanId-Iavel arc:

- Rolava (clay) - tota] resouri-ces (calcegories A+C,) - 304.000 n 3.

deposit is available for clay excavation. The averagce thickness ot thiccovering layer (basically soil) is about I Ima

- Dubenu karjers (sand gravel) - total resources 772.800() In (categoryP0). The thickness of top cover varies between 1.2 - 3.0 Im and ismainly represented by fine sand.

The distance between the deposits and the "Poligons" site is less thanl 10 km,and the distance between "Skede' and Rolava and Dubenu karjers is 22 and 21km respectively.

Prices are the following:- 1 m3 of clay - about 2,5 Ls,- 1 m3 of sand-gravel - about 2 Ls,- transportation (8 tonnes vehicle) - 0.27 Ls/km.

For the other dump sites the average distance has been calculated to:- for clay - 20 km.- for sand or sand-gravel - 15 km.

11.4 Potential environmental impacts during construction

The environmental impacts discussed for the siting of the waste treatment plantwill in principle be valid also during the implementation period. The mostcommon environmental impacts during the construction works are:

1) traffic and machinery - noise, dust, odour, disturbance of wildlife andthe surrounding population,

2) construction works - suspension of particles in surface waters oilspills, release of hazardous chemicals etc, deterioration of vegetation.

During the design phase instructions to contractors should be included in theTender documents for an environmental mitigation plan during construction.

12-I

12 Activities during operation of the waste treattment plant

The developmnclt of a workable operatin- schedule. a filling plan foIr thcplacemiient of solid wastes. waste trcaitimleilt plant operatinig recorids and billilnginformation. a load inspectioin plani for halzard-lous wastes. alld sitc salety andsecurity plans are important clements ol a waste treatmlent plant operation.

Operation of the waste treatment plant should be carried out in accordalnce withthe Regulations no 38 "Construction. operation and closure of household wastedisposal sites" 1441, particularly Section III "Operation of waste disposal sites"has to be observed. Regulations state that:

* local guidelines governing the operation of the waste treatment planthave to be elaborated (see subchapter 12.1).

* technical passport and management plant of the waste treatment planthave to be provided where details on daily operation are provided(see subchapter 12.2),

* instruction on safe working methods and for actions duringemergency cases has to be elaborated (subchapter 12.3),

- monitoring system has to be elaborated (subchapter 12.4).

12.1 Local guidelines

The necessary local regulations on waste treatment plant management have toaim at the following issues:

* Waste treatment plant operation hours.* Responsibilities, rights, and duties of employees,C Labour protective measures,* Instructions on waste registering and disposal,* Waste treatment plant techniques to be used,* Density and coverage of the waste layer; establishment of the landfill

slope,* Secondary selection of raw materials and related instructions on

primary processing methods,* Collection system for contaminated surface discharge (infiltrating

leakage water), operation of a treatment plant, and implementation ofa monitoring system,

* Density of monitoring stations for biodiversity, ground- and surfacewater and spectrum of determinable parameters to be controlled,

* Any other factors and aspects related to waste treatment plantoperation.

While preparing local regulations on the waste treatment plant management.the legal framework described in chapter 2 has to be taken into account.Especially the two sub-regulations (Feb.9th 1999) to the "Law on Solid Waste"[29] have to be considered within this context.

12.2 Daily operation

The factors to be considered in developing operating schedules incIude:

l -2

* arrival sequeLnces for col leCion vehicICs, waste c reistration andinspectiol oli- its collmposit]ion.

* traffic patterns at the site.* the timhe sequence to be followed in the Filling opeeraltionls.* effects of atmosplheric prccipitationl. winds and other climnatic

conditions.

* commercial and p ublic access.

The technical passport and the waste treatment plant management plan have toinclude all the above aspects of the waste treatment plant operation. The futureoperation of the site to be implemented is hereafter briefly presented.

12.2.1 Waste reception, registration and guarding

Waste reception and registration shall include:* weighting of the total weight and volume of the truck and registration

(in a computerised registration system) of incominc waste,* the waste is classified in one of the different waste types (based on

treatment method), and explanation to the driver where to unload thematerial/waste,

* weighting of the empty truck after emptying (if truck weight is notpreviously registered).

It is strongly recommended, due to security reasons as well as operational costsreasons, that the opening hours are 8 - 12 hours a day. The site should be infull operation from 7.00 in the morning until 19.00 in the evening, i.e. 12 hoursin full operation. The waste treatment plant should have limited activity onSaturdays, i.e. the recovery station for public use will be open. The site will beclosed on Sundays. The area has to be guarded for 24 hours a day.

The capacity of the proposed receiving and registration equipment at the sitehas to be designed by the amount of waste received during peak hours and notby the operation hours.

The guards will regularly control the following areas at the site:fence and gates

* waste r-egistration

* staff/ administration buildings* trafficflow

Access to the recovery area is restricted for the private traffic for public use.The waste trucks should go only to the unloading areas. There might be someinternal roads and larger paved areas where traffic, mainly by internal vehicles.is allowed.

12.2.2 Waste sorting, tipping and covering

Municipal wastes have to be unloaded at a central sorting area wher erecyclables are sorted out both by mechanical sorting devices and manually. if

12-3

required. lindusLtial w\aste has also io he u11loadcd at a sortill arca whcr-e tlhcwaste is sorted. mainly hv mechanical sorting dcevices. Othcr soited( mantcrial(such as filling. etc.) is diriected to separate arcas where the matcrial is useci ortreated for futur e use such as covering. access roads etc.

Recycled material has to he temporary stored in separate arcas, while waste isdelivered to consumer/recvcling f:acility. Other materials sorted out. such ashazardous waste, are also stored for future delivery to treatment or recyclingfacilities.

Sorted domestic waste is shredded. conveyed and disposed in energy cells(alternatives Al, A2 and B1). Sorted industrial waste is considered to bemainly inert and can be disposed at the landfill or used for a filling orconstruction of track roads.

The existing landfill and energy cells are covered daily with suitable material(such as clay or fine till) in order to minimise the infiltration of precipitationand to enhance the gas generation and extraction conditions.

12.2.3 Waste treatment areas and process control

For process control and monitoring purposes the following main parts areidentified:

* weigh bridges and registration facilities,* gas pumping and energy conversion system,* leachate collection and treatment system,* surface runoff collection system,* facilities used for waste sorting / separations (as: belt conveyors,

shredder, etc.),* environmental monitoring programme

Weigh bridges and registration facilities will have an independentcomputerised system for registration of weight, kind of waste, supplieridentification etc. This system will be linked to a supervisory monitoringsystem, thereby reporting the amount of the different goods brought to theplant each day.

The gas pumping and energy conversion system will be provided with its owncontrol and monitoring system. The system will be based on PLCs(Programmable Logical Controller) for control purpose and a computerisedoperator system. This system will also be connected to the above-mentionedsupervisory system, where main process statistics will be handled.

Workers and vehicle drivers will have the main responsibility for a properwaste treatment at the site under the guidance ol the supervisors. Thesupervising staff will have the responsibility for monitoring of the dailyoperation, that the waste is directed to the correct area, is properly trcated atthe working face and covered according to iilstructions.

12-4

They shall also rcUulary ni iOiltor the "as equipmilent. SLtIUS of draiiuIIzOe syselms

and the leachate treatmencl t;iciliiies.

The leachate treatmuent ptlant will also be pirovided witlh its oWil control systcmbased on PLC technology. The man-ma.zhitlery interface will he a convenltionalcontrol panel with switches. signal lamps and analocLue insLrumentis or a PLCoperator panel. The main ilnlormation about the process will be transf'erred tothe supervisory system for r-eportingi- purpose.

Belt convevors, shredder. etc. will be manually controlled. The equipment willhave its own starting system. A quick stop shall be easily available in case ofemergency. However, connection to the supervisory system will not benecessary.

The supervisory computer system will be located in the administrationbuilding. The information from different parts of the total plant will becollected and presented in this system. The information will also be arranged indaily and monthly reports.

12.2.4 Personnel for daily operation and management

The number of employees operating the site is shown below in the Table 12.1.These employees can be divided into the departments and sub-departments.The Deputy Chief will be responsible for establishment of a daily operationplan.

Table 12.1Staff required for waste treatment plant operation

Alternative and number of employeesDepartment A1 |A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2

Registration department =Weighing staff .2 2 2 2 2

Security departmentDispatchers and guards 2 2 2 2 2 2

Waste handling departmentDeputy chief 1 I l l 1 l

Supervisors 2 2_ Workers. 4 4 3 3 0.5 4 3

of which:shredder- operators I I Idrhvers of vehicles & loaders 3 3 3 3 31 3 l

Waste handling personnel 6 6 4 4 l 6 4of which:

Municipal waste sorting _ _ I _IEnerpy cell construCtion 2 2 2Wor/kers at energY cells I I IlIzduistrial waste sor1ting I I I IIHazardouis w (aste

sortinlg/storage I I I I_Il_

Metal sortiug/Ator-age I I II I ISubtotal 13 13 9 9 1.5 13 9Total number of employees 17 117 11 173 3

I_>5

12.3 Security and safety measuires in emergenlcv cases

Safety precautions halve to he ilmlple lentcd in order to prevent llhe I'ollowin

cases:* self-jlanition of waste (instructionls on fire combatliin iI tihe case ol

self-combustion should he pr-ovided).* access of non-autlhor-ised persons in the waste treatment platnl should

be avoided.* unregulated activities in emergency cases like leakage-infiltration.

accidents due to disregard of safety directions, etc. (clear instructionsare required)

In emergency cases, the following actions should be undertaken:

* Waste-nmass self-ignitionWaste receiving has to be stopped immediately and the burning places haveto be isolated from the airflow. Only after fire extinction and completelocalisation of the confined areas, the waste treatment plant operation canbe continued. On the sites where a burning process has taken place, thearea needs a proper cover.

* Occurrence of toxic substancesIf toxic substances (particularly gaseous ones) are reaching a wastetreatment plant by any reason, it has to be closed until deactivation andneutralisation of those substances have been achieved. Concrete solutionsdepend on kind and danger of any specific substance (e.g. danger forhuman health, risk of explosion).

* ExplosionsWhenever explosions have occurred in a landfill, it has to be closed untilthe reasons for that have been clarified. The usual operations can only berestarted when all necessary actions for safety restoration have beenundertaken.

* Othiers

In any other emergency case (unexpected storms, floods, etc.). the landfilloperation has to be limited or temporarily stopped.

By taking into account the above mentioned, it is necessary to develop astrategy for waste col]ection and -disposal in emergency cases to be carried out

when the waste treatment plant is not (or not fully) operating.

The worst event that can take place at the landfil is fire. Fires in dumping sitesare common and hard to extinguish. The risk of fires at the sanitary landfill willbe minimised by providing the waste with a tight cover, which in any case isone requirement to optimise the collection of gas and rninimisation of theleachate generation. Further, the extraction of gas w'ill remove the most easilycombustible material within the landfill.

I 2-h

Fire fighting cequipmilcilt shall bh casil y accessihle and thie hlicilsods lol ir,fighting regularly practisedl.

The supervision staff is responsible for that the stall coniplics wiLihoccupationial health precaut ionary meas;ures, e.g. hearing protection Ceuipmntilnt.

gloves protective clothing etc. Accidenlts shall be reportedl.

12.4 Monitoring

General requirements on waste treatment plants monitoring are stated in theabove mentioned Regulations no 38 143l, and they should include:

- vadose zone monitoring, which involves both liquids and gases.Monitoring for liquids in the vadose zone is necessary to detect anyleakage of leachate from the bottom of a landfill.Lysimeters have tobe used for sample extraction from the unsaturated zone. Monitoringfor gases is necessary to detect the lateral movement of any landfillgases,

- surface water and groundwater monitoring is necessary to detectchanges in water quality that may be caused by the escape of leachateand landfill gases. Surface leakage water quality should be controlledbefore (background value upstream) and after passing the landfill(downstream) in order to deterrnine the quality of the dischargedtreated leachate (at least 2 observation stations). At least 5 wells arenecessary for groundwater monitoring, one for determination of thebackground value (in groundwater flow before it comes to thelandfill), others for the control of groundwater quality change afterpassing the landfill. The parameters and frequency of sampling arestated in Regulations no 38 "Construction, operation and closure ofhousehold waste disposal sites" [44].

- landfill air quality monitoring consists of 3 parts: monitoring ofambient air quality at and around the waste treatment plant, oflandfill gases extracted from the landfill, and the monitoring of theoff gases from any gas processing treatment facilities. Parametershave to be analysed and frequency of sampling are stated inRegulations no 38. Taking into consideration that gas monitoringnever has been provided in Latvia, it may be mentioned that gassampling devices can be divided into three categories: passive, graband active. Most commonly passive sampling is used, i.e. gas issampled by passing a stream of gas through a collection device inwhich the contaminants contained in the gas stream are removed forsubsequent analysis.

l3 1l

13 Closure and post-closure activities

Post-closure activitiCs should bc carr1-ie]d oul in accoridance With R 11tilat ions no38 "ConstirucLioll, operation and closuire of houseiold waste disposal sites"[441. particularly the requirements stated in Section IV "ClosuLe oi' wastedisposal sites" have to he observcl.

Landfill closure and post-closure care is very important in order- to ensure thatcompleted landfills will be maintained 30 to 50 years into tuture. Of course,closure and post-closure activities require planning for future investments.Therefore. it is has to be stated that the operator of a landfill should to put asideenough money for sufficient maintenance of the closed site.

The long-term closure plan must include a design of the final landfill cover andlandscaping of the completed site as well as long-term control of runoff, gasand leachate collection and treatment systems, and environmental monitoring.

The following activities should be considered for the closure of landfills:* final shaping of the landfill,* relocation of leachate collector drains and ditches,* preparation of new surface runoff ditches,* application of final cover,i establishment of vegetation,* conversion of the leachate treatment for a long term perspective,e environmental monitoring systems.

Post-closure care involves the routine inspection of the completed. landfill site,maintenance of the infrastructure (surface water diversion facilities, landfillsurface grades, re-vegetation, and maintenance of the landfill gas and leachatecollection and treatment'facilities), and environmental monitoring.

Typical elements of a landfill closure plan are characterised in table 13. 1.

Table 13.1Typical elements of a landfill closure plan [171

Element Typical activityPost-closure land use Designation and adoptionFinal cover design Select the infiltration barrier, final surface slopes and vegetationSurface water and Calculate stormwater quantities for runoff and select perimeterdrainage control system channel location and sizes to collect runoff and to prevent runonControl of landfill gases Select location and frequency of gas monitoring and set the

operations schedule for gas extraction wells and flare. if requiredControl and treatment of Set the operation schedule for leachate removal and treatment, ifleachate requiredEnvironmental monitoring Select sampling locations and frequeincy of monitoring as well assystems constituents to be measured

13.1 Final shaping and cover of' the landfi-ll

Final cover design is an intearal part of the site developmiient plan. and thcdesign must satisfy two fuLnctions at thc sitc:

1. Ensure the long-ierm post-closure inteority of the landhill witIrespect to any Ciemissions to the enviroilnent.

2. Support the growth of vegetation.

Typical cover design parameters shall include:- design configuration.- final permeability.- surface slope,- landscape desion.- method of repair as landfill settles,- slope stability under static and dynamic loads.

In order to get the appropriate space for the final elevation of the landfill, thefinal closure plan needs to be prepared several years before closure andtemporary storage of the final cover allocated within the landfill area. Thedesigned slope of 1:3 can be adjusted for the local conditions to enable a roadto be constructed to the top of the landfill.

The closure plan for Skede, Figure 34, envisages a viewpoint to be establishedat the top of the landfill. A less sophisticate closure plan has been envisagedfor the Grobina site, Figure 37.

The final cover shall have several functions, top cover for vegetation, filterlayer, drainage, hydraulic barrier, gas control. Those functions require usuallya combination of natural clay and sand material combined with geotextile.There are no EU directives on the final cover. For the preliminary design a 50mnu net infiltration per year through the cover has been assumed. This wouldrequire a multilayered top cover and establishment of vegetation. Thevegetation should mainly comprise grasses and not trees and bushes, whichmay destroy the cover by root penetration.

13.2 Preparation of new surface runoff ditches

The ditches that divert the surface runoff may not function after closure sincethe top cover may require the space for the surface runoff ditches. Theseparation of the surface runoff requires a proper gradient of the slope as wellas a sufficiently low permeability of the soil between the leachate and runoffditches.

The greatest risk can be assumed for the site 'Skede" is a possible pounding ofsurface water in area, because the site is mainly located in an even ar-ca withsmall gradients of the ditches to be constructed.

Thle followilng fcatUles muLlst hc incii(lued in thic desi ln of dra'lmna Controllac ItilCs:

- collection and routing oi sturiaLce wvaicr of thelacnae'dfill sur-f'aIce in 111hshortest possibie distance.

- selection of chainiel and drainage ways thiat will carryl water atadequate velocities to avoid deposition.

- use of sufficient surface slopes to maximise the rcmovail of surfal-cerunoff and the same time minimise surface scour.

- material specifications for the drainage features that allo-w repair andreplacement as the landfill settles.

13.3 Control of landfill gas

Landfill gases must be controlled for as long as they are expected to begenerated after the landfill is closed. Typical landfill gas facilities include:

- extraction wells.- collector and transmission piping,- gas flaring and/or combustion facilities.

The proposed gas utilisation facilities will be utilised also after closure as longas extraction economically motivated. The material used in pipe manufacturingmust be flexible, to withstand movement when the waste layer settles, andstrong enough to withstand the loading of vehicles passing over the surfacewhen maintaining landscape plants and the gas extraction and collectionfacilities.

13.4 Relocation of leachate drains and ditches

The ditches that function as open peripheral leachate ditches during the activephase of the landfill need to be reconstructed to collect the leachate assubsurface drains and the unpolluted surface runoff when the final cover hasbeen applied should be diverted to new ditches outside of the leachate drains.

]Leachate treatment facilities are designed and built when the landfill first startsoperations. The same facilities are used after closure until the leachate qualityhas reached acceptable levels.

13.5 Leachate control and monitoring

When the landfill is closed there are limited possibilities to have operationalpersonnel at the site. Thus, the leachate treatment should aim at passivetechnology that not requires daily maintenance. Filter technology and gravityflow systems should be the first priority. Unfortunately, such systems are notexpected to function at Skede and Grobina and regular inspection will berequired.

13-4

13.6 Environmental moniltorint,

The final part of' a closut-r plan liivolVes environmental nionitorinC faClictis.Environmental nlOfitorinz is necessary for the biosphIere. air and walcr.

Monitoring of the impact ot the closed landfill on surface anld grounIlld W.ter isrequired 30 yeaLrs after closure according to the Regulation of thc Cabhinct oiMinisters "On Establishment. Management and Closure ol Sanitary Landfills"(1999). The monitoring prcogramme will be similar to the programme duringthe active phase, but withi longer intervals between sampling and fewerparameters to be analysed in order to keep costs reasonable.

Environmental monitoring facilities that are installed during landfillconstruction and operations will be used also after landfill closure. Functionsof monitoring facilities are characterised in Table 13.2.

Table 13.2Functions of monitoring facilities

Functions during operation I Functions during closureGroundwater monitorin ! wells

Upgradient Water sampling at location to get Same functions as during operation

i ~~~background water quality

Downgradient Water sampling at location to detect Water sampling at location to detect

movement of leachate contaminants; any leachate plume created by"if contaminants are present, correct leaking liner; a data reference

problem with liner; wells function as location for defining the direction

a control variable for operations and rate of movement for"

contaminant plume

Vadose zone lysimetersLysimeters Sampling location to detect liquids in Sampling location to detect liquids

soils above groundwater: if liquids in soils above groundwater; if

are present, determine the cause and liquids are present, completecorrect the problem additional investigations; correct

any problems as required by

._______________________________ _ ..relevant authorities

_____________ Gas vents

Sampling location for cornbustible Samplin, location for combustible

gases gases: gas abstraction wells for

control and removal of methane gas

after closure

Leachate treatment facilitiesLeachate quantity measurement and Same functions as during operation

quality samplino location

Stormwater holding basins and surface runoff

Retain stormwater for regulated Same functions as during operation

release of basins; measure quantity

l_____________ and sample for quality

|___________ Biological monitori g

1 Controi of impact on flora and fauna Same functions as during operation

once every 3 years . control offunction of protection belts and re-

._______ vegetation of landfill area

14-I

14 Conclusions

The evaluation and comiiparison ot the two alternative sites has hecil mlade onlthe basis of criteria descrilbed in detalils in Chapter 10. All criterial havc becnclassified into 3 groups:

1. Nature conditions - 4 criteria.2. Social and human health aspects - 10 criteria.3. Economic aspects - 9 criteria.

A semi-quantitative approach has been applied in order to compare the sites asobjective as possible. The suitability of the area for a new waste treatmentplant location has quantified by applying marks from 1 to 3. The highest markindicates the highest value and 1 the lowest for each criteria. In the case ofexclusive criteria, and if the impact can not be avoided or eliminated, the mark0 has been applied. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 14.1.

Table 14.1Evaluation of alternative sitesCriteria Skede Poligons

Environmental conditions (4 criteria) 6 12Social and public health aspects (10 criteria) 18 22Aspects of Economics (9 criteria) 25 18

TOTAL _ _ 52

The evaluation and comparison of the sites show that the site "Poligons" inGrobina parish is. more suitable for a location of a new waste treatment plant.Additionally, exclusionary criteria are not applicable to "Poligons", but twoapply on the "Skede" site:

1. The biologicar diversity is very rich, and 15 rare plant species havebeen found within the area proposed for a new waste treatment plant(see Figure 22).

2. The site is located closer than 500 m to the summer garden settlement"Skede".

On the other hand Skede has a number of advantages:1. The economic aspects are more favourable (short access road, no

need for a separate leachate treatment plant, high revenues frombiogas abstraction. etc.).

2. Reduction of costs for the existing landfill remediation, if a newwaste treatment plant will be built (common system for leachatecollection and delivery to Liepaja WWTP, monitoring system, etc.).

Although the financial aspects favour Skede, the extra annual revenue requiredfor selecting the Grobina site is estimated at 130 000 Ls only to get the sameeconomical result. see Chapter 8. The tariff increase required to cover the extracosts are considered to be acceptable.

14-2

Conclusions

The curr--ent study and clata analysis hndicatcs:

1. Two cxclusive criteria apply to the Skede. whicl lezids to thc conlcitisionthat the site cannot be recommnended for the new, waste trcatmelellnt plant.

2. The Poligons site in Grobina pagasts is acceptable for the ncw wastetreatment plant location, since no exclusive criteria apply for this site.Several issues need to be addressed for the project implementation (e.g.land ownership, location and standard of access road, character of thecultural heritage studies). It is obvious that investment costs required fora new waste treatment plant construction at this site will be higher thanfor Skede (see Chapter 8 and details in Feasibility Study). Nevertheless.from nature conditions. social and public health aspects the Poligons siteis more favourable. Therefore it is recommend for a new wastetreatment plant location.

3. The local governments only can make the decision on the location of thenew waste treatment plant, i.e. the Liepaja City Council and the GrobinaParish Council.

15 References

1. Andrusaitis G. (ed.). iRed Book ol the Latvian SSR. Rig.a. I 985. Ill Latvian.

2. Biologically Rich Naltll-e Ohbjccis anld Complexes in Laivia. Map in scalc 1 :50()000. WWF (Project no. 4568). 1992.

3. Critical Review and Summary of Leachate and gas Production from Landfills. USEPA publication 600/2-86/073. December. 1985.

4. Development and Application of Waste Technology. Thesys and papers presentedat 2 nd International BayFORREST conference. July 1-3, 1998, Germany.

5. Districts and cities of Latvia. Statistic Yearbook. State Statistic Committee ofLatvia and Statistic Institute of Latvia. Riga, 1997. In Latvian.

6. Division into Districts of Small Rivers of Latvian SSR. State Hydrometeologicaland Environment Control Agency, Riga, 1987. In Russian.

7. Economic Development of Latvia. Ministry of Economy of the Republic ofLatvia. Riga, 1998.

8. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. Volume I. Policies, Procedures, andCross-sectorial Issues. The World Bank technical paper number 139, December,1991.

9. European Community Environment Legislation Waste. Volume 6. EuropeanCommission, Directorate-General XI, Environment, Nuclear safety and Civilprotection. Brussels, 1996.

10. Explanatory Note 'to Geological Maps of Latvia. Sheet 31 - Liepaja. StateGeological Survey of Latvia, Riga, 1997. In Latvian.

11. Feasibility Study and Prelirminary design of Remediation and ContinuedOperation of the Getlini Disposal Site, Latvia. SWECO in association with GeoConsultants Ltd. and SKAFAB, 1997.

12. Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment ofSustainable Solid Waste Management for Liepaja City and Liepaja Region.Inception Report. Sweco International in association with Geo Consultants Ltd..January, 1999.

13. Feasibility Study. Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment ofSustainable Solid Waste Management for Liepaja City and Liepaja Region. DraftReport. Sweco International in association with Geo Consultants Ltd., March.1999.

14. Gabriel Michanek. Harmonisation of the Environmental Leoislation in Latvia.June 1998, Riga.

I S-9

15. Geologicail Map of Latvia. Sheet 31 - Licpaja. Prc-Q)ualier1i;ary dcp(osils. ScCaic1:200 000. State Geolo6ical SuLIVey ol Luavia. Riga. 1 998.

16. Geological Map of Lalvia. Sheet 31 - LiepLaja. Quaternary deposits. Scale 1:200000. State Geological Survey ol Laivia. Ricaa, 1998.

17. George Tchobanoolous. Hilary Theisen. Samuel Vigil. InteLnzaied Solid WasteManagement. Engineering Principles aind Management Issues. Singapore.McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

18. Groundwater Abstraction and Monitoring in Latvia. State Company "Latvijasgeologija", 1995. In Latvian.

19. Groundwater Protection strategy. Approved by I.Emsis. State Minister forEnvironmental Protection. Riga. January, 1998.

20. Groundwater resources of Latvia. State Geological Survey of Latvia, 1998. InLatvian.

21. Guide to the Approximation of European Union Environmental Legislation.Brussels, 25.08.1997. SEC(97) 1608.

22. Ingelog T., Andersson R., Tjernberg M. Red Data Book of the Baltic Region.Sweden, Uppsala, 1993.

23. Investigation of the groundwater contarnination at vicinity of waste dumping siteof the Liepaja city. Geological Survey of Latvia, 1987.In Russian.

24. Investigation of the groundwater contamination in the waste dumping site"Skede", Liepaja city. Baltec Ass. Inc., 1995. In Latvian.

25. Latvia in Figures. State Committee for Statistics, 1997. In Latvian.

26. Law "On Environmental Impact Assessment". Passed in the Parliament of Latviain October 1 4 h, 1998.

27. Law "On Environmental Protection". Passed in the Parliament of Latvia in August6 h, 1991.

28. Law "On Hazardous Waste". Passed in the Parliament of Latvia in March 3 0 1h.

1993.

29. Law "On Municipal Waste". Passed in the Parliament of Latvia in October 151'.1998.

30. Law "On Natural Resources Tax'. Passed in the Parliament of Latvia in October-4 , 1995.

31. Law "On Protective Zones". Passed in the Parliament of Latvia in FeblrLaly 5 l",

1997.

I s 3 .

32. Law 'On Self-governments". Passed in thc 1'arliamlent of LaMVia jn JUnCe 8''. 1(95.

33. Location of Rivers andl Lakes in Latvia. Map in scale 1:40() 000. lnstitLute for

Melioration. Rioa. 1985. In Russian.

34. Managemernt and Contr ol of the Environment. WHO/PEP/89. I 1 989.

35. Names of Water Courses in Latvian SSR. Vol. 1-4. University of Latvia, Riga,1986. In Latvian.

36. National Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategy in Latvia. Carl Bro a/s inassociation with Geo Consultants Ltd.. 1997.

37. Occupational Safety anid Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste SiteActivities. US Department of Health and Human services.NIOSH/OSHA/USCG/EPA, October, 1985.

38. Particularly Protected Nature Objects in Latvia. Map in scale 1:500 000. WWF(Project no. 4568), 1992.

39. Particularly Protected Nature Objects in the territory of the Latvian SSR.Environmental Protection Committee of Latvia, Riga. 1991.

40. Project preparation and analysis. Latvuan Energy agency, Riga. 1996. In Latvian.

41. Proposal for a Council directive on the landfill of waste. Brussels, 05.03.1997,COM(97) 105 final.

42. Regulation on Staff Actions in Emergency Situations at the Landfill "Getlini".W'Getlini-2" Ltd., 19196;'

43. Regulation no 39 of the Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Latvia"Classification of Solid Household Waste". Riga, February gth 1999.

44. Regulation no 38 of the Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Latvia"Construction, Operation, and Closure of Household Waste Disposal Sites". Riga,February 9 th 1999.

45. Regulation no 112 of the Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Latvia "GeneralRegulations on Construction". Riga, April 1st. 1997

46. Regulation no 210 of the Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Latvia 'OnApplication of Provisions of the Law "On Natural Resources Tax". Ri-a. June2 0 1996.

47. Regulation no 194 of the Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Latvia "Regulationsfor territorial planning". Riga, September 6 "', 1996.

15-4

48. Report on waste amouLnts and landfills in Liepaja Districl. (,eo Consultantl1s. I 998.In Latvian.

49. Ross Singleton. Pamela Castle anld David Short. Environmcntal Assessmenit. BrTcitBritain, MPG Books Ltd., Bodmin. Cornwall. 1999.

50. Special Economic Zone. Liepaja. Latvia. Presentation lor Investors. Liepaaja CityCouncil, 1997.

51. Standard Operating Safety Guides. US EPA publication 9285.1-03. PB92-963414.June, 1992.

52. State of art of the solid household waste management in Latvia (Review). GeoConsultants, 1998.

53. Towns and Civil Parishes in the Administrative Districts of Latvia. A collection ofstatistical data. Part 1. Central statistical bureau of Latvia and Latvian statisticalinstitute. Riga, 1998.

54. The Encyclopedia of Latvia's Nature. Volume 1 -5. Riga, printing house "Latvijasenciklopedija", 1994-1998. In Latvian.

55. The Republic of Latvia. Administrative and territorial division on September 1,1998. Map in scale 1:400 000. Publ. house "Jana seta", Riga, 1998.

56. Turlajs J., Millins G. Urban areas of Latvia. Publ. house "Jana seta", Riga, 1998.In Latvian.

57. Useful Minerals and their Resources in Latvia. State Geological Survey, Riga,1997. In Latvian.

58. Anonymous. 1992. World Wildlife Fund Project 4568: nature protection plan forLatvia. Riga.

59. CORINE Biotopes Database. 1997. Riga.

60. Fatare I. 1992. Analysis of distribution of components of Latvian flora and its rolein development plant protection concept. Environmental protection in Latvia. 3.Riga.

61. Galenieks P. (ed.) 1953. Flora of Latvia SSR. 1. Riga.

62. Gavrilova G., Suics V. 1999. Flora of vascular plants of Latvia. Riga.

63. Opermanis O., Kabucis I.. Aunins A. 1997. Corine Biotopes p)oject in Laivia.Riga.

64. Petersone A., Birkmane K. 1980. Plant deternminant of the Latvia SSR. Riga.

Appendix 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Terms of Rference

for tbe Environmental irmpact Assessment fur a proposed LandfillSite in Liepaja Region.

These Terms of Reference is issued according to the Law anEnvir onmenta} Impact .Assessment concerning new municipal solidwaste! landfill for Liepaja region.

During preparation of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)all relevant Latvian iegislative requirements including ratifiedconventions should be followed.

Environmental Impact Statement should contain furthermentioned issues and it has to be submitted to the StateEnviironmental Impact Assessment BureauL

Introduction.

Project aim, tasks and quintessence. connections with otherenvironmental protection activities in the region.

1. Amialysis of relevant environmental legislation demands related toproposed activitv.

2-Characterization of proposed landfill sites.

2. 1. Compliance with physical planning demands, land owncrship aidnecessary land transformaion or compcensation issues.

2.2. Siting of the ncw landfill, charactcrztion of necessary territory andits surroundinngs, existing and previous land use,

,,.--c- .q- 1 ,_._- . n-c t ,9- _ 1 ___1Q

2.3 Existing acc-ss roads , necessanitv for niw access roads orrmprovcmert of existing roads

2.4. Topographv.

25 C'limate characterzaticon.

2.6 Geology, ch=aac-,c=iation of soil and subsoil.

2.7. Characterization of existing pollution in the siTe, necessarty andproposals for remediation.

2.8. Hidrogeological conditions.

'.9. Hidrological conditions, possibility for runoff and leachate drai'a,flooding potential, necessarv measures in problem cases.

2 0. Characterization of flcra and fauna, abundance of protected specics,breeding/fee-ding patterns and nesting places.

2.1. sLandscape value and historical significance of the site. Historica,csIttral and arhitecrural monuments within 2 l1n area.

- .12. Protected teritries, mineral workinms and reserves., water intakes,wetlands, forests, conditions of proQtction or exploitation witlin I kmarea,

2.13. Protected zones, possible restictions for landfill site im pmposedte-ritones.

3. Characterization of waste management systenL

3.1 .Territory and population served by landfill.

i3.2. Amount of waste, height and shape of waste pile, proposed operationtime.

3.3. Types of waste to be landfled.

3.4. Technology of waste collection, registration, filling, compacting andcovering.

AR-C_-1aQG io: _8 +_r 1 : _-1048 - -4; cc

c5 Necssary coverI materlal(-s), amount and extracting places

6 Filling svstem and dailY operation cycle

-7 mount and pollution of infiltrate and surface runoff. proposedtechnical solution for t-eatment on the site! transportation to thewastewater trearnent plant.

. 8. Fencmng of temritor, measures for supervsing and control.

4.Construction works.

4 1 Neztssary construction materials, time, sequence of the works.

4.' Possible environmental impacts during construction phase andnecessary mitigation measures.

5. Possible impacts from new landfiil.

5. Changes in surface and goundwater levels, directions and velocities.possible erosion processcs or bogging-up.

5.2Drainage of rain and melting snow waters, collection of imfiltrate andtreatmenton the site or transporting to the nearest wastewater treatmentplant Possible seasonal changes and and problems related with that.

5.3. Possibility of groundwatero surface water contamination,evaluationi of possible water quality changes.

5A4.Changes in air quality, amount of emissions, evaluation of increasingnoisc leve}s and smells.

5.5. Changes in flora and fauna connected with construction of landfill.Possible cdegradation of ecosystems in the surroundings of landfill.

5.6. Changes in landscape and land use.

5.7.xteraction between above mentionened impacts leading tostrengthening of significance of thesc impacts.

1---'s99 1Q:--6 +@,^, .4_19 P9_. F.09

t. Possibte impacts to socleTv.

*Ai .ttat6u of land owners ,ocal rt:siLcnrs and municvpaliii ino rpnwoec

.eailsalion.

c.2 Towns, willaz:s, mdiv;idual residrnces, water intakeis. surface waterS.7.rcrational teriuones, schoOls, hospiTais and otner puiblic buildin-s.Indusial tenornes and higb r_sk objects within 2 '-m area.

.3 EvajLation of nuusancts. iosses and rainas for local residents.

64 Occupation health and necI:ssanitv for health protection measures for

.oca. -rsidents and staff of landffil.

6.5. Social and economical :valuation of landfill (Lie-aja cirv pcrshaz1d region).

7 Technical and organizing measures to diminish or avoid possibleim pats.

8. Alternatives and comparision of them.

8 1 'O alte.-ative", possible consequences of that.

8.2 Possible tehnolomical alterrnatives, including waste sorting at thesourco or 1n landfilL recirculation of infiitrate, reatment on the ssIe ortansporing to the wastewarer reatment plant, different Liners andcoverng matenais, collection and utilizarion of bioeas etc.

8.3. Comparision of alternatives using quantified cMteria whereapplicabic.

8.4 Comparision of building and operationial costs.

8.55. Analvsis of possible exclusionary Crter'a.

8 6 Worst case analvsis and measures for prevention or elimuiaon-

8, Seiection of best alternative.

. Mvonitoring and handling requirementu during operation and ;%fterciosure of landfilL

4 I Nec-ssarv wastewater collection, treatinent and dramage measures.ne z:ssarv surrace water and oundwater monitonng.

9.2. Usefulness of biogas collection and utilization, necessaryprecaurional and controlling measuLres in that rcspect takina into accountinvestigations in other inndfUlls in Latvia and foreign expierence.

9.3.Covenng and closing of landfill,

94. Remediation and possiblc further use of closed landfll.

10. Summarv.

11. Possiblle problems, which can influence further realisation ofproject

12. information about public hearings and changes made inEnvironmiental Impact Statement ( this point should oe reflected inFinal Environmental Impact Statement).

Appendix 2

REFERENCE FROM THE STATEHYDROMETEOROLOGICAL AGENCY

\WINI) R(3SE IN I'I'ltCIlN'I'S! (1,otiiilolniI iitiiii)crl Iol)scr';hilioiis xvill M jidy days)

1'11CENT'AGE 01 I)AYS Wll'I(')IJ' OTWINI) (F roml lol;l Imibroilw r olkscr'alic0is)LiIEPA.JA

______ ______ ______ ______ 1989Dill 110

I. I Nil' E NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW sW WSW w wNw riw i lW di_ec wind

1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 10 10 40 16 8 6 0 0

I.I I 0 0 0 1 4 6 7 11 9 6 17 30 5 1 2 0

III 1 1 5 2 5 7 21 10 9 10 16 5 1 3 0 3

IV 7 6 ll 9 14 10 14 2 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 0 2

V 12 6 4 1 3 1 3 3 8 10 13 11 12 3 4 6 0 5

VI 19 11 7 2 3 2 5 3 5 7 9 5 6 5 3 8 0 I

VIl 9 9 2 3 6 3 3 4 4 8 12 7 7 7 7 9 0 6

Vill 3 8 3 3 5 4 5 3 7 6 11 12 17 5 5 3 0 3

IX 13 9 3 2 6 6 6 4 8 3 7 12 9 6 2 4 0 3

X 10 2 1 4 5 5 9 4 11 5 9 9 12 7 5 2 0 2

Xl 7 6 5 2 3 5 12 21 6 3 4 3 4 6 10 3 0 0

XlI 5 2 5. 3 7 7 3 4 18 6 6 3 12 7 7 5 0 3

1990

_it lIIIIE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WOIW |4W |t1IW direc |vind

I 2 0 2 3 2 1 3 9 13 7 8 16 26 4 2 2 0 2

II 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 9 21 13 17 14 14 3 5 0 0 4

III 4 2 I 0 4 2 0 I 5 8 10 18 27 5 5 8 0 1

IV 6 1 3 7 13 6 5 2 9 11 14 1 6 1 3 2 0 3

V 9 8 6 1 4 3 3 2 5 5 12 10 15 5 5 7 0 4

VI 8 3 6 4 7 5 4 2 7 4 1 1 6 10 4 9 t0 0 3

VIl 7 4 2 2 2 2 _ I 2 5 12 1 1 20 6 12 1 1 0 6

Vill 8 1 2 1 3 3 8 7 6 7 7 14 14 5 5 9 0 3

IX 9 10 10 3 7 4 5 10 5 0 5 4 17 3 5 3 0 4

X 4 5 2 2 7 6 16 12 7 2 4 5 17 6 4 1 0 3

YI 5 5 6 2 5 9 6 6 6 3 8 6 19 4 6 4 0 3

xii 5 3 5 2 9 7 7 14 14 5 6 8 10 I *2 2 0 2

%YND R(OSE INI'l IWIRC N' IS (Vtiom lt nu1 mbur olIflMu oAbsulvilliols Nvil wiid

I'[R(INTAGIE (OF D)AYS WITIV101T WIND) (Vloll) foIl,l IIIImI)cr1 (ib)JscrvoIioI)S

II il'IE lIE E EE E EE SE SSE S SSW SW WvsWv w W1 IW liV' I it t dierec wind

III 1 4 2 3 3 6 l 9 9 1 4 t0 6 9 4 I 6 4 0 3

IVI 7 3t ' 6 12 3 6 6I 3 9 227 9 8 5 0 4

XII 9 5 4 1 2 1 *2 2 1 4 9 20 7 8 804

Vill 5 4 6 3 3 6 1 3 7 9 22 9 6 5 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~il lb

I I 2 2 0 3 4 2 3 0 7 i6 29 7 II 90 0

II 10 2 to1 7 12 43 6 26 3I 13 6 7 -2 0 4

xi 1 0 3 1 1 4 3` 91 8 12 71 16 6 9 6 3

V 12 9 7 9 2 2 2 a 5 0 14 9 7 4

V t fll IE ENE2 2 2S 4 SWS6WW t IiwI II 17 9 10 e 4 2i0

VIII 0 -~ ~ ~ 2 2 11 7 2 3 10 7 16 29'l I 7 1 1 - 0 4

III IS 4 2 12 6 107 7 4 4 6 7 8 7 3 4 8 0 -1

IV 8 3 7 9 14 i 6 5 9 3 12 5 6 2 4 6 0

Xl 4 2i I 14 2 7 I2 14 I 7 6 7 6 6 6 0 0 3

711 6 3 2 6 6 ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~3 3 9- 13 U6 a 12 1 3 5 6i

\VI ND ROSE I N PI At(CF 1ITS (From IotalmIlimlber ol obsci vaIionis \0 IlII I\ ild)

11- ETG O1F I )A \'S WVIIIHOU1T \V' 1'1 O- (Fnit Ila Id mmmmlnjm I aII) ibsc Iva(i illgs I

______ ______ ~~~~~~~~~~1993 _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

II filuE IIE ENIE E ESE SE_ SSE s SSW SW WSW w wolw olw 111W direc wind

1 5 1 I 0 0 4 6 10 5 7 8 29 10 10 3 0 0

1I 6 6 7 3 6 4 3 5 *5 3 8 8 585 0 2

III 2 6 1 1 7 7 2 2 7 7 5 8 7 18 7 2 2 0

IV- 7 10 13 13 II 5 4 4 5 5 5 3- 5 3 2- 5 0 1

V 5 5 7 8 17 a 10 ~ 4 5 3 4 5 9 3 2 5 0 2

VI -8 5 3 3 3 1 1 2 5 6 13- 7 22 6 7 8 0

VII 3 2 1 1 4 2 5 el 6 3 12 1'l 17 12 7 7 0 2

ViIl 4 3 0 2 3 3 5 7 8 3 4 8 29 12 6 3 03

IX 4 II1 13 16 19 5 4 6 3 1 2 3 5 3 3 2 02

X 6 2 3 8 3 10 I1I II1 7 4 2 8 13 3 3 6 0

xi i 0 3 5 25 20 20 20 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1

XII 2 2 1 2 8 2 9 20 14 1 8 7 5 12 4 2 2 0 2

_______ _______ ~~ ~~~1994 _ _ __ _ _ _

Diff [lo

HH ubE IIE EOIE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WI-l 11 fW 1111W dlitec wjind

2 0 1 I 9 7 10- 9 7 5 8 I12 1 3 6 5 5 0 2

ll 2 2 5 II1 35 1 5 9 'I 2 I 1 8 0 2 3 -0 2

III 5 2 2 3 4 5 I 7 1 0 13- 9 Ii1 2 1 3 2 2 0 2

IV 4 2 6 5 I16 6 4 5 4 10 9 6 8 3 4 8 0 I

V 14 1 1 12 12 7 3 3 1 2 3* 5 3 5 4 8I

VI 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 7 5 16 16 26 9 7 5 0 1

VII 19 I11 5 5 7 3 3 2 1 I 4 2 9 9 10 9 0

Vill I11 5 8 6 10 7 5 2 5 3 6 5 12 5 5 5 0 4

IX I I 4 5 16 4 8 4 4 7 II1 15 13 4 3 0 0 3

X 3 4 2 I 5 6 8 18 5 3 - II 9 lb1 7 5 2 02

xi 8 7 6 3 5 6 3 11- 8 2 2 6 18 5 7 3 1 0 2 J

XII 2 2 ~~ ~~2 -0 2EI :27 1 3 6 8 10 9 8 2 01

WVIND) ROSIi7 IN PITC~(ENIS (Flom, totalI iuaiii1her oI obsem~ilions 10ilwld

PECNTG (F D)AYS WITIHOUTWI'\INID (Fiom total miimber of obscrval ions)LI LKPA.JA

______ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~1995

II hulE IIE EIIEI E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WIIW i 11W 111W dlirec wind

I 4 7 3 2 4 '1 12 2 7 10 8 5 7 02 2 0 2

II 2 0 0 0 0 0i 0 4 12 IS 1 2 19 25 5 4 20 1I

III 6 4 4 3 0 4 t0 I I 5 10 16 7 8 5 5 20 2

IV 7 6 5 9 9 6 3 5 a 8 4 2 7 9 5 7 0 2

V 13 7 5 3 9 3 3 .4 7 7 7 8 9 3 6 6 0 6

VI I1I 9 5 2 5 4 4 5 5 3 8 9 10 7 8 5 0 8

ViI 4 4 r6 6 7 S 5 3 2 7 13 13 1 1 7 4 3 0 2

ViII I 1 9 8 7 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 12 6 9 3 3 8 0 5

IX 2 2 6 10 20 1 1 8 2 7 3 7 6 8 2 2 4 0 2

X 4 1 0 I 1 2 4 10 14 6 13 1 i 14 8 5 6 0 41

xi 4 5 1 0 6 6 3 3 9 1 2 5 6 7 1 1 5 7 1 0 3

XII 5 3 5 3 1 5 1 1 6 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 9 8 63 0 4

______ ~~~~~1996 _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _

I ~~~~~oiff lie

____ 3 rJrIE NlE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WO,W 11W IIIIW direc. vwind

2 2 7 1 1 20 21 1 i 1 0 4 0 0 1 4 3 1 3 0 2

II 6 7 5 7 1 3 1 1 9. 1 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 6 3 0

III 4 6 9 8 22 1 s 9 6 4 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 0 6

IV 3 3 115 9 8 2 4 7 9 4 13 8 7 2 3 3 0 '1

V 3 3 4 12 22 3 5 2 8 5 1 1 4 10 2 4 2 0 2

VI 8 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 8 9 16 9 16 6 3 10 0 3

VII 7 3 5 3 4 2 4 1 8 5 16 22 1 1 1 3 5 0 3

ViII 3 4 4 9 16 16 14 5 3 2 2 1 8 2 4 5 0 1

ix 9 16 17 9 12 7 3 4 7 1 2 0 2 3 3 5 0 3

X I11 3 1 2 4 9 6 10 Is 12 12 2 2 2 4 5 0 2

XI 2 I 3 3 1 1 8 4 13 12 8 9 13 7 5 1 0 0- 0

XII 1 I ~~ ~~ ~~8 4 5 5 6 18 14 2_ 1 1 3 6 2 II 3 0 2 J

4

WIND ROSE IN PFIRCE3NTS (Frooii lolal nuimber or ubsurvalioils \\il l\inijld)

PEIRCENTAGE3 OF D)AY S W ITl IOUl' WI NI) (From loibuI miuuiucr ol obscrvaliboils)

______ ~~1997 Difi rio

w lINE NIE ENE E ESE SE SSE S S sW SW _WSW w WI4W1 rw noW direc vwind

I 1 2 2 3 0 1 2 3 6 6 6 a 7 2 2 9 7 6 0 6

I I 6 4 3 1 a 0 2 5 4 1 0 1 7 1 5 1 6 6 6 3 0 0

Ill 2 4 4 5 7 2 0 1 2 41 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 5 9 0 2-

IV 19 13 3 1 I 0 3 2 3 10 8 9 13 4 6 5 0 1

V 13 13 8 7 5 4 5 1 5 6 9 6 7 5 3 3 0 1

VI 7 4 7 4 I17 6. 5 3 2 3 a 9 9 3 6 7 0 3

VII 10 1 1 1 2 12 10 3 5 3 4 3 4 8 6 3 2 4 0 4

VillI 7 4 7 6 15 1 1 6 3 7 3 4 2 6 2 8 9 0 6

IX I 10 5 1 1 4 4- 3 4 5 5 3 20 19 8 8 10 0 0

X 6 4 3 5 6 3 5 4 2 3 6 9 12 8 I I 13 0 1 5

xi 5 6 6 8 13 1 1 13 14 9 3 0 2 5 3 1 1 0 2

xii 1 2 3 4 1 1 15 15 16 1 7 2 4 2 4 3 I 0 0 1

______ ______ ______ 1998 _ _ _

IIIJE IIE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dill Nlo

Ii flJE N ENIE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WN4W NiW 1111W direc Yind

I 5 5 5 3 2 2 6 9 17 7 9 7 14 3 3 3 0 2

II 7 6 1 1 1 0 0 6 5 7 8 21 26 6 1 4 0 0

Ill 9 6 S 6 6 4 5 6 10 5 4 8 10 4 5 3 0 3

IV 7 5 8 9 14 11 '11 7 6 4 3 3 4 2 2 4 0

V 11 9 10 7 4 3 4 2 2 2 8 10 7 6 5 10 0 2

VI to 3 2 2 6 3 2 4 6 9 20 II 10 3 6 3 0 2

VII 5 1 0 3 2 1 I 3 2 4 15 24 26 3 5 5 0- 3

VilI 6 4 3 4 3 0 4 3- 5 3' 8 II 27 9 4 6 0 0

IX 2 3 6 9 14 8 15 9 9 4 4 5 7 1 0 4 0 3

x o 1 4 8 9 4 2 4 6 6 10 16 21 6 2 1 0 -0

xiI 1 I 6 5 IS 15 22 117 8 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 0 1

XII 1 4 7 3 3 5 6 10 12 5 9 1 16 3 0 3 0 3

A\'FIRA(jf7 WIND) SPITED IIFP I\IMONTH (MI/SIC) F)R)12 7PE~\VN))1II(l(

________ 1989.0

_______ ri. NifE tIE EIIE E E:SE SE- SSE S SSW SW WSW W Wi-jw 1W 1111W

___ 4.8 3.4 1.5 4.3 5A 6.2 59 6.8 6.5 61I 64

II 7.5 1.0 2.5 .14 50 50 517 6,9 76 8.3 7.7 60 7 7 48

III 5.3 2.0 2.5 1.3 2.11 -30 3.2 3.4 4.8 5.6 6.9- 8 4 5.5 3 8 3 7 8 0

IV 4.3 5-2 3.7 3.8 4.2 43 53 4 8 24 3,3 5 0 4.1 33 2 6 3 4 40_

V 4 1 4.1 3.9 1.5 1I4 2 0 21 2.6 2.7 4.0 4 6 4 2 3 0 .31 3 1 3 4

VI 4~3 3.5 3.3 3 0 2.2 :38 2 5 2.8 2.7 3.1 308 4 9 3 1 3 2 3.1. 40

VII 3 8 2.9 16 2.9 2.2 1.8 3.3 2.4 3.3 4.7 4 3 4.5 3 5 3 8 4 6 3 7

ViII 4 9 3.2 2.7 3.2 2 7 2.7 2,6 2.0 3 5 4 6 5 3 5 5 5 6 5 5 4 9 3 0

IX 4.1 3.3 3.4 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.6 34 4 7 4 3 3 3 3 2 4,0 3 0

X 4 8 3.2 4.0 4.0 3.7 3,11 2.8 3.9 4 9 4.2 6.2 5 8 6 0 4 3 3,9 4 0

xi 4 7 4 3 3.4 3.4 37 2.8 3.9 3~6 3.5 6.9 5 7 7.3 4 9 3 5 4 4 4 5

XII , 7.7 3.7 2.8 3.3 3.1 3.4 I3.1 2.4 ,5.0 5.0 6.7 9.3 6 2 4 8 5 1 5 7

_____ ~~~~~1990.0__ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

II lIlJIE IJE ENIE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WI-IW 11W 1111W

I 2 8 2.3 2.1 2.3 1.7 3.4 43 4.9 6.7 7.8 9.5 7.3 5 6 5.5 4 0

II 3 0 _ _ 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.2 5.3 6.1 7.3 8.6 7 0 55 5 2 4 0

III 5 2 4.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.8 6.8 6.8 86 8.0 6.0 6 3 7 0

IV 5 0 4 3 2.8 2,6 3.3 3.4 2.2 . 3.0 3.6 4.8 4.3 5,2 4.7 5 0 2 7 4 3

V 4 2 3.2 2.7 4 0 4.6 4.7 2.4 2.0 1.6 4 0 37 4 0 3 8 2 7 3 5 4 0

VI 3 6 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.4 3L4 2.4 2.8 34 2 6 3,2 2 9 3.2 4 0 3 6 3 9

VII 3 7 2.4 3.3 2.2 2.6 3.3 1.3 2.5 25 45 3.7 45 4.4 3 7 4 5 4 3

Vill 3 3 1.3 2.8 2.0 1.8 2.0 11.5 1.9 2.5 4 5 3.6 4.2 3.7 3 7 308 5 0

Ix 3 4 3 4 3.8 3.4- 3.2 2.5 3.5 2 8 4.2 4.0 46 6.6 6.4 3 8 4 8 47

X 5 6 4.6 3.5 3,0 2.3 3.5 4.4 2.6 2.6 3.8 6.2 9.7 7.1 4 4 3 7 3 7

xi 4 2 4 0 3.0 2.4 3,3 3,9 2.1 3.2 3A 49 5 9 5 6 6.2 3 6 3 8 4 6

xi, 4 5 3.7 2.5 2.3 2.9 3.0 2. 4 6.4 7.6. 7.6 1 7 2 8.9 40 3 7

6

_______ ____AV_RAG_W____1_ __ llI t 1..11 Il'

I -II, I I'./ ,,0 M H II

__________ I' NINE 1NE EliIE E ESE S E "a,13L. s *sW SW%r Nsk'' Wv WI It 3 xI,

I 4 3 4 7 4.5 30 3.6 1.0 20 :30 'I i 5 7 1. 8.?7 6.5 31 4 4

II 50a 3.9 4 7 3 8 4 2 4.3 3 1 3) 'I I b 4 53:1 SO4 25: 9*

Ill 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 23 :3.9 40 363 9 .313 3. 3.53 2 9 2 U 3 5

IV 4 6 4.1 4 3 3,6 3 4 2.9 30 2:3 35 53 31 33 6 2.

V 4 4 3 2 3 9 3.1 3 4 3 0 3 7 210 2.9 50:1 55.0 SI1 43 2 f 2 7

VI 40 1.0 4 6 3.7 3 0 3.7 2 6 :37 P9 6 1 5I0 4 1 3.3 3.3'

VII 2.7 2.8 2.6 2 6 2 3 2.8 2 3 21 3 0 :35 413 .3 4 33 2 E

Vill 28 J 2.1 J 1.5 1 8 2.11 1.3 20 2:3 9 1(1 :ss 41 50 4 1

IX 2 3 4.4 4.0 2.5 3.0 2 6 29 34 46 3. 5 5.15 58a 5 4 4 4 4 7

x 5 0 3.1 2.4 2 5 2.1 2.4 2,2 30 'II 10 55.! 6.4 6 1 31 E.

xi 4 0 40 2.0 4 1 4.0 1 0 2 3 41, I 566 53.5 536 59 45 C.

II I 5.1 3.9 37 2.5 33 30 2.2 5, IC,( H I5. 7.4 7 4 e f. 19

19! 12.0

____________ I I lfE lIE ElfIE E ESfE Si: I,3 . S SSW BVj 'A XSW Wr WI\f N I I'\ -- II

I 5 8 7.0 1.8 I 3 1.0 I S 113 2. 5.13 - 81 7 1 4'

II 6 0 2.5 4.2 2.3 3.0 2.7 25 3 13 .9 .1: 5.3 4.3 22 75.(

Ill 4 6 3.3 3 5 .45 2 9 3.0 2 0 31 53(3 !53.1 7 4 3. 4 E Cl - 1

5 5 3 0 1.3 1.15 4 5 5.5 3.3 313 4 . 91 8 4 2 .16 :3. -

V 4 0 2 0 2 6 2 9 2J7 2.3 4 3 2 2 3 5 51,2 5.2 5.1 3 6 L.- 3

VI 34 2 9 2.5 3 5 2.6 2 4 1 3 2.7 1.9 .:sa i3 .0 :?, 24 .

VII 38 22 1.6 2.3 1.8 1.5 L.8 20 3 .1 40 3. 5 0 'l I! -

Vill I10 30 2.7 20 2.3 2.3 2 3 24 ' I9 4 a 52 5 2 4 21C

IX 4 1 2.4 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.6 3 .4 3.A .11 5.13 3.8 -1I3 4 .3r

X 3 7 3 6 __1.7 2.3 3.0 2.5 1.8 2 9 3J.0 63 .jd1 7 8 6b4 f

I 5 7 4 3 2.5 1 0 3 0 2.5 3 5 4' 4 '9 (38 0i13 8 5 'I 4 3 4

II 2 2 3.5 1.6 1.5 19.39 3:'1 36... 4

A\'ERAGE WINI SIEIJ IPR tvION'I I (N1/SEIC) FOR DIFLI[UN MNI) OIIJ DIRE-CI(IiNS

LIEPAJA

1093.0

1N NIJE HE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WIIW NW II W_ 5.3 43 2.3 40 1.0 2.6 27 5.3 7.0 7.8 6.6 9.4 90 72 56

11 1 4.8 5.2 4 1 20 2.3 2.0 1.7 35 45 6.4 6.4 5.6 6.6 39 49 4 !

III 3.2 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.5 1.6 2.2 1.B 3.9 4.4 4.1 6.3 65 5.7 30 30

IV 4.9 4.1 2.9 2.1 2.0 1.6 2.2 2.2 3.3 5.1 3.9 5.4 3.2 33 53 35

V 33 29 2.2 1.9 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.7 1.9 28 2.8 29 32 2.4 23 31

VI 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.3 20 31 33 32 4.0 2.9 24 30

VII 27 26 1.7 1.5 2.3 3.8 26 3.2 2.9 3.1 5.3 47 40 48 31 36

VIII 24 20 1.0 13 _16 1.6 2.2 2.3 2.6 53 29 38 50 48 37 25

IX 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.7 4.0 2.7 1.3 2.2 38 2.0 3.0 28 3.3 32 37 30

X 44 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.0 3.5 3.8 3.2 32 4.7 3.5 52 58 47 50 39

Xi 2.5 2.3 2.1 3.9 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.6 2.0 30 2.1 20 Xll 4.2 36 2.0 2.3 4.1 4.4 3.2 3.7 5.0 58 54 52 58 64 30 40

1994.0

I hIIIIE HIE EIJE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW | WSW W WIIW IIW MANIW

I 4.8 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.4 2.5 3.2 4.7 6.1 5.8 5.6 46 7.3 44 6 I-

It 336 2.8_ 3.1 3.1 34 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.0 25 1 0 258 3 1

III 43 3.8 3.2 4.7 3.4 2.9 2.7 39 5.8 53 50 55 6 1 456 42 43

IV 42 35 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.3 2.9 41 39 3.1 2.9 23 34 39

V 43 29 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.2 40 3.8 4.6 3.6 356 3 1 40

VI 38 1.0 1.0 30 2.0 2.0 2,3 2.8 3.2 29 4.2 4.7 4.6 43 3 1 39

VIl 32 2.6 I.9 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.3 2.5 2.4 3.2 30 27 32

Vill 2.9 2.3 22 2.4 2.5 3.2 1.7 1.3 3.6 4.6 4.6 58 35 29 25 24

IX 23 I5 2.4 31 2.9 3.6 2.5 3.6 2.8 3.9 54 46 60 5.3 43 1 0

X 37 23 3.2 2.0 1.4 2.1 2.9 2.9 5.3 53 64 50 56 64 5 5

Xi 63 2.2 2.5 2.5 1.4 1.5 3.0 2.7 4.7 64 4.6 13.2 69 60 69 72

Xll I8 2.5 14 2.2 20 1.8 4.0 4.5 6.3 59 68 54 48 34 24

AVERAGE WIND SPTEDI PUR MONTI I (MIOSEC) FOR D)IFFFRISNTWIiND DIRECTIOUNS

LIEP'AJA

_______ _______ _______ _______ ~~1995.0

___ II f1INE NiE E1NE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNlW 11W I it 1

4 0 4 4 4.0 2 0 2.1 2 1 4 5 3.7 4,9 5 1 6 5 4.6 5 4 6 0 4 3 5 3

II 5 0 7.0 ____5.0 3.5 5,9 6.1 5.6 5 6 5 8 5 1 4 6 5 2

III 4 4 3.0 2.7 1.6 1.0 2.2 40 4 4 3,5 5 0 5 8 7.6 6.1 6.2 4 9 4 8

IV 4 3 4 2 4.0 3.6 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.6 3 9 5 0 4.0 4.6 5.0 4 5 5 0 368

V 3.2 2.5 2.3 3 3 3.6 2.0 1.9 2.8 3.A 5.4 4.0 35 3.1 6.1 2.6 3 3

VI 3 8 3 3 2.1 1 8 2.3 2 0 1.7 22 1.4 3 4 3.4 4.5 2 9 2 9 2 3 2 9

VII 3,1 2.6 2.3 3 0 2.3 2.7 2.7 1.9 2 5 3 0 3 9 4.0 3 5 3 1 1 9 2 6

Vill 3.2 2.9 3.4 2.1 2.4 1.5 2.3 16 1.6 2 8 3 3 3.2 2 9 1 8 2 6 2 5

tx 1.2 2 4 1.8 2.0 3.1 3 2 3.2 4 0 3.7 4.0 4 9 6.6 4 8 2.0 2.3 2 3

X 4.7 2.3 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.9 3.0 3 6 3 7 4.3 5.7 5 3 4 0 4 1

xi 36L 2.1- 2.3 2.5 2.7 2 3 2.1 2,7 3.3 5 8 5.0 5 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 0

XII 3 4 2.7 2.5 1 30 r3.2 2.4 i2.1 1 9 2.0 3 8 60 40 3 6 35 3 3

_______ ~~~~1996.0 _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _

______ II1 tIfIE liE ENIE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WI iw 11w 1111w

I 1.7 2.2 1.8 1. 2.1 2.5 2 9 3.A 3.8 1.0 2.3 3.0 2 5 2 0 2 0

II 3.7 3.1 2.8 4.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.1 5 0 64 44 3 7 2 9 3 5

III 2 3 2 3 1 7 1.9 2.5 3.1 2.4 2 3 2.7 3 9 3 3 15 20 2 3 2 5 2 6

IV 3 0 3 8 2.6 2.7 2.7 1.8 1 4 1.5 2.4 3 6 2.8 2 9 2 4 3 0 4 3 4 1

V 2 0 1.7 2.8 2.8 30 29 1.8 2.0 2 5 4 1 5.3 41 2.5 2 2 2 5 268

VI 3 2 2 0 1.3 2.4 3.0 2.3 1.8 2.1 2 8 3 5 3 9 3 7 2 9 2 9 2 4 2 2

ViI 3 6 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.4 1.3 2.9 4 3 3.7 5 9 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 0 2 8 3 2

Vill 2 1 1 4 1.8 1 8 2.2 2.7 2 9 2.6 2.9 2 6 3 8 2 0 3 8 1 8 1 7 2 3

IX 3 5 3 3 3.6 2 2 2.4 1.7 1.8 2.8 4.1 5.3 5 2 1.0 1 3 2 8 2 3 2 6

x 2 5 1 6 1 3 1.8 1 7 3.2 2,2 2.1 2.7 3 7 3 1 3 0 3 0 4 6 2 9 3 0

xi 1 5 2 5 2 9 2.0 1.7 2.6 2.7 13.3 3.7 7 1 6 9 7.4 6.4 5 8 5 0 7 0

XII 5 3 3 7 3.1 2.4 1.8 2.3 19 28 2.7 4.8 5 6 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 2 4 4

9

AVEIRAGE WIND -SPEED iPER MONTIII (M/SEiC) FOR [DIFFE3IdLNT \VINDJ DIRE3CTIONS

1997.0 I'AJ

ti NINE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WIW 11 lW 1111W

I 468 2.8 2.0 2.0 18 1.3 1.2 2.9 3.6 49 5.2 4.7 3.6 2,9 4 5

II 5.4 5.0 4.8 1.51. 5.3 4.5 6.9 7.3 5.2 5.7 7.5 4.7 5 2 3 7

II 4.0 3.4 2.2 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.5 4.1 4 9 4 3 4.9 5.5 3 8 2,9 4.4

3 6 4.0 __3 _____ ___ 1.3 1.4 3.5 47 5.3 5 9 4.9 -35 3,6 3 2

V 2.9 ~~~~3.7 3.4 3.2 2.4 28 2.3 2.7 2.3 2 9 4 0 4.3 3.4 2,8 2.3 2.6

VI 2.1 2 2.9 2.8 1.8 23 21 2.0 1 6 2.7 3 4 3.4 2.9 2.1 24 2,9

VI 3.7 2 2.3 2 0 2.9 29 2.1 IS 1 3 3.7 44 4.2 1.7 2.3 22 3.3

Vill 2. 2. 1.7 1.7 1.8 16 1.9 1.2 1.9 4.0 3.1 2.2 1.9 2 2 21 2 5

IX 34 3 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.5 4.6 5.0 5.8 5.9 5.9 4 7 4.2

X 25 1.8 2.3 1.9 11.1 1.8 2.5 11.4 2.5 2,6 4 8 3.7 4.1 4 0 4 4 4 1

XI 22 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.9 2.2 3.4 6 0 2.5 8.2 2.5 3 0 3 0

1 5 2.3 1.6 1.8 2.5 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.8 40 4.5 4 8 4 6 2 6 3 3

______ ______ ~~~~1998.0 _ _ _ _ _

II IJUE UI1E EE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSW SW WSW W WIJW tJW 1111W

I 5 8 3.0 2.5 '1.5 1.6 1.8 2.5 2.5 3.4 3.8 41 6.1 4.8 3.4 3 9 3 9

II 3 9 45 2535 1.0 1.0 5.0 3 4 3.1 4 8 4.5 5 9 6.1 4 2 2.0 4 8

III 4 1 2.9 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.6 2.2 1.9 2.5 4.5 4.6 4.1 5.2 ~40 25 3 7

IV 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.0 2.8 3.9 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.9 37 22 2.2 1 8 2 7

V 4 1 27 2.4 1 8 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.6 2.7 3.8 3 3 3.4 17 3 1 4 4

VI 27 3.3 2.8 2.0 2.6 3.0 2.2 1.7 2.9 4 8 4 3 3 1 28 2 6 2 5 256

VII 3.3 1.0 2 0 2.1 2.8 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.6 3.7 3 9 4.1 4.3 2 8 2 9 3 4

Vill 3.5 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.2 2.6 3.7 4 4 4 3 4.1 5.3 3 5 38 3

ix 4.0 1 8 1.6 3.7 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.7 3 1 4.3 3.3 2 9 4 0 3 0 2 4

X 1.0 1.8 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.6 4.1 5.1 7.1 6.5 6.9 6.4 6 3 s0 4 0

xi 1.7 3 0 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.0 4.0 5 0 3 8 5 2 5 5 4 0

XII 4 3 2,3 1. 6 1.8 2.1 2.4 . . 6.4 5,6 59 62 34 69

MONII-ILY PRECIPITATION, in mmLIEPAiA

I . I III IV V VI VIl Vill IX X Xi XII Max'

1989 18 42 50 35 7 34 78 100 34 102 79 73 102

1990 65 62 33 12 25 78 109 46 137 128. 126 65 137

1991 54 40 47 24 65 76 2 53 80 72 123 82 123

1992 56 63 55 65 25 14 78 65 96 71 134 51 134

1993 80 54 52 24 6 81 48 172 60 50 15 97 172

1994 69 27 81 55 24 37 3 82 75 79 52 68 82

1995 64 _5 51 41 47 110 56 41 74 34 68 27 110

1996- 14 45 10 12 107 15 52 18 32 49 83 60 107

1997 24 42 23 49 68 45 12 23 69 192 52 47 192

1998 62 49 43 35 25 47 62 107 46 122 65 43 122

Max* 80 63 81 65 107 110 109 172 137 192 134 97 192

MAXIMAL DAILY PRECIPITATION, in mmLIEPAJA

__ _ I III IV V VI VIl Vill IX X Xi XII Max'

1989 4 9 10 9 3 9 19 31 16 17 17 18 31

1990 17 12 10 4 12 26 22 14 32 34 13 17 34

1991 17 11 20 10 16 21 2 14 18 15 21 21 21

1992 11 9 14 15 5 11 27 11 15 13 14 17 27

1993 9 19 10 11 1 1I 10 31 22 19 5 12 31

1994 11 10 12 17 8 11 3 35 16 11 14 13 35

1995 Il 9 8 10 11 26 17 24 16 8 12 5 26

1996 9 10 4 8 21 4 22 5 21 8 18 16 22

1997 7 9 8 14 27 15 6 17 19 20 10 8 27

1998 e 16 13 15 5 12 29 22 13 23 18 13 29

Max* 17 19 20 17 27 26 29 35 32 34 21 21 35

Nlax* iaximial vaioc or lic ctirrcill ycar

ta.x** nia\inuul valtie of each iionlli dturing ligc liiic period 1989-1998

II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix 3

QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR DATACOLLECTION

Aplitfidix3

'WECO. GEO CONSULTANTS datc

Questionary on Solid Household Wvaste Mlanaaement in ..........the parish

1. GENERAL INFORMATIONII Distric:

Parish. town I' ourner oatnoulation'Number of landfill

*operatineclosed

N,umber of inhabitanTs serviced by thec_entralised svstem

Please. make above mentioned questions everv separatelv from 2 to 6 chapter

2. GENERALE INFORMLATION ABOUT LAtNDFILLNam e of a landfill _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Does permission for a landfill operationhas been issued bv the Environmental

_I Health Center ( wvhen and wvhere)Manadincs organisation: telephone,

Iaddres's

Year of a start of the operation and-Tyear of the closure ( scheduled year ofclosure. if landfill coerates)Does operation of a landfill is controlledif receivine area exist. its oneration time) I

!Number of empiovers at the landfillinumber of duties, for example, Guard,,

_bulldozer etc.)Source covering operational costs(municiDalirv. use of a landfill is free. etc.)Location (where. distance to the nearestsettlement)Landscape (field, quarry on the bank of ariver or lake or other)Distance from the nearest dwellinghouse

3. LANDFILL LOCATION SCHENIE

Set Appendix

Notes: 1. To indicate scale2. ht be on single pa_e

4. TEHYICAL CONDITIONS OF A LANDFILLArea. ha ___

$1 Thickness of the waste layer. mWaste compaction ( if occurs - used

techniques) I

Infrastructure ( if ves - what it includes) 1Local power supply, water supply.|

If telecommunication. swage svstemAccess (tvne of road and condition) |_i

Coverincg (if. occurs, what type of

material is used: if a landfill is closed -does it is covered and planted byveaetation)Ditches ( ves or no: if ves their condition) _

Extension possibilities (if exist - please.indicate: if not - olease. clarifv the reasn)

¶ 5. W`ASTE FLOWk AND COMPOSITIONWaste types:FPlease indicate the total waste voitlilue kil m l) aLd vwaste coitnposilioni in " or instanice - solid householdwaSte - 20 .m50O of total and soon)

iTotal waste volume m'}vear:1. Household:- Solid household

- L-iquid household

A- Sludee

- Parklesarden wasteW- aste from streets sweerinu. |

other_(please specify) I

NIon - hazardous industrial waste I

from metal processing _

- from Uimber works (also sawdust)- from textile industrv

- from food industrv- Slud2e from local industrial

wastewater urificationother (please sDecifv)

Hazardous industrial waste ( piease

Demoiition waste

L Hospital wasteW. Waste from early military areas (please

;inDecifv)

. Agriculture waste:

Animals burrin2s

other (please stpecifv)'Waste disposal scheme (all wastedisposed in one pile. waste are separated.lhazardous waste is seoarated etc.)

Location of waste suppliers (please.indicate parishes and towns utilising alandfill) _ __isin_ _a

Enterprises - larger waste suppliers ..

(name and waste volume)

5-4__ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __;

6.STUTDY OF POLUTIONS AND GROUND - WATER MIONITO)RINGI Soil monitoring i

Ground - water monitoring tyes or IU1. if!es data on contamination)

Surface water monitoring, (yes or no)

iMlonitoring wells (Yes or no: if v'es -

number of wells) __.

Recordings on the RegionalEnvironmental Board or Public HealthCenter on inspections of the landfill

7.CONFLICTS WITH OTHER INTERESTSPlease indicate distance in kmU'rban areas (towns: Iarge settlementsand sinale farms) ILand used for agriculture 1 1Protected nature objects and I.restrictions 2.Deposits of use full minerals 1.

Well -fields 1

Cities development plans 1.

Cultural heritage ._,2.

Surface water objects ( specify name) .2.

1,.iEarlv owners who asked for the land _

returning Other

2.,3.4

S. XA .\STE COLLECTION \Nl) S1,RlV-ICES'\'ho provide wvaste collectionl and

s .ervices (11111111icpahil! ltllcll'.nllmterprise. private esnterprise. iihaonlmitsmemselves)L)oes above mentioned org ,nis:aloncirves onlN vcar parish or otthers ase plel piease SDecif )

Existine waste collection svstemcontainerswithout containers

- sacks

other ___Does all vaste is collected together. orseparate waste collection exists tit . es.please . specif-)

Size and number of containers m| -------------- ao.

* Frequencv of waste collection ?Vehicles used for waste collectionp iease specifv: type. capacity\ compaction.ate. number of vehicles).A verage distance between waste

ioroducer an landfill

4.VAS-\TE REC'Y CLINGDoes \vaste sorting taies i)TECE"- durinu collection- in the landfillWho deals with asItC collectioll lorrecycling ( municipal enmerprises. prn ate:omoanv. etc.) )

Which types Of waste are collectedfor reevcling:paper

- cardboardnon - terrous metals

- ferrous metals- bottles- broken alass- plastics : -

- wooden waste- other *

Deliverv and revenue from recvclinj:-- paper

c- ardboard- non - ferrous metals!- terous metals- borries UM I

- broken glass- plastics

wooden waste- other

Utilisation of sawdust ( where disposed.used for recycling or burning. Pleasespecifv amounts)Do you have waste composting ?W'hat iscomDost production (m 3/vear)a

V 1(). RE (GL7-ATIONS. TAXkIIFFS ii ntl PROPERT'i RIGHTS

I)o vou have local regulations nn N-w:ISClemanagement. If ves. pleasC. add.

.Actual costs for:waste collection and Irtnspotatii n - - Ls. ycr

- waste disposalL other related exDenss s

Required finances:- waste collection and transpotation ------------- Ls;vear- waste disposal- other related expensesUIser charge ( yes or no. if yes - please.stecif. ):- households- municipal enterprises ------ Lsimr or Ls per month- trade enterprises- industr enterprises- other

,Does nature resources tax is included inthe user charge?- yes or no- if ves. olease sDecifvwho collects]_and owner( municinaiirn. private) ?Does land propertv is registered inLand cadastre ?rWHO owns the waste ?

H "r I

Z7 I

Appendix 4

STATEMENT ON DRAFT REPORT ONENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ON WASTE DISPOSAL SITE FOR THELIEPAJA REGION

(unoffical translation)

4-1

Appendix 4

STATEMIENT ON DRAFT REP'ORT ON E,NVIRONMENTAI, IMI'ACTASSESSMENT ON WASTE, DISPOSAI, SITE FORl THE' LIEJ'A.IA REGION

(unot'lficial translzitioni)

Envir-onlmenta;il Impact Assessmenlt State Bureau has revised and, inviting informalexperts. evaluated Draft repor t "On Environmental Impact assessment on Wastedisposal site for the Liepaja Region" passed to the Bureau by the Liepaja CityCouncil. Draft Report has been elaborated by SWECO International in associationwith Geo Consultants Ltd. Environmental Impact Assessment Report is done on twooffered sites: "Skede", in Liepaja City south-western from the existing landfill and"Poligons", in Grobina Parish. area of former soviet rocket's base.

It is foreseen that a new landfill will be constructed in accordance with allenvironmental requirements. and will service all local municipalities in the LiepajaDistrict. This has to allow to close all existing in district dump sites.

Public hearing on EIA report has been hold in July 15, 1999 in the Liepaja cityC ouncil.

Several published articles in newspapers during a preparation of programme, initialpublic hearing and public hearing on draft EIA report on a new landfill site did notrise large public activity and Environmental impact Assessment state Board hasreceived only one letter from the summer garden's society "Skede". Letter is signedby five society's board members. The letter provides information that garden's society- accordingly to the decision of the Medze parish Council no. 32 (March 9, 1999) -has been reorganised to settlement of summer houses. The letter shows that society isunsatisfied with the existing landfill "Skede", because - in case of southern and south-western winds - unpleasant smell and smoke are felt in the settlement of summerhouses. Simultaneously tRe letter supports the Grobina site for a new landfill location.A wish of local inhabitants to start discussions on the 'draft report content wasrninimal, although the Liepaja City Council has published several publications in thenewspaper "Kurzemes vards" informing inhabitants about possibility to acquaint withcontent of the draft report and to express their attitude to the project.

Analysing draft report, Environmental Impact Assessment State Bureau has taken intoconsideration opinions of the Liepaja Regional Environmental Board. of invitedexperts and opinions expressed during the public hearinc.

TFhe introdluction piart of the draft report (does not conltain general information on theproject foreseeing improvements in waste management sector and general descriptionol a new lan(idfill, althouLh it was required by ToR. Proposed alternatives should becharaclerised more pt.ecise and mlore obviotus in the finail report. Positive should bementeioniedi '1'he good p)olygraph mount.ing andl richi illustrative material has to heevalutiled positively. Nevcrtheless, different repetitions describe similar andsometimes, unforltutalelv. malerial oI secondary importance. For example. the malp ofQiualernary se(diments. opposite to the (Grobina case. is not provided for the "Skede".Occilurelnces of prolected species of pIlanls arc not shown. ihe map showing territory

4-2

planning !.0 1111(d properties. where borders ot1 the ol the Tosmairc Nature rescrve haveto he shlown. is not preseltLLd. Borders ol a new lan(l illI are not shown at theotherwise very inlormiative map of tlhe fact data (Appendix 4). Without ol seriousmotivalioll th map showin tlhe "Piladzi" dlump site in the Nica Parish is placed intothe report while the dump site is not analysed fCurtlher in the report's text. Descriptionoi existing waste managemicnt systemn in the Liepaja district is very broad andiniormative. However. payments indicated in the report. which are provided byparishes as nature resources tax for waste disposal. are essentially differ from figureswhich are in disposal of the Liepaja Regional Environmental Board. Rather-roundless seems to make conclusions on yearly waste production in multi-storey andprivate houses on basis of sorting of the 2.2 m) of waste. There is no sense toconsider this data as representative because further in the report data is not used and.accordingly to authors (3.5). results obtained on waste composition can not beconsidered as representative ones.

It will be usefulness to arrange information in manner undoubtedly and identicallyunderstandable in the final report: numeration of wells or other sampling pointsshould be same in the text, tables, figures and annexes, otherwise obviouscontradictions are found in different chapters. For example:

- analyses presented in Appendix 9, marked as "Baltex2" and "Ditch" cannot be used by reader, because it is not clear what they describe,

statement in Chapter 6 (6:12-) is that thickness of the peat layer is 2-5 m, whiledescription of geological cross-sections of wells (Appendix 6; 6-6) shows only 0.7 mthick layer of the peat. It should be taken into consideration, that peat thickness isconsidered as one of the exclusive criterions. and therefore evaluation has to beaccurate,

- contradiction between chapters 6 (6.33) and 13 (13:2) - the first oneadvises afforestation of the area with deciduous woods, while the secondone suggests just grassland, because roots of tress and bushes damagecovering material.

It is uncertain, why geological cross-sections are presented about territories which, inthe better case. are neighbouring with sites suggested for a new landfill. It iscompletely uncertain in case of "Poligons" for which part of the area the cross-sectionis made. It has to be explained more in details how 58800 t (1) of nitrogen haven beendischarged from the landfill which occupies 7 hectares (6:20). Provision ofexplanations on relative height's system (if it is existing) is required. because it isstated that the height of waste pile in the landfills "Skede" and iPoli-ons" will reachI(6) Im and 155 in respectively (7:7 and 7:8). It is not unlderlined in thle Chapter ll("Seqtuence ol the project implementation") that one of proposed locations is notsitualt(e withii tihe Liepaja City. and therefore decision of lhe Grobina parish councilon a nlew sitC is reqiuired. Distance between the proposed site "PoliLons" and thenearest dwelling h(USCS 'Alaugas" (carly na(c- Stui zind EoIi (early name -"IuLiC") is not dileteiiiined in the Dratl Report. Inhabitants of the ''Ataugas" are notinlrnrcd about tilhc cutilTii poi-ect. In general. study gives imnpression ihalt particular

chapiers are writlen lby good specialists in their ti-eld the rich fact daLta has beeniCollected, allhollugh ietle to gaps ol' woIk or-zanisation or dIef-iciency essential works rIIeniot done or- arc not i-ellected: in necessari-y dctaiils. Enumeration ol contradictions andlg,aps cain he continudc(l lor long, time. hut it is obviously Ithit iiterniall contradictions

4-3

aiil errors should he avoided. Supplemcntary. all itemns requiredl bul thC"lPrograrnnie..." issucdi hy the Environlmiiential Impact Assessmcent Slate Bureatu have tohc cIIreLully considered and answered in the l'inal rcport. Special attention shoulid beplaito introtduction part and to tihe programme articles 2.3: 2.4: 2.6: 2.7; 2.10;. 3.2;3.3: 3.5: 3.7: 5.4; 6.1: 6.3: 8.1: 8.2: 8.4; 9.2: 9.4; 10 wvhich have to be improved andSupplemiented.

Revising two evaluatced alternlative sites and taken into consideration exclusivecriterions mentioned in the report. seems, that additional investments for the "'Skede"site as prospective one. Rather more better to pay attention to possible remediationpossibilities of the existing "Skede" landfill, however, if the initiator of project isinterested to continue investigation of this place, it is necessary to provide number ofadditions, which should be incorporated in the final report:

Liepaja - "Skede":

* Documents confirming the ownership and plans for further use (suggestionsprovided in the Liepaja City development plan) of the area proposed for a newlandfill,

- It is necessary in the proper way to draw up borders of the Tosmare NatureReserve in the map,D Documentary confirmed information about the legal status of the summer gardensociety "Skede" is required,Information about nearest water intake places is necessary,

* Unacceptable is subchapter about spreading of protected plants and animals atprospective for a landfill site. Report was submitted in the EIA State Bureau at thebeginning of July, but there is written in the report, that flora and fauna areinspected on April and May, and additional investigations are required on June. Itis not clear, why it has not been done. Seven mentioned rare biotopes are notnamed at all, besides it. is not clear, which species are distributed at the areaproposed for " new landfill. Supplementary, occurrences of protected species ofplants are not shown at the map for the "Skede". Therefore it is impossible tounderstand - do the mentioned 21 protected species are really distributed at thearea proposed for a new landfill or all species which are found at the all territoryof the Tosmare Nature Reserve during different investigations are named. Alsoformulations about occurrence of protected species are too general and this part ofthe report should be improved. Unfortunately, major part of these works can notbe dlone correctly at the end of summer. Therefore the EIA State Bureau waspressed to invite additional experts in order to inspect in nature sites prospectivefor a lanildill sites. In flact, the EIA State Bureau was piressed to carry out the workrealisation ol' which was the (tuty o lthe report's authors. Results of inspection(added in Appendix) show, that site ollered for a new lalndf-ill at the "Skede". insomc extenit, is ulicial site in Latvia. Occturrence of one specie of plant - Aiml,'waecVx L. - was Iontilld lor hle 1irst tinle, and somc other I I protected specieshave been fouind as well,

'onl;rmniiy of sile tO izeqiuirciiients stated by reoulatioris 3O. 38 ol the Cabinet olMinislct-s -(0I ('onstruction. Manzaenient andl Enclosure of Municipal SolidWaste l)isposal Sites" (arlicies 4 and 5) has to he analysCLd. In case of discrepancyproposals for pK)ssiblc technica;l solutions and their estimate have to be provided.

4-4

hozn thIllis viCWpoil(l, i't llgtll ht usefulness to dlehine occurrence and thickness otpeat layer at all area proposed for a landfill. in order to deline amount of peat hasto hc excavated, and also amount ol ground water hiis to pulmped out and toevaluaite possibilities fOr groundwater drainage.

Grobina, "Poligons":

* Information is required about conformity of site 'Poligons" with the Developmentplan of the Grobina parish. and to prospective dislocations of the highway "Riga- Liepaja",

* It is necessary to take into consideration, that the dwelling house "Ataugas" islocated within forest in distance approximately at a distance 300 m to west fromthe area offered for a new landfill (early name - "Sturi"), and anybody here wasnot informed about a possibilities for a new landfill location at the neighbouringarea before a visit of employees of EIA State Board and Liepaja RegionalEnvironmental Bureau on July 29. As it is the nearest house, possibility to re-locate the western border could be advised. In this case site will be more far fromthe dwelling house, and also will occupy the higher and dryer area.

e Taking into account objections of inhabitants. possibilities to make access roadfrom the "Liepaja - Ventspils" highway site have to be considered. Obviously, itwill be more expensive solution, although the road will be shorter and will lessdisturb for the Grobina inhabitants. It is possible that, at least partly, the existingdirty road and evaluated other variant of supply road construction, for example,from side road and firebreak located northern from this road may be used,

* More precious information on prospective amount of leachate and drainage waterduring the first year of the landfill operation, in future years and possibilitiesfortheir purification and drainage has to be provided, because one of proposedperspective development variants of water supply and wastewater treatmentforeseen by the "Programme 800+" is a delivery of Grobina Town wastewater tothe Liepaja City wastewater treatment plant using penstock,

- Territory proposed for a landfill and its surroundings should be inspected and alocation of existing, non-used or plugged artesian wells has to be detrmined.

* After appraisal of above rnentioned suggestions its is necessary to obtainacceptance of land on solutions .offered for a new landfill and access road Ifagreement with owners is not possible, it is advisable to look for alternativevariants.

* After final selection of a site the correct geological information will be necessary.because existin- geolouical cross-section is made for area situated south-westernl rom the otffcrect site.

* UlleLluivocal iniormation is necessary about groundwater tlow direction. anddama-c cause(d by the landfill lor water suLpply sources used by the nearest houses.Also measures should he carried out, if water soiurces mi-ht be damaued. shouldhe plroposedt.

* C(oIlnl0or1itV ol SilC tO rcqLuirements stalted y regulations no. 38 olf the Cabinet ofMinister-s (n ('0i1nsItruCtiOll. Maniagement and Enclosure of Municipal SolidWaste l)isposal Sites"., each point mnctiioned in articles 4 andl 5. has to heevaluied. In case of discrepancy. pr-oposalls lor possible technical solutions andtIelir estimate lhaive to be provided.

D)ireetor ol 13ureau Janis AvotipA

Appendix 5

PUBLIC CONSULTATION IN LIEPAJACITY. MINUTES OF THE MEETING

July 15, 1999

f-i1

Liep;ija Regional Solild N'lasi MNIanagment l'rrojectPuIblic Cotnsultation in Liepaja Cith

N'linuies of the Mieetin-

Place: Liepkin City CouncilTime: 14.00 on 15"' .uh.1999Participants: Lisi attached (available in hard copy)

G.Ansitp:opens the meeting. invites the public to put questions to the Consultants. toexpress their views, proposals. comments. Asks the public to register. Givesthe floor to the Consultant.

Consultant:introduces himself: Per Olof Seman, Sweco which in cooperation with GeoConsultants are working on Liepaja Regional Solid Waste ManagementProject. Explains that the public consultation is held according to the Latvianlegislation with participation of the representatives from the EIA Bureau.The draft EIA Report is based on TORs.

Introduces the content of the draft ELk Report, gives the basic datapresented in the Report.

Explains ex-tension of the Solid W aste Manaaement service to a araeternumber of population up to 2020.

Gives the data on waste amounts and composition.

Lists the laws and requirements regulating W aste Management in Latvia.

Tells about the technological alternatives presented in the Report.

Shows on the map the exact location of the new solid waste treatment plantand energy cells in Skede. Points out that the new location is outside therestriction area with very high value biotopes (Fig. 18 in rLA Report) and itis moved into direction to the WTP. Tells about Lyas extraction .- rom theexisting landfill in combination with ener-zv cells

Describes the Grobina site and the proposed future development

i..Ansir,isInvites the participants to put questions to tIhe Consultants.

(,)ictlion (hy Representative lf-om SkedLe cooperatine)

5-2

l-l,% %ai ioTn a I residential area il oes a1 lIidfilli haive to 1)c',e Around 500(1people are living, in Skede cooperative. That is a bo-gy place. totallyunsuitable lor a laTndfill. 'vith the l;ke from oOe side. and the sea front theonher.

Consultanst:In response say's that first he will finish telling about the technologicalalternatives and cost estimates, and then - anout the environmental aspects.

Tells about the costs of each alternative. Details on financial analysis whichallowed to keep costs within reasonable limits.

Explains the site selection criteria applied in the study.

Consultanst:Invites to ask questions.

Question:W'hat distance is required to the Baltic Sea?

Consultanst:Previouslv it was 3 km. However, in accordance with the existing legislatiomthere are no restrictions.

The site shall be selected according to the city, district. etc. master plan.Development of the Skede landfill is included in the master plan.

The distance to clients is important.

In Skede people's attitude is more neszative as there are more inhabitants andthey are more active.

Tells about comparison of both sites using the point svstem; the method usedshows that Grobina is more suitable than Skede.

Question:Are the issues concerninn the land ownership in Grobina solved with theprivate owners?

Niedols (City Executive Director):No. No proposals are received from the owners Several solutions have beenre-arded, however. withouit anN results.

C(omment

The land shall be expropriated.

(')llSULtiLT1

The law does not lorsee expropriation of laniid.

3-9

Qeisltion

*rTll Skxde stEe is close lo tihe sea and tihe lake. Why is thci diflcliciC sO smallbetwveen Skede and Grobina" Wh) atre thze ranisporlalion costs so close')

Consultant:

Thc transportation costs tOir Skede and Grobina arc close. the totaldifference is IO". for tonlkm.Geolomv in Skede is worse. concernintt both surfiice and uround waterExplains that in the point table there are several mistakes.

A. Halldin:The cost estimates for Skede closure are not correct in the point table.

Consultant:Promises to check.

Kaugurs (Citv Architect):A question on the methodology: how were the criteria selected and why arethe points split in such proportions'

Consultant:Exnlains that it is not a definite methodoloDty, it is just a way how toorianise discussions using points from 1 to 10. If another point system wereused, we would get a different result. We used this point system in order toor2anise the data. We tried to balance between the environmental andeconomical values, and the weizht of each value can be discussed. You arewelcome to come up with vour proposals on site evaluation criteria.

Question:If Grobina is selected. will the Skede site be remediated?

ConsultantYes. remediation is tak-en into account while cost estimating.

Question:.Are the Grobina alternatives B I and B ' linked with Skede?

Consultant:No The difference is revenue in each case.

Question*Will the transfer stations be built in either case?

Consultant.

No, In neither case transfer .stations are needed.

Question

If Grobina; is sleeited. wvill Skede be closed?

Constilt anidYes Closuic ot Skedc exCistinL. landfill is part of the: pro.ject

Question;What does Skede closure depend on" We. residenis of the Skedecooperative. want tiie Skede landfill to be closed. We hlave 1(00 plots ofland witth 5000 inhabitants. We are against a landfill nearbv. You are talkingabout economy. however. you should more think about people

G .Ansiis:

If the regional landfill will be developed in Grobina, the inhabitants of theSkede cooperative will be in a winning position. If Skede will be selected forthe new landfill. then all the requirements will be met to mak-e as smallimpact as possible on people.

Quesiion (Chairman of the Skede cooperative):1 have lived in skede for 41 years. It was a big mistak-e to start a landfill inskede. We are suffering from smoke and smell. All surface water from thelandfill flows to the Tosmare lake, all fish has been poisned twice. The sugarrefinert tak-es water from the lake for technolozical use, and then the sugar isused by all of us. It is more than obvious that the Skede landfill shall beclosed. If Grobina cannot be developed due to any obstacles, then anothersite shall be looked for. The Grobina pagasts has to think more broadly, on anational level. The Skede cooperative is being developed into a village.

Comment:The Tosmare lake is announced a protected area where all constructionworks are restricted accordino to the Reoulations of ?2 June,l999 by theCabinet of Ministers.

Ansips:Is it possible to reach a comprormise'

Environmental specialist:There are biotopes of high value.

Question:'What are the minimum distances to the landfill, for example in Grobina tothe nearest house?

ConsultantThe law reqcuires at least 50)0 m.

euestion

Howx far is it from the Skede laidfill lO tihe cooperati\ e?

Is ithe klind valued laking inlto account thle existing Cirobina ladtcfill'

Local Consultant - . ProlsThe land undei question is the former military base and due to this fact' thle

value of tlc land is lower. and it shall be taken into account

Halldin:Land has cadastre value. The owner is not willing to acknowledue it.However. we cannot iunore that the area is the former militarv territory andan existinu landfill, so the land cannot be used. Who will want to buy it? Ifvou cannot submit the land value. we are not able to compare the two sites.We klnow that the average cadastre value is 200 Ls/ha.

Question:Does it mean that the project has stopped because of the land issue.

A.Halldin:I do not think so. Such a situation strenathens the Skede position. Akt thebeginning of the project it was required that both sites are available. and sucha confirmation was received. The information provided turns out to be falseand the money is wasted.

Question:When will the proposals about the land submitted?

A.Halldin:The land owners do not know.

Private landowners of the Grobina site:We are waiting for proposals on the land value that is acceptable for the newcompany.

A. Hall din:As far as I understand, you' want to become shareholders and invest vourland in the share capital. Or, do you waant to rent vour land to the newcompany?

Private landowners of the Grobina site:Yes. to invest in the share capital.

A..Halldin:Accordino to the Statutes the new company will not have any dividends.

Private landowners of the CGrohina siteYes But then aher let.,s sav five vears. there will be dividends. If not. it doesnot miatter anyway. We l':lvou1 clean environment includinu the Baltic Seaand.Nve want the Liepaja beach lo re,xeive the Blue Flag

5-6

QuiestiolnIs the land valued takine into account the existing Grobina landfill"

Local Consultant - J.Prols:The land under question is the former military base and due to this fact thevalue of the land is lower, and it shall be tak-en into account.

Halldin:Land has cadastre value. The owner is not willing to acknowledge it.However, we cannot ignore that the area is the former military territory andan existing landfill, so the land cannot be used. Who will want to buy it? Ifyou cannot submit the land value. we are not able to compare the two sites.We know that the averaze cadastre value is 200 Ls/ha.

Question:Does it mean that the project has stopped because of the land issue.

A.Halldin:I do not think so. Such a situation strengthens the Skede position. At thebeginning of the project it was required that both sites are available. and sucha confirmation was received. The information provided turns out to be falseand the money is wasted.

Question:When will the proposals about the land submitted?

A.Halldin:The land owners do not know.

Private landowners of the Grobina site:We are waiting for proposals on the land value that is acceptable for the newcompany.

A.Halldin:.As far as I understand, vou want to become shareholders and invest yourland in the share capital. Or. do vou want to rent vour land to the newcompany?

Private landowners of the Grobina site;Yes, to invest in the share capital.

A\. 1-laildinl.\ceordin" to the Statutes the nexv comnpanvy will not have anv dividends.

PT-iVZ11 lan1IoWvnels ol tle Grobina size;Y es lUti thle zfIter let'S say live vears. there will be dividends, If not. it doesnIo( n:iattel anv\wy\ We tavour clean environment including the Baltic Sea;uId we wvanlt tile liepajla beach to Ireceive the I3 lue Flag.

5-7

.1 A\otins (EIA Bur-cau)Encourages thic thrtee represe.ntauies frotmi the Skede cooperalite wliti arespeakinu. oni belhalf of the whole cooperative to collect signatures and subm1itto the EIA Bureau to demonstrate that all of thL'm hav\e the same opini(on

G..Ansins:The lccal press published information on the comingi. Public Consultation andthe possiblity to comment the Reports.

JAvotins (EIA Bureau):lt may happen that in the very final statte the people start expressing theirneazative attitude. Did Grobina inhabitants have a chance to read andcomment the Reports and express their views concerning the future solidwaste management activities in Grobina? Won't it be a surprise for Grobinainhabitants?

Representative from Grobina pagasts Council:In July we had discussions with all the necessary information provided.

J.Avotins (EIA Bureau):You had to inform the EIA Bureau about a possibility to participate.

Representative from Grobipia pagasts Council:It obviouslv was the responsibility of Mr.M.Eksteins, Mayor of the Grobinapagasts.

Question:Who is the initiator of the Project?

Answer:Liepyja Municipality.

G.Ansins:Public awareness study has been carried out in the Skede cooperative andamong Grobina inhabitants residing along the access road to the existinaGrobina landfill.

A.Halldin:The results of the Public awareness studv carried out last vear showA that justa small number of inhabitants of the Skede cooperative were againstdevelopment of the Skede landfill. Tha data which are at our disposal statethe number of inhabitants in the Skede cooperative being 2000 and not 5000.

Question (by Chairman of the Skede cooperative);The lak-e and the sea are polluted Who max takie the responsibility todevelop a landfill near the Sea" The Swedes themselves w\ill start shoutinu.thet the Sen is poliuied.

A. Haildin

5-S

The aim ol the Project is to stop pollution of the Tosmare lake. the leachatewill be collected. We are not talkino about activities that will increase thepresent problems. we are talking about solution of problems.

G .Ansins:Closes the meeting bv saving "thank you" to the participants and invitesevervone to submit written proposals, comments, etc.

Minutes bv: Ritma Dubrovska. PrLT tel: 9 420 460: fax +371 34 80322

Appendix 6

DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTIONS

I

(, I

Appenchix 0

Descript ion of eoloigical cross-section

Well N-1

Date ot' drilling: 19.03 .Q.Location: NicaDepth of a well: 7.0 nmLithological composition of sediiemnts:

(ev/oo- wlnl v-al. in Thi,. kWSS.vgical in oI C'aver. in Liihololgicul coflIpOsiiionl

indCx ' romn to MnbQ, 0.0 0.2 0.2 Peat, dark brown:

lgQ.ltv 0.2 0.6 0.4 Sand. medium urained. with admixture of gravel. yellowish-, grev.

IEQT Itv' 0.6 1.4 O.S Sand-gravel-pebble sediments (0 of pebbles 3-5 cm).Ig2Q- l1'tv 1.4 1. .l Clay with gravel. white.

Qtv . 1.2 d-ravel-pebble sediments grey, (O of pebbles up to 7_ cm). with admixture of sandstone concretions.

lgQ3ltv b 2.7 3.S Sand-gravel-pebble-stone sediments with admixture of largerl _ | boulders (0 more than 10 cm).

1°Q;ltv | 3.S 4.9 | I I | Sand, fine grained. bluish-grev. with rare admixture ofI _____ I |__________ - oravel.

gQ kr 4.9 6.4 1.5 Sandy loamy till. dark grey. with admixture of gravel and________ I I I Ismall pebbles. sliehtlv plastic. crumbly.

fQ.kr I 6.4 6.8 1 0.4 ISand. medium and coarse erained with rare large pebbles.zQ'kr _ 6.8 | 7.0 | 0.2 Sandy loamy till. darkg rev.

Well N-2

Date of drilling: 19.03.99.Location: NicaDepth of a well: 7.0 mLitholoeical composition of sediments:Geolo- Interval, in Thicknessgical m of laver, in Lithological compositionindeLx from to in

Ig tv. 0.0 1.5 1.5 Sand-gravel-pebble sediments. yellowish-grey, with medium! ~~~and coarse --rained sand.

IgQ^ltvb 1.5 3.0 | 1.5 Sand. medium grained. orev.IgQ-tvb 3.0 4.0 1 1.0 Sand. fine grained. grev.

;lQ31tv 4.0 4.3 0.3 Sand. medium grained, with admixture of peat and mica,________ 0.7 black.

IgQdltvb 4 .4, _ _.0| 0.7 Sand--ravel-pebble-stone sediments..,Q2kr 5.0 5.5 0.5 Sandy loamy till. darkl rey. dense. crumbiy.fQ7kr -5. 5.7 0.2 Sand-gravel-pebble sediments.gQ2kr 5.7 6.0 0.3 Sandv loamy till, dark grev. dense.fQ2kr 6.0 6.7 0.7 Sand-gravel-pebble deposits.gQ-}kr 6.7 7.0 0.3 J Sandv loamv till. dari; grey. dense.

t, -

Well N-3

Date of drillinui 1.0n.()Q.Location: NicaDepth of a well: 7.() mn

Lithlological cor position of seLirnMnMs:G,oIo- ln'e1eln ci7 in nAi "NSgical in I1I/. 177 'Ltho/o0ca/ L)IimposXj i(,,

index yron |) toI

lglQ-ltvb 0.0 n2.0 2.0 Sand-gravel-pebbie-sione sedimentsIgQ .tN 2.0 3I 1 i Sand. medium erained. vellowish-urev.lIQdltvb . I 5.8 '.7 Sand. fine grained. vellowish-grey.

Q':kr 5.8- 1 7.0 1.2 Sandv loamy till, dark grev. dense. crumbi\

Well N-4

Date of drilling: 19.03.99.Location: NicaDepth of a well: 7.0 mLitholocical composition of sediments:

Geolo- Interval. in Thicknessgical n? of i*er. in Lithological compositioninder from to m

IgQltv !°!0.0 0.5 0.5 - Sand with 2ravel. yellow.IgQ-ltv° j 0.5 1 0.9 0.4 Sand-gravel-pebble sediments.l2Q-lTvb 0.9 i 1.6 0.7 Sand. medium _rained, vellowish-greyv.IgQ tvt | 1.6 |1i.9 2.3 Sand. fine grained. lightgrey.1oQ,ltv0 3 -9 4 .4 0.5 Sand-gravel-pebble sediments. grev.IQ-.4tvo | 4.4 4.6° 0.2 Sand. fine grained. grev.gQ2kr 4.6 7.0 2.4 Sandy loamy till. dark grev, with admixture of gravel and

____ I ___ I small Pebbles.

Well N-5

Date of drilling: 19.03.99.Location: NicaDepth of a well: 7.0 mLithologic al composition of sediments:Geolo- Interval. in Thicknessgical m of layer, in Lithological compositionindex from to m

IgQ31tv | 0.0 1.2 1.2 Sand. medium urained. vellowish-rev.Q.Iltvb 1.2 2.5 1 .3 Sand-ravel-pebble sediments. 2rev.

l_Qtvb 25 3.6 1.1 Sand. fine grained. grev.IgQ-ltv 3.6 4.0 0.4 Sand-gravel-pebble sediments.gQ2kr 4.0 7.0 3.0 Sandy loamy till. dark -rev. dense. slightly plastic. with

__________ admixture of travel and small pebbies.

Well G-l

Date o*f drilliniz: I S0 9).Location: GrobliaDepth of01 ell: % . mLitholocical coninosition ol' sediments:Geoio- 1171rvI li. In Tiu,-AicL'.n

.-ical S r in o, Anvr. :n ihlugl .. IlS(JLUnL(I rlpe).vii.nio

lfl(IL'.Y 1I ()111 | 10 l _______________________________________________tQ4 0 0.0 0.3 0.3 Technouenic deposits. Demolitioln waste.

I,Q ltv 0.3 I o.4 0.1 | Said. fine grained. vellowish-grev.

eQ;itv 0.4 4.0 .b Loamy till. light vellowish-brown. dense. plastic. With smalllenses of ereenish-grev sandy loam and red ocher, with

________________ admixture of eravel and pebbles of metamorphic rocks.

cQ-ltv 4 0 7 0 3.0 Loamy till. with pebbles and boulders, reddish-brown.

Well G-2

Date of drilling,: 18.03 .99.Location: GrobinaDepth of a well: 6.7 mLithological composition of sediments:

Geolo- Intenal, in Thickness

gical m of lver. in Lithological compositionindex firom i to nitQ4 0.0 2.2 Technogenic deposits. Household waste, demolition waste.

I_______ I_____ I _______ _ Iorganic waste.iQ;ltv 2 -2 4.5 2.3 | Loamv till, bluish-_rey. with admixture ofgravel, pebbles

I________ I_____ ___________ and small enclosures of red ocher. dense. plastic.°Q.ltv 4.5 | 6.7 2.2 Loamy till. ii_ht eyish-reddish-brown. with admixture of

! I I l | g~~~~~~ravel and pebbles.

Well G-3

Date of drilling: 18.03.99.Location: GrobinaDepth of a well: 7.0 mLitholoeical composition of sediments:Geolo- Interval, in Thicknessgical m of layer, in Lithological compositionindex from to m

I ltv 0.0 1.7 I 1.7 Sand. fine erained. vellowish-erev.°2Q3ltv 1.7 1.9 0.2 Clav with peat. dark 2rev.2Q3ltv 1.9 3.5 1.6 1 Loamy till. greenish-vellowish-.rev. with admixture of

eravel and pebbles.gQ^Jtv 3.5 7.0 3.5 Loamy till. light reddish-brown, with gravel and pebbles.

I___________ with enclosures of greenish-grey sandv loam.

Well G-4

Date of Jrillimng I S.Oi.91°.Location:. GrohitutDepth of;a well: 7.() mLitholo"ical composition of sedinlCis

G('olo- llJlL' l I1l. In Tizwn.vCSNgical ;it o/V laer. iln Lithohloicul C..(xiii/1)OI7

inldex Jiroll | rn

tQdx 0.0 1.8 | L Technogenic deposits. Household wasle. demolitioni waste.0.0 1. Lb I oruanic waste.

luQ.l' I .S 2.2 0.4 Sand. tine grained. vellowish-grey._Q;ltv 22 7.0 4.8 Loamy till. liizht reddish-brown with gravel and pebbles. with

I small lenses of areenish-ure\ sandy loam.

Well G-5

'Date of drilling: 18.03.99.Location: GrobinaDepth of a well: 7.0 mLithological composition of sediments:

Geolo 17nenral. in Thickness! gical I ? of laver. in Lithological compositionindef |rom | to m_

tQ4 0.0 4.5 4.5 Technogenic deposits. Household waste, demolition waste,__________ I _______ ___________________ organic w aste.

I Q-itx 4.5 ! 4.7 1 0.2 Sand. fine grained. greenish-grev.j Q;ltv | 4.7 1 6.0 1.3 | Loamy till. bluish-grev with gravel and pebbies.I°Q.ltv | 6.0 6.5 0.5 Sand. fine t rained with gravel and pebbles.gQ-ltv 6.5 7.0 0.5 Loamv till. reddish-brown. with gravel and pebbles.

kell L-l

Date ol'drilling: 02.03.1)). - 5 0.)L)

Location: Liepaja. SkedeDepth ola well: 3o.0 InLithological comnosition ol'sedimen __ts:

_eoi IIoItm Uia/. In Tii3 k _gical in1 .) ia.n.'r. in LUlIU.dgi.,a/ coZfpxl/)r)SUliindecx trintZZ Ia (1 1)Index l0.0 1 '.5 . e Technoaenic deposits. Waste.mQ," 2.5 4.2 1.7 Sand with peat. fine arained. dark -4rev.rnQ4' 4.2 4.3 0.1 Peat. Black.mQ4 4.3 4.6 0._ Sand with peat. fine _rained. darkurev.gQEIt 4.6 5.6 1.0 Clay. bluish. with aravel and pebbles. plasticgQ.Itv 5. 6 4 3.S Loamy till. heavy. hard-plastic. reddish-brown. witih gravel

_________ _ai_ 2d pebbles.gQ.Itv L 04 1 2.0 Sandv loamy till. grey. slightly plastic.gQ Itv 11.4 13.7 2.3 I Loamy till. dark grev. hard-plastic. with t-ravel and pebbles.gQ.ltv 13.7 16.0 2 .3 Sandy loamy till. reddish brown with gravel and pebbles (0

up to 3.5 cm).gQ-lrv 16.0 2.6 7.6 Loamy till. reddish-brown. with !zravel and pebbles.g Q3.tv 23.6 31.6 S.0 Loamv till with pebbles and boulders, reddish-brown.

I________ 1 ___ I |Amount of boulders and pebbles increases with depth. -D3ak 31.6 34.7 3.1 Dolomite. weathered. brecciated, grey and rose-grey,

cavernous. with tiny lenses and admixture of light green clay.in the upper part - dolomite breccia with red clay.

D a}; 34.7 36.0 1.3 Dolomite marl, weathered, with clay fill, spotted. green and

Well L-2

Date of drilling: 03.03.99. - 05.03.99.Location: Liepaja. SkedeDepth of a well: 27.2 mLithologic l composition ,f sediments:Geolo- Interval, in Thicknessgical m of laver, in- Lithological compositioninde-c from n to mvQ.4 0.0 1.6 1.6 j Sand. fine _rained. grev.

mQ4' It 1.6 2.1 0.5 I Peatr dark brown.mQ4" 2.1 2.4 0.3 Sand with peat. black.mQ4" 2.4 2.8 0.4 Sand. fine grained. grevish-blue.mQoJ 2.8 3.1 0.3 Peat.gQ3ltv 3I. 4.3 1.2 1 Clav. blue. hard plastic with detritus of dolomites (0.5-- cm).OQ3ItV| 4.3 8.3 4.0 Loamy till, reddish-brown. dense, with angular weaklyv

rounded detritus.g!Qltv 8.3 9.2 0.9 Sandy loam. reddish-browvn-areI. crumbly. slightlv plastic.gQ,ltv 9.2 11.8 2.6 j Loamv till, bluish-darkl grev.°Q ltv 1 1.8 16.9 5.1 Sandv loam. reddish-brown.gQ31tv 16.9 |2^>0.5 3.6 Loamy till, reddish-brown. with =ravel and pebbles. mainly

3. lSrounded.

grQjltv 20.5 J 22.6 2. I Loamy till with boulders and pebbles. reddish-brown.D3ak 22.6 23.5 0.9 Dolomites. weathered. brecciiited. fr;actured. with re l clazi

l i~~~~~~illine.D3ak 23.5 27.2 3.7 Dolomite marl, weathered. wilh lill ol red clav. with thin|

I________ _ 1 Dolominterlavers (0.5-2 cm) of green marl.

Well L-3

Date ot drilling: 04.03 ()8 . - o *-.

Location: Liepla;. SkcdeDepthi ot a wxell: 2x5 niLitholocical composition of sedilmlicls:GLeoio- lflI'r'adI. ,I, TlIU!- ~7.cSS

.incal 1 O/ itl n :L? Lu.iLid gi'cal colmposmIofn

Index ii-nl,r fo IIIvQ, 0.0 0.4 (.4 | Sand. line grained. vellowish-grev.

nmiQ4 f 0.4 .4 I .0 - Sand. fine -,rained. siltv. vellowish-urev.MQ," 1 1.4 4.0 I.o( Sanid. fine grained. biuish-urev.mQTT r 4.0 1 4.7 O.- Peat. dark brown.

__mQ,i'"| 4.7 14.S 0.1 Clav. muddv. tinv layered.cQ-ltv 4.8 I 5.1 0.3 Clay. blue. rich. with anaular detritus of doiomite.

i gQ-Itv 5.1 9 1 4.0 Loamv till with boulders, dark reddish-brown, slightly! _ I I plastic.I °Q-ltv 9.1 15.0 QL) Loamy till. dark grev with uravel and small angular pebbles.

l |_____ ___________Amount of clay increases with depth.D.mr ]5.0 16.5 1.5 Clay,red, reddish-brown and reddish-violet with enclosures

l |_____ __________of green sandv loam.D-,mr 1 6.5 1 .0 0.5 Dolomite. spotted. rose-ereenish-!rev.D mr 17.0 17.6 0.6 I Detritus of siltstone and sandstone with clay filling.D-mr 17.6 1 1-7.9| 0.3 Siltstone. reddish-brown.D-,mr 17.9 19.9 2.0 Clay, red-brown and bluish-brown with interlayers of green

__ _ I _clay.

i D-ak I 19.9 20.0 0.] Clavev dolomite. greenish-grev.D-ak 20.0 20 0.4 __Marl. Ii-aht ereen. weathered.D ,akl ' 20.4 0.7 0.3 Dolomite marl. grussy.D-ak | 20.7 23.3 2'6 Dolomite, brecciated. cavernous with geode of crystallite

________I I____ __________ quarm. rose and greenish-grev.D-ak 23.3 23i.7 0.4 Marl. thin layered. greenish-grev and rose.D3ak 23.7 25.5 1.8 Dolomite. layered, rose-brown. with interlayers of green

_ _ _ __ _ clavev dolomite.D3ak 25.5 I26.5 1.0 Marl. rose-brown. layered. with interlavers of green marl. in

______ II jthe upper part - dolomite marl.

Well L-4

Date of drilling: 12.03.99.Location: Liepaja, SkedeDepth of a well: 4.5 mLithoiogical composition of sediments:Geolo- Interval, in Thicknessgiccal m of lover, in Lithological compositionindex from to im

VQ4 0.0 2.0 2.0 Sand. fine grained. vellowish-grev.MQ41t ' 2|.0 2.8 0.8 Peat. dark brown, medium decomposed.mQ46 lt- 2.8 3.4 0.6 Sand. fine grained. silty. bluish-gre\.mQ41' 3.4 3.6| 0.2 Peat. dark brown.nmQ4 ' .6 | 4;1 0.5 Gravel-pebble sediments with sand\ loam, bluish.

IgQ-ltv 4.1 4.5| 0.4 Clav. biue, with gravel and pebbles. plastic.

I,.7

Well L-5

Date ot drillinm: 12.0(.0)(4.Location: Liepaja. SkedeDepth ol a well: 4.o niLitholoeical composition ot sedimiemts:Geolo- InwrvIzi. In Tincklicss.gical Mn i; i.ner. in Lahlwlvlgwal ctmpositoliI( index /rom Io in

"vQ. 0.0 I.S I.S Sand. fine grained. veliowish-.rey.mQ," 1.8 2.6 ) .S Peat. dark brown, medium decomposed.1, 2.6 | .2 0.6 Sand. fine grained. bluish-grev.M O" ' 3 5.2 0.L Peat. darkl brown.MQ41' 3.5 4.3 0.8 Sand. fine arained. bluish-arev.Q,ltV 4. 4.61 0.3 Clay. blue. with boulders. plastic.

Well L-6

Date of drilling: 12.03.99.Location: Liepaja. SkedeDepth of a well: 3.0 mLitholoaical composition of sediments:Geolo- Interval. in Thicknessgica | m of laver. in . Lithological comzpositionindex firon7 to m

mQ." j 0.0 0.81 0.8 1 Peat. dark brown. medium decomposed.mQ;j 0.8 [1.41 0.6 j Sand. fine 2rained. bluish-crev.MQ4_ _ 1.4 1.6 | 0.2 1 Peat, dark brown.CY ,Irv 1.6 3.0 1.4 Clav, blue, with admixture of gravel and pebbles, rich,

________ _ ______ - _____ ______ - plas'tic.

Well L-7

Date of drilling: 12.03.99.Location: Liepaja, SkedeDepth of a well: 4.0 mLithologica1 composition of sediments:Geolo- Interval, in Thicknessgical m of laver, in Lithological compositionindex from to mvQ4 0.0 0.4 0.4 Sand. fine grained. yellowish-grev.

mQQT 0.4 1.4 1.0 Sand. fine grained. silty, vellowish-grey.mQ 1.41 4.0 1 2.6 Sand. fine grained. bluish-grey.

1,4s

Well L-8

Date ofdrilliniu: l2.03.Q.Location: Liepajla. SkedeDepth of a Well: 4.0 niLithological composition ol sediments:Geolo- Inirval. 1jn ThICAn I11CXXgiCal in Ij hner. 11i Litjliog,Jical Comp)oXsIoUi

index frotm lo 11IVQI 0.0 o O 2.0 _A Sand. tine zrained. vellowish-urev.

ino., 2 .0 26 0.6 Peat. dark brown. medium decomposed-mQ,Z 2.6 4.0 1 .4 Sand. tine grained. bluish-grey.

Well L-9

Date of drilling: 12.03 .99.Location: Liepaja. SkedeDepth of a well: 4.0 mLitholocical composition of sediments:Geolo- Internal, in Thicknessgical 17t of aver. in Lithological compositionindex from to 7mvQ., I0.0 2.0 2.0 Sand. fine -rained. vellowish-2rev.

ImQ41' 2.0 2 2.6 0.6 I Peat, dark brown.I mQ,' _ 2.6 1 4.0 | 1.4 Sand. fine grained. bluish-arev.

Well L-10

Date of drilling: 13.03.99.Location: Liepaja, SkedeDepth of a well: 15.0 mLithologic l composition of sediments:Geolo- Interval, in Thicknessgical m of laver, in Lithological compositionindex from to m tQ4 0.0 15.0 15.0 Technogenic deposits. Waste.

Well L-1 I

Date of drilling:, 13.03.99.Location: Liepaja, SkedeDepth of a well: 15.0 mLithologic I composition of sediments:Geolo- Interval, in Thicknessgical m of lver, in Lithologicul com77position

index Jrom to mtQ4 I0.0 14.5 G 4.0 Technogenic deposits. Waste.

mO,' | 0 14.5 0.5 Sand. fine trained. bluish-e±rev.gQ.zltv |14.5 15.0J 03 Cmav. blue. with admixture of gravel and pebbles.

Well L-12

Date of drillinu: 13.03.L)N.Location: Liepaja. SkedeDepth ota well: 13.4 mLithoio,ical comnosition ot sediiietits:GeXojo- 1nlen-ill. 117 ThJL ,AIL.X.1C;L'Ol- ifiLrl in Thit .r., wsxgLc/,¢ZR.xiw

fl~~ ?ti~J~~'. "' LaholoI.'gwl COMPiOSVJIi MindL'x 7i*-on Ioi I__________tQ4 0.0 13.0 1 3.) Technogenic deposits. Waste.

EQ-dtv 13 0 13.1 0.-Q,ltv 13.1 13.4 J 0.3 Loamv till. reddish-brown.

Well L-20

Date of drillinc: 20.03.99.Location: Liepaja. SkedeDepth of a well: 1.75 mLithoiogical composition of sediments:

Geolo- Interval, in Thickn7e.ssgical m of laver, in Lithological compositionindex n om ! to "ImQ-iL |0.0 0.4 0.4 Peat. medium decomposed. dark brown. with plant articles.mQ,___ _| 0.4 1.2 0.S I Sand. fine grained. silty, with rare zravel. dark grey.mQ4' 1 1.2 1.6 0.4 1 Sand. fine and medium grained. clavev. darkl grey.mQ4"11 1.6 [ 1.7 0.1 I Peat. medium decomposed. dark brown..Q.itv 1.7 1.75j 0.05 Loamy till. grey. with rare gravel.

Well L-21

Date of drilling: 20.03.99.Location: Liepaja. SkedeDepth of a well: 1 .75 mLitholozical composition bf sediments:Geolo- Imerval, in Thicknessgical m of loaver, in Lithological compositionindex from to mrnQ4 "t |0.0 0.15 0.15 Humic horizon. peat. black._Q?41 0.15 0.45 I 0.3 Sand. differently and medium -rained. vellowish-brown.

mY4 0.45 0.9 ] 045 Sand. medium and fine _rained, silty, in the bottom parts offreshwater fauna. dark grev.

mQ4" 0.9 1.6| 0_ 7 Sand. fine and medium grained. siltv. grey.mQ4" 1.6 17 0.1 Peat. well decomposed. dark- brown.gQdItv 1.7 1.75 0.05 Loamv till. grev. with rare gravel.

1(1l

Well L-2

Date of drillin: '.0 * Location: Liepaja. SktdeDepth of a well: 1.7 niLithological cormposifion ot'sedinienes:Geolo- Ilntertal. u TIi w.'sgicall in oft iaicr i 'n Lizlu.'lugi.ca/ . U/)XJII(.')i/,

index Iroil) I') MnmQ, 0.0 0.3 0. I Humic horizon. slightlv with peant. black.mQ4 0.3 0.45 0.1 Sand. fina and medium -rained. rare uravel. wet. vetlowish-

brown.mQ4 0.45 0.9 0.45 Sand. fine grained. silty. grey.mQ4

t 0.9 1.5 0.6 Silty sand. _rev.mQ4 1.5 1.6 01 Peat. well decomposed. brown.2Qdtrv 1.6 1.? 0.] | Loamy till. grev. rare 2ravel.

Well L-23

Date of drillin2: 20.03.99.Location: Liepaja. SkedeDepth of a well: 1.65 mLithological composition of sediments:Geolo- Interval, in Thicknessgical m of iM;er, in Lithological compositionindex fronm lo mirnQ," ! 0.0 0.4 1 0.4 | Peat. weakly decomposed. dark- brown.mQ2t 0.4 0.6 0.2 j Sand. fine and medium grained with rare gravel. yellowish-

I ! I ~~~~brown.0 mQ," $ 0.6 1.0 1 0.4 Sand. fine and medium grained. siltv. vrev.mQ4t | 1.-0| 15 I 0.5 Sand. fine erained. siltv. 2rev.

_ mQ__ 1.5 1.6 1 0.1 IPeat. medium decomposed. dark brown.cQ ltv 1.6 1.65 i 0.0 5 Loamv till. arev. hard plastic.

Well L-24

Date of drilling: 1999, 3 MarchLocation: Liepaja, SkedeDepth of a bore hole: 2.85 mGroundwater level, below the Earth surface: 0.2 mLithological composition of sedimentsGeological Interval, m Thickness Lithological composition

index from to of loyer. m ___

0 0.1 0.1 SoilmQ. 0.1 0.2 0.1 Sand. fine _rained. grevb04 0.2 I 0.6 0.4 Peat. medium decomposed. dark brownmQ, 0.6 I 1.5 0.9 Sand. fine and medium -rained. grev

1.5 2.3 0.8 Peat, well decomposed. dark browneO1ln 2.3 2.85 > 0.55 Sand - gravel - pebble mixture

Well L-s

Datc oftdrillinmI lQOQ. I Ma\Location: Liepaia. SkedeDepth ot a bore hole: 3.2 mGroundwater level. below tilc Earth siurfacc: 0. i mLitholo-ical composition ot sedimenitsGeolo,gical Interval, in Tilickness Lt:holohgical colsUXim)

indcx from to nln'er. niI hO. 0 1.0 1 .0 Peat, medium decomposed. dark brown

mOc). 1.0 1.4 0.4 Sand. fine grained. grcv1.4 2.2 ] 0.8 Siltv sand. grev_9_2.2 2.9 0.7 Peat. well decomposed. dark brown

I___________ _ _ _'.9 ' 0.3 Sand - gravel - pebble mixTure

Well L-26

Date of drilling: 1999. 2 MayLocation: Liepaja. SkedeDepth of a bore hole: 3.0 mGroundwater level. below the Earth surface: 0.1 ImLitholocical comoosition of sedimentsGeological interval. in Th7ickness Lithological composition

index from to otMver. mbQ. 0 0.6 ! 0.5 Peat. medium decomposed. dark, brown

0.6 0.9 ] 0.3 Peat. weakly decomposed. dark brownmO, 0.9 1.4 0.5 Sand. fine grained. grev

1.4 1.8 1 0.4 Siltv sand. grev1.8 2.7 i 0.9 Peatr well decomposed. dark brown'.7 2.85 | 0.15 Sand. medium 2rained. with gravel. grey

| gQln 2.85 L 3.0 E >0.15 Loamy till with gravel and pebbles. grey

Well L-27

Date of drilling: 1999, 2 MavLocation: Liepaja. SkedeDepth of a bore hole: 2.3 mGroundwater level, below the Earth surface: 0.2 mLitholozical composition of sediments .Geological Interval, m Thickness Lithological composition

index from to of laDei. mbO. 0 0.3 0. 3 Soilm0 4 0.3 0.5 0.2 Sand, coarse and medium grained. brown

0.5 1.1 0.6 Sand. fine orained. brown1.1 1.5 0.4 Silrv sand. erev1.5 1.8 0.3 Silt. grey1.8 2.0- 0.' Peat, well decomposed. dark brown

gp,Qw 2. 0 2 .3 >0.3 Loamy till with gravel 3nd pebbies. grey

C,- K '

Well L-28

Date of drilling: 1999, 2 Ma!Location: Liepaja. SkxdeDepth of a bore hole: 0 mGroundwater level. below thc Eanh surfacQ: 0.05 mLitholoeical composition of sediments

Gelocicall I IJI val. 7i,,ck,xSS L iCLa LU)/)OIId')1?

index from to i rranve).hO4 0 0. i 0.5 Peat. weakly decomposed. dark brownmO.04 0.5 0.6 0.1 Sand. fine and medium gTrained. graV

| gO).ln 0.6 1.0 ! 0.4 Loamy till with -,ravel and pebbles. "rev

Well L-29

Date of drilling: 1999, 2 MayLocation: Liepaja. SkedeDepth of a bore hole: 3.5 mGroundwater level, below the Earth surface: 0.4 mLithological composition of sedimentsGeological Interval. m Thlickness Lithological composition

index from to otlaver. m -

_______ < 0 0.2 0.2 SoilmQ4 0.2 0.9 1 0.7 Sand. medium 2rained. brown

0.9 12.8 L 1.9 Peat. well decomposed. dark brown3.5 1 0.7 Silt brown

Appendix 7

WELL COMPLETION

I

Appendl(Iix 7

Well coni pleflon11 ell Deuthi o/a BourelIole Cavising etlrheli.s I;'ille,* SeLliienltltiolr ilhterv tl (C'emw etion

# nlwell, in in diaimeler, /III jIj7p h,iiervl,', in _ iant,afer, nn 7nTpe hlilerva'cl, in Diamineter, imit un(letr thie tibefIilier,. iti iiltel'l/. iii

N-1 7.0 112 Ferous 10.64 -- 1.36 89 Sievc '1.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.0 0.0-0

PVC --0.2 -7.0 63N-2 7.0 112 IFerous -10.88 - 1.1 89 Sieve 4.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.0 0.0-).4

I VC 0.0 - 7.0 - 63N-3 7.0 112 erotis 11.05 - 0.95 89 Sieve 4.6-6.6 03 6.6-7.0 o.O-( I

I VC (0.1 - 7.0 63N-4 7.0 112 Ferois 10.41 -- 1.5 89 Sieve 1.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.( (o.0 4.

.____________ IVC _10.3 - 7.0 63 el.6-66 63667._ __

N-5 7.0 1 12 Ferous 10.96-- 1.05 89 Sieve 1.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.0 (1 ([(1.1

IPVC -10.3 - 7.0 63 . _

G-I 7.0 112 Ferous +0.76-0.74 89 Sieve 4.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.0 o .0.4

P VC -(0.5 - 7.0 63 _

G-2 6.7 112 Feotis -1-0.6 - 0.9 89 Sieve 4.3-6.3 63 6.3-6.7 0.-04

I VC 0.0 - 6.7 63

G-3 7.0 112 Fer ous +1.08 - 0.5 89 Sieve 4.1-6.1 63 6.1-6.5 0.0-3

'PVC 10.5 - 7.0 63 _

CG-4 7.0 112 lerous 4 1.5 - 0.5 89 Sieve 4.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.0 0.0-0.3

PVC 4+0.2 - 7.0 63

G-5 7.0 112 Fei-ous 1-1.19 - 0.7 89 Sieve 4.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.0 0.04-0.-

._____ PVC 0.0 - 7.0 63

L-1 36.0 151 Ferous -10.4 - 32.0 114 1Ierfog-ed 32.0-35.8 89 35.8-36.0 O.4 -32)

.erous 1-0.7 - 36.0 89 lubleL-2 27.2 151 1erous 4+0.4 - 23.2 114 IPerifored 23.2-27.0 89 27.0-27.2 .0.4 - 23 2

Ferous --0.5 - 27.2 89 tubeL-3 26.5 151 Ferois '0.3 - 13.6 114 Perfored 22.5-26.3 89 26.3-26.5 *0 3 -- 13.6i

._____ __________ Fei-otis -10.7 - 26.5 89 tutbe . .. .

L-4 4.5 112 Ferotis -'-0.5 - 1.0 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 3 6-4.0 0 0-0.4

PVC 10.3 - 4.0 -63 _

11 ell Depth OJf Bonrehole Casin igilbes Fieier Sedinenttion interval C'emwenttiont

# wiell, in yin djiiniEeeei-,m T) pe Interval, in lDiutJh,,e, mt Type mInierval, tit Diameter, min und ler ihie tube/il/e,; in interval, lit

1.-5 4.6 112 1erotis -10.5 - 1.0 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 3.6-4.0 0.0-0.4

.. ______ ________PVC 10.3 -4!0 63 ___

L-6 3.0 112 Ferous 40.4 -- 1.1 89 Sieve 0.65-2.65 63 2.65-3.0 0.0-5.4

I'VC -t0.05 - 3.0 63

L-7 4.0 112 I-eIOtls 40.6 - 0.9 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 3.6-4.0 0.0- .4

PVC -10.1 -4.0 63 . -

L-8 4.0 112 Ferous 1 0.4 - 1.1 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 3.6-4.0 0.U-0.-

PVC 0.3 -4.0 63

L-9 4.0 11 Fet-ous 4-0.5 - 1.0 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 3.6-43.0 1)-f1 I

I_VC 10.2 - 1.0 63

L-10 15.0 93 I7erous i10.5 - 15.0 89 'eifloi-ed 5.0-15.0 50

, lu~~~~~~~~~tbe

L-1 1 15.0 93 [elo-is +-0.5 - 13.2 89 Perfored 3.9-13.2 50Itilxc

L-12) 13.4 93 Ferotis -10.5 - 12.7 89 I'erlor-ed 3.6-12.7 50

L-20 1.75 50 Feerous 0 - 1.75 50 I'erlored 0.25-1.75 50

. ~~~~~~~Itibe

L-21 1.75 50 Ferotis 0- 1.75 50 1Peilorled 0.25-1.75 50_tube

_ -

L-22 1.70 50 Ferous 0- 1.70 50 Perfored 0.2-1.70 50gtlbe

L-23 1.65 50 Ferotis 0 - 1.65 . 50 Perf'ored 0,15-1.65 50

_ _ . _~~~~~~_________ lube _____________

L-24 2.85 50 PVC 0 - 2.85 50 Perfored 1.85-2.85 50tube

L-25 3.2 50 PVC 0 - 3.20 50 Perloi-ed 2.20-3.20 50

_ _ __________ _____________ ______________ ttibe _

L-26 3.0 50 IVC 0 - 3.00 50 1'crfored 2.0-3.0 50I ublc ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

L-29 3.5 50 PVC 0- 3.50 50 I'crfored 0-1.0 50.tibe

Appendix 8

RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES,LATVIA

flestifis of gr-ounitwater- mudayses, Lal(via n CIi

Mi,7 I C( II SO,'-I Alkalhii1 c'0)-t (1))I Color I NII, O1 i')1 dCr 1 IfI 1 Z

I I _ mci/I jj~~~~~~~~~~~I o. IN(-Ilo

________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ ______g_______ ___ J Pi)g N A N J nigP/

L-1 2 1 o 9.1 63 34II5 . 1 .9 0.58 12Z 0.67 0.53 0.003 0.01 0.006 0.02 00(5 (08 - 00(1 O01 ]

L2 490 54 9.2 62 3 5 30 2 9 7.5 6.2 1. I <0,5 1 4 0.48 0.32 0.002 <0,13I1 0.003 0 0)2 0,01 2 I ____ 04 0 0.9 12

IA 720 59 7.2 120 47 75 43 10 4.7 0.9 <0,5 23 0.59 0.41 (1.0(1 (1.01 0.00(3 0.012 (0.09 11 7 - I 0 4 0 26

L-4 440 24 3.8 85 28 49 31 5.9 92 25 1.8 2401 318 IS <0.00l 0.)1 1353 0302 03 9 2,9 '0 6 0143 (I'

LI5 44(l IS 4.7 92 27 25 36 6.4 56 23 0.9 120 2.2 (17 0.026 (1.59 (3.37 01.03 0.-II 189 - 06 00 290D

L-6 590i 57 7 2 I1(1 24 45 413 8.5 12(0 33 7.7 260 3.6 0174 (1.011 0.02 01.1401

L-7 160 4.8 1.3 39 7.1 9.6 16 2.3 23 8.8 1.1 170(1.1 (161 <0.00! (10.02 0.062 ()02 (3.33 16 Il4 O fig'

[-8 -Th 12 0.6 29 9.4 24 12 1.9 2(0 13 1.4 5'10 1.6 1.1 <0.0)01 0.11 0.22 3101- 0 07 1 7 'JO! f 7ij Th

[-9 260 73A 213 6(1 16 I 26 3.8 17 IS 0.82 2303 41.2 1.6 <0.1103I 0.131 (324 0013 ('19 2 3 "''12 I" f

[-22, 13(100 22(0 2(0 180 56 2(O( 82 IS 5 IN 35 1.31 3003 3.7 1.5 <0.00) I 0.1(1 0.032 (.(1.I 1)18 1 2 0 31 ) 07 '

[-21I 4101 IS 7.8 89 27 38 43 5.3 1410 52 3.6 450 3.3 1.5 1.0(06 (0.036 0.035 0.116 (1 06 2f 0 2 1) '0 20) I'

L-22 400 14 5.5 86 28 48 45 5.2 19(1 70) 3.9 55(1 3.8 1.5 0.002 (1.06 (1 033 O)1)3 00O7 2. 7 ) I 1 0 2 0! I'

L-23 71001 170(1 55(3 3101 42 31(00 110 22 - 76(0 24(1 3.8 6'I10 7.0) 5.6 <03,0(1 03.1)3 03.013 11.0 01)1) 65 .1 07If3I

L-24 803o 831 5.9 1410 42 68 62 12 84 2'4 1.3 83 4.6 (1.87 <(1(001 (1.15 0,0184 131)3 1106 2 0 19 0 15 0) 7(

[-25 78(1 __ 47 _____ 69 .7.5

(.9 _ _

L-26 3 50 16 ____ 1301 ____ 2.7 01.703__

L-9 22(3 24 ____ 87 ___ 1.8 (1.74

-1-I 473I ) I6 1.7 11(1 3-3 32 3.9 7.33) 86 2 8 (1.76 451) 2.5 01.91 <0.0O9 1)02 (127 3)1)2 0.09 3 .3 0) 02 0) (89

92 190 8 7 S .140 I i 17 17 2.6 3/l IS5 1.2 120 1.3 (1.61 <01.1(11 0.31 (15 03 311 2502 'iii

(4 9203) 24011 520J 231) 1531 140(1 IM( 1(16 59(1 24! 13 970 42(0 263) <O3O011I 0.0.1 3. 6 1122 313)1 9) 'Ill I & .)

T- 390 26 __ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ 3.9 (1.95 _ _ _ _

T- 3 2 50 __ 2 3 ____ 84 ___ 2.8 1.3 _ _

D)ikh 6'I 00 I XIjIl 470 25(0 93 29(00 1(1( 23 72(0 233 1I2(1 1(1 41 1.( 3(2 (19 32 (30A( ' 0(. '

Il-I 4813 -II I I 8-I 23 27 35 7.6 31 1 1 2 1 18 14(0 8. 1 5.61 0(1.(5 O (I. (1.03410.08 0.I1 I

11-2 29') II 39' 62 2(3 12 11 el. 3 2(10 9.2 f 19 18 j1.2 0.610000.11 11(14 (1.3541(102 133 )7 81

14- 273) 9.2 3,50 56 9 7 2 1 22 4 II [671 0 .91 3511.3(071(0.0021(1 ) 50 (.3 91 0()02T1308 I "2I

WI4- 33)1 W3 3.1 68 201 II 43 4.2 481 1 8 1.7 17012.3 1.41(0.0031 01.03 1)16 10.03 (.06I

(1-. 29') 1 39 64 ___ II.1 34 41.2 36 1 6 1.9 j' ~O 5 1.9 011(02 j0.03 0312 0,0333 O I) ___ ___

(i-I 430) 4 6 3 1 99 32 5 53 6.5 59 18 1.2 3(1 (3.32 (1.15 O( I111 (3.139 0(148 311)3 O31 2 I - ' '

(J .2 211, 5I 3 9 51 16 5.7 27 .35 37 12 1.4 7(0 (1.53 (1.24 (3.00(3 (314 (3.3387 13(03 0 3, '' '

(i.3 27') 4.6 3. 6'l 19 3.9 '1.3 4 IN( 25 L. I 6i 1.3 (1.7 (0.1311 1111 01.073 (3(.13 033 33 - '' j

(3-) 630 691 7.8 1(35 33 47 73 8 2(1( 4(1 I 702 9.7 6.9 (1.0012 1)102 (11165 .2229.(I0 I -

G.,5 393312315. 9 79 22 22 54 53 97 23 1II 913 3.4 2.5(101(35 (1020T076 T 31606 ) -0 'II

Appendix 9

RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES,SWEDEN

RAPPORTutfardad av ackrediterat laboratoriumREPORT I,:;t!d tp, jt * -1ccr:dliOf Labrl.torl'

1004

VBB VIAK AB. Stockholim Cn V, V I I I I

-nxironmental and Natural Resources Protect Vo 1 50333-0)Box :1:0 44 Ra I'I'CreC' P-0 Scialn

i10 'o STOCKHOLM DaLze o'.4r-rrvJl 23 .-\pril. 100)0

Szanrionr: Liepaja Citx, Council

Samtiple collector: theClient

Sample 'NO 134588

Sarmie Label Well B I

Samohine Date 21 Mvlarch. 1999

Aliuminium (B) med 0.52 Z: Di2estion HNO./iK-Cr.O-

Arsenic (B) mc-I <0. 10 Benzene (GC!MS) g.il <0.1

Lead (B) mgil <0.05 Toluene (GC!/MIS) LggaI <0.1

Boron (B) m'I 0.13. Ethvlbenzene (GC;hlS) ug-l <0.1

Iron (B) mg 2.5 Xvlene (GC.'MS) uoicl <0.1

Cadrnium (B) muA <0.10 MTBE (GC,'MS) u_; <0.1

Calcium (B) mr] 46 Naphtalene gal' <0.10

Potassium (B) maii 5.8 Acenaphtvlene 4EY1 <0.10

Silicon (B) mgd] 3.7 Acenaphtene u2hl <0.10

Cobalt (B) m I <0.01 Fluorene gaid <0.10

Copper (B) mCA <0.01 Phenantrene 9,1 - <0.10

Chromium (B) mZ/I <0.01 Anthracene U1.l <0.10

Iithium (B) m2dl <0.01 Fluorantene 1l±J/ <0.10

Maagnesium (B) mgil 8.-7 Pvrene ug.l <0.10

Man2anese (B) mgt; 0.28 Benzo(a)anthracene . u.l <0.10

Molybdenum (B) mgr'l <0.01 Chrvsene ugi] <0.10

Sodium (B) m.'1 23 Benzo(b)fluorantene ut'l <0.10

Nickel (B) mc-, I <0.01 Benzo(k)fluorantene gual <0.10

StroinTium (B) mdll 0.1 Benzo(a)pyrene 4g!l <0.10

Sulphur (B) mail 1.4 Indeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene ugil <0.10

Vanadium (B) mc.l <0.01 Dibenzo(ah)anthracene u_/I <0.10

Zinc (B) mJ/I 0.02 Benzo(ghi)pervlene. U./1 <0.10

B: Digestion 0.34 M HNO; PAH. Sum of 16 ,tl/I <2.0

Mercury (Z) ad/l 0.03

*) Not included in the accreditation.

Stockholm 4 Mav. 1999

Vattenvardslaboratoriet

Tommy Karisson ''

vice Laborator9\.+anager

The Analytical ResilTs appiyonnlv to the sample in quesuon.Laboratories are accredited by the Swedish Board Ibr Accreditation and ConfornitvA \sscssmem (SWEDAC) under thc terms ot'S% edishLegislation. 1The Swcdish accredited laboratories mect the rcquircmcnts in SS-EN 45001 10119). SS-L:N 45002 ( 1tXn9) and GSolEC Giicdc25 (1990:E). This reporn may not be reproduced other than in fuil. exccpt wtih the prior wniten avproval o'tVSWEDAC and thc *ssuam-laboratory

:krediterat laboratornum utses av Styrelsen lor ackredlermng och teknisk kontrolD (SWEDAC) enhigt svensk laq.!rksamheten vid de svenska ackrediterade laborator,ema upptyller kraven i SS-EN 45001 (1989)

QS-EN 45002 (1989) oct, ISOIIEC Guide 25 (1990:E). SWECODenna rappori tar endasi aterges i sin helhet. om Inte SWEDAC och utktrdande laborator,um i lorvag :;kntflicen godkatn annal.

- RAPPORT* - utfardad div a8(ckredilcrit labLoraltini ni

7,C ' REfR'04T t,:;4s,rr t'yi in 4 :ri n .I>'t. If('t

1004

VBB \IAK AB. Stockholm .' \o V IlIEnvironmental and Natural Resourct. Pro,'s \'o. I I S0 -oI)o):;ON -,-4o1- P _J*.lG '( ) s.ll,;nl'0O 2o STOCKHOCLM DnLL' I) {sI ,rvli 23 Aort . I 000

.iSIlli)17. Licpaja Ci'tv CouncilSWInDi COLueIclo)r theclient

Sample No 134589Sample Label Baltex 2 LW4C 53Samplina Date 'lI March. 1999

Aluminium (B) mgI 1. Z: Digestion HNOJ!FK.Cr- OArsenic (B1 mul I -. 10 Benzene (GC.'MS) up.'l 0.78Lead (B) ma1l '0.05 Toiuene (GCi'M1S) ue'l 0.°3Boron (B) m- I 3.0 Ethvlbenzene (GC.'MS) u211 1.7i. on (B) mg. l :X Nvlene (GC!MS) ual 9.3Cadmium iB) ma I -0.10 NITBE (GC'MS) * ugil 0.16Calcium (B) mc I ; SO - Nanhtalene ,u.:l 0.60Potassium (B) maI S-0 Acenaphrviene a2!l <0.10Silicon (B) mo.l 1 Acenaohtene u_l <0.10Cobait (B) mcI 0.01 Fluorene .ail <0.10Copper (B) md l 0.04 PhenanTrene ai;l <0.10Chromium (B) mci 0.1 S Anthracene 4iz] 1.2Lithium (B) mdl 0.40 Fluorantene ti;] 0.80Magnesium (B) mci 160 Pxvrene igil <0.10Maneanese (3) mci] 1.9 Benzo(a)anthracene uc!l <0.10Mviolvbdenum (B) m=l <0.0 I Chrvsene ug;l <0.10Sodium (B) mcil 1500 Benzo(b)fluorantene 41 <0.10N'ickel (B) mil , 0.09 Benzo(k)fluorantene UtsI <0.10Strontium (B) m_l 0.89 Benzot'a)pyrene aZIl <0.10Sulphur (B) mZc'I - Indeno(1.2.i-cd)pvrene usl1 <0.10Vanadium (B) mci 0.04 Dibenzoc(a.h)anthjracene ucll <0.10Zinc (B) mOi' 0.13 Benzo(ghi)perylene ucI I <0.10B: Digestion 0.34 M HNO3 ---- PAH. Sum of 16 u°l 2.6Mercury (Z) gic/I 0.29

*) NoT included in the accreditation.

Stockhoim 4 Mav. 1999V atenvardslaboratoriet

Tommv Karlss5nvice Laboratorv Manager

The Analytical Results appiy only to the sampie in question.Laboratories are accredited by the Swedisn Board ior Accreditation and Conmirnitm ,scssmnint lSWFTDA( Llider thc tierms oi SwedislLerislation. The Swedish accredited lahoratones Imeet tht rcquiremnenus in SS-EN 451)l1 t 1 1su. Ss-1EN 4i002( )O O) andi ISOAUC E i(iodLc25 (1990:E). This report may not bc reproduced other than in lull. except with thc prior writcin appral SWEi)AC avd tb. issuWaIUlaboratorv

ckrediterat lanoratorium utses av Styrelsen fbr ackreditering qoc teknisk kontroll (SWEDAC) enmiht ;voensk iatq.erksamheten vid de svenska ackrediterade laboratorierna uppiviler kraven I SS-EN .15001 (119t'

aS-EN 45002 (1989) ocn ISO/lEC Guide 25 (1990:E).Denna rapport fir endast aterges sin helhet, om inte WEDAc och uttardande iaborntorsunr , torv.a(q kidtthin )0itkdkiltt .IuiMt SWECO

,. .,RAPPORTutfardad ziv ackretliterat la[-bor:11uot turREF'( bTIsr.*Jelle|t> . Ireo-1 , f:,'1jIf 1L. if,').12 le,I

1004

\'BB \IAK AB. Stockilklilml . :,m \, V l l IIEnvironmentai and Natural ResourLs Pruicci \P- VI) 1 l)0llBox : -044 P-rcr. uc: 1-U SCni.in.0 2 STOCKHOUL Djic of I rrivl 3 A\pril. 1e01)(

S. lU(fll. Liepa;ja il\ CotuncilSaiwplk coIlLctor: theClient

SamFie No 134590Sam ie Label W ell 5Samviina Date 21 March. 1999

Aluminium (B) m2.1 0. I S Z: Digestion HNO;/3 K.Cr-C. -O

Arsenic (B) maI <0.10 Benzene(GC 'MS) po/l <0.1Lead ,3) ng I o<0.0 Toluene (GCIMS) Ug/l <-0.1Boron kB) mg*! 0.40 Ethvlbenzene (GC/MS) uL/I <0. IIron iB) m! l 2.1 Xviene kGCIMS) 4tg'1 <0. 1Cadmium (B) m2.c <0.1I0 MTBE(GC.'MS)* ut:Ii <0.1Calc;ium (B) mg 1 79 Naphtalene uti <0.10Potassium (B) m l .3 Acenaphrviene 421 <0.10Silicon (B) m-d 6.5 Acenaphtene u_L'l <0.10Cobait (B) mcI <0.01 Fluorene tic/I <0.10Copper (B) mcl <0.01i Phenantrene tic/I <0.10Chromium (B) mE1 <0.01 Anthracene tic0 < 010Lithium (B) m2.' <0.01 Fluorantene PC-[ <0.10Magnesium (B) mil 36 Pvrene ugil <0.10Manganese (B) m. 1 0.1. Benzo(a)anthracene utsl <0.10Molvbdenum (B) m_l <0.01 Chrvsene uc;l <0.10Sodium (B) mBd 1- Benzo(b)fluorantene ac ' <0.ioNicke! (B) mZ;I <0.01 Benzo(k)fluorantene 421 <0.10Strontium (B) m-n/ 0.17 Benzo(a)pyrene ggef <0.10Sulphur (B) ma;l 13 Indeno(1.2.S-cd)pyrene u;l <0.10Vanadium (B) m_I 0.01 Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene u_il <0.10Zinc (B) mg,I 0.24 Benzo(chi)pervlene 4;l <0.10B: Digestion 0.34 M HNO- PAH, Sum of 16 4]A <2.0Merc:ury (Z) u/I] 0.06

t) Not included in the accreditation.

Stockholm 4 May. 1999Vattenvirdslaboratoriet

Tommy Karissonvice Laboratory Manager

rhe Analytical Results apply crnlv to the sample in question.Laboratories are accredited by the Swedish Board lor Accreditation and Coiilbrritmi AS.Lcsstcnt (SWEDACI under thC l.ernps o(l Si'%lihLe2islation. The Swedish accredited laboratones mcet the rcquircmcnti in SS-EN 4501t( I I I Xll. SS-EN 40it12 (I1 7S° aInd ISt0) 11W i itiud!i (1990:E). This repon may not he reproduced otiter than in lull, except with thc prior writtcn approval ot SW\ EDAC Jnid thc tstngcaboratory

kreditlerat aboratorium utses av Styrelsen t6r ackreditenng och leknmSk kontroll (SWEDAC) enliqt svensh laLq.rksamneten vid de svenska acKrediterace laboratoriema upplyller kraven i SS-EN 45001 ,1%891

SS-EN 45002 (1989) ocri ISO/AEC Guide 25 (1990:E).Denna rappon fir endast aterges i smihelhet. om inte SWEDAC ocne ulfardande inboralorsum i lorval sktttlumi n jlodkalilt 1n.i n

RAPPORTutti-irdacl iv ickr-e(dilet rl 101 ;1bor-l iii TIr

1004

VBS \.IAK .AB. Stockholm V I. I

EnT tronmental and \x.ttral ResotircLs 'l-row.'1 \ 1S0so\ >O' R .Icyvm: P-0) Sclmll;l

I 00 rt' STOCKHOL\I DL,Lw 0/' rYVLhI 2 April 1.0

.s'.Iio)n. Licpaia (i'I\ CounCilSampi co icU,or: thleCeiict

Samole No 134591Samrle Label W'ell 0Samolinc Date ' April. 1999

Aluminium (B) mc'l 0.o' .Molybdenum (B) m'l --0.01Arsenic (B) me!l -0.1 0 Sodium (B) mtl2 130Lead (B) m&'l -00E Nickel (B) m2il <0.01Boron (B) minc1 0.52 Strontium (B) mc'l 0.SnIron tB) mci 6.S Sulphur (B) mcs!] SS_aclmium B) mdl , 0.10 Vanadium (B) mdl <0.0;Calcium (B) mcil :00 Zinc (B) mc.1 9.1Porassium (B) mg/l 3.I . B: Digestion 0.m4Ivl HNO, ------Silicon (3) m_il 11 Mercury (Z) uc l <0.02Cocalt (B) mcil <0.01 Z: Dieestion HNO)'K.Cr-O-Copper (B) ma/I <0.0 I Benzene (GC!MS) 41.'I <0.1Chromium (B) mrdl <0.01 Toluene (GC.!vS) t4c/l <0.1Lithium (B) mail 0.01 Ethvlbenzene (GC,'MS) 4-1 <0.1Miagnesium (B) mJIi 42 XVIene (GC.'MS) UV1 <0.1Manganese (B) mail 0.49 MITBE (GC.MS) 42u_l <0. I

) Not included in the accreditation.

Stockholm 4 Mav. 1999Vattenvdrdslaboratoriet

- .1 : .

Tommv Karisson _ _

vice Laboratory Manager

The Analytical Results apply only to the samplc in question.Laboratories arc accredited hy Ute Swedish Board tbr A:creditationi and Confornitv Assessmcilet SWEDAl tC- uneir ihc ermcs o1t Scwdis%hLe2islation. The Swedisl accredited laboratories mect the requirements in SS-EN 4()001 tI''')), SS-EN 4it0(2 (1108()and IS0411 t uidtic25 (1Q90:E)l This reporn may not be repr)duccd other than in lull. except with thc prior written aipproval i SWII)\C an, i.h itmeiaboratory

rckrediterat laDoratorum utses av Styrelsen for ackrediterng och teknisk kontroll (SWEDAC) enliot svensk lao.'erksamtnelen vid de svenska ackrediteraae laboratotnerna upptyiler kravern SS-EN .15001 (1989)

SS-EN 45002 (1989) och ISOeIEC Guide 25 (1990:EStDenna rapport takr enclasl aterges i sin helhet. orn mtie SWEDAC 4)Ch uftiardatnde L;ibor.%i6rsim, i orv;at :h.nftitmtno. tit(iiii .nt 1ml 1 SWECO

RAPPORT-tfardad av .ickredileral laL)oralotmiti

RFEPnIT t t:;i ,ie'(t tit .1,1 -\(:u Lib '(. i ,

1004

VBBh VIAK AB. StockloIm hent r, V 1111En\ tronmental and Natural Rcsources Pro. \ I I00Box 340-LI R, cr.Zncc r , Scmnll100 lto STOCKHOLM Dat ot.-liri.,i A\pril 1000

.Stallon: Licpaja CitE ConllCi

Sunfl .o!/ikcor. thceClient

Sarmple No 134592Sample Label Well 25Sampling Date April. 190gu

Aluminium (B) m'l 0.40 Z: Di-estion HNOK,;;.Cr.O-.Arsenic (B) - mi 1 <010 Benzene (GC/MS) ,ut' 0.15Lead (B) mg l 0.05 Toluene (GC'MS) ug'il 0. 51Boron (B) ml 1 i Ethvlbenzene (GC!MvS) -±g') <0.1lron (B) mLI I Xv lene (GC.'MS) 42/1 0.74Cadmium (B) mcil '0.10 MITBE (GC'MS) * uc/1 <0.1Calcium (B) mc'! '70 Naphmalene ui!1 <0.10Potassium (5) m 1 150 AcenaphTylene g/1 <0. i 0Sili-on (B) mg ] 5.M0 Acenaphtene u2il <0.10'Cobalt (B) m I <0.01 oFluorene uo;l <0.10Copper (B) mg 1 <0.01 Phenantrene ugil 0.8Chromium (B) mc I 0.01 Anthracene uesl <0.10Lithiium (B) ma I 0.01 Fluorantene <g!l <0.10Magnesium (B) mc!, 110 Pvrene hg/I <0.10Mrlanganese (B) m.g/I 1.6 Benzo(a)anthracene I g=l <0.10Molybdenum (B) m'I <0.01 Chrysene u./1 <0.10Sodium (B) mci 1 i 100 Benzo(b)fluorantene 1.;1 <0.10Nickel (B) mcii 0.02 Benzo(k)fluorantene u'/l <0.10Strontium (B) mc;l 1.S Benzo(a)pvrene pig.l <0.10Sulphur (B) mail 31 Indeno(l.2.3-cd)pvrene ,l/l <0.10Vanadium (B) md_l <0.01 Dibenzo(ah)anthracene ug/l <0.10Zinc (B) mg/l 10 lenzo(ghi)perviene Pgt;l <0.10B: Digestion 0.34 M HN0; PAH. Sum of 16 4±g/l <2.0Mercurv (Z) uc/1 <0.02

iNot included in the accreditation.

Stockholm 4 May. 1999VattenvArdslaboratoriet

, . .

Tornmv'karlssonvice Laboratorv Manager

The Analyticai Results apply only to the sample in question,Laboratories are accredited by the Swedish Board tor Accrcditation and Cornlormiiy Assessmcnit (S\VEDAC) uisel.r tile nf SwedohLegislation. The Swedish accredited laboratories mect thc rcquircments in SS-EN 450io)1 IQ119). SS-I N 4 I5n2 l(I I aild ISt)llF i:iCic25 (1990:E). This report may not be reproduced other than in full. except with ihc prior wnrmen apponval of SWEDAC 3nd 1tic issnIIIIlaboratorY

.ckrediterat laboratonum utses av Slyrelsen for ackreditering och teknisk kontroll (SWEDAC) enJi,tl svensk Jaq.'erksamheten vid dJe svenska ackrediferace laboratoriema upptviler kraven i SS-EN 45001 (19891SS-EN 45002 (1989) och ISO/IEC Guide 25 (1990:E).Denna rapport far endast dterges i sin helheit om inte SWEDAC och uttardzinde laborr onroim torv,i' l'.kr,iti),fnl ,, ni *--- SWECO

b- ,"E ' RAPPORT;*- utlardad av acklediierlt liao lri- 1l it in

1004

VBE; \IAK AB. Stockholm Cn I17 \Vo V I I I

Environmental and Natural ResourcLs Profeur vo I I 5 o . -hoo)B.\ -10-14 RLd e ICnC P-( SC111;111

00 o2 STOCKHOLMvI Daic o/.-lrrvual 23 April. Io(0Slation: L ict pait Council

Sample enl/cctor: itheCtlite

Sampie No 134 587Samrle Label Ditch see vn '42, (f.ec-, 2 'Samplin2 Date 3 April. 1999

Aluminium (B) mcl 0.14 Z: Digestion HNOs/K.CrO-Arsenic (B) Mu m I 0. i 10 Benzene (GC!MNIS) ugai <0. 1Lead (B! mcI .o05 Toluene (GC.!MS) uI <0.1Boron (B) mL" l . Ethvlbenzene (GC/NIS) ucjl <0.]

Iron (B) mLI l3 Xvlene (GC/MS) 4C.l <0.1Cadmium (B) m2;l <0.10 MTBE (GC/MS) ueI <0.1Calcium (B) mc 20 Naphtalene <0.10Potassium (B) me;l _60 Acenaphrtlene uag <0.10Silicon (B) m_/ .0 Acenaphtene USl <0.10Cobalt (B) mcI <0.01 Fluorene i,0 I <0.10Copper (B) ma;I 0.01 Phenantrene u I <0.10Chromium (B) mci 0.01 Anthracene I0 1 <0.10Lithium (B) mci" 0.16 Fluorantene Io 1 <0.10Magnesium (B) mcil SI Pvrene Uo l <0.10MV1anganese (B) mgcl 0.54 Berzo(a)anthracene guo1l <0.10Molybdenum (B) mOl <0.01 Chrysene go l <0.10Sodium (B) me/] 820 Benzo(b)Tluorantene gel <0.10Nickel (B) mci = 0.0 Benzo(k)fluorantene gc_l <0.10Strontium (B) mcil ;.0 Benzo(a)pyrene gc 1 <0.10Sulphur (B) m_il -0 Indeno(l.2.3-cd)pyrene uggl <0.10Vanadium (B) mail <0.01 Dibenzo(ah)anthracene u2ci <0.10Zinc (B) . mg/i O.2S Benzo(ghi)perylene u_l <0.10B:,Digestion 0.34 M HNO3 ------ PAH. Sum of 16 uv I <2.0Mercurv (Z) ge/I 0.04

C) Not included in the accreditation.

StockhoLm 4 May. 1999VattenvArdslaboratoriet

Tommy rsson\vice Laboratorv N,6nager

The Analytical Resuits 3pplv only to the sampic in question.Laboratories are accrdiLCd by tihe Swedish Board tbr Accreditatioll and Cn frniutv A%sessetnit (SWED)A) t under tic thcrs bit- Sd%eiishiLegislation. The Swedish accredited laboratories mccl the 4equirements in SS-EN 4-;0w11 t io SS-E:N 45i)tu2 P Jklq) a1.. ISOIilV 61otde

25 (1990:E). This repon may not be reproduced other than in full. except with thc prir wvritten approvai bit'SWEDAC anJ thc isaiclaboratory

%ckrediterat laboratorium utses av Styrelsen tbr ackreditenng och tekntsk kotroll (SWEDAC) ornitct svensk tag.'erksamneten vid de svenska Licrediterade laboratorierna upplyller kraven i SS-EN .1500 1 (1 98t)

SS-EN 45002 (1989) onC ISO/IEC Guide 25 (1990:E)e , SWECODenna rappori tar encast aterges i sin helhet, om inle SWEDAC och) u11arOanoe 1abLzrxfont'orn i t Irrvaozsn1zz?1ns.stR

'" RAPPORT. utfardad av ackrediterat laboratorltirn

~ - ~ E;POf7 zN:.UtXd t'V Jan Ax(:;m/c>:fnt L.J(rjfx,ra1?

1004

VSB \'IAK AB. Stockholm Kundnummer V1114Avfalisteknik Unr/BnrBox 34044 Referens Magnus Montelius100 2 STOCKHOLM Ankomstdatum 1999-06-C2

' ; -< - .:_ ' '5 ' -_ Stationsnamn LettlandPlatsProvtagare Stefan Nilson

Provn ummer 136564 136565TidProvt.zatum 990527 990527Provmarkning Skede Grobina

COD-.r (Hach) ,A, 3100 220fiOD-- mcil 170 14

Kloric 21000 51Nitntkv6ve mc; 0.010 <0.002Nitratkv ave mcI 0.11 0.03Amm;niumkvave rc. 960 6.9Kvtve. totalt rm.n'l 1400 12

Stockholm 1999-06-10 Kopia till:Vattenvardslaboratoriet

Ulia RydeviLaboratoriechef

Metoder och matosakerheter finns pi oversanJ forteckning. cat 96-04.01. etler bil tlU denna rapport wga3er ackredilerade rappont-i till litvdkAunncl)esuitatet avser anctast oet analyseraote provec.ckrediterat latioratorium utses av Styrelsen lbr ackreditering och leknisk kontroll (SWEDAC) enlictt svensk liai.

verksamheten vid de svenska ackrediterade taboratonema upptyller kraven i SS-EN 45001 (1989 .ISS-EN 45002 (1989) och ISOAEC Guide 25 (1990:E).^enna rapDor iar endast Ateroes i sin helhet om inle sWr )r sw I rn

Appendix 10

RESULTS OF SURFACE WATERCONDUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS

I

Mitogs 1:10000 IScale 1 10,000

, :\Q/ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M a zd a r zllWi? I

5-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 6

$~~~ -a - -- -.4 ttf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rd 1a,I"I

l:'~ - -- -1 -b -Ng 60 11 0

.9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

°' 3 Oer!u lekirvaditsej S/cm 1999 gad apils

I 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p-

WWPJN~AI

01 Water conductivity, mS/cm (1 999, April)01.Odenu elektrovaditspeja, mS/cm (1 999. gada aprilis)

Results of surface water conductivity measurementsVirszemes iideiu elektrovaditspejas mereeumu rezultiati

Appendix 11

RESULTS OF PUMPING TESTS, SKEDE

I i-

Pumoing test anatysis Cate: 31.03.19991 Page 1

Recovery methcd aTter Project Leoala. Larvia

C.:nfined aqudter Evfaluatec bv: Levins

pumring 7es. Nc. 7est cnncuc.ec on: Levins

:Iscn. arge V.S0 iis

. u mcina test ouramicn: 0.02 . 3 d

.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .

0.21~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

co ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 0i

0.2g

0.310Wef[ L- I

.ransrnssivitv [m4d): 8.3,5 X 10.

H\yrauic concuc 'vity (rrva': 1.98 x!!

Aquifer thic.'ess [MI: 4.I00

Pumoing test analvss Date: 31.03.1999 i Page I

_Recovery methcc atter Projec. ,evala. 1-3tvia

.dt,

'7- ~ ~ ~ ~~~7.E' AO

=umcg 7e' .c Nc_e- nu' co:Lvn

-w iscna :e !3. V

, = n ;ura*n:0i0 ! 'E' |

X, ' _ \ ~I I i t

C.*

0.20oWeil L-2-

_ransr;,ssivity [m,di Z.5a xi O,

Hydrauiic ccnducdvity [rmVdi: =.as XIc

Aquifer thickness (ml: !.400

OumDing test anaivsis Date: 31.03.1999 Page 1Recovery method after

.-. iE;S & JACOB ~~~Projec,- Liepala. LatvraH?E~S & JACOBCznfined acuifer Evraluated bvy Levins

Pumping Tes; Nc. Tes. conoucued on: Levins

Ciss narse 0.50 Us

Pumping tes. ouration: 0.03 25 d

tJt,101 .02

~~.OC I \ $, ', ,, i I ' "~~~~~~~~~:3

i .i ! ,. .i I ! ' i

:.00- ~~ A. ...

:.08 . . .. I 3

40.2

-Well L-3

Transm_isawity [m2d1:1.09 x 10'\

I-iNcrautic co-ncuct2vty [mid]: 1.7.I x 10'

Aquifer thickmess jmj: 6.300

O.: 0. fl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

I~ ~ ~ ~~~~~l X

eW:11L4 - - - - I Siug ,est Nc. cgncTesticv (mid]: o.:5Levms

.~~ -'- - ------------

.0 ~ ~ ~

Weil~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L.C

1C HvCrui !.nuct ,mdl 11 xi O ;

Pumoing test analysis Date: 31.03.19991 Page 1Rec=very method atter ._'E Pro,iect iJepaja. Latviair-EIS & JACOBConfined acuiter Evaluated bv: Levins

Pumping Tes; No. Test conduced on: Levins

L-^ '

Discnarue o.' u0 Vs

2-mminc test curaticn: 0.0= c

~~~~~~>s ,II !: IC2

O.OA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1C

0.06

o.o,>i a

T,ansmissivitv f:~r 7:2 x I II I \

0.162 ,I

0.18 1 I

0.1620

'Nell :-5

T ransmissivity fmZIcl: 7 .52 x10

Hydiraulic conductivitv (rmdl: 5.27 x 10°

Aquiier thicimess [ml: 1.400

I -4'

siugibasi test analyss Date: 31.0319S9 I Page 1lSOUWE-R-ICEs metnod .L

ProjeG- UeSa;a Latvia|

Evaiuates bvy Levins

C-;ug ,es"No. |Ter.censuc ed on: Lsvinsl

0.0 3.^ 0.0 C.0 0.0 0.0 0.30 0.0 0.0 0.

r~~ ~ -- --- ---------- - - -!

. ' ' ' I I 1' 1 '' ' E~~~~~~~~~~I

r-- -- -- - ------ l- -l- - - - -,,--------

o Well L-6

Hyvd.-auiic =ncucvity tVdi: 7.27 1i O 1I

11-7

Pumping t esy Dole: 31.03.1999 Page 1RecOverY meUtod after Projecr Uspaa. L.atviaTi HES & JACOBUnconfined acuifer Evaluated by: Levins

Pun1ting 7es. No. 7es; conCucted on: Levins

L-7

0iscriarge 0.3i5 Vs

Pumping ,es' duration: 0.02014 d

Oo 1C c2

0.00 i

| ~~ I\ ! I , i

0.1E

a-o .1 .

0.45

oWell L-7

Transmissivt [mz/d]: 2.:30 x 10O

Hydraulic conduct:zviiy rrnidj: 6.07 x 1C0

Aquifer thicOmess .mi: 3.800

I l-i

_ Pumping test analysts Oate: 31.03.1t999 | Page 1

_ r-;E;S &.JACO atte Projec. t ieoala. Latvta

Unconfined acuifer E-valuated fvv Levmns

=urrizin , 7est Nc. | Tew, =_nduc.ed on: Levins

L-2

-~iise-.arcie 0.' O V,s

F-umning test curaticn: 0.0-. 25d a

0.00

0.06

0.07.,.- o I t \ . : ! i

! y au c ;ndu .vity [ . i I !IjI i*:

Aqfe thckes : m- i . . i i ;j;

I._

0 j0 , i , iI j.I :

- * *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0.05 - .e~ ; --

cI te tfikns Ii! I 320!0 I ' I i ,

11-9

Pumping test aiami Date: 31.03.1999 Page 1Recoverv metthod atter Project Uepala. Latvtar-F.E1iS &JACB08

_'ncznfined acuiter Evaluated by: Levmns

P-umr-:ng aes. No. 7 Tes; conducec on: Levins

L- ,

Discnarce 0.10 Vs

.umctng test auraticn: 0.01319 c

tt,C 10' 1C2

0.00-

0. 6

i ! t I I !;'. I

0.16

C.s

~ Weil L'

ransmssmity [m-ci: 1.46x 1

Hyd-raufic concucmity [migd: 4.85 x 10'0

Aquifer thickness [inl: 3.000

I

Appendix 12

RESULTS OF VERTICAL ELECTRICALPROFILLING, SKEDE

I

Appendix I,

Results of vertical electrical prioilling

ApparentPicket no Relative coordinates resistivity

x I jI om*m (h='))I I t ~ t8'<. 752 i 4 4.S! 920.4 o8,_ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _S _ 949.9 _ 374 5418 \ > '.949.9 12'__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i !9 4 76 o40 I 944 [ 67 i ~0S 1 944 48 1T 1 8944 1 2

10 454. 3 808.3 29I 11 ! '8 3.8 767 321 2 74928 __ __ 3_ _ __ __ _32

I 13 I 595.9 !9 7s.71 4214 643i.1 1 731.6 3515 01 T 737.' 54

16 424.8 =737. 5 28

j __________ _ _ 389.4 i 690. TI 28

18 354 649 42-| __________ _ 191 . 318.6 601.8 46

___________ _ -20 2 289.1 5 44.6 1 3921 2 3253.7 513.3 36

I_______________ 218.3 466.1 1 2423 312.7 1 495.6 3424 371.7 483.8. 4525 430.7 466.1 6426 1 483.8 M 454.3 5127 1 200.6 5311 3128 1 147.5 554.6 1 329 94.4 578.2 1 2730 41.3) 601.8 2031 1 454.3 672.6 3732 507.4 I 649 1 3533 554.6 1 625.4 1 2834 1 607.7 I 601.8 1 4135 1 660.8 5 78.2 4036 336. 1 35.7 [ 3)037 289.1 71 1 3'38 12 36 790.6 4239 188.8 1 820.1 8740 413 1 944 I_44

To be continued

C.nt')llUatiOt I.) t . f\ ppcdix I

43I I ' 42'. 8 436)()_.6 l ___ ___2

; an 1g',$ ' SEn-. I 14 1 31.

44 I '0 .S 424.8 1 545 383.5 9~~~~~~~~~~~78.2 46; T (~~~').ol o

! 46 I 4'3.t I560.5 44\501. 5 :.9 1 49I

48 554.6 I ' .2 j 55

Results of the vertical electrical sounding

ApparentPicket no Relative coordinates resistivitv

!~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Y y Om o-m (h=9I 407.1 361.4 34

3 I 4724 784.7 T 364 1 1 590 i 72 5.7 455 ! 3777.6 70.1 196 448.4 678.5 38

l 7 1 1 77 1 9';831.9 1 898 566.4 619.5 299 7 73 1.6 554.6 5010 560.5 513.3 1 5911 442.5 460.2 59

4. 12 531 944 1213 342.2. 979.4 66

Appendix 13

]DETAILS ON FORECAST FOR FUTUREWASTE PRODUCTION

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Forecast on future wasic aimotnms

Total vwaste amount in to\wlns and cities Separaied bv waste ivnes. in nnlol compacted)M0unicipal Park- ;arden Hospital I Decniolitlti II iLsLrIla I

'A oar wsaste dsaIe Was Wase Waste Total

10QS _ 7952t o 6000 1 S-0 41 4 I o00 1 0())O20I QQQ ___ _42_5 ________I I18 1 4211 1545 1 o(og

2000 I S2301 oi 9 I a-,5 43094 16931 1116S52001 i S8067 i o4 1 2071 1 .1404 ' IS117 1193482002 1 (5604 1 -220 2250 j 476') 14686 L 12961°2 00'Q; I 103S61 I 7S36 2442 I 5050 I 21366 i 1405552004 i 25-7 2 504 ! 264- j 5 4 1 23154 15221S200 1 121730 1 Q184 1 262 5 6 ; I! 25042 1644512006 i 125166 1 94 i 204 I 5651 T 25740 168952-2007 128689 ! 9 09 i 3026 2 5669 I 26474 1735672 0 01 13231 4QQ4 112 5687 27,2:3 1 17833i72000 i 136204 1 10i76 ! 203 -I -I 28020 1 83414_ 2010 140196 i 105777 S2' 53 ! 28841 1 1886462011 144300 0oSS7 3 33 5-59 I 29685 i 1940242012 ' 148547 110 3 49 5 30559Q I 199589201 153048 1 1154I 1 359 513 ,1485 1 2054922014 i 158129 1 11°30 371] 5844 32530 i 212151201 5 162503 12260 3 S1 5I5 3 3430 1 2178892016 163362 123 3 841 5906 33607 j 219041 Ji 201 164205 i1 89 i 3861 i 33780 2 22017'2018 165064 12454 i 38SI 5967 3 3957 1 2213232019 166066 i 12 29 3905 6004 ! ;4163 1 2226672020 167 100 1 12607 3929 6041 34367 24026

4064216

Total waste amount III lkn\'IS InId c'i1cs scpiarailtcd ov \vlSlC l m ' coinp;ic1 edNiunicipal u ks- DemI ollsitol e::niio Industrial

Y eLir W \aMSIe' ' ;cllviCS \;asle j asic I W,iSIC 1 .

Io 2:2 30 341or 13; ' !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, to t 2 I i 22Qu z ->479 ! 3034 541) j 4211 , 1103() i 4-X |

20()0 235~05 3 .105 553 [ 4.2l 1 112S- 2-i2001 25162 i 322 ! ' 12(7%8 4.t.32002 I2-11 i Thi0 i cA3 6 4,69 1 13124 4Q4S J2003 i 296%5> 3 qI 8 6iS 5(150 14244 1 535852004 3 2165 i 42'47 7 56 -41 ! 154- 742 005 1 47S0 45¢'2 i S8 5633 l66'qo 6251S2006 35'76 2 i S4]2 1 5651 17166 64142200- 36768 4S55 I S65 5 5660 1 17649 1 6S806200S -7- 8 4a2 I S | 88I 1689 1814967526200° i rSQl' 5138iS " 91 311 i 18680 6Q! 1;Qd 010 400'6 Q2SQ i Q42 ; 192_' 7 124°2011 I 41''9 5-44 i Q69 r Z7Q 19740 73 191 I' 201 42442 i 504 9QS 5 7 8 1 20373 75200

o01 4I ! 5724 1028 | o81' 20940 W373

2014 I SO180 5q65 1062 1 84 216S7 79729! 1 _ 46429 6130 1092 i 587 1 222S 81813

i 2016 466?5 6163 1097 i 5906 22405 i 82246201 7 46916 6195 1103 l i 5937 1 22520 I 826712018 4716 1 622', 1109 i 5967 I 2638 831022019 1-47 6265i 116 I 6004 22775 8360720 20 I 4 77 43 63,0-112 6041 i 22191 84128

715361,73

Note: compaction factors applied:

- municipal waste - 3.5

- parks-sardens waste - 2.0

- hcspital waste - j 5

- demoiition waste - 1.0industrial waste - 1.5

Total N-vasic amounl iII nlla-silhes s'par'li ed ;Lv vp!cs. Ili v I, 1oll0 C0IUcic(1)

N'lunicipal Pni ks- I spitaI D.noirioi;!u hmdusina lYear "vasl.c -ii Jwcs i asIe Waste WIsc j i j

wIsle

1000 4() I - I 160 IS o' I

* 2000 I 5342 S5c) - 1185 1 N _7J. 1 "200i 1 520 I 175 i 54 j 7(}7)

* 2002 58, 8 3s"2 s ) - I Il(> ! n1306 78oS200 , 6430 42" 1 142S I St 860L 00O4 $694 I4o !4 14Q 34 0332

2005 S >45 503 i > i - i 16736 10(22006 i 76S4 i 500z I I 6Q4 10208200 1 771 i I- I 1715 1 10I 3! 200S 8 '118-Ss , _2 1 - 173S 0]47- i200 7Q 44 '- 1762 j s 106152010 8 50558 ! 1787 j S I 107682011 SV-O 545 1 814 ! 2 10930 t

'012- 1 .41 1 14- I 1094 i201- 844 i 1870 1 404 1 11270

201 8 5 6 - 1;71 i 1900 410 11450;. 01' . 1Si0 1 SO - 1932 41V 1163 j2016 Ss -00 -9 1964 424 liS;

101 9010 oOO 1998 1 43 1 1 2039- : O 2S 9169 o l - 20-3 439 1222

> 2019 933~>4 ! o22 1 1 2070 1 44 ! 1247321 0 95;07 2108 i 455 I 12703

234013

Total wvaste amount in inanslhcs SC0r'aiL'j 1,\ N%;ISlL: I'NlTCs. 1 N (v ILOfl ipacitNijLnicipal I Pal- Piespital ollDldilloll niIIiildusuiji

Caear ! wasic j .ir-dcns VISIC' ;asltc ";1sic i tX\1lSi L I

!008 i-t' I I it 21

1000 140: ! - I i 1() I 6-

0noo0 I2- ,N 2 _ 1 8I is 171 , ()2001 151 1 1 I 117; | Ih i 04

F 00- 1 1682 j0 - lOs 1 S,'200 j I40 211 R | 142S 1 205 36S8

N2004 1 Qi 5 ! I1544 1 223 40002005 I 215o 2 2 1673 ! 24 1 43222006 j 218i 2 R_ 1 644 ! 244 ! 4376200- _20Q 25 t 17 15 247 4429

E 200S 223Q :( 2o I I -738 i 250 4488200 1 2270 265 1 1762 I 2)5 45502010 202 i 2o ; 1787 I 57 4615

V 201 I i 2;'- i _-i ! - t 1814 I 261 46852: ~012 i 2372 ! 2 i 18 I41 I 265 4755

i 2013 E 241 0 i 281 - 1870 I 269 483020i4 2448 286 1900 i 27 49017,2015 24I9 2940 1 92 | 27 8 4989

016 ! 25 : - 1964 1 283 5073_01 1 2574 300 1998 J 287I 5159

N OIS 2620 306 - 203 3 293 52522019 266- 31 11 2070 2 98 '346 J

t M20 2716 31, I 2108 I 30-3 5444

t ~100302

Total wasie amoulit. III V '(inoI comIpIattLd and compa dMcd)

Towns Pzir:shes, Tota.l 1 owns. otr lsIi s 11.iiY'ear I nO n 1flol COmilpacticcd c1ni ,1CLCL

comDacted I ;omricted I comipacted _ _I

I IQs ! 07021) ' S) I 14-5 4IS2- - 14

1000 1 O040 i II 07() 41 7(4 I "";' 447"1t 200() IlloS- i 118824 420 31o0 458IQ2001 1 149S IQQ k)9 1>477 45653 1 3(134 4RoS72002 ! 12961 ° i _S_S I 1374 7 49487 I ' I 8592 003 I 1405; I StO4 1 144154 I 5 585 36SS I 5 272004 1 )5221SI T 032 i 161550 I 57Q44 40(0 6144S2005 16445 1 10S2 1 1 74533 62518 1 432 668402006 I 168952 I 10208 i 1 7160 I 6414 2 4ST 68512007 1 73,567 ' 101 I ISiS38 65806 T 4424 702--2008 I 178-33 10-4 1 IS1ssio 67526 44SS i 720142i '009 i lSi414 i0H~ I 1 4029 - 69359 j 4550 739092010 188646 ' 10 oS I 190414 1 71249 1 4615 75864201] 1 194024 1 103() I 204954 73191 i 46S5 778762012 199589 1 1 0Q4 i 210683 75200 i 75 479955

2013 205492 V~~~~~0 216762 77333 i 4 83--0 - 821632014 2 1211 -I 1'0 223601 79729 i 490 - 84636

[ 2015 1 2178S9 ! 1 2 i 95'S 81813 S 498S 86802i 2016 i 219041 1S 230876 82246 S ,319

2017 i 2201`2 i 0 9 232 82671 5159 87830* 2018 I 22 1 32-3 i 237 83-1102 5252 8832542019 2 266 7 1-'I I 2-35140 S3607 5346 88952020 124026 1 1 0 2^36729 84128 5444 89 57

TOTAL 4064216 i - 401 4298229 1536173 1 00302 1636475

Total \astel am.ount in rcliln sc';ii cd 1i\ I\Ics t t \a'wIsto. Ill 'N' 1flo1l C('ti11 Cd

%I in iLtpa; I I.s- 1 iosplwl DCiuJ,t,i,nl Indi.Irlol I\ear ' V2SlUz ''aSIC .lvi'dcmn c IS I c w 1al,;

Year IC I o1al~~~~~~~~~~~~~"sI a.sle :!

I OL)S 84C44 3 , I I _____________ 1__ I oO47 f)

.1Oo° S-104" v41 18t'1 1 --- I I 7 15 1 I 1 IS()712000 S7t'43 >o1 Is~ 54044 n I'8 11824 2001 4. o34 ()0 2(0I1 i 6 74 | 18 I I 126r4772002 1015S2 >12 2250 N15 I1t | 137487 r

2003 110300 2o i 2442 647S I 21674 1 149159 2004 I 195561 ' 5 2S - ' 689) 2 40 11 6155 12005 1292-5 1 Oos-2St'2 306 2540 - 17453

200t 132805 i 005°>2 i 2q48 ! :345 1 2611 1 179160 200 1 136420 10-24 1 3026v -384 26844 1 838982008 140169 10506 I 312 ! 42 1 27598 j 1888102000 14.1148 10805oo 3203 7473 28400 1940292010 i4S254 11114 29 199414201 1 15 24'9 11432 0077 2049542012- 156S50 ! 11-60 3403 O62 3096 i 6 2 06 3

2013 1614S2 1210I O S5 9 683 i 1889 216762

20-1 16664S 12501 3 - 1S T .44 ;2940 1 223601201 171-1 12S40 3S_1 87 1 .38-47 1 22952S:01t ! -219 i2Q15 3S-1 7S70 ! '40^3 1 230876201 1 215 1 3861 79> i '11 2

201S 1 4-.23 1-065 388i S000 3496 233575201° I75400 1I35 3 95 8074 S '4610 235140202( i,6607 13240 1 3929 S149 i 4822 1 236729TOTAL 3194139 239446 OQ990 164195 ! 629459 1 4298229

1: --

Total uaste amouint in region separated bv wr rxPes of vasic. im v (clmnl- n l)iMlunicipal Parks- H-lospital Demnori ion Industial

Year waste 2ariJns Waste Waste wVasle Fotal

1098 241S4 1 'I_-i ! 5I4 529 I 11070 1 4425S1900 2,14474 j .___t_ i 40 1 i;-l I 111L-, 44'°l2000 2 25031 1 54 Q4 I I ____ 1458 458102001 1 2665 1 -- lo_ I 50 [ 5674 1 12247 4____2002- 29023 35806 6I 4 I 607 5 1 33 12 5285Q2003 3 115 j 4133 68S 6478 141440 57272004 ! 3416(0 1 4S0 7 5t 6890 15662 1 6]Q482005 36936 4S41 1 S I S 7306 i 16036 668402006 1 37945 4077 841 7345 1 17410 1 685182007 38977 511 3 I 865 7384 1 17S96 702'32008 40048 52;53 S8Q i 7425 I 1 8399 T 720142000 . 41185 4 403 915 4-7 18933 | 739092010 1 4235 8 954 i 9_ 75-22 19484 1 75864

o011 4 3566 1 S-l I 969 1 7573 20051 1 778762012- 44814 5SS1 998 7624 20638 79945

i 013 1 46138 60-55 1028 j 7683 21259 1 821632014 I 47628 6251 106: 7744 1 2195] I 846362015 48918 6420 1 1092 ! 7807 1 22565 1 868022016 49206 645 i 109' 7S70 22688 873192017 ! 49490 1 6495 1 1103 1 7935 22807 1 878302018 i 49781 653 i 1109 8000 1 22931 8835A2019 50114 6576 1 I i 6 8074 237 8895320210 504!59 1 6621 1123 i 8149 232- 20 3 9 572TOTAL 912625 119-36 202183 1 164 195 419636 1 63647 5

Note: compaction facTors applied:- municipal waste - 3.5- parks-gardens waste- '.0- bospital wasie - 3.5- demolition waste - 1.0- industrial waste - 1.5

I

Appendix 14

PHOTOGRAPHS, BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY, SKEDE SITE

14-1

14. pielikumsAppendix 14

Biologiska daudzveidiba Skedes apkartneBiodiversity at Skede site

1. att.: PalieVu plavas uz Tosniares ezera pusi.Fig. 1: Flood-meadows between Tosmare Lake and landfill Skede.

2. atti Melnalkku niedr-aja robela ar izgiiztuvi.Fig. 2: Border of Comimon alder reed stand with the landfill.

14-2

3. att.: Dilci izgaztuves dienvidu un dienvidausirumu mabLFig. 3: Ponds along southern and south-westem side of the landfill.

4. att.: Purva tilbite dilci vecas izgaztuves niala.Fig. 4: Wood Sandpiper in the pond near old part of Skede landfill.

14-3

5. att.: Berzu dumbrajs.Fig. 5: Birch swamp.

6. att.: Melnalk9u dumbrajs.Fig. 6: Common alder swamp..

144

7. att.: Purvmirtes audze.Fig. 7: Stand of Bog Myrtle

8. att.: KApu plava uz rietumiem no izgaztuves.Fig. 8: Dune grassland to the west from the landfill.

14-5

9. att.: lesirma kapsmildzene.Fig. 9: Club Hair-grass Corynephorus.

10. att.: Kapu plava ar iesirmo kapsmildzeni.Fig. 10: Dune gmssland with Club Hair-grass Corynephorus.

Appenidix 15

PHOTOGRAPHS, BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY, GROBINA SITE

15-1


Biologiska daudzveidiba Grobinas apkartneBiodiversity at Grobina site

,XMI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. att.: Armijas pamesta s teritorijas Grobigas iecirkmi.Fig. 1: Former army areas at Grobina site.

2. att.: KArklu audzes.Fig. 2: Ocier stands

15-2

3. att.: Prieu, eglu, berzu mezi ap perspektivo CSA poligonu Grobini.Fig. 3: Pine, spruce, birch forests around proposed Grobina site.

4. att.: Auglu dArzs Melbertu)u maju vieta.Fig. 4: Orchard at former Mezbertuli house.

Appendix 16

PHOTOGRAPHS, LANDSCAPES,SKEDE SITE

16-1


Ainavas SIedes izgaztuves apkirtneLandscapes at Skede site

' ~

1. att.: Skats no vecas Liepajas pilsetas atkritumu izgaztuves uz mazdirzi*iem. Prieksplanaar kidru un smilts maisijumu apberta atkritumu izgaztuve, talplina mazdirzi#u apbuive.Ainavekolotiska ziga savstarpeji nesavienojama zemes izmantolanas veidu. kombinacija.Fig. 1: View from Liepaja City landfill to summer gardens. In front landfill covered withmixture of peat and sand, in background summner gardens. That is incompatiblecombination of land usage from the view of landscape ecology.

2. att. Skats uz perspektlvo Skcedes CSA poligonu, kur patreiz ir grisXu plavas ar dazadu sugukarklu un berzu puduriem. Teritorija saglab&jugies atklItie melioricijas gravji, kuriem irne tikai liela nozime pie hidroloAiska rezlma regulsganas, bet tie palielina an ainavasbiologisko un ainavisko daudzveidibu.Fig. 2: View to the proposed Skede landfill, where currently are sedge meadows with birchand osier clusters. Open drainage ditches are left in the area. They are important notonly for regulation of hydrological regime, but also increases biological and landscapediversity of the area.

16-2

3. att. Skats uz nosedumu dilkiem pie vecis Liep&ijas pilsatas atkritumu izgiztuves. Tie veidoloti ipatneju cilveku veidotu ainavu, kcura no vienas puses palielin ainaviskco daudzveidibu,bet no otras puses ir kai kinmiski, ta arn vizuali loti piesirpota.Fig. 3 Settlng ponds at the old Skede landfill. They form specific man-made landscape thaton one hand increases landscape diversity, but on the other hand is strongly contamiinatedand littered

4. att.: Melnalks u un boe zu dumbrijs uz dienvidiem no perspekttivi kitdes CSA poigona.Fig. 4: Black alder and birch swamp to the south friom proposed Skede site.

Appendix 17

PHOTOGRAPHS, LANDSCAPES,GROBINA SITE

17-1

17. pielikunmsAppendix 17

Ainavas Grobinas perspektiva iecirkna apkartneLandscapes at Grobina site

1. att.: Prielu, eg}u un berzu mezaudze uz dienvidrietumiem no perspektivks atkritumuizgaztuves Grobinas pagasti. Talplana redzama Grobivas pilsetas atkritumu izgiztuve.Fig. 1: Pine, spruce and birch forest growth to the south-west from proposed Grobina site.In background Grobina Town landfill.

2. att.: Skats uz perspektivo Grobivas CSA poligonu, kur patreiz ir pamestas lauksaimniecibaszemes ar dazadu sugu karklu, priedes un berzu koku un krumu puduriem.Ainavai piemit mozaikveida raksturs.Fig. 2: Proposed Grobina site, wherr currently are abandoned agricultural lands with clustersof osiers, pines and birch and bushes. Landscape has mosaic structure.

17-2

3. att.: Sekundaras izcelsmes prielu puduri uz bijusam lauksaimniecibas zememperspektivaja Grobbvas CSA poligona veido loti interesantu un savdabigu ainavu.Talplani redzams pamests pazemes bunkurs.Fig. 3: Secondary pine clusters on former agricultural land at proposed Grobina sitecreate very interesting and specific landscape. In background abandoned undergroundbunker.

4. att.: Raksturigi ainavas elementi perspektivaja Grobiqas CSA poligona ir Padomju Armijaspamestas pussagrautas buves.Fig. 4: Characteristic elements of landscape at proposed Grobina site is half-demolishedabandoned buildings of Soviet Army.

17-3

5. att.: Emocionals vizualas ainavas elements ir ziedogs augju koks uz Padomju Armijasbiivju drupu fona.Fig. 5: Emotional element of visual landscape blooming aple tree in front of buildingruins of former Soviet Arny.

6. att.: Saglabajies Meibertu1u saimniecibas auglu darzs perspekivaja Grobi4asCSA poligona.Fig. 6: Old orchard of Mezbertuli remained at proposed Grobina site.

Appendix 18

DESCRIPTION OF WATER SAMPLINGPROCEDURE

.

Is-I

Appendix IS

Description of water samplin;, procedure

20 vlarch. 1999

Well L-3Static GW level - 4.78 m bclowv well headDepth of the * ell - 25.7 m below wcll headPump - MP1 GrundfosPumping rate - 0.6 l/s

_~~ ~ ~ . .L

11 -53 Start of the pumping11-j6 -. 5012 - 03 5.5312 -'07 8.4 987 7.4012 -13 5.54 8.4 962 7.4412 - 17 8.4 951 7.4412 -2 55 8.4 942 7.4312 - 28 8.4 932 _7.43

12 - 33 5.55 8.4 920 7.43Sampling

12- 37 .8.4 905 7.43

Well L-7Static GW level - 0.87 m below well headDepth of the well - 4.81 m below wrell headPump - MPI GnmdfosPumping rate - 0.35 I/s

i: GW i,,.& ' TL-mvr-1-are. 'C E. 2d' .tS: Th

13 - 01 Start of the pumping13 - 04 2.8413 -06. 2.71 3.8 . 220 7.381; - 10 2.71 3.6 221 6.9213 - 16 2.71 . 3.6 223 6.8413 -20 3.6 228 6.8313 -23 3.6 237 6.8113 - 26 2.71 3.6 245 6.80

Sampling13 - 3() 2.71 3.6 250 6.80

IX-2

Well L-9Static GW Icvcl - (1.97 m bclow N cll hicadDcpth of the rcll - 4.70 m below wcll hlcadPump - SupersubPumping ratc - 0. I 1/s

14 -II Start of lhe pumping14-14 1.3214 - 16 1.3414 -23 1' 5(1 3X89 (,.7214 - 26 5(1 .97 . (,x14 - 30 1.3.8 5.() I96 6.80

Sampling

Well L-8Static GW level - 0.64 m below well headDepth of the well - 4.57 m below- well headPump - SupersubPumping rte - 0.1 1l/s

. - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . ... .. _.. ...... .. ... . .

14 - 56 Start of the pumping14 - 58 1.0715 - 01 1.0915 - 06 1.08 4.0 299 6.3715 - 08 4.0 302 6.5215 - 12 1.(8 4.0 306 6.5815 - 14 1.08 4.0 309 6.59

Sampling

Well L1Static GW level - 4.18 m below well headDepth of the well - 33.45 nt below well he3dPump - MP1 GrundfosPumping rate - 0.6 l/s

.:1';' -'' ....... ;+11-4 -. ' 4 , .. -',' ,,;- ':-- j

15 - 53 Start of the pumping15 -55 4.8516 - 00 4.85 11.2 703 7.8716 - 02 10.9 691 7.4416 -05 10.9 688 7.3816 -08 4.87 10.9 684 7.3516 - 12 10.9 683 7.3416 - 15 4.88 10.8 6S5 7.3316 - 18 4.89 1(1.8 683 7.32

Sampling16 - 20 4.89 1(M.8 683 7.32

Well B-IStatic GW level - I. 4 m bclow wcll headDEcpth of the vell - 3.20 m below w'cll hlcadFPump - SupersubFPumpin, rate -0.1 1/s

I, - (0 Start of thc pumping17- 12 1.7S17 - lo IS 665 7.0117 -20 66:' (.7417 - 24 1.78 3.7 605 6.74

Sampling

Well L-2Static GW level - 3.91 m belowN wNell headiDepth of the well - 26.35 m below well headPumnp - MP1 GrundfosPumping rate - 0.6 l/s

17 -57 Stan of the pumping17 -59 4.6318.07 4.8218-=08 8.1 703 7.318 - 10 8.0 702 7.4618 - 13 4.87 8.0 701 7.4918 - 18 4.88 8.0 700 7.5018 -26 4.88 8.0 700 7.51

Sampling

Well L-4Static GW level - 0.69 m belo%N Nvell headDepth of the well - 4.3 7 m belowv well head

18 - 35 Cleaning of the well using MP1 Grundfos

:1 March. 1999W ell L-6

Static GW level - 0.48 m below well heldDepth of the well - 3.03 m below wcll head

10 - 30 Cleuiing of thl well using NIP I Gnindfos

W\ell L-4Pump - SupersubPumping rate - 0.05 Vs

2- w . k - . . S .I>4 --X

10 - 50 Stan of the pumping10-55 3.8 3.7 711 6.610 -9 4.0 3 4 596 6.6811 -O 4.0 3.4 53 5 6.6211 -08 4.0 ; 522 6.51

Sampling11 - 10 .,.' 523 6.59

Well L-5Static GW level - 0.90 m below well headDepth of the well - 4.45 m below well headPump - SupersabPumping rate - 0. 1 Vs

12 -34 Stant of the pumping12 - 35 1.2912 -3-19 1.32 2.6 606 6.8412 -44 1.30 2 597 6.8512 - 49 2.' 595 6.8212 -54 1.30 2.6 594 6.81

Sampling13 -07 1. 0 2.6 596 6.85

Well L-6PVC sampler

13 -20 5.8 659 7.5Sample

13-30 5.0 733 7.1

Well B-2Static GW level - 0.93 m below well headDepth of the well - 2.78m below welL headPump - SupersubPumping rate -0.1 lVs

14 - 3() Start of the pumpingt14 -55 1.96 1.6 270 6.7o14 - 59 1.96 1.6 't68 (09

Sampling

A April. 1999Well L-'0

StatC GW level - 0.6,5 m below well hcadDepth of the well - 2.49m below well licadPump - SupersubPumping ruet - 0.0 i 1/s

_ 16 -;35 Stan of the pumping16 - 4(0 4.3 14() 6.6016 - 3 .6 1430( 7.0 17 -00 145( 7.1017 - 06 3.0 1450 7.02

Sampline

17 - 10 2.8 1460 7.02

Well L-21Static GW level - 0.83 m below well headDepth of the well - 2.50m below well headPump - SupersubPumping rate - 0.03 I/s

17-3 0 Stan of the umping17 - 35 510

17 - 41 3.0 526 6.6217-49 2.7 521 6.9117 - 55 2.8 519 6.97

Sampling

18 - 00 2.6 496 7.05

Well L-22Static GW level - 1.08 m below well headDepth of the well - 2.49m below well headPump - SupersubPumping rate - 0.03 I/s

18- 15 Start of the pumping

1B- 19 3.3 56218 - 22 3.0 570 6.5518 - 24 3.1 555 6.8818 - 30 3.0 548 6.88

Sampling18 - 37 2.9 541 6.77

U elI L-'3Static GW lcvcl - 07 rn mel( n ell huidDcpth of the wcll - 2 49ml below ell II,a-d?.mp - Supersub

uamptni ratC - 0 0) L's

.~~~~~~~~~~- ,, , ,.,. ,, ,., . -- .. .Oi .II..L. .. II. -

1- 0) I Start ol thev ptilinpinu

19) - 1' 4.(' . o

10 - I 4; 4. t 7) ti-7 70)

N - '4 4 o f)1401 0. 0,

Samplinu

19- 30t 44^ ,'9)544()19 _

A .pril, PQ9

VV ell L-24 (temporarv)Static GW level - 0.87 m below surfacePump - SupersubPumoing rate - 0.03 U/s

18 - 24 Stan of the pumping936

19 - 6 .8 961 6.6719 - 10 5.8 96-4 6.80)19 - 14 967 6.8319 - 20 . 970 6.82

Sampling

I Mav. 1999Well T-3

Static GW level - 0.26 m below surfaceDepth of the well - 4.75 m below surfacePump - SupersubPumping rate - 0.05 I/s

- ~ ~ ~..-

13 - 50 Start of the pumDing14-25 525 285 6.2514- 28 5.3 29() 6.3214-i2 5.5 2-8 6.341 -3;5 5.5 2S8 6,.31

SamDimeS

I8-7

Aell L-25 (tempor:ary)Static GW level - 0.1 m below surfiacePump - SupersubPumping rate - 0.03 lls

18 - 30 Stan of the pumput;_ IS -5 6.5 107() 6 418 - 41 6.3 108 6.8618-47 6.2 1(SI 6.88

Samvlina18 -55 6.2 18)4 6.89

2 Mavy 1999

Well T-1Static GW level - 3.96 m below surfaceDepth of the well - 21.3 m below surfacePump - SupersubPumping inte - 0.07 V/s

_~~~~~~~~~~~ _

10 - 55 Start of the pumpMg16-18 i.2 724 7.3216- '7 8.2 744 7.3516 - 39 8.2 745 7.3516 - 53 8.2 745 7.35

Sampling

Well L-26 (temporary)Static GW level - 0.1 m below surfacePump - SupersubPumping rate - 0.03 V/s

-~~~~~~~~~~~~P iale t :ieonur;sltlrt. "C £t i- ' ). uScL Hc'P.

13 - 20 Stan of the pumping13 - 27 6.5. 521 6.2013 - 32 5.9 . 494 6.5213 - 36 5.8 394 6.6213 - 39 5.6 424 6.58

Sampling13 -44 5.6 414 6.43

Well L-29 (temporary)Static GW level - 0.4 m below surfacePump - SupersubPumping rate - 0.07 V/s

20 - 57 Start of the pumpmg21 -0 5.9 5) 921 - 10 5.8 250 565

Sam_fin.

Appendix 19

MAIN DATA OBTAINED DURINGSAMPLING OF GROUNDWATER AND

SURFACE WATER

I

l -l

Appendix 19

Main data obtained during sampling of groundwater and surface water

Well T-C .EC (20000 I pH (Orgranolepfic ch2araclcristi Laboratorvms;cm aiialv,sis

L-1 10.8 68 7. 3 Slizht addition of sand. without smell ExtendedL- 8.0 70 7. 5 I Bright. uncolored. without smell ExtendedL-3F 8.4 91 7.42 Bright, uncolored, without smell ExtendedL4 3.4 52 6.55 Yellow color. marsh smell Extende.d.L-5 2.6 60 6.85 Yellow color. marsh smell ExtendedL-6 5.0 70 7.3 lAddition of sand and silt. without smell ExtendedL-7 3.6 25 6.80 Yellow color, marsh smell ExtendedL-8 4.0 31 6.59 Yellow color. marsh smell ExtendedL-9 5.0 40 6.80 Yellow color. marsh smell ExtendedL-20 [ 2.9 145 ] 7.02 Yellow color, marsh smell ExtendedL-2 1 2.7 51 7.00 Yellow color. without smell ExtendedL-22 | 3.0 55 | 6.80 Yellow color, marsh smell ExtendedL -23 1 4.5 | 690 6.8 Dark yellow color, strong rotten smell ExtendedL-24 5.81 97 | 6.82 Yellow color, marsh smell ExtendedL-25 6.2 1 108 1 6.88 |Yellow color. marsh smell ShortenedL-26 5.6 | 42 ! 6.5 lYellow color. without smell ShortenedL-X7 | -1 23 | Yellow color. uncolored. without smell INoL-28 400 1 IDark yellow color. strong rotten smell INoL-29 2 25 1 IBright uncolored, without smell INoB-1 | 3.7 66 | 6.74 |Yellow color, marsh smell lExtendedB-2 1.6 27 16.78 lYellow color, marsh smell IExtendedT-1 ] 8.2 75 | 7.35 jBright uncolored, without smell IShortenedT-3 5.5 1 29 | 6.32 Yellow color, marsh smell |Shortened

Ditch | 7.4 | 660 1 7.0 |Yellow color. strong rotten smell lExtendedPool I I3700 --- Da-rk Yellow color, strongz rotten smell IShortened

Results of surface water conductivity measurements, Grobina

Meas. point EC (200 C), ms/cm I Meas. point EC (20°C), ms/cm1 57 I 4 622 57 5 . 423 54 I 6 58

Data of measurements: March 24.1999

Appendix 20

ABSOLUTE HEIGHTS OF WELL HEADSAND GROUNDWATER TABLE

I

Appe ndix 20

Absolute leiblits of well headts :iid ,roun.idwater t;)ble

If ell SurlJxwc, in 1Jell head. ni if 1l /iwld.> (.;rmindI-raler (Gru,:iZ,l- 1Ailf ota.m.x.l. IIhio", in level, In bLeimr wtah'r elecl. 11eCUPSUe lr/c11 0/

s urJ,~' i 11/ell hCad it am.x. a IntsI !rciltral%I"er levelL- I~ I> | ()(o 595 | . 4.1 S- 1.77 20-Mar-'>L-2 ,1 0. 7 3.x | Al -I.03 20-Mar-9)9j L-- T 4.21 0.70 4.91 4.78 0.13 20-Mar-99L-4 3.56 0.4o 4.02 0.o,9 3.33 20-Mar-') 9

__L-5 4.06 0 43 449 () 90.-3.59 21-Mar-99i L_6 I1.-8 l).3S 1.96 0.48 1.48 21-Mar-99L-7 4.20 0.67 4.87 0.87 4.0() 20-Mar-99L-8 4.43 0.42 4.85 0.64 4.21 20-Mar-99L-9 A) 4.62 O.0 5.22 0 0.97 4.25 20-Mar-99L-10 14.59 (.47 _ TL-11 14.10 j 0.2 I _ 7 IL-12 11.14 (0.60 _

B-1 4.48 0 .60 5.08 1.34 3.74 20-Mar-99B-3 5.00 0.6() 0 5.6 I 1.35 4.25 21-Mar-99B-2 _ _ 1 0.93 21.03.99L-20 1 0 02.05.99L-21 _ [ 0.83 _ _02.05.99

L-22 j 1.08 02.05.99L-23 { 1 | j 0.87 02.05.99L-24 ] j___ j___ ____ 1 0.87 03.04.99T-; ___________ ___________ __________ T 0.26 01.05.99L-'5 1 ___________ I ____________ | __________ 0.1 01.05.99T-1 3 _ 1 i 3.96 02.05.99L-26 I _ i 0.1 02.05.99L-29 I _ J | 0.4 j 02.05.99

I

Appendix 21

SOCIO - ECONOMIC ASPECTS

21-1

Appendix 21

Socio-economic aspects

LIEPAJA 'SKEDE'"

Position of Liepaja municipalitv

It is rather difficult to ascertain a position of such a wide organisation as Liepaja municipality.Various experts did not felt beinc certified to express it. The manasinu director declared in avery diplomatic way - making a decision on most suitable site for a landfill. Liepaja CityCouncil will rely on investisation results and expert's recommendations. Costs will be taken intoaccount as well. so it would be cheaper for inhabitants. Just now it is too premature to judgeabout it: when investigation work is finished then a decision will be made.

Liepiija summer garden co-operative Skede

The total territorv of the co-operative is 126 ha.. planned for 1587 land pieces i 600 m per landpiece. It is located in Medze pagasts. Referring to the information provided by a person who isresponsible for the land use. just now approx. 1200 land users are in the summer co-operative,and approx. 200 owns their lot. The privatisation process continues. As in most casessurrtmerhouses are built there. some of co-operative members are even registered there. At thebeeinning this co-operative was formned by army people. mostlv non-citizens. It means thatforrnalisation of land as their property costs more than for citizens. The formalisation andregistration of one land piece costs approx. 150 Ls. The cadastre value of one land piece isapprox. 65 Ls.

According to co-operative members. the co-operative was formed in the end of 70ies. Themarked territory was swampy, a lot of black earth was brought there with a purpose to melioratethe soil. The amount is different for each of the ploL 50-300 auto loads were mentioned. If welook at the area in the springtime. early May. we can assure. that instead of a swamp a bloomygarden is formed. People are willing to remember their primary enthusiasm and heavy work. butone of the respondents admitted that he will not do it a second time.

Referring to the information provided by Liepaja City construction inspectorate, a landfill nextto tlhe Liepaja City border and near to the Tosmare Lake is formed in 1972. The members of theco-operative declared that they have been there from the verv beginning of the formation of co-operative. and they could not clearly remember what was first - a landfill or co-operative. Arespondent. who got a garden in 1980 in the second newest part. which is located within adistance of 100-200 m from the garbage hill. assured that some time ago when a gyarden wasassigned, it was a condition that in a near future the landfill will be closed.

Inhabitants of the second block feel a direct impact of a landfill. because between cottages andthe garbage site, there are not any plantation. except some trees. The Landfill is not enclosedandpeople, who are looking for useful things there. are walking through the summer co-operative.The first block , which forms the major part of co-operative, is separated by a forest line.therefore inhabitants do not see the landfill directly, but feels its impact any way.

The majority of people was concerned about the quality of drinkin- water and strong odour thatcomes from the landfill in case the wind is from that side.

Drinkingn water

The majoritv of inhabitants does not use local water. only teew told that Lhey mav bolil it buLtdrinking water is taken from a citv. As inhabitants explained. referring to the sanitary inspeclion.the water in the streets. which are next to the landfill. can not be used lor drinking, or l'oodpreparation . Onlv in the 17'h street can the water be used- The local water is used for watering olgardens.

Smoke, airpollution

Air pollution after a waste burning. is noticeable particularly in the early morning. In case of thefog at nizht-time. gardens are covered by 'smo2". The smoke is very strong. it it imrtates theeves and . eyes are watering. In cases when the wind blows from the landfill, people withrespiratorv diseases during daytime return back to the city. People consider dust from the wasteburning. covers trees and reduces vields in the orchards.

Resources of recreation

Tosmare Lake perishes, impossible to angle. to go boating. The surrounded forests are littered -it is not possible to collect mushroom or berries. There is just the sea -in a distance of aprox 30min walkina.

Estimating that situation, it is hard to understand how that can happen, how two so contradictorvobjects can exist so close to each other and it can last for such a long time. It is not possible thatthe situation can become worse than it is. therefore any modernisation and infringements can beonly for good.

From another side - people has gained a very negative landfill experience during these years anda message about landfill closure would be accepted with a great relief by the locals. In case ofenlarging and reconstruction of the landfill. a very patient and wide explanatory job is needed.Inhabitants of co-operative would be very easy organised for different protest actions, in casethat project would not seem to them acceptable.

30 persons were inquired in the Gardening Company. mostly from the streets, which are close tothe landfill. The impact of existing landfill is so apparent, that it is verv difficult to speak aboutsome future perspectives and enlarcement possibilities. More detailed information about newlandfill project. waste storage. sorting and processing technologies is possible in case an opinionof some people could be changed.

Summary on questioning results: attitude towards landfill modernisation and enlarging indirection to the Liepaia citV

FOR DO NOT KNOW AGAINST.Number 3 6 21Score 1 2 7

GROBINA

Grobina pagasts

The problem of waste was raised in Grobina pagasts a Ionug time ago. We were *"in up to ourears". was admitted bv Mvlayor of the papasts. Three years ago the waste disposal near "PuranLi"household was stopped. Waste was disposed and burned there. In 1)95 3.2 ha were marked inthe territory of a former armv rocket base for locatina of the Grobina solid waste dumpsite

The municipality agrees to and supports the location of a new regional landfill in the territorv offormer shooting-range. It would involve an opportunity to modernise the waste management.and would bring about new work places and resources for development of the territory. Themajor problem is the landowner's attitude. The whole territory of a former army shooting-rangeis located on private property. The pagasts has offered a bargain: 30 ha of good forest aaainst 50ha poisoned ground. An owner primarily agreed on this business. but finally he was not satisfiedwvith the offer and the deal did not take a place. Members of the landowner's family participatein every meeting, usually only the landowners are participate in public hearings. Now the ownersto participate in the implementation of the landfill project and do not want to abandon their landrights.

Grobina town council

.Although the distance between designed landfill site and Grobina town is approx. 3 km. it isinterested in the localisation of the regional landfill. because of a planned reform to establishjoint: administrations of towns and pagasts in the future. In this case the location of a landfill inthe paeasts will be advantageous also for a town. The selected site is located in the outskirts ofthe pagasts. near the border with Medze pasasts. It should be noted that this site would never beusedi for agrnculture. because of the existing pollution. To assess the impact to the human healthof town inhabitants. special investiaations are needed. The use of European level of technologycauses expectations that impacts on the environment and human health will be minimal. Landfillsite has a "good geology", however a problem with waste waters is not solved by existingtechnology. Water, which collected. is canalised in the forest.At the moment Grobina inhabitants pay 25 santims per capita for waste collection. Disposal ofwaste in the landfill is for a definite cost - 0.5 -1 Ls per container/load. Two Liepaja companiestake waste to the Grobina site. The inhabitants would be interested in waste collection withconditions that "it would not much affect their pocket".

Land owner

At present the landowner is in USA and a conversation was orcanised with his daughter. Thefamily property covers 93 ha land, including a part of the former army territorv. The ownerconsidered to afforest that territory, because it is not worth anything for other activities.Therefore the municipality's offer to change 30 ha against good forest was acceptable. However.later on the municipality has changed conditions and terms, bv asking 50 ha of that land. Theland owner did not agree on this by principle. Now it is doubtful if thev accept a change anvmore. They support a landfill project and consider the idea as a good way to use that land. butthey are eager to have advantageous conditions The owner would be willing to lease the land fora period of 30 years in accordance with world-wide acceptable standards. The family is ready fordiscussion and ready to agree on advantageous conditions.

lnhabitants

The inhabitants of the nearest houses to the landfill live in two adminiistrative territories -Grobina pagasts and Grobina town. Looking from Medze pagasis a forest conceals the landt'ill.hoxvever behind the forest and in radius of 2-3 km several houses are located. The attitude ol'those inhabitants was not clarified in the questionnaire.

Grobina pagasts inhabitants had suffered a lot from the forner landfill. which was located nextto the "Puranu' household. Present landfill satisfies them because it is farther away andintercepted bv wood clusters, however. if we speak about enlarging that territory, some peopleremembers the 'Puranu'' case. People are more concerned about the road rather that about thelandfill location. Some of houses (Sunaisi. Purani) is located at the access road. The road is notasphalted and the traffic raises a cloud of dust. The waste that is carried to the landfill not alwaysis covered. waste falls off and litter the roadsides.

Even more disaffection was announced by inhabitants of the region regarding a road from alandfill through a Grobina private house area. The road to the landfill through Grobina Town iscalled Skuju Street. Also here houses are located close to the street. Street is not asphalted andappropriate for large transport flow. Inhabitants of surrounding cross streets are influenced muchless by dust. however they are concerned either about a large transport flow and that a nearbylandfill could destroy an existing pleasant atmosphere of area.

As well as town inhabitants. also pagasts inhabitants would be interested in asphalting the roadand nearest streets. A lot of inhabitants expressed a suggestion to build a new access road fromLiepaja -Ventspils motorwav, which would not go through Grobina town.

Grobina town inhabitants are comparatively less informed about landfill project - some has readabout it in newspapers. some has aot an information from previously distributed questionnaires.Objections made by town inhabitants were more deliberative. possibilities of joining for protestaction - more realistic.

Building a new access road can significantly influence Grobina town and pagasts attitudetowards landfill.

28 respondents had expressed their opinion in questioning - some of them - an individual, some- family. Responses are concerning a site selection. A lot of respondents declared. that formaking any decision on it, they needed more informnation about waste storage and processingtechnologies.

Summary on questioning outcome: attitude towards installation of a modern landfill in thieterritorn of former armyv

FOR DO NOT KNOW AGAINSTNumber 6 |5 17 score 2

More detailed data summary see in the summary below.

SiuZzpzan, oia qu slfiinling resltrsAlavo 6-8, 1999

Licpaja -ardceiiig C 0171)(117V "SLJde

No. Street Landfill impact assessment. comments, Attitude1 1. Air pollution is significant in particular in the early A-ainst

morsino : gorkij vozduh-[Russian lan guage]. analyses___ show *splo.noi navoz- -fRussian languageel.

Glad about the forest. which is in the front and do not Aaainst_________ let to feel the impact

3 1. Those people. who subsists on landfill. lives farther Againstfrom the forest. They burgles houses, breaking offplantations. during wintertime some crude ironfurnaces were stolen.

4 1. Some kind of standards has to be defined, how big wifeimpact is acceptable. some kind of zone would be Against.needed. at present not much is known, water is carried husbandwith. For

5. 1. When wind is from that side - there is nothing to Againstbreathe. burning chernicals. cellophane, smoke makeseyes smart. In the first vears. smoke was not as strong.and now seems that content of waste has changed.

6. 1. It does not disturb. because it is far. It is better to For________ dispose here. because evervthing alreadv is polluted.

7. 1 Since 1990, water is used only for watering. it is Againstconsidered that some people had vegetable poisoning,

i_______ because of washing them in that water. I8. 1 7 years ago it was possible to fish in the Lake. Strong Against

smoke in the mornings. wife is asthmatic. she does notrive in case of wind from that side. Scavengers arewalking in crowd. fimmv and going stealin2.

9. 1. Most important that Lake is perishing. Particularlv Againstdifficult to breathe at nightime in case of fog andsmog.

10 1. Water stinks as sewerage Xainst11. 1 Nothing bad is sensed No matter12. 1. Live for the second year and feel nothing bad Do not

_____________ ____________.___ k_ }now13. 1. Since 1970 has not been near the landfill. at times can No matter

feel smell14. 2.mas. When it burns, they drive home. Forest around is Against

polluted very much, afraid of eating mushrooms. Metall_______ collectors are passing bv - black. pure. and grimV.

15. 2.mas. He has bought it this winter, when everything around Against_ _____ |was snowed up. Pye-dogs alreadv now number of flies. |

16. |3.street Smoke in the summertime. grim accumulates on trees. Against17. 3. When water from a pump is boiling, it foams. They Against

think, if in case it was dangerous for health. then_______ }sanitary inspection would interfere there. Image

suffers - cottage in '' arbaLe'18. 3. Water is used only in boiled form. Whenl wind is froim A.4ainst

that side. can feel the smell.19. 3. It is more difficult at the middle of summertime. when Amaillst

wind and smoke from that side. can not open windows.Sanitarv inspection has prohibited usine this water.only from the pump in 17th street can use it. In the endof the street - is a bus stop. Scavengers are walkingthrough. but strawberries are blackened with smoke.

20. 3 Since 1976. when plastic is burned there. the burnina Atrainstl________ _can feel even more.

21. 3. It does not influence too much No matter22. 5. When wind. then can feel. It is better to modernise, For

because nobodv will eliminate that.23. 5. If burns - smoke Against24 . 5. The Lake is dead. no more fish. Can not use water, it is Against

poisoned in radius of 2 km, when it stays as it is - itbecomes muddv.

25. 8. When it bums. then can feel it. It would be better if | Againstl____ ___ _Iwaste is buried.

26. | 8. They take water with them. do not like scavengers A_ainst27. l __8. i Do not believe. that it will be eliminated somedav No matter28. 9. Pity about the lake and forest Against29. 9. Do not fell so much, water is carried with Do not

l_____ -_______________________________ _ [know

Grobi4a pagasts

No. Houses Lpndfill impact assessment. comments Attitude1. Egles (Puci) At the present can feel the smell in. cases Against______ Ezies (Piidi when waste is pushed in landfill

2. TiSi | 54 ha land, however it does not affects the ForI ______________ landfill, no impacts

3. P-lad2i Afraid of smoke. If nothing poisoned and bad Against(Liepkalni) for health. then will agree. Do not believe if

anybody can respect boss thoughts, if he isnon-citizen.

4. Parani /Irniece Stink, land is for use. cars are driving by. and Againstwaste falls down exactly along the windows.It would be better to dig waste in the ground,not on heap as it is now.

5. Phrani / owner Understand that waste has to be stored Do notsomewhere. To decide on it. more knowinformation is needed about a project.technologies. which will, be used. It is betterto construct an entry from Ventspilsmotorway. As it is now, can not be forever.We have to think what to do.

6. Sunaisi Smell. dust. Waste is not delivered to landfill. Do not

2 1-7

it flies in the air. pollutes roadsides. kiiowcrassland. stock do not eat it. non- estheticview. I will a-ree if road is asphalted and_arbaee carried in closed vehicles.

7. Kukuli Mlostlv live during summertime. There are Againstcraws. daws. Smut comes from the oldlandfill. xaste comes down from vehicles. nocontrol: scavengers_

S. Kapelkaleji It is planned to create a resting-place with Aiauinsthorse ride (30 horses). Thev think Grobinawill become a living place for businessmen.Realistically it is understandable. that selectedplace is suitable for a landfill. but personallythev are against it.

9. Ziedi4i Do not know anvthing. Afraid of smoke Husband -for, wife -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a gain st

10. Meta streetI They would endure in case " road is asphalted Forand straightened. A dangerous roundaboutway is next to the 'Sunaisu' household, were

_____________ <accidents turns up.

The part of Grobina town, that is crossed by landfill transport route

No. Street Landfill impact assessment. comments I Attitude1. §Apu Dust, and life like in the powder. I agreed in For

_ _____________ case road is asphalted. ___I, * |Apsu At the moment we do not feel anything, More

I______________ because we are located farther from it azainst3. Apsu No impact. experts has to decide Do not

_ .I . I know4. Skuju Road is full with dust, as more cars there, as Against

more dust. It is not possible to dry clothes."Pocket tourists" using the same route on theway to the landfill, visiting gardens as well.Suggestion - Way to the landfill in anotherplace - from Ventspils motorwav.

5. Skuju Too close to Grobina, dust from the street - A-ainst_______________ insufferable

6. Skluju Dust from smoke and vehicles. Against7. Skuju Street deck is not adequate for such a huge Against

transport. When it drives, whole houseshakes. Too close to Grobina.

S. Skuju Afraid that it can stink during summer. for More forsafety reasons - better to dig waste, that wayno smell would be there and no seen as well.In case road is asphalted and no smell, thenwe would agree.

9. Kaleju If it continues as it is now. then forest will go A-ainsl

Appendix 22

APPENDIX No. 98 TO THE REGULATIONSOF JUNE 15, 1999-09-04 NO. 212

"REGULATIONS ON NATURE PRESERVES"

(unotTical translation)

I

AppewIIdi\ 22

Ap)p lidix 98 t o tl t' Reit1t t iollons o .111 ti 15. 9t99) 1(4J . 21lRetlI;lations ol' nlmliti i're serves"

N,, |N in )NUI Ipliul .i t IIItItll\ 1t l1.1n .

I.h 0-7 To. niri1 wesIt ;ilo1il2 11wt (::ialli:atSdwnle o- tles prtsc.servetick till thle nottlh-te-weslertl elirner 01

ITosinare lA,ike" tle 7"' ralintu il latitil houtseIAuzselhi'

! . 1.7 7-X To soith and west al._. ilt: Laike s- \ tI.xl-ltnd.s. erossoinf lanrmVs

, .1 n <,''Ausckli" and "Uksi" till hlc bordelr| L >. between lthc Medze pagasts and

/ 7 ' 2 __ ~~~~~~~~~~~Liepajax Cihv

- U' J S - I . X-9 To south-west alon-- the borderbetween Medze pagasts and Licpaja

city. until a start of the aflorested> z -! / _ ~~~~~~~~~area

- 'X -- _ 7 \ , 1.9 9-11 To south-east alon lakes tlood-lands crossine farms *Keiri".

<e' ._.'\ , . ' Jurnieki" and "Seli till the= J 8>q -~ i k /\ southem border of the farm "Seli'

; / -j rLiS>= \ Fy 1.10 10-Il To north-east along the souther/! ,~\ .n . border of farm "Sli" and to south

9>v^-^1 5 / \ along the westerm border of farmy ;_ *w "Mi~~~~~~~~~~keli" till the south-westem

corner of farm "Mikeli'1.11 11 12 To east from the southern border of

_ J I the farm "Mikeli" till the border ofIfarm "Janiki"

1.12 I2-13 To south and to east along theR / .. drainage ditch till the border

- ) t / .. .between Medze pagasts and Liepaja- ; . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~citv,

1. 1I1 13-14 To south along the border between' jrrn _ s } Medze pagasts and Liepaja city

(railwav Liepaja - VenEspils,) till

Description of borders of-the Nature Boulevard of 1415 NovemberPreser velo "T osmare ortne"N t Liepaja citvPreserve "'Tosmare Lake" 2.1 a14-15 To north-west along the Boulevard

ol' 14'b November till thie bordier of

No. No. in Description of elements used for a forCN1plan determination of the border ' 15-16 Ti north-east along the t'rest's

Liepatja District. Liepaja Head Forestry boh)raier till the Cietoksna ChaiielMedze pagasts. Grohina forestrs -' I t- 17 To north-west alone the Cietksna

1.1 1-2 From the border betweeni the Medze Channel till the eross with \iesturspagasts and Liepaja City to north Str,m

alonc the drainawe ditcih till the 2.4 1 I- IS l'o northi and nort h-west alone tihecross of drainaue kihches Viestura Street till the accese. road

I. 2-3 T'lo cast aloine the draintahce ditcl till - it) hlic landfiliiWer Sip1v line I .. IS- It I'o CalSt and ntorth-ca%t aklion the

;. .-4 1 n t al ie ti r and eastern oirder of tlhepower Cstipply lie ald Ili.II itace I ilill til the bonIer l'ti eenlilii till the 01 1t1l tO etl t ty_ __ I .lj.l ; .ttl Mcd;sc a s

*5Sil'lt' I.< ;ua S 'I I j: east ';> .1q1"tl: l'(ii' tler bt ii' tVii1

11 4 i 1i soti-w'st tllou thie ri;tillee lepata t ,,1 M1ics Iiag istd tillliiteli till tille norlth-astern Crnt IC_ _- ttitJ it_ __:ttzish s 1to: st 11rane itw .75

1. s -. n li; sotheasl-.lt a:,i.e ,h t1.o i.Iei t'l

tlhc flpris.l, Il: est ralel-e nlo.7 5 till_ ilite dralle itc'lh