E-306 VOL. 1 LIEPAJA CITY COUNCIL

:52 -Akrmene Vqrgde Du k SO'M Ploce s

Public Disclosure Authorized Medz R6va 162 ~10 J__

Kapsgde, . DURBE 9Q5W ~~~~~~~~~~~Lie,i

GOpcasRfdz Joun ;.384

LIEPAJA:--hde V6r[i-

Cniden e -k GrGoavieze Taii

100 M611

Dube6 -' DSusta Cenkone 3 Pa> t

Public Disclosure Authorized Pqrkone oii

gem6 -- bun 100 BenihRudei z Wite

- Nica BMit C-M 56'2tKyPla Beitdbdems 4480 qw SIOMsti

FEASIBILITYSTUDY, PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL

Public Disclosure Authorized ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABLESOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FORLIEPAJA CITY AND LIEPAJAREGION

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT AMENDEDDECEMBER 7, 1999 Public Disclosure Authorized SWECO onsonsultants SWECOINTERNATIONAL in association with GEO CONSULTANTS Stockholm, December 7, 1999 ProjectNo. 1150335

LIST OF CONTElNTS I);dL 0 SUMMARY I) l I INTRODUCTION 1:1 1.1 Background 1:1 1.2 Structure of the report 1:2 1.3 Objectives and tasks of the EIA 1:2 1.4 Concepts of the Feasibility Study 1:3 2 GENERAL DATA ABOUT THE REGION 2:1 2.1 Territorv, inhabitants and administrative division 2:1 2.2 Inhabitants served by the current waste management system 2:2 2.3 Existing road network 2:5 2.4 Hydrometeorological conditions 2:5 3 OVERVIEW ON THE EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 3:1 3.1 Institutional aspects and existing infrastructure 3:1 3.2 Waste amount and composition 3:3 3.3 Waste collection and transportation 3:6 3.4 Waste reuse and recycling 3:8 3.5 Waste disposal and existing landfills 3:11 3.6 Environmental and health impacts 3:15 3.7 Economic aspects 3:21 4 ACQUIS OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 4:1 4.1 Requirements of the EU legislation 4:1 4.2 National legislation and responsible institutions 4:2 4.3 Local legislation and instructions 4:20 4.4 Need for additional legislation 4:20 5 FORCAST OF FUTURE WASTE PRODUCTION, COLLECTION 5:1 AND LANDFILLING 5.1 Amount of waste 5:1 5.2 Future collection and transport svstem 5:5 5.3 Area and handling requirements at the new waste treatment plan 5:5 6 CHARACTERISATION OF THE PROPOSED WASTE 6:1 DISPOSAL SITES 6.1 History of site selection 6:1 6.2 Site selection criteria, procedure and results 6:1 6.3 Hydrological conditions 6:6 6.3.1 Methods and scope of work 6:6 6.3.2 Skede site 6:6 6.3.3 Grobina site 6:8 6.3.4 Possible impacts and mitigation nmcasures 6:11 6.4 Geological structure and hidrogeological conditions 6:11 6.4.1 General features on geological structure and hydrogeological conditions 6:12 6.4.2 Skede site 6:15 II

6.4.3 Grobina sile 6:1l 6.4.4 Possible impacts anid nmitignationmneaisures 6:22 6.5 Surface and groundwater quality 0:22 6.5.1 Skede site 6:23 6.5.2 Grobina site 6:30 6.5.3 Possible impact anid mitigation measures 6:31 6.6 Air pollution, loise aind vibration 6:33 6.6.1 Possible impacts and mitigationi measures 6:35 6.7 Assessment of Biological Diversity 6:35 6.7.1 Introduction 6:36 6.7.2 Potential site in Skede 6:36 6.7.3 Potential site in the former military training ground, Grobina parish 6:44 6.7.4 Comparison of the potential sites 6:48 6.8 Land use, land values and landscape 6:50 6.8.1 Skede site 6:50 6.8.2 Grobina parish 6:59 6.8.3 Comparison of the potential sites 6:62 6.9 Cultural and historical heritage and protection of cultural environment 6:62 6.9.1 Potential waste deposit site Skede 6:65 6.9.2 Potential waste deposit site "Grobina" 6:66 6.9.3 Comparison of the potential sites and conclusions 6:69 6.10 Impacts on human health 6:70 6.10.1 Description of harmful impact 6:70 6.10.2 Description of the existing situation 6:72 6.10.3 Conclusions 6:74 6.10.4 Recommended mitigating measures 6:75 6.11 Occupational health aspects 6:76 6.11.1 Description of risk factors 6:76 6.11.2 Assessment and preventive measures 6:79 7. TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES 7:1 7.1 Waste collection and transportation 7:1 7.2 Recycling, separation and recovery 7:4 7.3 Baseline alternative for treatment and disposal 7:5 7.4 Alternatives for final disposal and comparison of them 7:5 7.5 Gas abstraction system 7:15 7.5.1 Gas extraction system in Skede 7:15 7.5.2 Gas extraction in energy cells at Skede and Grobina 7:15 7.5.3 Assessment of gas extraction svstem 7:15 8. Financial analysis of the alternatives 8:1 8.1 Investment costs 8:1 8.8.1 Total investment costs 8:2 8.2 Operational costs 8:3 8.3 Revenues 8:4 8.4 Financial viability and affordability 8:4 8.4.1 Viability 8:4 8.4.2 Affordability 8:5 9. Social-economic aspects 9:1 6iI

9.1 Finding^s(o1 Mir I lanck's studv 9:1 9.2 Attitude of local governments 9:3 9.3 Attitude of people 9:3 9.4 impact on development and land owners 9:4 9.5 Impact on local governnments 9:4 9.6 Impact oniNational budget 9:5 9.7 Impacts on household's budgets 9:5 10. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SITES 10:1 10.1 Evaluation criteria and comparison of two sites 10:1 10.2 Conclusions 10:6 11. SEQENCE OF THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND MATERIALS 11:1 11.1 Realisation of construction works 11:1 11.2 Implementation schedule 11:3 11.3 Materials 11:3 11.4 Potential environmental impacts during construction 11:4 12. ACTIVITIES DURING THE OPERATION OF THE LANDFILL 12-1 12.1 Local guidelines 12-1 12.2 Daily operation 12-1 12.2.1 Waste reception, registration and guarding 12-2 12.2.2 Waste sorting, tipping and covering 12-2 12.2.3 Waste treatment areas and process control 12-3 12.2.4 Personnel for daily operation and management 12:4 12.3 Security and safety measures in emergency cases 12:5 12.4 Monitoring 12:6 13. CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 13:1 13.1 Final shaping and cover of the landfill 13:2 13.2 Preparation of new surface runoff ditches 13:2 13.3 Control of landfill gas 13:3 13.4 Relocation of leachate drains and ditches 13:3 13.5 Leachate control-and monitoring 13:3 13.6 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 2:1 2.2 State of bridges on roads supposed to be used for waste transportation :5 2.3 Water balance at Skede and Grobina sites, mm/year 2:6 2.4 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 3:3 3.3 Disposed waste Amounts and Composition in LielpajiaRegion (1 998) ):4 3.4 Waste generation per capita 3:5 tv

3.5 Morphological Composition of wastc 3:6 3.( Techni(lquesUscd for Waste Collectioni and Transporlatiln 3:7 3.7 \'Waste collection frequcncy 3:8 31.8 Backgr-ounlddlatai oni experimental \vasIC Sorlilln at site 3:1() 3.9 Results obtained dulino exper-imienitalwaste Sortillo 3:1 1 3.I( Dump Sites in Liepajaregion 33:1 3.11 Location oi Dump Sites. Employees, and Related Problems 3:14 3.12 Value of Nature Resources Tax 3:21 3.13 Operational costs 3:22 4.1. Review of Latvian legislation on conslruclion of solid household waste disposal sites 4:6 5.1 Forecast on population growth and serviced population 5:3 5.2 Forecast on economic development 5:3 5.3 Forecast on waste amounts to be collected and disposed. in m3 5:4 6.1 Comparison of leachate. ditch and Alande river discharees 6:10 6.2 Characterisation ofgeological cross-section 6:12 6 3 Leachate composition 6:32 6.4 Characterisation and quantification of biological criteria 6:49 6.5 Comparison of biological diversity for potential sites 6:49 6.6 Comparison of land value/use and landscape for potential sites 6:62 6.7 Comparison of cultural and historical heritage for potential sites 6:69 6.8 Results of well's-survey at the Grobina site 6:73 6.9 Impacts and mitigation measures: construction period 6:81 6.10 Impacts and mitigation measures: operation period 6:81 6.11 Impacts and mitigation measures: post-closure period 6:82 6.12 Site's correspondence to requirements stated by Regulation no. 38 from February 9, 1999 6:83 7.1 Household waste collection and transport in parishes and towns 7:2 7.2 Time consumption for collection and transportation 7:3 7.3 Alternatives considered for the Skede and Grobina .7:6 7.4 Comparison of-waste treatment alternatives 7:14 7.5 The total gas energy from landfill and energy cells in Skede and Grobina 7:16 8.1 Investments for solid waste treatment in Liepaja Region 8:1 8.2 Total investment costs for Liepaja waste management, years 1-6 8:2 8.3 Operation costs: vehicles and waste containers 8:3 9.1 Attitude of people towards " new landfill siting 9:3 10.1 Criteria for comparison of locations 10:2 10.2 Evaluation and comparison of sites 10:5 10.3 Comparison of main problems for Skede and Grobina sites 10:5 11.1 Sequence of construction works 11:2 11.2 Implementation schedule 11:3 12.1 Staff required for landfill operation 12:4 13:1 Typical elements of a landfill closure plan 13:1 13:2 Function of monitoring facilities 13:4 14:1 Evaluation of alternative sites 14:1

List of Figures

1 Administrative division of the Liepa a Region ':3 Poptulallon (ICISy 2':4 3 Waste dLisposal1siles in Li-epaa Reg1ion 3:1 2 4 Contamiiinaltioniof surface water. "Ske(le 3:17 5 Groundwatter contamination at thc SUIToIndings ol landlicil "Skled' 3:1X 6 Groundwater contamination In thc dumpLsitc l0lig.ons . (irohill parish 3:2() 7 Forecast on population growth in Licpaja Region 5:2 8 Siting area for a new lanidfill Scale I :200.)0() 6:2 9 Zoning for a new landfill sitc selection 6:5 10 Location "Skede", Liepaja City 6:7 1 1 Location "Poligons", Grobinas parish 6:9 12 Fact data map, Skede 6:13 13 Fact data map, Grobina 6:14 14 Map of the Quatermary deposits. Skede 6:16 15 Geological cross-sections. Skede 6:17 16 Map of the Quaternary deposits in Grobina area 6:20 17 Geological cross-section at the site "Poligons" 6:21 18 Maximum concentrations found in contaminated groundwater 6:25 19 Apparent rezistivity of water saturated sediments, "Skede" vicinity 6:28 20 Wind roses in January and July 6:34 21 Evaluation of biotops in "Skede" surroundings 6:37 22 Evaluation of bitops at the site proposed for a new landfill at "Skede" 6:38 23 Evaluation of biotops at selected site in Grobina parish 6:45 24 Land use structure in Skede 6:51 25 Land use structure at selected site in Grobina parish 6:52 26 Landscapes at the site proposed for a new landfill at "Skede" 6:53 27 Landscapes at the site proposed for landfill in Grobina parish 6:54 28 Evaluation of visual landscapes spaces in Skede 6:55 29 Visual landscapes spaces at the site offered for landfill in Grobina parish 6:56 30 Location of potential historical heritage and cultural monuments, Skede 6:63 31 Location of potential historical heritage and cultural environments, Grobina parish 6:64 32 Skede - existing landfill 7:7 33 Skede landfill - proposed layout 7:8 34 Skede landfill after closure 7:9 35 Grobina - existing landfill 7:10 36 Grobina landfill - proposed layout 7:11 37 Grobina landfill after closure 7:12

VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES

List of appendices

I Terms of Reference 1-I 2 Reference from the State Hydrometeorological Agency -i 3 Questionnaire used for data collection 3-I 4 Public Consultation in Liepaja City. Minutes ol the Meeting 4-1 5 Statemeilt providledtb\ EIA State BuLeiaL -1 6 Descriptioni of -cological cross-Secti(on 6- 1 7 WcHicomlipletioni 7-1 8 Results of g-roundwater analyses. Lavima 8-I 9 Results of groundwatcr analvses. Swcden '- I 10 Results of Surlface water condUCtiVity ImeCaSUIreentCIIS 10- I 11 Results of pumping tests. Skede I 1-I 12 Results of vertical electrical profiling. Skiede 12-I 13 Details on forecast tor future waste productioni 13-1 14 Photographs. biological diversity. Skede site 14-1 15 Photographs, biological diversity, Grobina site 15-1 16 Photographs, landscapes, Skede site 16-1 17 Photographs, landscapes, Grobina site 17-1 18 Description of water sampling procedure 18-1 19 Main data obtained during sampling of groundwater and surface water 19-1 20 Absolute heights of well heads and groundwater table 20-1 2 1 Socio-economic aspects 21-1 22 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 Assessment Report of the Study "FeasibilityStudy, Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment of Sustainable Solid Waste Management for Liepaja City and Liepaja Region". The Final report was submitted on September 05, 1999 and the Client and the World Bank have provided comments to the report. The comments, especially with regard to the financial aspects, have been incorporated in this amendedEIA report.

An addendum to the EIA report has been prepared after receipt of comments from 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 establishmentof criteria for selection of a site for a regional waste treatment plant and a screening process to arrive at the two sites in Skede and Grobina subject to this EIA. The report is compiled in accordance with requirements stated in ToR issued by the World Bank, and later amended by the ToR given by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (MEPRD). The Project Currently, the municipal solid waste is disposed at about 25 disposal sites in the region. Most of them are small and receive less than 1(0,000m 3 of waste per year. The largest disposal site is the Skede site in Liepaja which receives about 80% of the total regional waste. Most sites are poorly located due to their geology and high water table, and none of the sites has an effective natural barrier or artificial lining to protect the groundwater against leachate pollution. The Skede site has been used since the 1960ies and the leakage of untreated leachate and run-off water has caused evident groundwater contamination and serious pollution of the nearby Lake Tosmare.

The project includes the following components: Remediation The existing dumping sites shall be remediated and subsequently closed. Only the site in Grobina or Skede would remain open to be enlarged as part of the remediation so that it can serve as the regional waste treatment and disposal site. Technical and operational improvements To establish a modem solid waste management system to meet international waste treatment and sanitary landfill standards. It will include establishment of a sorting area for separation of recyclable materials and separate areas for 0-2 storing of separated material as well as household hazardous waste, which would be transported to another site. Installation of energy cells and a landfill gas collection system Energy cells are planned for enhanced degradation of easily biodegradable waste and accelerated production of landfill gas, containing about 50% methane. The landfill gas is expected to be utilised for energy production. The resulting greenhouse gas emission reductions are planned to be sold to PCF, the Prototype Carbon Fund, under an emission reduction agreement Installation of a power generator An energy conversion unit of about 1 MWecapacity and running on landfill gas would be installed and connected to the power grid. The power would be sold to Latvenergo under a power purchase agreement to be negotiated as part of the project. The excess heat would partly be utilised for heating of the leachate and the 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 the regional waste treatment and disposal plant are planned to be procured within the project. There would beat least one waste collectionpoint in each pagast.

Findings and conclusions A short review on the main findings and conclusions presented in all chapters is given below.

General Data about the Region The 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 towns and 34,992 (23,7%) in rural areas. There are 6 towns in Liepaja District: Liepaja, Aizpute, Durbe, Grobina, Pavilosta, and Priekule. The number of rural municipalities (so called pagasts) is 25.

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

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

Waste sorting is only practised on a pilot scale and unorganised sorting of metal scrap takes place due to unlimited recycling possibilities in the metallurgical plant "Liepajas metalurgs" located in Liepaja City. 0-3

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

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

Legal framework

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

According the Law "On Self-government"municipalities are responsible for waste management in their administrativearea. The "polluter pays" principle is to a large extent introduced in the waste management field, and nature resources tax (0.25 Ls/m3) is paid for waste disposal (the Law "On Nature Resources Tax").

Forecast on Future Waste Production

A forecast on waste generation is provided for years 2000-2020, and it envisages that about 4.3 million m3 of waste will be produced. Taking into consideration that modern compacting vehicles will be used for wvaste collection and transportation, and further compaction at the waste treatment site, about 1.64million m3 of will be disposed.

Characterisationof proposedwaste disposal sites

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

The geological, hydrogeological and hydrological conditions, biological di versity, landscapes and land value, historical environment and cultural heritage values have been investigated, and possible impact on water and air quality, landscape,human health, etc. have been assessed.

The statement was as follows,

- for the "Skede site,": exclusive criteria exist (biological diversity, and closeness of densely populated area), 0-4

- for the "Grobina site " - no exclusive criteria, although several problems: concerning land owner attitude, location of access road and problems 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 the original site. Supplementary investigations were carried out mainly to verify the geological and hydrogeological conditions. The available land is about 27 hectares and comprises mainly former agricultural lands and forest in the north- west. Five boreholes have been drilled and the groundwater level and quality checked. The details of the investigations have been presented in the Addendum to the Final EIA Report.

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

The preliminary design at the new site has been adjusted from the earlier site to comply with the requirement of a minimum distance of 500 m to the nearest farmhouse, Vilteri. Moreover, the design includes a forested protection zone to protect from eventual disturbances generated by the future waste treatment facility.

Therefore, the Grobina sites are recommended for a new waste treatment plant location 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 collection introducing a number of simple re-loading stations. It was found that waste from the all region, excluding Liepaja City and Grobina town, can be collected and transported by one vehicle. Liepaja City and Grobina town would require replacement of containers and vehicles during the first three years of project implementation.

Results obtained during the waste sorting, show that about 10-20 % of waste are recycable with a good or comparatively satisfactory market. Therefore, it might 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, including a baseline alternative. The proposed alternatives were classified in two groups:

- a new waste treatment plant with energy cells and a landfill gas extraction system, - waste disposal without landfill gas extraction. 0-5

Alternative A = Skede B = Grobina Al - Gas extraction from existing landfill, combined with energy cells. Income from electrical energy. Closing of regionaldumps. A2 - Gas extraction from existing landfill, combined with energy cells. Income from gas. Closing of regional dumps. A3 - Gas extraction from existing landfill. Income from electrical energy. Closing of regional 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 of regional dumps. B2 Landfillingwithout gas extraction. Closing of regional dumps.

The financial analysis in the Feasibility study shows two main alternatives to be viable, namely Al and BI, which are compared with the baseline alternative A4 below.

Financial analysis of the alternatives

The investment costs for the first six years are characterised in table below. Alternative Basecosts Includingdesign, A: Skede B: Grobina contingenciesand VAT

Collection,transport, treatment:Al - Gas extraction from existing landfill, combined 4 959 400 5 852 100 wvithenergy cells with sludge addition. Income from electrical energy. Closing of regional dumps. Collection.transport, treatment: A4 Landfillingwithout gas extraction. 3 122 300 3 684 400 Closingof regionaldumps. Collection, transport, treatment: BI Gas extraction from energy cells with sludge 5 365 000 6 330 800 addition. Income from electrical energy. Closingof regionaldumps.

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 fact that the Grobina location requires upgrading of the access road and separate leachate treatment. Moreover, the cost of closing Skede will burden the project costs if Grobina is selected. The operation costs show the same picture, A4 is thie least expensive and BI the most expensive. Revenues are generated from the 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 get the same profitability in the Grobina alternative B1. This would require a tariff of about 5 Ls per capita and year, representing a 25% increase of the average current tariff in Liepaja City. This tariff increase is considered to be affordable for the major part of the population in the region.

Socio-economicaspects The attitude of both local governments towards a new waste treatment plant in their area is positive. The attitude of people living in the surroundings of the prospective sites is basically negative. Therefore, public awareness campaigns should be provided in order to change people opinion.

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

Comparison of alternatives Three 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 nature conditions and social / human health aspects. The total scores were 52 marks for the Grobina site and 49 marks for the Skede site.

Sequence of the project implementation and material The logical sequence of the construction works, implementation schedules and legal acts governing the quality of material and potential environmental impacts during construction works have been analysed.

Activities during the operation of the waste treatment plant Local guidelines regulating the landfill management are required. Factors that have to be incorporated in developing operating schedules are analysed.

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

Security and safety measures are considered as well as general content of the required monitoring of the environmentalimpacts. 0-7

Closure and post-closure activities Final shaping and cover of the landfill, preparation of new surface runoff ditches, control of landfill gas, relocation of leachate drains and ditches, leachatecontrol and monitoringand environmentalmonitoring are considered.

Conclusionsconcerning site selection The evaluation indicates exclusionary criteria at the Skede site. They are the following: 1. Site is not suitable from bio-diversity point of view, 15 rare species were found within the site and a wide range of valuable biotopes (7 endangeredbiotopes 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 .Socialand public health aspects (10 criteria) 18 22 Aspects 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 that the 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 the new waste treatment plant, since exclusionary criteria do not apply to the site or to the surroundings.Several issues at the site should be addressed for a successful implementation of the project (land ownership, location of access road, inhabitants' attitude, character of the cultural heritage studies etc.). 3. The local governments only can make the decision on the location of the new waste treatment plant, i.e. the Liepaja City Council and the Grobina Parish Council.

l:

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The current report is the Filal DralftEnvironmental lmpact AssessmlcnitRcport Iromll the Study "Feaisibiliil'Stuldy, Prclimimarv Design nid EnvironmentzlAssess,men't Of SiustainiableSolid Waste Alnagc 1em(nlfo Liepaja CitY cnd(Liepaja Region

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

The study has been executed by SWECO of Sweden in association with SIA Geo Consultants of Latvia. The foreign costs of the Study have been financed by Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. and the local costs by Liepaja City Council. The Terms of Reference for the study has been prepared by the Client and the World Bank. which is foreseen as one of the financing institutions for the implementation of the Project together with Sida and other international donor agencies as well as the Government of Latvia. The Environmental Impact Assessment State Bureau of the Republic of Latvia (further - EIA Bureau) issued the Program for environmentalimpact assessment (see Appendix 1).

The Consultant's work has been supervised by Liepaja City Council (mainly through the Project Implementation Unit, further - PIU), by Sida and the World Bank. Several meetings and seminars have been accomplished to guide the Consultant's work throughout the Study. The progress of the study has been reported in an Inception Report, Progress Reports and a Draft Report. The Draft EIA Report was subject to scrutiny 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 comments were discussed at a Steering Committee meeting oii 10 August, 1999. The Draft EIA Report was also presented at a public meeting in Liepaja on 15 July, 1999. The minutes of the public meeting are enclosed in Appendix 22. Conunents were also provided by the EIA Bureau, which provided a statement on the Draft EIA Report in a letter dated August 16, 1999 and the compliance with the requirements stated in the Program for the ElA. The valuable comments from all parties involved have been addressed in the preparation of the Final EIA Report. New data and amendments have been incorporated to comply with the requirements of the study.

The study and the forthcoming project is part of the implementation of the National Solid Waste Management Strategy of Latvia. which has been developed since 1997. The Strategy aims at compliance with the EU directives and standards within the solid waste management field to enable Latvia to becoimiea l'ull member oi' the ELuropean Union.

Other studies to implement the Strategy includc North Vidzeme Solid Waste Management Project, Ventspils Solid Waste ManagementProject. Maliena anidSouthl 1: '

East Latiale Regional Solid Waste Mana;clmlent l1rojects. all ol which are part ol the procrarn .500 minus for implenmentation oflile National Strategy.

1.2 Structure of the report The report li-st presenits the objcctives ol thc EIA (Section 1.3). concelpts ol the Feasibility 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 legall tramework in chapter 4. A forecast on the waste generation and mana-ernent is presented in chapter 5. The proposed disposal sites are characterised and theilr environmental conditions in chapter- 6 while the technological alternatives are evaluated 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 is shown in chapter 10 Implementation of construction and the impacts are presented in chapter I1. Operational aspects are presented in chapter 12 and post closure activities in chapter 13. Conclusions on the selected sites are provided in chapter 14.

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

A comprehensive program of site investigation works has been carried out as part of the 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 supplement analysis during the feasibility study, and to further define the baseline environmental conditions. The intention of these investigations have been to determine the extent to which the existing and expected future waste disposal activities will affect environmental conditions in areas irmnediately adjacent to the sites.

1.3.1 Tasks The 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 of baseline data on the following: (i) physical environment; (ii) biological environment; and (iii) economic and cultural environment: * description of existing legislative and regulatory frame work, and discussio n of the need for additional legislation to ensure the implemenitationiot the NSWMS: * determination of potential impacts of proposed location of the regional disposal site; * analysis of alternative geographical and techn1ical solutions to thc proposed solution; - development ol a management plan to mitigate negaitive impacts; * development of a monitoring plan incluLdingperform-ance indicators: l: 8

* identification ol ilnstimlLiionzaliccds to eni(ilemthe EA rcCOnInIendt;l0ionis: nldld * inter-acency coordination d111(lpubblic/NGO al-I'liCipa,tiOn dUrIng pr-oject preparationi. coordinated with the public participation iind communication specialist involved in te pr-oject.

Revised termnsol reference wevreprovided by MOEPRD for this exctecndcdEIA and th'e outline has becn revised to accommodate tlhcsc as specified in Appendix 1.

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

The feasibility study addresses the following aspects to meet with the above general objectives 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 areas in the region. One site comprises remediation and improvement at the existing dumping site in Skede, Liepaja town and the other the recently established dumping site Poligons in Grobina parish. * The studied alternatives compare traditional sanitary landfilling with forced biodegradation of the organic waste in energy cells to generate landfill gas and electric energy. The waste treatment plant is expected to occupy an area of about 20 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 the proposed landfill will be 22 to 24 m above the surrounding land level. * Different engineering solutions for the waste management. access roads. leachate and gas management, the environmental impacts and the environmental mitigating measures are presented including cost estimates and a financial and affordability analysis of the viable solutions. * The planning period for the design of the waste management system. Ior cost estimates and finanlcial analysis is 20 years. 2:1

2 General Data about the ltegion

2.1 Territory, inhabitaniitsand 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 inhabitants is 40.5 people per krri:2 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). The average density of rural areas' inhabitants is 10 people per km2 bult his value varies between 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. The Table distinguishes between 10 categories of settlements due to the amount of inhabitants. For each unit the number of people living in each category of settlement is stated. The number of settlements within each category is given in brackets.

Tab. 2.1

Distribution of Inhabitants in Lie aa Re ion Administrative Distribution of inhabitants and number of settlements unit '>90.000 -5.000- 2-.0- 1.000- 500. i20-0- T-100- - 50- 20- <-20 10.000 5.000 2.000 1.000 500 200 100 50 Aizpute parish - - - - 324 192 58 12'7 501 Aiz__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) 1 Dunalka parish 307 - - 61 670 ______(1) (2) Dunika parish 501 - - 86 345 I ______(2) (2) Durbe parish 254 116 69 612 ______(1)_ _ (I) (2) Durbe town 4354- - - Embute parish . - - 407 - 67 224 ______~~~(1) J _ _ _ (2) Gavieze parish - - - NO9 1O -9 139 510 I_____I__ (I) (I)I I (_) Gramzda parish - - 407 18x7 I - 72 305 I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~I(1) I l(2)~~~(I) Grobina parish - - - 658 1268 - { 200 193 504 I 1) I(3) I I(OI (68)I Grobina town 4625 - - -)-_ Kaleti parish - - | 334 171 62 3TS, I_ (_)_2I __ I _) I Continulatioii follows 2 : 2

Contili,i.on ol Fah. 2.I Administrative L)istributioni Ofinhab)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 - 92 442

I1) ______1 (3) Kazdangza -4( 325 155 (10 127 798 parisli (1 (I) (I) I (4l Laza 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 ______~~~~~~~~ (3) ~~_ ~~_ ~~_ ~~~~(1) Vergale parish | - - T - 446 410 124 20 815 ______(1) (3)3 (2) (1) Virgas parish - | - - - 462 187 - 24 430 i ______(2) (1))(I) Total: 97278 6082 10176 2598 3886 8028 3555 2349 2152 11786 I (1) (1) (3) (2) (6) (25) (24) (35) (65) % of total I 11 ' '- - - , , 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 services according to Latvian regulations. This means, that 133.952 people or 90.58% of whole 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 villages with more than 50 inhabitants.

2.2 Inhabitantsserved 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' ~~MCrogsIScale1:400 000

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

- aaaa / n _.f * GravrCemsl rpadnstacnr

& '-2~ \ Zene ciellg it1 ~ ~~ ~-UPaveed roads

daRCBS ravlroads

_ g § 21°3DSDailrZocaedS213 22°00 Fig.1: Administrative division of the Liepajas Region 1. zim.: Administrativais jedalijums Liepajasrepiona

21 '30' I Merogs/Scale1:400 000

@#P~~~~~~~akaspagUUREJ Sali6 <* inae$

tStrka S 24 2) 20

ss l Wc~~~~~~- S 1SO40 Lalia POP2 pi 114Q12000

vev = rs pag 672 _ p l * 1 001-2 WD126 Fig. 2: Population density 2. zim.: ledzivotaju blivums

2.3 Existing road netwoirk

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()48km. Thc r-oad density is 0).57 I;m/lkrn. The road standard is shown in Fig. 1. and thl-ce mrini categories of road quality can be distingu21.1shed 151:

* Paved roads: 147 km or 0.08 kIm/kmrn * 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 transportation g CharacterisationPoPCroadsersation_r_road Road Type of construction Length, m Width, m Permitted load, 1. Pavilosta town Reinforced concrete 54 6 60 2. Pavilosta-Grobinatown Reinforced concrete 52 8 60 3. Grobina town Reinforced conCrete 36 8 60 4. Grobina - Nica Reinforced concrete 16 6 30 With metallic l ______Foundation 5. Liepaja city - Nica town Reinforced concrete 34 9 60 D6. Grobina - Nica town Wooden 102 8 20 7. Grobina - Rucava town Reinforced concrete 14 9 60 8. Grobina - Durbe town Reinforced concrete o2 10 40 9. Grobina - Aizpute Reinforced concrete 15 7 50 10. Aizpute city Reinforced concrete 12 8 60 II. Durhe town Reinforced concrete IS 10 50 12. Durbe - Skrunda town Reinforced concrete 22 10 90 13. Grobina -Priekule Reinforced concrete 26 8 60 14. Priekule - Rucava Reinforced concrete 28 6 J 30 15. 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 Iromiithe soil sur-'LicC is about (5% 6(1ol 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 claycy deposits on the top. Therefore, infiltration to groundwater is very limited and does not exceed 25-30 mm for glacigene deposits and 10 mm for boggy deposits. In view of the above mentioned, the water balance of both sites is characterised in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Water balance at Skede and Grobina sites, mm/vear Year Precipitation, Evaporation, Surface lnfiltration to mmr mm run-off, mm groundwater,nim I ______Sk ede With average precipitation 693 451 232 10 With maximal precipitation 886 576 300 10 With minimalprecipitation 497 323 169 5 . ______Grobina With average precipitation | 693 451 212 | 30 With maximal precipitation 886 576 280 30 With 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% of observations), * in July: West-Southwest (37.4% of observations) and North (8.1% of observations), * in August: West-Southwest (31.8% of observations) and East (7.6% of observations).

The velocity of prevailing winds in June - August varies between 2 and 4 m/sec (see Table 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 8-10 m/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 all surface runoff and main part of leachate through connecting dithches is discham-red into 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.)

J/J I-gs i gzZI I VXI I X' I NilA I- I. I I -I I I] 5,8 6.7 5.3 3.8 3.7 AN 5.I 4,6 5,9 7,7 10, 8,XX.1 6,5 3.,6 . 2.7 NNE 2.4 .1.7 3.7 5,5 6,, 4,8 5,5 4,2 6,,5 2.9 4.6 4.1 NE 2.6 3.2 4.7 7.7 7,5 4,0 3,9 3,9 4,0 4,4 5,X 4.2 3.8 2.8 ENE 2,6 3.1 3.9 7,0 6,5 3,7 7,6 10,4 6.4 8.7 6.8 E 4.0 7.2 6.3 10.( 8,6 5,6 5.1 5.4 5,X 6, S.5 5.7 ESE 3.8 4.6 4,6 5,4 3,2 3,4 2,5 5,9 6,6 7,9 9.7 6, SE 5.3 3.7 4.6 6.0 3,9 3,2 3,4 5.4 8,3 13.6 1 8 SSE 7.9 6.2 6.4 4,2 2,3 3,4 2,8 4,6 6,o 7,9 9.6 I 3.4 S 8 It.1 10.6 6.0 5.2 6,4 4.2 6,2 4,3 3.1 4.7 3..9 4.4 SIV 4.9 7.3 8.3 6,9 5,5 6.3 5,( 7,7 5,3 8.8 4A.8 o,, S IV 7. 9 49 83 8.0 9,3 13,4 I1,I 8,2 7.4 7.9 6.2 (.5 SJIV' 9)I 1.6 9.() 5.9 7,1 8,5 12,7 15,9 11.3 1 1,6 9.1 1 .5 I' 20l.8 16.6 12.7 6.9 9.5 12,. 1.3,6 5,6 4.2 5.1 3.7 4.6 11,1V_V 6.4 .3._ 3,9 X,6 7,5 4,7 5,9 4,9 4,1) 4,4 4.2 A Nit' 5.5 3.8 3.( 4.2 4,3 '5, 7 5,9 5,0 4.2 2.5 38 NVA'J' 4. 3 3.1 3.5 5,0 6,0 6,4 6,3 5,4 01) 072 l(zamin' 0.0() 0),7) 0.4 0,0_ 0.9 2,8 4,1 03) 0,) 2,7 4,1 3,4 2.6 2.7 1.7 _ Vo,,,i,,.l 1.7 I O 2.4 2 2 2.9 28X -J1 Table 2.5

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

VIH J III lY. A' .'11 I____3 11 3I111._III_I _ I" I' ll 4.0 3,4 3,4 2,9 3,1 3,7 3.6 N 4.4 4.8 4, 4,3 3,7 3.2 2,5 2,5 2,3 2,9 2,7 2.9 N.E 3.6 2.7 3.1 3,9 2.9 2.3 2,5 2,2 2.2 2,6 2,4 2.5 .\E 2.3 2.7 2.7 3.0 2,9 25 2.5 2.1 2.7 2,7 2,3 2.1 2.4 EN'E 2.(1 28 2.5 2,6 2 7 2_5 2,3 2,2 2,7 2.1 2.8 E 1.9 1.8 2.3 3.0 2,7 2,7 2.2 2,2 2,.5 2,6 2.62.5 ESE 1.3 2.3 2.5 3.( 2.5 2. 3 2,1 2,2 2,2 2,5 2,5 2.8 SE 2.3 3.7 2.6 2.8 2,3. 28X3.3 3.3 2,3 2,4 2,3 2.0 3,0 US'.5E 2(.6 3.5 3.1 2,8 3,9 4.2 2,7 2,5 3,0) 3,6 3.4 S 4.1 4.4 4.0 3.3 2,4 5.1 5.5 0 3,6 3.8 4,2 3.9 4,8 .SSl' 4.5 5.2 5. 4.3 4 5.7 3,1 4 4 o) 4,8 5.1 5.4 ,511' 5.7 5.2 511 4,2 4 2 5.5 6.4 4,1 3,9 4,2 4,0 4,5 5,9 If`SI'U 6.3 5.( 5,8 4,4 i . 3,3 3,X 4.2 4.4 5,6 5.3 If, 6.0 5.7 5.4 3,7 3,4 41 46. 3,) 3,I 3,5 3.3 3,9 4.5 1i'XI)' 5.2 3.9 4 4 3,3 3. 2,X 3,2 3() 3,8 4.6 4.2 ,NJ'I 4.6 4.3 3.8 3,7 2,8 3.7 3,1 3,4 2.9 3,4 4.1 4.2 A'AiN'l' A4.8 4.2 4.4 38X 3,5

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

,. Tosmarc Laike is localte(lin thie PiejLral lowlandl, applroxillmately I Ill a1hov se;ia lvl. The arcaoccCLied by>lthI lake is aboult4.05 - 4. 15 km). hutl the open Watlcr surl'ace iS signifi cantly sismlici (oni\ 5) hectuscs)because the lke is OVCI"Al by reeds, IllS plot. coltsfoot. ec. Thc a\erae depth of the Lakc is only 0.6 m and thle maximmllll deptlh is 1.2 m. The hasin aireais 73 kir2. Tlhcrc arc botanical restrictions at1thc northern part ol Lake (detalls are presentedin Chapter6.6) 1541.

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

Alande river flows through the Bartava plain in the Piejura lowland. It discharges in the northern end of Liepaja Lake. The total length of Alande is 24 km and the catchment 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 from Vergale settlement the Alanlde stream flows into Vartaja undulated plain. There it flows in a wide, well-formed ancient valley, and passes through Tasi Lake. On the banks of Alande there are meadows, peat lands, partly overgrown by bushes. Alande has several tributaries and the largest ones are [33, 35, 54]:

* right bank tributar-ies: Andzupite, Vezupite (both discharges into Tasi lake), 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)plitics. and all existinu waste disposal sites had lbeen visitct. Afterwards a background- documentation lhas becn compiled. A specially designed inveloly-qltesliolrc has been used for the data collectioni (see Appeclndix3) 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, Vergale and Virga pagasts), * private companies ("Tan", "Sikari", "Paisas" and "Vecpils"), housing estates ("Ezerkrasts-2" and "Kara osta" in the Liepaja City), municipal councils themselves - 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 Medze and 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 of the Region - in Liepaja. Currently there are 5 firms providin, solid waste manaTement:

* "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 Inlct. all enterprlises dealdel in jib waste manneemeni. exitid iin "larK. smll. and provide limied scopc ol' services (see Table 3.2).

Tahle 3I Organisation of Waste Collection and -Transportation in Liepaja D)istrict No lParish or towniProvider of services = 2 AizluItlcpar. ani ltown Munincipal enic-prise "Aizpu i es Wn)iunlai uziwinunInn 3 Barta parish Mun icipalitv 4 Bunka parish Waste produlcer-sthemselves 5 Cirava parish Municipality. agricuLItureschool, 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 themselves 17 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 themselves 27 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 is transported to the dump sites located in Grobina and Nica parishes. * waste from the Tadaiki parish is transportced to the "Skcde" although Durbe or Grobina dump sites are significantly closer to the waste oeneratioln centre. Tlahic 32 Eiiterrrises providin;g waslt managemlelnt services Ennterp rise|( Colleted [ %I:istl. talotl in Region [Sern'ict'dniliinilclpali ies TARI 74330) 64.77 munliipilpalifies SIKARI 6800 5.93 I .iepaja (it! PAISAS 4000 3.85 I.iup.aja cit \. N ic, p.rish R.e. EZERKRASTFS-2 3601) 3.14 Lipl%ijja('it\, AIZI'UTE me.. 2216 1 93 Ai,z ipelown IRnparish He. KARA OSI'A 1600 1.39 Liepija City PRIEKULE m.c. 1270) 1.11 Pricktilc town VAINODE 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 solid waste has been collected aLnddisposed in Liepaja Region. Information about waste composition is rather uncertain, but nevertheless, the current data allow the following classification 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 working hours - also at the Aizpute and Priekule landfills. In accordance with information provided by the-Liepaja Regional Environmental Board, waste registration takes place also at the Grobina landfill "Poligons", although during investigations carried out the area we did not notice any person providing waste registration. Therefore, the total amount of disposed waste in reality might be different than the above given value of 114.8 thousand m3.3

To evaluate the waste volume which is collected is rather difficult, because those amounts are not registered. Waste compacting vehicles are mainly used in Liepaja City. 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 rural municipalities.Thus. the collected waste amount can roughly be estimated as follows (in 1998):

* Municipal waste (solid household anid comparable waste) and hospital waste: 3 3 compacted waste (average density - 250 k(g/m ) - 82,052 m 3 3 and non-compacted waste (average density - 150 k/rm ) - 4,462 m * 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;lwastc - 221 Pt) loilnies * Garden waste - 1902 toniles * Demiolitioniwaste - 03579 tonilcs * Non-toxic industLrialwastc 7472 tonnes Total amount: 37,833 or about 38 thiousandtonnes

Table 3.3 gives a specified overview on disposed waste amounts and comilpositionfor each town and parish. Table 3.3 Disposed Waste Amounts and Compositionin the Liepaja 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( 64 240 Bar.a arish 0 '-)9) 10 - - - Bunka parish 25 25 - - Cirava parish 200 170 20 10 Dunalka parish 11 () 11 - - Dunika parish 50 30 20 - Durbe town+rural area 384 334 30 20 Embute 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 50 Kaleti parish 160 160 - - - - Kalvene parish 104 104 - Kazdanga parish 250 200 30 10 10 Laza parish 80 80 - Liepaja town 1I0.400 75,360 4.500 1.540 4,000 15.000 Medze parish 152 140 - - 12 - Nica parish 400 330 50 20 - Otanki parish 500 465 - - 20 15 Pavilosta town 600 350 30 20 200 Priekule parish 66 66 - - - - Priekule town 1.270 280 10 100 10 870 Rucava parish 2.000 760 40 - 1.000 200 Saka parish 150 150 - - Tadaiki parish 500 470 - 30 Vainode 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 Intowns 107,920 ! 79,526_ 6,000 1,X87) ] 4.164 16,360 In ruralareas 6.839 5,118 341 [ 1) | 1,135_ 245

The morphological composition of household waste hals been investigated in Licpai;ja City in May, 1999. Two differ-ent areas were selected: Ma ulti-i1d tdLl IhouLs e11ael.C * ;1nind(ividlkual (lpri \';tC) hlouse areaC;.

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

Table 3.4 WVastegeieration per capita Sorting place Nuimberof Collectioni Sorted waste Waste I)ensitv l I inhabitants time volume, m' weight. kg kg/im'l Kurmajas prospekts28/30 154 17.05.99- 1.1 154.0 140 (multi-apartment house) 18.05.99 Private houses(at the 72 different 1.1 248.5 226 Cenkones.Miera. Nicas, (basically Nidas.Plavu, Rucavas and onceper Darzastreets. 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 carried out in 1997-1998 in other Latvian towns have provided similar figures:

- for multi-apartment houses: Daugavpils - 1.2 m3/year, Smiltene - 1.09 m3/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 plastic bottles and branches (see Table 3.5), which have a very low density. Thus, 3 the obtained figure - 140 kg/mr - cannot be used as a basis for a waste production forecast, because it is too low. From experience, about 200 kg/mr3 is a reliable average figure for non-compacted household waste [36], * waste density 226 kg/rn3 (individual houses) could be valid, although presence of slag and soil with weeds causes an increase of the waste density. Nevertheless, the slag input was about 8.2 %, which is rather usual when waste comes from individual houses with local heating system. Similarly, soil with weeds is often disposed into containers when weeding of gardens and flower-beds takes place.

The morphological composition of the waste proves that separate waste collection might 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 mlmollTable . thle waste COfltail ;sn i 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 waste Multi-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 l Paper 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 and M3 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 anidTranisp)ortation |Nou |Parish or vohille of Nniier olf' \viicks uise(df-or wastvt raisportation NI I tomwn [containers containers AizpuLtc11. 1.0 II' 12 Lorry (i/A-53 13.5 Il 3 Tractor IllNJ/. \\ ihi wae-;on 2 Aizpuie 1. 0.75 nliS I Russian vehicles: GAZ 53 M: 13V6070. 0.1 mi 270 GAZ -53 1401: K() 413: 1BU1573 3 Barta p. - Tractor with watgon 4 BunkaP. - Wasteproducers theiscielves 5 Cirava p. 0.1 In' 16 Tractor MTZ xith wagon 6 ( Dunalka p. - Tractor with wagon 7 Dunika p. 0.1 In' 1) Lorry GAZ-53 8 Durbe t.and 0.1 Im' 28 rural area 0.Sm' 12 Tractor MTZ -S0 with wagon 9 Embute p. 5 rn' 9 m'3 I Tractor with w\agon . 7 InI 10 Gavieze p. 10 mn . I Lorry GAZ-53 11 Gramzda p. 0.1 In' 8 Tractor with wagon 12 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 3 _18 m l I1 ______15 Kalvene p. - Sacks Lorry GAZ-53 16 Kazdanga p. 1.0 m 17 Tractor MTZ -80 with wagon 17 Laza parish 1.0 m' 5 Lorry 18 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" | 1.1m 3 620 "Sikari" - 2 vehicles: "Karaosta" - I vehc. 19 Medze p. 0.75 m' 14 Serviced by "TARI" Ltd. 20 Nica p. - 2 wagons Tractor MTZ -80 with wagon 3 ______.(7 m ) "Volvo" (waste collected by "PAISAS") 21 Otanki p. . - Tractor MTZ -80 with wagon 22 Pavilosta t. 1.0 m' 27 Tractor with wagon _ 0.6 m3 10 23 Priekule p. 1,0 m3 5 Lorry or tractor with wagon 24 Priekule t. 0,1Imn 120 Lorry GAZ-53 0.5m 3 26 25 Rucava p. 0.1 m3 35 Tractor MTZ-80 with wagon 26 Saka p. - - Waste producers themselves 27 Tadaiki p. 1.0 mr 9 Serviced by "TARI" Ltd. 28 Vaiiiode p. 1,0 m' 14 Tractor with wagon 0.5M3 9 29 Vecpils p. - Wagon (7 m-') Tractor MTZ-82 with wagon 30 Vergale p. 1.0 mI 6 Lorry GAZ -0.M' 20 Tractor with wagon 31 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 started to use compacting vehicles ("Tari]" 'Sikari" and others), havc bought old ones due 10 limited financial possibilities. Therefore, those vehicles have to be replaced withinl a few years. -rilC W;aStCCOlICCiOfl fleCtini1Cy is varies colnsi(ldcrahl (see Table 3.7). allhliotw' it is usually recogtiscei by [ihclocal atlliolrilies and r esidlenits thlat tle n1itwhr 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 ilte number of containers is too few andi they arc qjuite olten localed at non-propel places. A futur-e efficicnt collection systemnshould aim at a collection interval of mnimum one week, which is further- discussed in the analysis ol the collection systelmr.

Taible 3.7 Waste collection frequencv No Parish or town | Waste collection Irequeiwv I Aizpute p. 2 times per month 2 Aizpute t. 2 times per week 3 Barta p. 2 times per month 4 Bunka p. Occasionally,waste producers bring their waste themselves when they want 5 Cirava p. As required: usually once per 2 weeks or once per month 6 Dunalka p. As required; usually once per montih 7 Dunika p. Once per month 8 Durbe t.and rural area Usually2 times per month 9 Embute p. As required 10 Gavieze p. Once per 3 months I I Gramzda p. As required 12 Grobina p. As required 13 Grobina t. 2 times per week 14 Kaleti p. 3 times per year 15 Kalvene p. Once per week 16 Kazdanggap. As required 17 Laza parish 2 times per month 18 Liepaja town Daily (multi - apartment houses) or more rarely. once per month for individual houses 19 Medzep. Once per week 20 Nica p. As required 21 Otanki p. 2 times per month 22 Pavilosta t. Once per week 23 Priekule p. Once per month 24 Priekule t. Once per week 25 Rucava p. As required: usually once per 2 weeks or once per month 26 Saka p. Occasionally,waste producers bring their waste themselves when they want 27 Tadaiki p. Once per week 28 Vainode p. As required 29 Vecpils p. As required 30 Vergale p. Once per month 31 Viraa p. Oncepeer montiI

3.4 Waste reuse and recy cling

Waste reuse and recycling is generally not or-anised in the Regioin. ahll.ough possibilities for waste recycling exist. In July. 1999 the market for recycables can be characterised as follows: - cast il-on - the aNcral- iprice is about 30(-33Ls/t. aln iluniiiltel market, ti,. metalllurgical plant 'Licpajas mlitalurgss is located wit hin l iCpaj;1aCity. - othel ferrous mletalis- the avcraoc plicc is about I I L-S/tbut theCprice Cart fluctuate depending oniquality, 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 price will increase significantly. t-or aluminium - up to 4X()Lst (dependinfgOn quality), 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" in Riga 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 Riga District accepts low pressure polyethylene. If carefully sorted and cleaned the price can reach 70 Ls/t. but only for suppliers who have long-term delivery contracts, for others plastics may be accepted for free or the supplier has to pay for the delivery of plastics. paper and cardboard: factory "Ligatne" (Cesis District), factory in Klaipeda (Lithuania) and buyers. "Ligatne- can receive maximum 200 tlmonth (the amount is gradually decreasing), the price varies from 9 to 24 Ls/t, if the paper is sorted and clean; the factory can cover transport expenses if cargo is 20 tonnes or more. "Klaipeda" takes baled paper / cardboard, the average price is 7.5 Ls/t, the amounts to receive are practically non-limited, but the factory works only on contract basis. In the near future the factory "VALPRO" 'in Valmiera will likely start to produce egg-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 are significantly cheaper, - the chrushed glass: factory "Grizinkalns" in Riga currently utilises maximum 400 t/month and the price is about 23 Ls/t. Transport of glass bottles 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 following waste is collected for recycling purposes: * ferrous metals, since almost unlimited amounts can be delivered to the metallurgical 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"). Koku street 3 ("PAISAS"), on corner of Liela and Juras street ("SIKARI-'). Tise street 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 usdcdfor waste sorting. collectioni frequenlcy aindl number of involved inhabitaLntsis piresented in Table 3.8.

The obtained results are shown in Table 3.9. The separation efficienlcy varies from month to montih and March 1999 has been selected as representative in order to analyse 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 the separate glass collection further. 2. Plastics sorting. except in Durbe town is rather problematic, because other waste is added as well. Re-sorting of the waste is required to get a proper quality. Additionally, the market for plastic waste is limited, see above. 3. The real source separation of metals is already taking place, because the market for this waste recycling is unlimnited, i.e. the metallurgical plant "Liepajas metalurgs" located in Liepaja city. Due to this reason, containers foreseen 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 separate containers. On the other hand - containers should be properly equipped in order to avoid their emptying by occasional persons which likely takes place currently.

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

Table 3.8 Background data on experimental waste sorting at site Tow n or Location of Number of Volume and Collection Servicing settlement 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 SIKARI and 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'/2weeks TAKI 8. Dubeni Kursu 4 460 0.75 ni - 5 1 time/week l'ARI settlement TlZlNC *.') Results obtained during experimental wasle sort iig Location 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 ixewdwaisl| 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 briefly described in Tables 3.10 and 3.11.

There are only 6 dump sites. where more than one thousand m of waste were disposed 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 1998 have been disposed at 6 dump sites. Remaining 3,927 m3 has been disposed in the 21 small 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 and Saka parish; 750 m3 were disposed in 1998, - "Karjers", Kaleti parish - 3.0 hectares, currently only 0.4 hectares are used for waste disposal. It is the oldest dump site in the Liepaja Region, which is in operation since 1950. Dump site is used by the Kaleti parish. and only 160 m3 of waste were disposed in 1998, - "Laivragi", rural area of the Durbe town - 2.5 hectares, about 0.7 hectares are used for waste disposal. Dump site is used since 1988 by the Durbe town and its rural area, and 384 m3 were disposed in 1998, - 'Daidzes", Dunalka parish - 2.5 hectares. currently only 0.4 hectares are used for waste disposal. Dump site is used since 1980 by the Dunalka parish; only 100 mnwere disposed in 1998, - "'Upmali", Cirava parish - 2.1 hectare. about 1 hectare is used for waste disposal. Dump site is used since 1972 by the Cirava parish; onlly 2009(m1 were disposed in 1998, - Aizpute" -.- 2.0 hectares, MCrogs/Scale 1:400 000

LaI00 0

I~~~~~, ~~uoavasfpa~ Skaspa

apjoms 1998.gadsi, mal~~~~~~~r 0 i Atkritumu Wa te v o l u i 1 99B, m '+:<,'s.ia t A R v S ,' . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IPU Fig.Wate : dsposl sies i Lieajapegio 3. zim.:Liepajas Izg3ztuves regionfi~~~~~~~~~~56'

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

3:131

- "171zeZlIVC. Ga\ iezc parish - 2.() hectar-es. oni 0.-. hectal-es r11eculsetl o1r, wvastcdisposal. DIumpsitC is in uIsCsiilc C 990(I\ theI(ial'iCZC Ieparish:; Only 100 in3 were disposedin 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 Iromz Liepaja city is disposed. is rather small - only I hectare. since both dIumLpsites were established in 1995.

Table 3. 1.0 Dump Sites in Liepaja Region Parish or Name of Serviced | Start of UWaste No. town dump site population Status exploi- Area (ha) volume in ______tationI 1998 (m') 1. Aizpuie p. Aizpute 630 Legal 199() ] 2.0 150 ____ Aizputet. 4500 Uses du p site in Aizplte parish 2.066 2. B Krutes 836 Legal 1988 (1.5 100 3. Bunka p. lzgaztuve ? Illegal 1995 0.5 25 4. Cirava p. Upmali 850 Illegal 1972 2.1 200 5. Dunalka p. Daidzes 400 Legal 1980 2.5 100 6. Makeni ? Legal 1990 1.0 10 7. Dunika p. Eglaini 238 Illegal 1986 1.0 50 8. Durbe p./ra. Laivragi 400 Legal -1988 2.5 384 9. Embute p. Lidzibas 430 Illeal -1990 1.0 110 10. Gavieze p. Izgaztuve 300 Legal 1990 2.0 100 11. Gramzda p. Smilsi 350 Illegal -1986 1.2 100 12. Grobina p. Poligons 1400 Legal 1995 1.0 700 Grobina t. 4625 Uses dump site in Grobina parish 3200 13. Kaleti p. Karjers 450 Illegal -1950 ] 3.0 160 14. Kalvenep. Dzidras 200 Illegal 1994 j 0.2 104 15. Kazdanga p. Cernkalns 400 Legal 1995 | 0.5 250 16. Izgaztuvelp. 200 Uses mainly dump site in Aizpute p. 80 17. Liepaja t. Skede 65000 Le-al . 1972 7.5 90000 5.500 Uses dump site in Grobina parish 6800 3500 Uses dump site in Nica parish 3600 18. Medze p. Dalini 250 Legal 1995 | 0.5 152 Uses dump site in Grobina parish as well 19. Nica p. Piladzi 2820 Illel-al 1995 1.0 400 2(0. Otanki p. Zurnieki 800 llegal |-1981 1.5 5() Pavilosta t. 1284 Uses dump site in Saka parish 60(0 21. Priekules p. Dobelzibali 200 Legal 1 1970 1 2.0 66 Priekule t. 1300 Uses dump site in Priekule parish 127(0 22. 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 | 650 25. Vecpils p. Liepnieki 3()0 Legal 1981 1.0 l()M 26. Vergale p. lzgaztuve 20(N Lgal 1995 (1.5 52 27. 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) site 1 AiizpuLe parish Aizpules Withii licil. partly I guad duing i.inliled possihilitic. at Ilte hog wol lighours 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 waste field L_dumping 5. Dunalka p. Daidzes In forest No Non-controlled waste dumping 6. Makeni Field and partly Occasionaliy Non-controlled waste forest bulldozer-driver dumping 7. Dunika p. Eglaini Field. bordering Occasionally Non-controlled waste with a forest bulldozer-driver dumping 8. Durbe town and Laivragi Quarry, bordering Occasionally Non-controlled waste rural area with a bog bulldozer-driver dumping 9. Embute p. Lidzibas Quarry Occasionally Non-controlled waste bulldozer-driver dumping 10. Gavieze p. Izgaztuve Quarry Occasionally Non-controlled waste bulldozer-driver dumping 11. Gramzda p. Smilsi Field 2 times per year Non-controlled bulldozer-driver dumping 12. Grobina parish Poligons Field, neighbou- 3 guards. I Non-controlled waste ring with forest bulldozer-driver dumping, although Liepaja Regional Environmental Board considers that landfill is 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 waste bulldozer-driver dumping 15. Kazdanga p. Cernkalns Along forest 2-3 times per Non-controlled waste year bulldozer- dumping Idriver 16. Laza p. Izgaztuve Field No Non-controlled waste dumping 17. Liepaja town Skede Former wetland 4 guards. Close neighbourhood 2 bulldozer- to Lake Tosmare: drivers surface and ground- water contamination 18. Medze p. Dalini Quarry Formally Non-controlled waste I guard dumping 19. 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 waste bulIdozer-driver dumping 21. Priekule Dobeizibali Field Occasiona;ll Guarded duling parish bulldozer-driver working hours 3: 1 '

('o01lin liohl ol'T'blc 3.1 1 No. | Parishl (or Nail.; of Location T| .Li)0%ces at PIroblems townl dulii) sitc ] I tile dIiii)l site 22. Rucava 1p. Viduissils Qllarr%illolne tile FormialkI Non -cirmolilcd waste |

______t'l)l't' I CL 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-contiollCLI bulldozer-driver dumping 25. Vecpils Liepniciki Wctliand Occasionally Non-conitrollel l b uildozer-driver dlumllpilng 26. Vergale p. lzgaztu\e Field Occasionallybulldozer- Non-controlled driver, periodically drumping 2 employees 27. Virga p. Paplaka Quarry Occasionally Non-controlled btulidozer-driverdumping

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 for the dump site location, i.e. quarries (13 dump sites of 27), forests (5 dump sites 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 both at 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 solid waste 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 other disturbances related with collection. Presently people in the project area do not express concerns related to disturbances from collection and transportation (results of the inquiry of all municipalities in the project area).

Impacts front the lantdfills

None of the existing landfills comply with the existing environmental standards: most of the problems are related with pollution of surface and ground water, as well as soil pollution. Part of the existing landfill "Skede" is located within zone ol[ the Tosmare Lake reserve. 1: I(

In all lanidfills wastc is burned occasionally. )aily or regular waste Cover is not provided, excluding at the *'Skede" landfill. This cauises clistirances lr people iiil in the surroundings of' the landf'ills. The maajor pproblemnsare relaied vitlhodoLr., anld the 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 that waste is spread along the access roatd to the landfill. Furthermorc, rathler olfen,. due to absence 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, due to the size of the landfills. only one of them (Skede - the biggest one, which is used by the Liepaja City) has a monitoring network. According to the results of investigations carried 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 and groundwater in the direct vicinity of the landfill are strongly polluted (see Figures 4 and 5). The pollution level has a tendency to increase.

The surface water contamination is extremely high - the electrical conductivity of water often increases to 5 mS/cm (maximum - about 35 mS/cm), and polluted water flows directly to the Tosmare Lake through connecting ditches (see Figure 4). It is estimated that about 80% of surface runoff and leachate is discharged in the Tosmare lake. The shallow groundwater aquifer is contarninated as well, and the contamination plume is directed towards the Tosmare Lake (see Figure 5). In the core of contamination TDS and COD exceed 3000 mg/l and 300 mg 02/1 respectively. The confined 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 COD exceed 500 mg/I and 10 mg 0241respectively.

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 will increase the velocity of this process.

The polluted shallow groundwater does not cause human health problems. because the water from this aquifer, due to the presence of boggy sediments, is not suitable for water 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 serious problems, although the water flow is directed towards the Baltic Sea and has not caused problems for the local inhabitants. Furthermore, well no. L2 which is located on 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. IiMeronslinfOn 1 s .1 1 11 Scale 1:10,000 - -u mmmer gardens

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

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

II / '

1;wTPNA! -I

APZiME-JUMI/LEGEND Virszemes uideni/Surface waterGavnepsroj§vil Tiri vai lptivfiji piesfirp,oti (EC<0,5mSkm) Piessir,oti (EC=1.5-3,0mS/cm) priet§nsvrin agaje Cleanor very slightly contaminated Contaminated Maindischarge directions of contaminants Vajipiesarnoti (EC=0,5-1,5mS/cm) Stipripiesarn,oti (EC>3,0mS/cm) through the ditch-system Slightlycontaminated Stronglycontaminated 4. AiM.: Virszemes uiden,upiesair,nojums, izg5ztuve "Skede"- Fvig.4: Contamination of surface water, landrill "Skede"

W[Mrogs1 10000 ' 9 } L-5 v Jl1 Scale 1:10,000 Ir,5 ] ,0 ,, I ' / ~~~~~~Summelrloardens .

L a r

.WWTP/NAI_! v UrbumiI Wells Pazemesuden,U ple5ar nojums / Groundwatercontamination T-1 * Izurtbti1983 9. / Drilledin 1983 Gruntsfldelil/ Shallow groundwater Artiziskie0de ,ni/ Confined aquifers B-1 e Izuroti 1995g. /Drilled in 1995 Tiri vai !°oivaji 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

Ar ul*5fltraintlervalu spieddienadfeBnu horizoritos r < Vajil pes£irnoti (Sausne=5001000 omg/i C =9;l50-100mgA; KSP-Cr<=1 00mgO,/1) ArS~j pecrou pame

Ar filrtraintervlu bezsp'ediena iidens horizonta - a Piesirrnoti(SauSne=1000-3000°mg/I CI o10-500mgq ;SPCOD 100-300 mgO/I) Withsignso sligts9ctontamination <0mO4 (- g g j ., .,, i -. Stipripiesirnoti (Sausne>S000 mg/I; Ct >500mg/i; ,KSP-Cr>300mgOa,l1) Galvenieplesarn,oloso vielu pirvietosanis virzien, Pazemes udenu Iimei!f, m V.Jl-*[5' $9 tongty contaminated(TDS>3000 mgAI; Cl[>500 mg/l; COD-Cr>300 mgOII) Main directions of contaminanttransport Groundwaterleveis, m a.m-s.i. E Z] SrGruntsuden,os ,|, Artezisikajosuden,os r Spiedienudenu honizonti In =hnaIl.s groundwater I ofndnulr -1-aIn confined aquifer h a5 ztm. Paze~mesuiudenu pics£trvojums, izgaztuvep '"Skedp" -..- I ofndauf 2In waPtertable aquifer Fig. 5: Groundwatcr contamination,landfill "Skedc"

3f:Il )

Therefore. in or-dci-to Imilitliite clnvironmiental impacts and rcmilidlation ol hlieex]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 of groundwater and contamination at "Poligons" is shown in FiguLre6. In both cases contamination of shallow groundwater aquifer is limited (see Appendix 8). For example. 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-obina parish has to be considered as high, since the dump site has been used only for 3 years. Fortunately, the risk for spreading of the contamination are rather limited due to thin sand layers (usually less than Im) and the presence of till (loam, thickness more than 10 m). Nica has been disregarded as a site for a new regional waste treatment plant and is not further mentioned in the report

It is not possible to specify details of the environmental pollution caused by other landfills. However, since the amounts of disposed waste is small (50 m - 2000 m3 per year), it could be assumed, that environmental impacts are minor and only of local scale that can be mitigated by closure and simple covering of the dump site from the top using clayey sediments. Aizpute dump site may cause some problems, but the contamination 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 of biogas emitted to the atmosphere is analysed in Chapter 7 (biogas amounts and possible utilisation).

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

Conclusions

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

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

.7. -,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~III I0

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

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

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

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

0 00 o 00

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

SalIe I M6rogs1:2000, o0

19, Monitoring wells, to the righit- their number and heiglhtin m a.m.s.l., to the left - C(D1) Mg( 2/1 kreisi - K~SP,mgO,fl l670 2 9 ,13 Monitoringa urbumi, pa labi - to numuri un absohtitis atzimes, m v.j.l.. pa -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 parish 6. zim.: (;ruintsiidcni~ipicsfiriVoJims izgiiztuve "I"Oligons", Crobin~aspagastii

3:2

Environmental and heleltli immpactsl'onm thec SlinaiI landll'ils arc considcred to 1 c limited. These can be mitiualted b\' Closine ol dtLump1 sites aild COVCe1in ot tIlChWm with clavey material.

3.7 Economic aspects

The data obtained re-ardinig nature rCsouLrcetax. ia-it'ais.and maniaenarent costs are presented in Table 3.12 andl 3.13. The figures are based on the estlimlaitcddata on disposed volumes at the arrival to the landfills in 1998.

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

Table 3.12 Estimated Value of Nature Resources Tax

|No |Parish or town Name of dump Waste volume Nature resources tax (Ls) 3 3 Site (mi) Per m 1 Total 1 Aizpute parish Aizputes 150' 0.25 18.75 _ izgaztuve 2 Aizpute town 2.066' 0.25 258.25 3 Barta p. Krutes 100 0.25 25 4 Bunka p. B. izgaztuve 25 0.25 6.25 5 Cirava p. IJpmali 200 0.25 50 6 Dunalka p. Daidzes. Makeni 110 0.25 27.5 7 Dunika p. Eglaini 50 0.25 12.5 8 Durbe town and Laivragi 384 0.25 96 rural area Embute p. Lidzibas 110 0.25 27.5 10 Gavieze p. G. izgaztuve 100 0.25 25 11 Gramzda p. Smilsi 100 0).25 25 12 Grobina parish Poligons 700' 0.25 87.5 13 Grobina town 3200' 0.25 400 14 Kaleti p. Karjers 160 0.25 40 15 Kalvene p. Dzidras 104 0.25 26 16 Kazdanga p. Cernkaiis 250 0.25 62.5 17 Laza p. Aizputes iz.(1.) 8( 0).25 20) Continuation follows

- assuming thaltwatste compaction ralte during collection is 2 times 3- -

( olito;10ioll o Il"i)lc 3.12 No I'arish or town Namateooi'1ilp \VaSIv Nolume| Nature resources tlax(l.s) Site (nII) l Per I ni' lotal l i18 Liepaja townIl SkeWLC+ T'PoIlisll 10W I ()2 I55(2l 12(.. l'ilatidi (2(0) l 10) Mcdze p. Dalinii 152 0(.25 318 20 Nica p. PilalIZi 4()) (.25 00 21 Otanlki p. ZuLr-nlicki 50)) I 0.25 _ 125 22 Pavilostawtown Ben1Loifi(26.) 6()() 0.25 i5( 23 Prickule parish Dohclz.ibali 66 0.25 16.5 24 Priekule town 1270' 0.25 158.75 25 Rucavap. Vidussils 200)() 0.25 5(0) 26 Sakap. Bendor-fi 15) 0.25 37.5 27 Tadaiki p. Skede (17.) 5(M)' 0.25 62.5 28 Vainode p. Vechala 650 0.25 162.5 29 Vecpils p. Liepnieki Il(X) 0.25 25 30 Vergale p. V. izgaztuvc 52 0.25 13 31 Virgap. Paplaka 30 0.25 7.5 Total: l 114759 14876.5 - assumingthat waste compaction rate during collection is 2 times

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

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

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

300000 Ls: 114759 m3/year _ 2.61 Lslm3

Table 3.13 Operation costs Parish or town Expenses for (Ls) Actual situation, Financing required No Ls/m3 per ar (Ls) Collec- Disposal Tariffs Actual Collection Disposal tion costs I Aizpute parish ? ? 0() - 15( 75 2 Aizpute town -2000 -300 0.45 Ls/m3 1.11 3() 60)) 3 Barta p. 320 100 0 4.20 54() 500 4 Bunlkap. ? ? 0() 50 25 5 Cirava p. 634 0 3.17 5()( 600) 6 Dunalka p. 2) 0 08 I)() 0 ConlinLiationi f'olloWS

3 2 - particular tariffs can change from () to 4.80 Ls/m (Colnitinatuion ol 'Tahlc 3. 13, EXj)fenses [or tsI.. ) Actual situalion, F'in;iainig reqliired No I'arishir town ._____ I.N3 per veari.(s) l t zx~~~~~~~olhe-|DIispos;l Ta.rill:s A\zXlua( Coletn Iisposa; l ~~~~~~~~~titUll (4sts9Co 7 Duiuika 1p. 10s *0 2.4 Ls/ mn' 2.76 138 8 Dulhe to\\n anid . 4.68 Ls/ m' 2001) rural ar;ea_ 9 Emnbutep. 72 60( () 1.2(0 72 1() 10 Gavieze p. 120 1.56 Ls2 m' 41) 150 50 II Gramzda p. (0) 200 0.91 Ls/ m- 2.60 5000()(' .5(H) 12 Grobina parish 2795 -To-(-LsL,/m 3.99 3200 13 Grobina town 8IOO 6500 3.00 LsI ml 4.56 8100 13800' 14 Kaleti p. 270 320 0 3.69 27( 600 15 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() .______Ls/m 3 19 Medze p. 1512 3.00 Ls/rn' 9)95?2 1512 20 Nica p. 496 0.52 Ls/m' 1.24 600 21 Otanki p. 160 1 50 0 0.62 160 [ 200 22 Pavilosta town 1000 8(0 3.00 Ls/m- 3.00 1000 | 800 23 Priekule parish . 0.70 Ls/m3 ? 200 24 Priekule town 2700 200 3.36 Ls/m' 2.28 4000 2000 25 Rucava p. 500 1500 0 0.80 500 1500 26 Saka p. 0 0 0 ?..... 450 27 Tadaiki p. 1500 0 3.00 1500 28 Vainode p. 1751 2.40 Ls/m 2.92 1800 29 Vecpils p. 100 50 0.60 Ls/m3 1.50 100 | 50 30 Vergale p. 430 360 0 15? 600 500 31 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 low 3 - 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 waste collection, transporting and disposal. Thus. all related expenses are covered from municipal budgets. This would be necessary to reconsider in the future when a new waste management system will be introduced. 2. Some local governments obviously declare too low waste volumes or apply too low limits for waste disposal (at least Kalvene. Medze and Vergale parishes).

4-1

4 Acquisof legalrequirements and requirementsfor proposedactivities

4.1 EU legislation requirements

European Union envir-oinienital leislation hizisdeveloped over IhC last 3() years and(l comprises today sorne 300 lCgalactS. nClUdingdirectives. IcgULatiOn1S.CIC;SIOnS a111nI recommendations. However, the body of EU environmllental legislation. with which the associated countries in Central and Eastern Europe eventually will have to align their national legislationi and administrative practises. as a conditioni for membership of the European Union - the so called environmental acquis - is considerably smaller. It mainly about 70 directives - some of which, however, have been amended several times and supplemented with "daughter" directives and 2 1 regulations 19.21,41].

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

1. Non-White Paper legislation: Directives: - Municipal waste incineration for existing installations, 89/429/EEC and for new installations. 89/369/EEC * The landfill of waste, 1999/31/EC Regulations: * None 2. 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 states should: * 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 technical improvements of products and improving disposal techniques, as well as promote waste recycling, * prohibit waste disposal, dumping or illegal discharge, they (Member States) should develop integrated and relevant network of waste disposal infrastructure, * 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 L3aselcon vent'1in is related to theIL[IZ/.LOUS WaIste 0ni., but those Regulations cover shipmntlctol nonl-loxic w.asieas wvell.

Council di-ective 1999/31 fEC ol 20 Apr-il I 999 on the landfill (il waste cnv'isa2CS among other rc-ulations. that: * all waste should he treatcd hbeoredisposal: * disposal of houseloldk and hazardous waste in one place is exCludcdl. * costs for landlill ClOSUlCand post-closuUreactivities. as well as costs tor handling of landfill area 50 years in future should be included in waste disposal costs. * amount of biodegradable waste in household waste disposed at the landfill should be decreased, * methane gas should be collected and utilised or burned fi-om existing and new landfills.

Directive 85/337/EEC regulates Environmental Impact Assessment. Recently some changes in the Directive have been made with Directive 97/1l/EC. which should come in force in 1999. The directive promotes preventive approach in environmental conservation and states that development projects, which could have significant impact to environment, are subject to an EIA before state institutions make their decisions.

4.2 Nationallegislation and responsibleinstitutions

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 new laws of Latvia, implemented and adopted during the last years. It should be mentioned that 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 general law, 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 and household waste should be collected, stored and disposed at the specially prepared sites for that purpose (Article 29) [27],

* Law Oni Environmental Imipact Assessmlenzt (October 14. 1998) [26] lists those activities where EIA is required. According to the Annex of the law, where those activities are listed, waste disposal sites are among them (Point 14 and 15 of the Annex). The law states the procedure of the EIA and responsibilities of diflerenl involved parties. Articles 17 and 19 of the law set obligatory requirements for the content of EIA Draft Report and EIA Final Statement. Those requiremenits ar-e followed during elaboration of the current project and will be conitinuledin the future. -1-3

* The Lall o*, Prot'uion bc1.s(Feb. 51'. 1997) 1*1I (dclines speciflic physical 7linin?c, restrict ions that. inevitabl v. are aIIso relevant con1cern11il site Sc'tClions bor waste dlisposall- and treatment installations. 11 sets ceIrai n limiiitations 101c planninsg and pcrmitting anly actiVities that mIltht Cause negtS ie impaCIt to tlC ar-easrespectively objects descrihcdl in the law or to tlheir designated functionality. Another type of protective zones inltcnds to prcvent uLndesir-aiblcimpact ol risk objects or -sources to the environment. huLma1;1nlife. hcalth or propeity. Conceingiil<8 this the law requires also establishment of protective zoncs in thc surroundings of garbage 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 on1Natural 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 for extremely hazardous waste (annex 3). The tax revenues shall be used exclusively to finance measures and projects of environmental benefit (Article 3. part 1), e.g. implementation of compensating measures to equalise impairments to the environment or to make restitution of environmental qualities going to be lost conditioned by the intended activity. 40% of the proceeds shall be transferred to the Environmental Protection Fund at national level and 60% shall be allocated to a 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 local governments are liable to organise basic services to the inhabitants. Among others, such municipal obligations also cover the management (here: collection and disposal) of household waste (article 15, no.1).

* The Law on Municipal Waste (Oct. 15 h, 1998) [29] regulates the state- and local authorities' areas of competence regarding solid waste management (articles 4 - 6). It also defines certain duties of legal corporations or persons dealing with collection, storage, treatment, transfer, transportation, recovery (recycling), and/or disposal of municipal waste (articles 9 - 15). The law further describes the obligatory procedure of issuing permits for recovery and disposal of municipal waste (articles 16 - 18). sets the basic financial principles for solid waste management (articles 19, 20), and points out the municipalities' and state institutions' controlling function concerning municipal waste management (article 21).

* The Lauwott Hazardous Waste (Mar. 3 0 th, 1993) 128] gives a detailed definition of its subjects (different sorts and characterisation of hazardous waste: see introduction of the law and article 2). Doing so it clearly separates issues to be dealt 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 specify the instructions given by the law on Solid Wastc Managemnent: 4 --I

* ReMIlktions No.,,8: ReCLIklltOlIS Onl ConsSIRuCeiIl. 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 national legislation with relevant requiremenits of EU, including requirements of the Council Directive 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 for construction of new landfill sites and the most important that should he mentioned are the following:

* Landfills cannot be constructed in bogs, where the thickness of peat layer is more than I meter (Article 4.2), - Landfills cannot be constructed in areas where the groundwater table is closer 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 water level in the nearest water body (Article 5).

All those requirements are will motivate rnitigating measures at the Skede waste disposal 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 mean that municipalities themselves should provide those services - these activities could be carried out on a contract basis according to the Law On State and self-government order. Municipalities make decision on location of the waste disposal site. They can adopt local construction regulations within their competence, including solid waste management. Municipalities may set fees for waste collection. Municipalities in general are responsible for environmental protection and control within their borders. * Waste producers in general are responsible for waste treatment in a way that 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 solid waste management strategies and implementation projects. * Subordinated institutions of MOEPRD - State Environmental linspectoratc and Regional Environmental Boards (in project area it is the Liepajit Reuional Environmental Board) - control waste management (inclulding review and confirllation of monitoring programs). They issuc limits for 4-5

wastc amllountistiat could he disposCd anfld 1ctil ki 1011 l'ol ti-CtilclnIt of, leachate and surfacc run-off waters. * The Environmental lilpazctAssessmllenlt Stat,11C BuTreau (also suh)Ordi1Cledl body ot MOEIRi)) is responsible loi hlleEIA approval. * Regional Environmental Health Cenitr-es.subor-dlilnatcd bodies ol tile Ministry of Weltfare. ai-c resp onlsible for issLIesrclate(d to the occupational health and working conditions.

In addition to the above mentionied laws and regulationis, the National Solid Waste Management Strategy w as elaborated in 1997, and accepted by the Cabinet of Ministers on June 30. 1998. The basic goal of the Strategy is to create sustainable waste management system in Latvia. which gradually should comply with the relevant European 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 be applied. Taking into consideration the economical situation in Latvia, 10-12 sanitary landfills will be designed and constructed. Simultaneously elaboration of relevant waste collection and transportation systems will be carried 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 the Report on current situation (investments, tax reductions etc.), * "polluter pays" principle should be applied to all waste producers in the state, including rural areas, where most of inhabitants do not pay for waste management services.

Program 500 minus is national or state program that was designed to ensure implementation of the National Solid Household Waste Strategy and requirements of EU Directives for waste management. To a certain extent it is an Action Plan for upgrading of solid waste management practices and reducing impacts of on environment 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. site selection for a new landfill site, EIA -are finished), the total proposed investments is evaluated at about 9 million Ls. * Ventspils waste management project (designing of the new landfill is going on). total investments are evaluated at about 3.7 million Ls. * Maliena Region (North-eastern part of Latvia: site selection and elaboration of ToR for Feasibility Study is going on), total proposed investments arc evaluated at about 4.5 million Ls. 4-6

Table 5.1 Review of Latviani legislation oil constructionj of solid liousehold waste disposal sites regulationis, Laws or hy-laws/ Isstuesconitrolled Requi relnnents Restrictioiis Adlitionial eiIts legalacts co_IIIm LawvOn 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 Oniself-governlmenis (June Basic law regulating activities Deterinilies that munlicipalities 8. 1995) of self-goverinments are responisiblefor providing of muniicipal services within their aicta. It meanis that mullicipality shiouild organise lotuselhold waste collection and disposal ______(Article 15, chapter 1I) Adoption of the law is L.aw On EntvironmentalImpact Determines activities, where Accordingto theAnnex of the by Re-ulations of Assessment(October 14, 1998) Envimonmental Impact law, where activities requiring deteriniile(d Assessmenit(EIA) is required EIA is listed. Among them Cabinet of Ministers No. 213 waste disposal sites are "Order how to assessimpact mentionied (Articles 14 and 15 to the eniironimileuit' (Junle 15. of the Annex). Law sets out FIA 1999) procedure as well and(l responisibilities of involved bo(lies.Articles 17and 19of the law determine obligatory requirementsfor contenitsof Environinental Impact Statement and Environmlental _ ImpactAssessment 4-7

is explained hy Law On particuilarly protected Deterimlines classification Article 7 sets d6finition for I-aw ol Cahinct of natairea-eas tMaa-cli 2, 1993 systelIl of particularly protected restricted areas: nature Regulatiowns withi changesOn 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, cultural landscapes that are unique or character-istic lor differenit regions of Latvia, especially inicenature areas. Law deterimlines that nature protection plans are necessary for thosc arcas (Art. 18) and . zonationiof areashould be made (Art. 19), as well as sets out restrictionis for exploitation (Art. . 16) and planning and development(Art. 21) are Io ildividutll Regulatiois of Cabinet of Determinitiesgeneral regulations Article 38 determines Article 38 says: "Economic and Therc regulations on protection aid Ministers No. 354 General for protectioni and exploitation significant restrictions and otlier activities are allowed in lfor restricted area regulationson protectioii and order prohibitions nature restrictionis if they do not exploitation the of losniare lake: aimnsand tasks exploilation of particularly interact with purpose of and are for this cstricstcdati ae aic notii protectednature aleas rcstriiction and its tasks determinied (October21. 1997) envisaged il individual protection and exploitation regulatiolis arid nature protection plans: 38. 1. scientific research; 38.2. constructionI of inforrnation tracks and view areas: 383. conservation measuresfor rare species arid their habitats. and, if necessary in special cases,to achieve tasks set out in nature plrotection plan - cattle pastullring. buniing and cutting of old(grass anid reeds: 38.4 contr-olle(d keeping anid exploitation of boats and motor- boatsin lakes and rivers; 38.5. fishintg and angling in restricted areas for conservation olf water birds accordinig to the individual regullations on protection and exploilation of restricte(l area.

Article 39 foreseespossibility to establish seasonal arid other types of restricted areas, but Article 40 determines 13

______different ______groups of prohibitions. _J 4 -9

of horders is not Regulationisof cabinetof Thliose reguilationisdeterminie Determines restricted nature Pro[hihitionsare determinedby Descriptioni correct (at least oIIe pojinlt is MinistersNo. 212 Regulations par1ticularly protected nature area "'T'osmare" and provides Regulationis ol' Cabinet of' inissiiig) and existinig of this on restricted natureareas areas- restrictednature areas descriptionof borders MinistersNo 354 area withlini the (June15. 1999) restricted borders of' Liepa'jacity is not agreed with City CLounTcil.L-anid allocation is deteriiincd as Liepaja lorestry- Medzc parish - Grobinafortestry Law Otiiprotecriontbelts Determinlesspecial restrictions,,Determ-inles tasks and types of (February5. 1997) and niuisanices for spatial environiment and naturc planniniigand relatedland usage rcsourcesprotectionl belts (3.p.). that can be regaided to waste It is necessary to establish disposaland treatmiientfacilities. protection zones around waste It setsout soI11erestrictions for collectioni and disposal sites planning anid perm.littiing'of (Art. 28) witlh aim to protect activilies that can cause neighbouringareas, Article 61. negative inpact to the chapter7 of this law deterimines surroundinigarea. Descriptioni of that those zones shotild be such objectsis providedin the fireproof law or couldl be derived fromii it fullctionally are Law Ontprotection belts BalticSea and RigaGulf coastal Determines thr-ee types of Changes in land use is 'I'hose restrictionis lor land o%\ners and (February5. 1997) protectioi belt(Art. 6) protectionbelts: prohibited if not proposed in compulsorx users. co,tiniuiatioi - protectioni belt of coastal spatial planniniig.decision of land zones, their width depend on Cabiiietof Ministers is required Someexceptions could he made width of dunezone but not less eachtimiie (Art. 36.1.3) in coastaldrunle zone if the\ arc than300(m; proposed in spatial planllinL - sea protection belt that Drainage works are prohibited (Art. 36.3.1 includes beachand underwater without approval of shelf, buLtnot less than300m in environieniltal protection the sea, in1stitutioIis(Art. 36.1.5) - belt of limited ecoiiomical In protectionibelt of coastal activity up to 5 km wide that is dunesis prohibited (Art. 36.2): determiniedaccording to the to build new houses.industrial 4-I1)

natural conditions buildinlgs and houses, to make clear cuttinigs, to transform forest lands, to extract useftl minerals Cabinet of Ministers have Law Ot protectionbelts Protectioi belts of water bodies Mitiimal width of protectioil Prohibited(Art. 37.2): disposal preparedrelevant methodology (February5, 1997) andstreams (Art. 7) beltsare determined (Art. 7): - to establishwaste to determineprotection belts coiiilif7atioii - in rural areas (10-25km sites, long 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 from eachbank; - for lakes with area miore than lO())ha- not lessthan 5(00m, - for lakes with area 101- lO((ha - not less than 300mii, - for waterstreams and water bodies withi well-for-miled flood-lanids- not less than whole width of the llood- land irrespectiveof other- requirements; - in denselypopulated areas - accordinigto the legalacts regulatingspatial planning, but not less than 20in on _ach bank protection No mcthodoloayis deteriniicei Law On protetion belts Protectioni belts (protection, If protection belt is not Restrictions within zones)around (Februarv5. 1997) zonles) around cultural determined, minimal width belts (protection monumenits(Art. 38): cottiontation moniumilenits(Art. 8) should be: cultural - in rural areasS()(m; prohibit location of waste - il towns- I()Om. disposal sites, location of dangerousobjects, to work with stroking equipmenit,to make 4-11

aniy kinid of excavations o minierals, to store and hanidle chemically active and corrosive substancesetc. 6bnt o of Milisters has Protection belts around water Determines number of Prohibit (Art. 39, 35) location of Cabiet relevant methiocdology abstractionisites (Art. 9) restrictions (Art. 39, 35) waste disposal sites, location of prepared dangerous objects, to work with to determinc protection belts stroking equipment, to make any kind of excavations of minerals, to store and handle chemically active and corrosive substances,carry out works that can causenoodiiig and rising of groundwater table etc. methodologv is deteimined Protectioii belts around If protection belt is not Location of waste disposal sites No recreation zone (Art. 110) determined, minimnal width is is prohibited (Art. 40.2) 1km(Art. 10) methiodology is determidic Forest protection belts around Not determined Location of waste disposal sites No towns (forest parks of green is prohibited (Art. 41.2)

_ zone) (Art. II) . . . of waste disposal sites Cabinet of Ministers haS LawvOni protectio,g belts Exploitation protection belts II types of protection belts are Location (Art. 47.1) prepared relevant miethodology (February 5. 1997) (Art. 12-23) determined, includiiig - is prohibited to deteriniile plrotection belts. cohitiiliiatioii protectionl belts arouinid drainage buiildinigsattd facilities (Art. 18) Some ulicertaintics ale regarding protcctiohl l'elt aro,M(d gas-pilpes (Art. 22 and requiremcnits not locate aste disposal site in this area (art. 56). that do not allow to conniect both items - to construct gas- pipe froii waste disposal site. is deteriniiledl Sanitary protection belts (Art. 4 types of protection belts are Prohibited (Art. 55): No methodology 24-28) deterimlined, among them - - to block acess roads and _protectionzbelts arouind vaste entiances to waste disposal 4-12

disposal sites, waste storage sites, waste storage sites sites and water treatment sites and water treatmentsites; (Art. 28) - to cany out works that canl cause flooding or rising of groundwater table. Safety protection belts (Art. 29- 3 types of protectionibelts are Prohibitions are specified just 32) determined (Art. 29), including regarding quarries protectioni belts aroun1dquar-ries an1d otlher objects with lh'ighlened risk in Commissionl is niot established Regulations of Cabinet of Deterim1inesmethiodology and( This protection belt is Prolhibitionisare determined on Protectioll belts and borders arc not determined. Ministers No. 283 order how these protection belts determined by commission Law theefore liniite(d econonlical Methodology to determine should be determinled made by Ministr-y of activities \\ithin thc protection protection beltof Baltic Sea EnvironimenitalProtection and belt of 5kml are riot conitrolled and Riga Gulf coastline . Regional Development, but (Auguist4, 1998) borders in territorial plans are marked by experts in local municipalities(Art. I) in Regulations of Cabinet of Determines methodology and Those protection belts are Prohibitionis are determined belts Ministers No. 284 order how these protectionibelts determined and mapped in Law on Protection Nlethodology to deteriniiie shoul(dbe determinie(d territorial plans by experts of protection belts along *water . local municipalities after bodies and water streams adoptioni by Regional (August 4. 1998) EnvironmentalBoard (Art. I) determiled in Regulations reter only to state Regulationsof Cabinet of Sets out methodology for Protection belt of 10-20mnis Prohibitions are and comm11on(-usehuildines and Ministers No. 236 Regulations determinatiolnof protection belts determine(d Law on Protectionbelts Iacilities. and to itheirprotection on methodology for determiniationof exploitation protection belts around drainage facilities on agricultural aridforest lands (Jurie 30. 1998) restrictions is Most of zones can be Regulations of Cabinet of Deterrmiires methodology and Land owner or land user of A lot of differenitiated deterinilled onls bv MlinistersNo. 8 Nlethodology order how these protection belts water abstraction site organise determi-ned, abstraction matheimatical calculations. to determnieprotection belts should be determined determination of protection belt depending on water 4-13

aroundu 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 suLrfacC water abstraction sites (different for water bodies and water streamils) and around groundwater 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 3 changes in December 19, 1996) accumulation of money in local that amount of tax is 0.25 Ls/m 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 (i]I),in 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% should be accumulated at local municipalities in special budgets for environmental protection (Art. 3.2 and 11.1, 11.2) Law On hIouseholdwaste 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 . hlloutsehlolditaste ialnal,ra cm ' 4-14

local instittitionsregarding solicd deal with collectioin, storage, co.ss are set (,ft /by (itnf,.ii waste maniagenicnt (Art. 4-6) h;iandling, tranusportation, Coupnil (Wlariih CololwiIJ recyclinig (rcuse) and/or disposal of houselholdwaste (Articles 9- Article 20 det'rminoe's that 15). In following articles law hloutselioldivatste maiiageni'nt describes obligatory procedure waliJif should covler costs fi)r to 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/ iOwate inanagemilenit(Articles 19 and di.sposal sile andil post-ilostloe 20), and statesfunictions 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) that mlanlagemiienltof waste disp6sal site is organised by local tuinicipalit'v wvherethe landfill . is located or where it is planined to locate tvasle disposal site. Law Ott liazardoius wvaste Providesdetailed definition of Requiiremilenitsstated in this law (March 30, 1993) the sulbject(different types and are strictly separatedfrom those charactersof hazardouswaste: stated in Law On houselhold see Introductioniof the law in waste. It is determined that Article 2). those differenit wastes should be managedseparately. Example vith "(etlini" landfill Law Eiergy law Basic law in encrgy sector of Determinesthat (Art. 40.2.): shows that there arc technical (September3. 1998) Latvia Licensed enterprise for distribution of electrical energy problems to adapt this issue. within area of its licence buys suiplus energy, that is lelt over alter meetinig their own needs, from other generatinig facilities, 4-15

utilisiig geothermal eneigy, bio-fuel(except wood and peat). wood-waste,household waste or tiheir processed products (biogas),if their capacitydo not exceed 7MW and which are startedbefore January 1, 2005; this energyshould meet national parameters for electricity; tlhe generatedenergy is purchased for 8 years by the licensed enterprise for price 1.5 times highier thaii average price of imiported eniergy. Afterwar-ds price is determinedaccording to tlhe agreenleilt between botl sides. Regulationsof Cabinetof Determiine order and basic Chapter 11 (Construction of Regulations prohibit several Regulations No.38 al-e Ministers No. 38 Regulationis requir-emilenitsfor construction, waste disposal sites) of actions and exclude specific important and the% "cere on contstructioni, mnaniagemitenttmanagement and closure of Regulations No. 38 contains conditions prepared to obtain andclosure of waste disposal wastedisposal sites requirementsfor constructionof harmonisation of national sites (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,,%. in ontconstruction, 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. 62 sites (February 9. 1999) consideration location of - in bogs, where peat layer is are regarded to the construction coWnrinu(ation paved, gravel or unsurfaced more than I m; of waste disposal sitcs. roads with high carrying - in areas,where capacity; groundwatertable 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 zonesol activekarst; the State Construction abstraction places, fish - in periodically flooded Inspectorate for expertise. spawning areas, anid sites areas: usedfor fishifarmirg: - i areas.wlelre it is 5 zones are set out %%itlil(ithe - 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 higlher thiani water level in nearest Installationi of separate sewalmge streamor water body. system (Art. 16.3.1). Icachiate Art. 6 determines to prepare collection antddischarge system Feasibility stu(dy for the waste (Art. I1 .3 ). scwaec *' atcr (lisposal site and informiation collection arld dischalgc sxstcii 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. 21 determiinesthiat collccte(d Feasibility study is acceptedand leachate water should be decisioti made by local discharged to the treatmaenit IIuLnicipality where proposed facilities or sprayed onidisposed waste disposal site is located waste. and agree with municipalities ______where waste will be collected. for Regulationsof Cabinet of Managementof the site Determiines: What cannot be accepted 32): Mlinisters No. 38 Reguilationis (Chapter 111) - life-time of the site should disposal at the landfill (Art. is onconstruction, maiagemient be 20 years or more (Art. - hazar-douswaste (if there equipment or and closure of waste disposal 28); no special sites (February9. 1999) - only those types of waste storage); from contintlaOtion(o listed in waste disposal - sewage sludge permit could be accepted at different types of treatment the site (Art. 29); plants if water content in - maniager of the waste sludge exceeds70%; disposalsite prepareaction - organic food waste,if it is Ian and technicalpassport not usedfor compostin1o; 4-17

of the site (Art. 30). - wood processing waste, if it is not used for composting; - inert waste if there is no special place for its storage; - non-choppedcar tyres. Monitor-inig and contr-ol of Sets out requirements for Regulations of Cabillet of environimilenital conditiolns at ionitorinig anidits duration - at Ministers No. 38 Regitlationis waste disposal site and its least 30 years after closure of on constructionz, inanagentellt surloulidings (ChapterV) the site (Art. 45-48). arid closutre of waste disposal sites (February 9, 1999) co,lti,iluatio,1

Regulations of Cabinet of Determinie set of requirements Regulationsdetermine set of Discharge of non-treated Minlisters No. 155 Regulationis for water usageand dischargeof technical requirements,that contaminated waters and on water usage permits (April sewagewater could be adaptedto sewagewaters to environment is 22. 1997withi chianigesin requirementsfor leachatewater prohibited. Regulationsof CoM No.17 from treatmentset out in Regulations Jafiuar-y20. 1998 and of CoM No.38 Regitlations on regulations of CoM No.437 conistruzction, mianagernentanid from November 17. 1998 closure of waste disposal sites (February9, 1999)- Articles

.______16,18, 21. 1 ______16_ _2 Regulations of Cabhiet of Determine structure of state MEPRD or relevant regional Ministers No. 415 Regulations monitoring, financial sources, Environmental Board, according oniState environniiental Comm1lilon0co-ordination of to the legal acts, determine monitoring (Deceniber 16. monitoring and access to the enterprises, where emission's, 1997) itilniorationi background contaminiation's and other monitoring should be cairied out. Regulations of Cabinet of Regulate classification of Determine: IFull classilicatioll is prox ided ill I Ministers No. 39 Regulations houselholdwaste - order of classification of Aniex. on classifying of hzouselhold householdwaste, waste (Februarv 9. 1999) - classification of lhouselholdwaste 4-18

Indirectly it ieans that those Regulationsof Cabinetof Determiine order how REB Following shouldbe mentioned requirements shouldl he MinistersNo, 205 Regulations shotild register private or in registration: implementedwhen new waste on registration of private or juridical personsdealing with - information on household system or its juridical persons that deal collectioni, handling, reloading waste systetn(5 positionls): miana.gement elemenits are developed. so that with collection, landiling, or triansportation olf household - intfor-mationion storage of somebody can really apply for reloading or transportation of waste, household waste (3 pos.); exploitation. lhouselholdwaste (June 8, 1999) - informationon handlinigof householdwaste (5 pos.); - informationi on reloading places of houselholdwaste (5 pos.); - informatioll on waste transporting vehicles (type and 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 relevantpermit. tvpesof houseliold waste anid recyclinig and disposal of onipermitting order for household waste Require determiningany of 5 recvcling and disposal of waste recyclingtypes and anyof lhouseholdwaste (June 29. 2 waste disposal types. _ 1999) . . _ PROPOSAI,of Regulationisof Deteriminiewidths of menitioniedProtection belts are set out from Protectionibelt shouldbe free of Cabinetof Mlinisters protectionbelts the borderof the site (§3). waste Regulationson methodology Width of the protectionbelt is for determination of determined as follows: protection belts around wvaste - 500m around waste disposal and storage sites disposal sites; - I 0(m around waste storagesites polluting substances. Regulationsof Cabinetof Determinenational standards of Determineair quality standards Codes of thiesiol(ds, criteria MinistersNo. 219 environimentalqual1ity regarding (Art. 3), that set out permitted standards, data qualitN and Regulationson air quality air quality, as well as order for level of pollutioni for sulphiur and aims for character-isticson information of' (June 15. 1999) assessmentof air pollution and dioxide, nitrogen oxide, protectionlmeasures to avoid, nitrogendioxide, 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 local municipalities) as well as access

______to the information (Art. 30-37). Decreeof 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. maniagemenitof houselhold - requirements for proposed waste disposal sites houselhold waste disposal Documlilenitis compuklsoiy only sites; fo,r employees of MET'RI) and - operation regulations for subordiniatedbodies. household waste disposal sites; - control of household waste disposal sites; - responsibilities for tresspassingof legal acts in environmental protection 4.3 Local legislation and instructions

Curr-ently none of local imunicipallitieswilhiln the project aicea have adopted loca;l binding regulations on waste management issucs. Never-lhless. Liepaja City has started elaboration of locall reg.ulations. Scope of work is that in the f'utur-c these regulations may become compulsory for all the municipalities during implementation of the project.

These regulations should set out that all private or juridical persons are responsible to make contracts for waste manacement services. Moreover, they should develop control mechanisms on the implementationof these regulations. The following pages summarises the Latvian legislationon household Waste.

4.4 Need for additional legislation

The "Law on Municipal waste" states that until July 1. 2000 a number of regulations have to be elaborated in order to determine permissible and acceptable activities in the field of solid waste mana-ement. On the other hand, harmonisation with relevant EU directives 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 economnicaspects of the problem, otherwise implementation and enforcement of the requirements will not be possible, * on supervision on waste shipment. Elaboration of this act is rather urgent, since from time to time Latvia has been used as "waste disposal site". For instance: plastic waste from Germany in 1996 (formulation: for recycling), old medicals from France in 1998. * on household waste incineration, because the last 2-3 years discussions on this question is rather active.

Additionally, the regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No 39 on Classification of Solid Household Waste (Feb. g9h, 1999) have to be re-elaborated, because they include part 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 requilrcdlandlfill capacities. required number of truckls and containers, dlesign of optimal wasic collection system, the waste amounts to be landfilled should bc known. Inlormationi on the present waste productioni has been presented in Section 3. On basis of thc present waste productionlthe future production has been forecasted, and further, the amounts 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 the Ministry of Economics) [5. 7, 531.Moreover, to estimate the amounts for landfilling the number of serviced people was taken into account (based on the targets for upgrading 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 into consideration the age structure of the inhabitants and the possible economic development of the Region ( Liepaja as a harbour city) [50], it is expected that the number of inhabitants will stabilise after some 5 years and a slow increase of the population will take place There are differences between Liepaja city, towns and rural municipalities and the forecast on the 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 will have a faster development than the rural areas. Therefore, different economic scenarios elaborated by the Ministry of Economics are applied: the base scenario for the urban areas and the pessimistic scenario for the rural areas (see Table 5.2), * The number of inhabitants receiving services of a centralised waste management system will gradually increase and will be 100% in the towns in 2005 and 80% in rural areas by in 2020 (others are living in single farm houses or small villages with less than 50 inhabitants, see Chapter 2), * The amount of collected and disposed household waste produced per capita will slightly increase, although this increase will be compensated by waste separate collection and recycling activities. * The amount of hospital waste will increase proportionally to the population growth. * The amount of demolition and garden waste will remain on same level. * amount of non-hazardous industrial waste wvillincrease proportionally to economic development. This part includes also waste from the harbouLr. which has a rather fast development. 140000l__

120000

1 00000- _

80000-

° 60000-

E 40000- ___ | Liepaja

20000 Rural areas

o - , . . . ~ . . .0 ...... ON ON ON ONON0N ON ON 0O 0O 00 ~00 C,-0 0 0) 0 0 0 (> e4 !s e~ (4 (M Ci Ci (v4 Ci Actual Forecasted data data

700

6500

6000 -

5500

5000

z 4500

| 4000-

l 3500

. 3000- .- g _ _ t ~~~~~~~~~Aizpute| z 2500 __ . 8 ~~~~~~~~~~Grobina 2000

1500 - Pavilosta 1500 I - Prielcule 1000

500 -_

0 o- 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 Forecasted data data

Fig. 7: Forecast on population growth in Liepaja Region 7.zim. Prognoze par iedzivotiju skaita pieaugumu Liepajas regiona TIah1 I c 5. I Forecast on population growth and service(I populationl Year |In urban areas |Iln rural areas TIotal Number [ Servi ed inhab. Number Servicedinihal). Numnber Servicedinh. 1991 131397 38281 1992 130167 38123 1993 124058 .36549 1994 120393 _ 36169 1995 115965 35983 1996 114105 35433 1997 112898 86141 (76.3%) 34992 15606 (44.6%) 147890 101747 1998 111712 85236 (76.3%ik) 34164 15237 (44.6%) 145876 100473 1999 110758 84508 (7(6.3%/) 34231 15267 (44.6%) 144989 99775 2000 110048 83967 (76.3%/() 33944 15139 (44.6%) 143992 99106 2001 109570 87656 (80%) 33657 15011 (44.6%) 143227 102667 2002 109328 92928 (85%) 33370 16685 (50%) 142698 109613 2003 109316 98384 (90%) 33178 18248 (55%) 142494 116632 2004 109536 104059 ( )5%) 32987 19792 (60%) 142523 123851 2005 109762 10976> (100%7) 32892 21380 (65%) 142654 131142 2006 110105 110105 (100%°) 32795 21645 (66%) 142900 131750 2007 110452 110452 (100%7) 32699 21908 (67%) 143151 132360 2008 110801 110801 (100%) 32661 22209 (68%) 143462 133010 2009 111268 111268 (100%) 32623 22510 (69%) 143891 133778 2010 111738 111738 (100%) 32623 22836 (70%) 144361 134574 2011 112208 112208 ( 100%) 32642 23176 (71%) 144850 135384 2012 112683 112683 (100%) 32680 23530 (72%) 145363 136213 2013 113273 113273 (100%) 32738 23899 (73%) 146011 137172 2014 113869 113869 (100%) 32814 24282 (74%) 146683 138151 2015 114468 114468 (100%) 32910 24683 (75%) 147378 139151 2016 115065 115065 (100%) 33025 25099 (76%) 148090 140164 2017 115664 115664 (100%) 33159 25532 (77%) 148823 141196 2018 116267 116267 (100%) 33312 25983 (78%) 149579 142250 2019 116982 116982 (100%) 33484 26452 (79%) 150466 143434 2020 117703 117703(100%) 33675 26940 (80%) 151378 144643

Table 5.2 Forecast on economic development Year 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°k 1999 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%)/c 20(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;SICm:tnaCem tfelNid. ii is importantil to separate the waste amounts to be collected lrom thc voluime to be landlillecl. Boli figures are presented in Table 5.3. D)ctails of forecast are provided in Appendix 13.

Table 5.3 Forecast on waste amounts to be collected and disposed. in m) To be I1)1he l'otal to Year Collected in Collected in Total disposed disposed hedispo- urban areas rural areas collected from urban from rural sed (nolt areas areas (com- compacted) pacted) 1998 10_79)20 (6839 114759 41327 2931 44258 1999 109(80 (990 116070 41794 2997 44791 2000 111685 7139 118824 42759 3060 45819 2001 119398 7079 126477 45653 3034 48687 2002 129619 7S68 137487 49487 3372 52859 2003 140555 8604 149159 53585 3688 57273 2004 152218 9332 161550 57948 4000 61948 2005 164451 10082 174533 62518 4322 66840 2006 168952 10208 179160 65142 4376 69518 2007 173567 10331 183898 65806 4429 70235 2008 178337 10)473 188810 67526 4488 72014 2009 183414 10615 194029 69359 4550 73909 2010 188646 10)768 199414 71249 4615 75864 2011 194024 10930 204954 73191 4685 77876 2012 199589 11094 210683 75200 4755 79955 2013 205492 11270 216762 77333 4830 82163 2014 212151 11450 223601 79729 4907 84636 2015 217889 11639 229528 81813 4989 86802 2016 219041 11835 230876 82246 5073 87319 2017 220172 12039 232211 82671 5159 87830 2018 221323 12252 233575 83102 5252 88354 2019 222667 12473 235140 83607 5346 88953 2020 2240262 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 assumptions have 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 waste density. It has been done by considering the following: * the average weight of 1 m3 of collected municipal / commercial and hospital waste is about 200 kg; after compaction - 700 kg. * the average weight of I m3 of collected parks - gardenswaste is about 300 kg; after compaction - 600 kg, * the average weight of I m3 of collected demolition waste is 1200()k; sarme after compaction; * the a\erage weight of I ni of collectcd induLstrialwastc (it is sulpposed that slag and contaiiiiatcd soil will not be landllillcd) is about 45(0 kg; after compaction - 675 k-gOr abroult70() kg.

Assuming- that the amouLtllof demolition and parks / garden w\aste will bc constaniit during 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 years 1999-2020. 5.2 Futurecollection and transportsystem

Two alternative systems for collection in the pagasts and towns outside of Liepaja and Grobina town has been analysed, one container system with a few transfer stations and a system with direct collection of smaller receptacles.

The future system is proposed to be managed via a system with 750 1 receptacles and one side loading vehicle, with a loading capacity of 5 tonnes. In most of the area a collection interval of 14 days would be sufficient. The transport analysis shows that in the areas where a higher frequency is required there is sufficient time for the proposed vehicle to manage the collection. Thus, the system without transfer stations is proposed.

In Liepaja and Grobina towns the collection system is proposed to remain similar to the current, but investments are proposed in new containers and vehicles. The collection frequency should be maximum once a week in order to minimnisethe costs. The proposed collection and transport system is further analysed in Section 7.1. 5.3 Area and handlingrequirements at the new wastetreatment plant

The area requirement for the 20 year period depends on several factors, e.g. the filling height, the methodology for separation and landfilling, use of energy cells etc. An area of 20 hectares is the minimum requirement for the new waste treatment plant. The energy cell technology enables a rapid decomposition and utilisation of material after the decomposition. Thus, the area requirement is less when the energy cell technology is used and 20 hectares would not be sufficient if traditional landfilling is utilised. The details of area disposition are presented in Chapter 7. wV

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 3 areas 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 gave the following conclusions { 11,121

* the area of the Nica Parish is not very suitable for a landfill location due to the geological - hydrogeological conditions (thick sediments consisting of sand and sand-gravel deposits) and the closeness to the Baltic Sea; * the territory of the Aizpute Parish is suitable for a new landfill location from environmental viewpoint. However, it is situated at a distance of about 45-50 km from Liepaja,City. Obviously, it is preferred to locate the landfill closer to the waste gravity centre.

Therefore, it was decided that a new site should be located closer to Liepaja City, and the areas of Grobina, Medze and Vergale parishes were identified to be investigated in order to find an alternative site for "Skedes". Later, on January 4, 1999 another meeting was arranged where a new approach on site selection was discussed. The Liepaja District Council, in general, approved the idea on site selection. Authorities of concerned parishes also confirmed that they were ready to discuss this question where a methodology of division of the territory in areas of suitable and non-suitable for a landfill location was adopted.

Supplementary to the three above mentioned parishes, the area of adjacent parishes has also been investigated. Thus, the total area of investigation was about 1100 km2 or about 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 three principal aspects: APZIMEUM1t---I -LEGEND -, Sr~is !SaSo3 ; Ms/l11r depsr- Megtrlogmi/Sa-d-Fra.

M.-- /oai/Dl=r Cir 's

Kiudra/ Pe t Udcusgutpas/Well fxids Jor CSA polfO=p- piedn,a tDSvrs/ "r Ste,s pro~pTd for D oe I,stVe treatment plant

k ~~~~~~Zieiiiupe11- u 11- c

VWrgnJ

P \ f>X>lcsa unlRDbeziu'eka

/PI/ 2e 'E/J ? ~~N1 Medre I~ - ~* Plocupurvs~

Es~~' DO,,,.BEv \ 1~~J.\t /M5terj; 1, . *i ISkede

Kapsmd W # t - ; ; i '4' \': t't'~~~..Dus,

I 1g J ">: \~~~GROBINA/. r

g/ \(AS] J ^ ~~~~~~~Dilel)e;

\ 1 ,$ t \ 128-V 127-G

j F' >d) } ,1 >tRude j

Fig. 8: Siting area for a new landfill.. Scale 1:200,000 8. 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 intlcests 3. The selecied site Should be reasonable from economic viewpoint.

Takin- into consideration the above aspects, the division ol the land in areas suiitablc and 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 boggy sediments 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 dendrological plantations, plants, fungi, lichen and wildlife species cannot be used for waste disposal,

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 anidtransfOrmationl: * 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 lanidct Iransfornmtionor 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 % of the total area of the Liepaja Region (see Figure 8) was investigated in order to find suitable sites for a new waste treatment plant. The results of the area zonation is sown in Figure 9. Three additional sites were found in Grobina, Medze and Vergale perish and the Grobina site was considered to be the best. The Client accepted to proceed the study 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. During the EIA process (March-August, 1999) the legislative acts were developed, and regulations no. 112 "Regulations on nature preserves" have been passed by the Cabinet of Ministers in-June 15, 1999. This directly influenced the process of the site selection 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 of this 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 land belonged to the parish. The land owner is Janis Alens, the land is registered in the land book (name of property - "Mazbertuli". registration no. - 427. and it is registered in the Liepaja Division for the Land Books. Mr. Alens in accordance with an application sent to the Grobina Parish Council in June 17, 1999, agrees that a new landfill can be situated at his land, if he will be invited as a share holder in the new company wlhich will operate the new waste 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 of area, APZIMEJUMI I LEGEND Aiziiegt&stertorilas! A _ Restrictedareas Teritorijas.kur izplati mortnnogu.um/ Aroaswith till deposits - Teritorijas,kur zplatti smil§aininogulumi! $ '? Areaswith sandydeposits Jaunajam piaediit5svetasl CSA polngonam le sov Sit3s proposgd for a new waste treatment plant;s ;f \ Z m Merogs IScale 1:200000 ., ......

:~~~~~~~~~ I

Fig.9: Zoning for a new landfill site selection 9. zim.: Teritorijas rajonesana jaunai CSA poligona vietas izvelei

0:0

Due to some difficullies duringc negations hctwcein the parties.Grohilla parish o0CfeCed an extra area acdjacent to the carlicr indicated ar.ea. Thle ew aiicI occupies 57.8 hectares of whichi: - 43.3. hectares is a piroper-tyof the Grobina parish. - 14.5 hectares belong to the State Forestry.

Initially, only municipal land was offered, but during discussions in the parish council it 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 State Forestry lands possibly might be used in order to keep the distance 500 m between the border of a new waste treatment plant and the farm house. However, the State Forestry did not approve of this suggestion.

6.3 Hydrologicalconditions The surface water bodies located in the vicinity of the proposed sites are generally characterised 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 and Grobina sites respectively, * measurement of water tables and flow measurements by the weir method at Grobina site. 10 water table and 2 flow measurements have been done at the Skede site, * calculation of water balance based on data obtained from the State Hydrometeorological Agency. 6.3.2 Skede site There is rather well developed system of drainage ditches between the landfill and Tosmare lake, and the length of ditch running from the south-eastern corner of the landfill directly to the lake is 470 m (Fig. 10). The outflow of the ditch is not accessible, and therefore the slope of the water table was measured for a distance of 410 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 high contamination degree of discharged water.

Due to the legal status and actual condition of the Tosmare lake, it is obvious that the lake can not be used as recipient for treated leachate. Hereto. Liepaja city wastewater treatment plant is located only at a distance about 1)100in. and the leachate might bc delivered to that site.

The leachate generation may be estimated from the following assumptions: * average yearly precipitation - 693 mm. * average yearly evaporation - 451 mm.

0 ,* 1}/ | C - ;a Oo , ; * I _ 6 ~ ~ s . o oO \ a

tS0~~~~~~~~~~~c 02

I~~~~,r~ ~ ~~ >. As / ,,,. I ,%I , , , , a-%X<- 1 San I Jurn lOgas\ * ~0I a Dma"Tos

C,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~40 %t:00°>ToVeckarks' C,4-

_~~ prpoe~ Site fo e adil

4 Jaunajmpoligoam pied7.t& viet Siteforproposed a newlandfill~~~~~~~~t C Fig.~~~r-I10 Lctin Sed" Lepj Ct Fig.Location 10: "Skede"~~~~~C,LieajaCit 10. zi.: VieaLip~jas "SI~e", iIsCA

(ThEso ~ 10 ziamt.:Existinanfl "Skede",Leaa'ist

W

* average yearly runoff' - 242 mIml. * inhfhlirationinto the waste layer- with non-covered surlfaice- ahout 80%( of rniloff 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:

2 2 3 3 28000 m x 0,194 m + 47000 in x 0.048 = 7688 mn1yr or about 21 m day,

which is less than 0.1% of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) capacity. The required standards for delivered leachate quality will be set by the Municipal Enterprise of Liepaja City "Liepajas udens". Usually, the main concern is the content of heavy metals in the leachate. although in this case due to negligible volume of received leachate it could be assumed that treatment is not required. Other disturbances may occur, e.g. by the nitrogen content of the leachate. Nevertheless, the official approval of "Liepajas udens" will be required if Skede site will be selected for 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 leachate production 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 existing landfill. A bogging-up process takes place and flooding of rather large parts of the area occurs during strong rainfalls and snow melting. The basic problem, if site will be selected for the waste treatment plant, will be drainage of surface runoff. because the 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 and the 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_

Xr~~~t X<_ > iA t ek -

;-Vent:pils! ses6,~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 h :\

0:<~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

.~~~Aags *;7. .,- )

Ptuasat zm

LEGEND/APZiMEJUMI

QOPrivate land ____Possible accessto the landfill Privatipasums : espejamraispievadce!s uz pdligonu Access road has to be constructed 16Valsts me2a zeme Jubibaasc! Directionof treatedleachate discharge 2,4 Municipalland Attirltainfiltrita novadisanasvirziens Municipalforest Areaforeseen for a newwaste treatment plant 3s Pagastamezs \/ Tentorijajauna CSA poligona ienikosanai

Fig. 11: Location "Poligons"t, Grobinas parish 11. zimi.: Vieta ''Poligons'',Grobilpas pagasts

(l: Ml

the dilch discharmes into the river Alanda. The ditlTreiice betweein thc walcr tables was inore tila I() Im. and(i(lhe ohtaincd -radientswerc 3.71 irn/kmiiand 3.83 ini/kmiiwcst and 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 Alanideriver - 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 generated leachate amount with discharge of the ditch and Alanda river is provided in Table 6.1

Table 6.1 Comparison of leachate, ditch and Alande river discharges Alande river Ditch, at site Leachate m-/day % to Alande m3/day % to Alande mday %to Alande 375840 100 2851 0.76 15 -4.1 x I0o3 l ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%to ditch 0.54

Table 6.1 shows that the average leachate flow is small in relation to Alanda river and that treated leachate may be discharged. Standards for the discharge will be stated by the Liepaja Regional Environmental Board.

Presently, the potential recipient of treated leachate is used only for surface runoff drainage, and there are no plans to use it for other needs. Therefore potential conflicts are unlikely.

It is noticed in the Statement provided by the EIA State Bureau that one of the perspective development variants of wastewater treatment (in frame of the Program 800+) in Grobina Town may be discharge of wastewater to Liepaja City WWTP. Currently COWI, Denmark carries out the Feasibility Study, and it is impossible to make 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 be considered in the detailed design.

The site is located far from large surface water bodies, and due to a relatively steep water gradient towards river Alande the flooding potential and bogging up potential is extremely low.

The area potentially suitable for a new landfill location is crossed by number of drainage ditches. Some land preparation works will be required. depending on which area 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 1Xllbolh pools with clayey material. 6.3.4 Possible imilpacts anid initigatioin im',.stires

PossiNlC impacts: 1. Thc "Skede" site: * construction of a new waste trcatmentiplant ill ihis area. especially il it is occuipies 25-30(hectares. may comzplicatie tlhe unsatislfactory conditions of surfacc runoff and may J:asten the logging-uip process. The existing landfill already contaminates surlace water and groundwater, and creation of a common system for leachate collection and treatment will significantly improve the existing situation. * a new drainage system must be designed to convey the water, because the area is very even and strong or durable rainfall (the maximum can reach up to 20 mm/day and 192 mm/month) as well as a fast melting of a snow may cause flooding problems at areas south and east of the landfill.

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 the proposed 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 for and 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", in Liepaja City and "Poligons", in Grobina Parish [10, 15, 16, 18, 20]. The Quaternary 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 19 wells have been left for further monitoring observations. Pumping tests have been carried out in 9 wells (for data processing software AquiferTest has been used: in 7 cases recovery method after Theis & Jacob and in 2 cases slug/ball test analysis, Bouwer-Rice's method). Groundwater table and altitude of well head were determined for all wells. detailed investigations at Grobina includecd- Installation of 5 wells (tlhey arc left for further monitoring observations) and 4 wells drilled by the hanlld auger. Groundwater table and altitude olf wcll head were determined in all cases. (l: 12

Thc detailed data on Skede and Grohirnais presentcdin Fi2uIe 12 ind 13.. 6.4.1 Generalfeatures on geolo-ical structure and hvdrogeologicalcoinditions Geological stlucture and. conseqtucnltly,hydrogcological conldiltioils in the area betweenGrobina parish and thc Baltic Sea arc rathicr-differ-enlt. ThIC tppelr p1artthc ol geological cross-section. in most cases. consists of Quaternlary dcposits which cover the Upper Devonian deposits.

The average thickness of the Quaterla-y sediments varies between 15-25 m. but can locally be missing (area to north-east of the Tosmare lake) or can reach thickness 35 m and more (east of Grobina). The major part of relief forms has been formed during abrasion and accumulation processes of the Litorinic Sea and Baltic Ice lake. Therefore, the cross-section of the Quaternary deposits can characterised as comparatively simple (see Table 6.2).

The Pre-Quaternary deposits consist of Devonian sediments in the upper-part of the cross-section.

Contemporary geological processes are very slow and the only exception here and there might be bogging-up and abrasion of the Baltic Sea coast. Bogging-up process occurs at very even areas where surface runoff is hindered or at inter-hilly areas if till deposits lies on the ground surface.

Table 6.2 Characterisationof geological cross-section Deposits Geol. Lithologicalcomposition Distribution Thick- svmbol ness,in m I Proluvial. delluvial pdQ4 Sand, gravel, sandy loam Very limited 1-2 Lake IQ4 Sand. clay. sapropel,lake mud Very limited 1-3 Alluvial aQ4 Sand. silty sand, gravel Limited 0.5-1.5 Boggy bQ4 Peat Limited Up to 4.5 Marine mQ4 Sand Narrow belt Usually <1 along the Sea I Eolian vQ4 Fine sand Along sea cost Up to 7-8 Marine, Litorinic MQ41t Fine or silty sand Between the Usually Sea Baltic Sea and 3-4 Tosmare lake BalticIce Lake IgQ3ltvb Sand. silt. clay Rather wide Up to 9 Lacustrine IgQ,ltv Sand. silty sand, clay Rather wide Up to 12 Glacigene 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 usually lies at depth 0.5 - 2.0 m, although it could be 0.1-0.3 and 6-8 m in boggy and eolian deposits. 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 1:10000 Scale 1:10,000 . aL-Sj 1-5 t/ ~~~~~~~~~~ m m e r a g r d e n! s

f s_' l 2 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4L-6

'.4~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

/ / f B 4 +L/1 L-11 t'3

LEGEND /APZiMEJUMI ……l / L-i2 Lb Boreholes/Urbumi Year of drilling / Urbsanas gads [1 1982 1995 0 0 999_ Rokas urbumi gruntsOdenulimena noteiksanai (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 Odenshorizonta L-25 co In Quaternaryaquifer Kvartara Odenshorizonta L-26 _ Inthe wastelayer co Atkritumu slani L-29 , Surface water sampling points Virszemes Ode,nuparaugosanas punkts

. Area covered by vertical : , electrical sounding

r Vertikalas elektriskas * zondesanas laukums Area proposed foraa'.."...... 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,

KR ' mtkli discharge

W;~~~~~~~ _ g JataS _ 12 h

30,

Debtaugasjmi

CDbitag w /Mo ucill

Measurementsof waterEC/ Areaforeseen for a newwaste treatment plant * Odenselektrovaditspbjas menijumi \/ Teritorijajauna CSA poligona ierikosanai * 3 Samplingpoints of inhabitant'swells/ ledzivotajuaku paraugosanas punkti Fig. 13: Fact data map, Grobinasparish 13. zim.: Faktu materiala karte, Grobiviaspagasts

(,: I

6.4.2 Skede site The geological structure of the Skede silC can he charactei'sed zIs ollows, see FiUire 14 and 15: othe Quater-niarysedimenits (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 by household / commercial and industrial /demolition waste. The results obtained during installation of 3 bore holes, proportions of both waste groups are approximately equal, * boggy deposits (bQ4 ) consist of peat and developed east and south of the existing landfill. The thickness of the sediments do not exceed 1 - 2 m. Boggy deposits are not developed within the area foreseeni for the new landfill, * eolic deposits (vQ4) consist of fine sand and developed west of the landfill. The thickness reaches 7-8 m, * marine deposits of the Litorina Sea (mQ4') consist of sand interbedding with silt and mud and are developed west, north and south of the landfill. Thickness usually is 3-4 m, * glacigene deposits (gQ3 ltv) of the Latvian Formation are developed all over the area and consist of loam with admixture of gravel and pebble. The thickness of the deposits usually varies between 7 - 20 m. > 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 .of alternating layers of dolomnites, dolomnite marl with thin interbeddings of siltstone. The thickness exceeds 15 m.

The following aquifers, which are separated by till, occur in the upper part of the geological 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 sand alternating with silt and mud, stretching by a till layer. Quaternary water table aquifer includes the upper part of the till in a small zone (400 x 100 ni), elongated SW of the landfill.

Till is re-washed within this zone (loam particles are removed) and the tipper pailt of the Glacigene deposits consists of a sand - gravel - pebble mixture. The thick}nessol the sand -gravel - pebble deposits does not exceed a few meters. because the inflow of 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

4mQ

L;2'thQ

I*\PZiMEJUMI/ LEGEND LI i s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Medzes~~~~§rgpagasts :200

VQ4-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

MLsrogsIScale 1:25000 APZTMEJUMIILEGEND

Tehnogenienogulumi (thQ,) Atkritumi Atk dum Tehnogenicdeposits (thQ,) Waste Wat.

Ezeru nogulumi(1Q) Smits, mals, sapropelis duDas Smdts Lake deposits (IQC).Sand, clay, lake mud, mud * Sand

Aluvitlie nogulumn(aQ,). Smihts, aleirTtska smits, grants AleirTtiskasmits Alluvialdeposits (aQ,).Sand, silty sand, gravel Silty sand

Eoie nogulumi (vQ,) Smits K6ldra Eolicdeposits (vQ,) Sand Peat

Purvu nogulumi (bQ,) Kudra . D3raina smits LBog deposits (bQ,). Peat ' Muddy sand lesp6jarnai zgiztuves vieta Litocrnasjdrasnogulumi (mQ,') Smilts un esoa ezgaztuve Litorina Sea deposits (mQ,) Sand ¢ , , Proposedwste treatment site and existing landfill LitorTnasljras lagitnu nogulum (m'Q,). Smilts, aleirTitiskasmiltts --. AdministratTvfsrobezas Litorina Sea lagoon deposits (rm'',). Sand, silty sand Administrativeborders

Glacigdnienoguluri (gQCItv)Moreinas malsmilts un smilials N _ S tzeolopka griezumaItnija Glacigene deposits(gQ,itv). Sandy and loamytill Geological cross-section Pirmskvaratlra nogslumu.Auglidjais devons (D,snk-tg) L-28 Urbums us ti numurs Dolomtti. in'ii smilkakmeni Boreholeand its number Pre-Quaternarydeposts Upper Devonian(D.snk-zg). Dolomite,clay, sanstone

14. zlim.:Izgaiztuves "Seide"kvartAra nogulumu karte Fig. 14: Map of the Quaternary deposits, "Skede"

Scale/Merogs: verticaUvertikalais1:500 horizontaVhorizontalais1:1D000 0 _ mN m LEGENDIAPZIMEJUMI 15 L-12 151 HOLOCENE/HOLOC-NS Technogeniicdeposits Tehnroginie noguium. 10_ 10 b Boggydeposits b Purvu nogulumi i~tDrinesea deposits 5 L-2 L-22 mQ4 °Lltorinasjuras nogulum L-21 ~~~~LATVIAFORMATION/ LATVIJAS SVITA

Fluvioglacialdeposits aQJVFluvioglacialie nogulurmw Glacigene deposits -5 - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 Glacigitnienogulumi

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~UPPER DEVONIANAUGSDEVONS 15-I0 o- -; Murufornat-on ~'jvAkmeneformation AemeniessvTta a) b) IWells II Urbumi. -20 - -20 D°a-W 0j(; /2° Jr Groundatertablelt -25- a o -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GuntsOdeDu lrnens.

______~~~~~~~~-5LITHOLOGY /LITOLOQIJA VVa?ste IAtrum 30 - 30 Peatysand I Krdrana smitst SSand / SmIrt ''i;Sand-gravel-pebble deposits / Scale/Merogs: . Smilts-grants-olunogulumi /7o77 Sandy loamand loamytll I vertical/vertikfllais 1:500 *t, .t' Mor&nassmilsmils un m.lsmilts horizontal/horizontalais1:10000 -H-_:clay/ MAle

1S L-11 m1S SiltstoneIAleiroriti F s r^hXDobmte IDolomTt

1011|1i10 9 [PtDolomte mardl1ocmTrergel,

10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

,0 .f,,0 - m,

20

~4~~-25- _f -25

-5 30

Fig. 15: Geological cross-sectionsof landfill "Skede" iS. zim. Geologiskie griezumi, izgaztuve "Sk~ede"

ft- IS

Thc total thickness of watlerbearing, sedimcnts does not exceedl 3 m in sectionl ol tillis aquifer. see Figure 14. The transmissivity of the aquifer- varies Irom '() to < 8 m2/(lalv and permeability from 5 - 6 to < I rn/day, see Appeindix 11 The tiralsillissivity is lower 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. Witllin the area for the proposed waste treatment plant the groundwater level exceeds Im in most of the area. The maximum depth is observed west of the landfill within the dunes. 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 the Tosmare Lake. Contaminants can also migrate from the landfill towards south - west due to-the local characteristics of the shallow groundwater table. see Figure 5.

The groundwater gradient is very small downstream of the landfill. Therefore, the velocity of the shallow groundwater flow is very low. Taking into account the hydraulic gradient (0.001) and the permeability of the sediments it does not exceed 0.015 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 layer loamy till is distributed, see cross-section of borehole L-28 (Appendix 6). It should be noted that the mud is low permeable, and the ditches cut the mud deposits down to the loamy till. Therefore the migration of contaminants in the shallow groundwater, in comparison with the flow through ditches, is very limited in this area.

The interglacial confined aquifer is represented by a sand -gravel interlayer inside the section of Galcigene deposits. This 2.5 m thick aquifer is distributed sporadically and was found only in well T-6 drilled in 1982.

The Jonisku - Akmenes confinied aquifer is consisting of Upper Devonian fissured and fractured dolomite interbedded with marl and clay. Transrnissivity is associated with fissures 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 towards east, see Figure 14. Flow of artesian groundwater is directed to north-west perpendicularly to the Baltic sea coastline (Figure 5).

The difference between the groundwater table elevation and the piezometric head in Devonian aquifer reaches 4m west of the landfill, and 3m within the existing landfill area , which causes a downward groundwater migration. The boggy area east and south 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 away from the landfill "Skede'. 0: N

"Lauma" is the ncarest well fieil situated on the cast shore of Tosmare Lake. The well field provides water to Liepaja City hy withdrawal Iromiithe GaUja and113rtnlieku Devonian sandstone aquifers. The nacri-estabstractioni well is locatted at a distance of 1050 m from the landfill "Skede". Contamination of thc abstr-aiclt(ewatcr by the landfill 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 (see above); > Aquifers used for water supply are very deep (abstraction wells are screened from 250m depth and more) and confined by the thick layer of impermeable Devonian sediments.

Shallow aroundwater is widely used for irrigation needs within the summer gardens located north of the waste disposal site "Skede". although drinking water is mainly transported from Liepaja City. Nevertheless, based on existing data, it is possible to conclude that the shallow groundwater is not seriously impacted by landfill, see below.

It is possible that within the summer gardens Jonisku - Akmenes confined aquifer is used for water supply as well, because the piezometric head of the artesian groundwater 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. The total thickness of the Quaternary sediments is 10-15 m. and at the proposed site more than 50% of the cross-section consists of till. Only four types of Quaternary sediments have 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 found also within the till where their thickness achieves 0.5 m (bore hole G5), * glacigene deposits (cQ3ltv) of the Latvian. The formation is developed all over the area and collsist of loam or sandy loam with admixture of gravel and pebble. The thickness is 7 - 12 m. Interbeddings of sandy material (up to 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 to 0.5-0.6 m south-west of the selected site where the surface runoff conditionis are unsatisfactory. The groundwater flow is directed towards Alanda river. i.e. in south - eastern direction. A ~ ~ ~~~~~~A I

%- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..

APZIMfEJUMI/LEGEND Merogs/Scale1f'SOOO

' 'Tehnogiuie uoguilumii(tthQ4). Atkrituiili Glacigenie uogulumni(gQ,ltv). Mvriuas malsrniilts un smnilsmals Tehinogeiiic deposits (tlhQ4). Waste = Glacigene edeposits (gQl1tv). Snndy and loamnytill

Proluvialie uu deluvialie uogulumir (pdQ,). Smilits, grants. mallsmilts -- ,,Pursu noguluini (bQj. Kidra Proluvial auiddeluvial deposits (pdQ,). Sand. gravel, sandy loam X:: ,Bog deposits (bQ3). Peat -_ Alhsvialie noguluiiii (aQ,). Smilts, aleiritiska smnilts. gmnts lespijarnA izfirazttuvesvieta L _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 CQeologiskhgriezuma 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 karte Fig. 16: Map of the Quaternary deposits in Grobina area

NW S H, in m a.m.s.l. ScElerogs 32 H, m V.j1. vertikalaishertical 1:200 32 horizontalais/horizontal1:2000

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 02 20

20 -~~~~~~~ . . 0 .0 . 0 . 2.00

18 LEGEND APZIMEJUMI 18 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LITHOLOGY/LITOLOGIJA HOLOCENEI HOLOCENS - Technogenicdeposits. Waste, sand embankment Tehnogenienogulumi. Atkritumi, uzberta smilts Waste,sand embankment /Atkritumi, uzb§rta smits LATVIANFORMATION / LATVIJAS SVITA -:.* -. *-. Fine grainedsand / Smalkgraudaina smilts Lacustrinedeposits. Sand, fine grained [g9 s3t]V Limnoglacialienogulumi. 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 admixtureof graveland pebbles S ar g u o! p Glacig§nienogulumi. Smilsmals ar grantsun olu piemaisijumu 2

- -_- t _. ^ Groundwatertable / Boreholesand theirnumbers Gruntsaidenulimenis Urbumiun to numuri

Fig. 17: Geological cross-sectionat the site "I'oligons" 17. zim. Iecirkn,a "Poligons" geologiskais griezums

6.4.4 Possible impacts and mitigaitioinmeasures Possible impact: 1. The "Skede" site: * marine sand deposits occur in the arcai piroposedll'or ai nlcw waste treatment plant. There are n1o peat layers within the arca and thc groundwater table is more than I m below the ground surface in most of the area. The groundwater is contaminated by the existing landfill "Skede" (see Figure 5), and the main direction of contamination flow is towards the Tosmare lake. Therefore, the leachate penetration into shallow aquifer from the existing dump must be mitigated, * the shallow and first confined aquifers are separated by till, but the difference of water tables in mentioned aquifers is 3-4 m, and therefore contamination from the existing dump slowly migrates in depth (slight contamination traces are found in wells L3 and L7). Therefore in the future, if proper measures are not taken, further contamination of confined aquifer will take place. 2. The Grobina site: till deposits are developed at the area, but at a few locations the area is covered by a few meters thick sandy layer. Therefore, if groundwater protection measures are not taken, contamination will occur in the future. It is already confirmed by investigations carried at area of existing dump site "Poligons", where slight contamination has 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 or increase of bogging-up processes. * installation of a leachate collection system and a system for surface runoff collection from the waste treatment plant and landfill area, * additionally for the "Skede" site - to fill up the ground at areas where the groundwater table is less than 1 m below the land surface. This

requirement 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 been taken in March - May, and additional analysis of samples in accordance with the requirements of ToR issued by the World Bank. pH and electrical conductivity have been controlled during the pumping process. Othel- parameters have been analysed in the Environment Quality Testing Laboratory of the Hydrometeorological Agency of Latvia and in the laboratory of SWECO, (b.23

* at SSkedc:1-I ani eleci-iczil conductivilyV Caslilureents iII dilClS connecting thc lanldfill and Tosmare lake (66(z measurelcnclts), samplin- ol surtace watcr at 2 poilts (pool closc to the landfill andI()() In hefore central ditch discharge into thc lake). Analysis ol water samiples have bee provide bv thc EnvironmllenitQuality Tcsting Laboratory ol the Hlydrornteorological Agency of Latvia. * at "Grobina": 5 \vells have been sampled and samples hadl becn taken and analysed (procedur-e was analogous to the "Skede" site), * at "'Grobina": 6 measurements of pH and electrical conductivity have been carried out.

6.5.1 Skede site

As mentioned in Chapter 3. high surface water and groundwater contamination has been found at the Skede site " ItI. is obvious that contamination is caused by the existing 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 water can be used for evaluation of TDS content, see Appendix 10.

Surface water is not contaminated in the ditches west of the landfill, which are situated upstream of the landfill and not connected with it. Electrical conductivity of this water varies from 13 to 29 mS/m. Based on relationships obtained by chemical analysis of groundwater samples, TDS of non-contaminated surface water can be estimated 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 the following results were obtained: TDS 62mg/i, chloride 16 mg/I, and ammonia 0.2 mg/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 from 40 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, the landfill body in SE, which contains almost undiluted leachate. This pool was sampled and the results are given in Appendix 9 (sample No 136564).

The ditch connecting the pool with Tosmare Lake is the main conductor of leachate from the landfill. This was clarified through conductivity measurements of surlace water. It should be noted that this ditch catches contaminated water, both surface and shallow groundwater. from almost the whole area between the landfill and Tosmliare Lake.

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 the ditch, the discharge of contaminated surface water to the lake does not exceed 40 0:24 rm/day. Moreover, IhC rael of cointminiiated wwactCr ri ilforIscs aorsIort t e (;nlecrin spring snow ielting.

The contamination degree in above-menltionied ditch Idecreases exponentially with increase of distance from the landtill since thc strongrly conitaminatecdw\aler is (iluted by relatively clean water f-om adjoining perpendicular ditclhes. The following values of 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 and ammonia 140 mg N/l. These concentrations can be taken as a background for an assessment of landfill input to the contamination of Tosmare Lake.

Groundwater quality

The chemnicalcomposition of the native shallow and artesian groundwater is similar. Bicarbonate calcium type of groundwater is prevailing both in the Quaternary and Pre-quaternary aquifers. The content of the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) typically is less than 500 mgA/,while the chloride2 concentration does not exceed 50 mg/I.

Nevertheless, there are some differences between the shallow and artesian groundwater. Typically, a shallow groundwater is characterized by lower content of TDS due to a smaller replenishment rate of the groundwater in the aquifer. On the other hand, groundwater contains high concentrations of dissolved organic acids originating from mud and peat (high COD, color, low pH), as well as inorganic products 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, 7.7 mg 02/i and 550 PCU respectively: The biodegradable part of the organic matter constitutes in average 2- 3 % of the total3 , but the average content of humic substances (mainly fulvic acids) is around 40% of the organic matter4.

Due to the high color and ammonia content native shallow groundwater is not useful for 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 of TDS in the groundwater reaches 800 mg/l, see Appendix 8.

2 Primary parameter characterising presence of leachatein groundwater.since chloride concentration in leachate is very high. Chloride is a conservative component. whicil does not participale in biological. sorption etc. reactions, and the concentration decreases only dtueto 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 obtainedlon similar Latvia's objects. (0: 15>

This hydrgoeochemalicalanomaly. see Figure 88. was established by verlical electrical sounlding alreacdlyin 1983. ancdexists zalsotoday. This is niol duiieto groulndwater contaminiationfronm the landfill, hecalusc: ' The concentration of chloridlein -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 givcs this anomaly. Leaching of water bearing sediments by aggressive groundwater saturated with carbon dioxide6 causes the calcium bicarbonate increase.

The groundwater in the Jonisku - Akmenes confined aquifer is characterized by a notably lower concentration of organic matter and ammonia (COD-Cr 5 - 11 mg O,/l BOD7 <0.5 - 0.58 mg 02/1. ammonia 0.32 - 0.53 mg/I). In general, the quality of the artesian aroundwater is satisfactory for drinking water supply, except the high iron content7.

However, the ammonia content is higher than the background value, because usually the concentration of ammonia nitrogen does not exceed 0.3 - 0.4mg/I. Apparently, the source of ammonia is located 1 km east of the landfill, where Devonian sediments outcrop and Jonisku - Akmenes aquifer is recharged by shallow groundwater.

The water table aquifer is strongly contaminated in the vicinity of the landfill. The results obtained by well L-23 characterize the spectrum of contaminants present in the ,groundwater.The spectrum of contaminants found in groundwater is typical for a landfill containing household waste, see next Figure.

1000 _

C- I =

> 100 ______E

0 .IC) C.

Maximum concentrationsfound in contaminated groundwater

sThis conclusionis basedon the recenitdata of verticalelectrical sounding carried out dUringthis project. Carbondioxide is productof 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 timiiesthe hackground valIus. al-e melasurCdIMor chloride. sodium and potassiumll. Additionally, considerable conltamllinaniitsandl contamination indicators are cadmiumii.lead. ammonia. COD-Cr an(d alkalinity (duc to presence of the ]ow-molecular organic acids - waste destruction products). The concentrations of the mentioned components exceed the background concentrations tens 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, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), benzene toluene. etylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) in a surface ditch, 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) and magnesium (9 - 160 mg/I), which may occur in natural conditions. Cadmium is below the detection limit <0.1 utg/lin all samples and mercury is low <0.02 - 0.29 Aig/l.Also other heavy metals occur in low concentrations, e.g cobalt <0.01 - 0.01 mg/l, copper <0.01 - 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 sample contamination. 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 are below the detection limit, 0.1 gg/l. Only B-2 shows significant elevated xylene concentration, 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 leachate contamination seems typical for household waste and the impact from the industrial waste is rather limited. Thus, biological methods for leachate treatment are proposed.

The main hydrogeological and hydrological features determining the distribution of contaminants 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 contaminated shallow 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 the contaminating substances down to the Devonian aquifers within the landfill area. Percolation of the contaminants in surroundings of the Tosmare Lake cannot take place since this is a discharge area with an upward groundwater flow.

The variable native salinity and the chemistry of the shallow groundwater complicates the interpretation of results of the chemical analyses, because elevated concentrations of several compounds may originate both from natural and antrophogenic sources. For example, increased ammonia and COD content. which is very typical for laindfill areas, occurs also due to bog water impact.

Figure 5 (see chapter 3) shows the contaminant distribution in the groundwater. Four classes of groundwater quality are determined based on the contamination degree. t: 27

Boundaries between ditifc-ent classes wele delineated ftronm all dati (1htained at groundwater sampling and vertical clectrical soundillns as wcll as mcaLsureMencltsof electrical conductivity (see Figure 19).

Strong pollution of the groundwater was fouLid in the Quaternary aquifer withill tlec landfill area and also south and southeast of the landfill. The arcai of stron-ly contaminated groundwater is elongated in SE direction corresponding- to tile gyroundwaterflow and reaches Tosmare lake.

Due to the limited thickness of the water table aquifer. the discharge of contaminated groundwater to the Tosmares Lake is rather small in relation to the discharge through the ditches.

The total extent of the contaminated area is 1 km. The area of groundwater contamination is about 45 hectares. The groundwater contamination does not spread to the north, where the summer gardens are located. The groundwater contamination is located in the water table aquifer. and the volume of contaminated water is about 100 thousand ml.

The shallow groundwater is slightly contaminated in the areas around wells L-4 and L-6. but this contamination is not generated by the landfill. A manure pile located at well L-6 causes. high BOD level in the ground water. The origin of the high zinc content in the well L-4 is uncertain.

Incontestable contamination of the artesian groundwater was not found in the sampled four 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 have caused the analytical results8.

Relatively high TDS (720 mg/l) content and chloride concentration (75 mg/l) in well L-3 may be considered as an indication of a very slight contamination.

The artesian aquifer might be contaminated NW of the landfill, if the contamination penetrates 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 1983 in well T-6 screened at depth 15 - 21m. This well does not exist today.

The existing data indicates that the artesian groundwater is not seriously contaminated. Nevertheless, an additional monitoring well NW of the landfill is proposed to clarify this question.

The historical extent of the contaminant plume can only be based on the investigations from the 1980-ies. Only a few wells remain from that period and new sampling is then impossible.

The casing within the screeninterval in this well is covered by stones andlrbbish. The high-capacily submersible pump used for sampling of this well was plugged, and sample was taken with a puimllpol small yield. 0:28

Contaminationi of -roundw;ater W;asfouLnd alrad-c;y in 1982 whcn the first iionilorilln wells were drilled. The chloride and( TDS concentr-aitionsreachicd 700 mu/l and 2.60() mg/I in the shallow well drilled witlhin the landfill. Regular grounldiwaterfmonlitolrin

A 11 5 sizmBazdeIn-i

1020300 2 3 8 Area proposedfor O K o I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a new landfill _| 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/Sandyloam F}3iesarnoti iezi/ t| X . wi> // z

Q+D,ak Simsmals, mals/Sandyblam, clay f Contarr'nated dsediments; 26

AProfile B of electrica..profilingnajamgpo1:10000 Apparentletuelektriskiiresistivitypretestiba,ofsediments, Om^nlmJ/lVt>t\|Om^m9 / Ot-20' 32035 40 50 60 710 810 90 2|0 / \/ \ S)t ///// LEGEND/APZiMEJUMI 9a >( \299/ / ///

Elektriskas zondesanas punkti 36 ) \ ! _+/ // / / T6Electrical profiling points 45///1111 10 Elektriskas prdfilesanas punkti > t\° 1 ~s Equipotentials of apparent resistivity, Om^m ' { f1 54///// / l I Elektriskfis pretestibas izolinijas, Om'm r O 52 /I//// //>1 A BProfileof electrical profiling i Me-rogs 1:10000 e ////// /1 - Elektriskaistomografijas profils 'Scale 1:1I0,000i ////////

Fig. 19: Apparent resistivity of water saturated sediments, "Skede" vicinity 19. zim.: Udens.saturoso iczu elektriska pretestiba, "SkedMes"apkairtne was not pr-ovidedin 80-ties.New shallow monitoring wells WCICinstalled within tihc landfill 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 contamiinlationiwithin the landfill area in the thrcc remainilC wells. drilled in 1994 and sampled in 1999. is approximiatcly of' thc samnerange as in 1994. The shallow groundwater was clean in the remaining- well T-3 botth in 1982 and today.

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 Lake through ditches. Therefore, the dimensions of the groundwater contaminant plume as well as the volume of contaminated groundwater are considerably smaller compared with 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. The impact of this process is estimated below.

The volume of the discharged contaminants into the lake may be determined in two ways: 1. Based on the estimated leachate runoff and 2. 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. The landfill officially operates since 1972, and initially until rid-eighties about 3 hectares have 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 that 80% and 20% of the runoff penetrates into the waste body at the open and covered waste disposal areas respectively. The total leachate production during 23 years may be estimated at approximately 150 thousand m3 or 18 m3/day (assuming that the leachate 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 the Tosmare Lake.

A correct evaluation of the ratio of contaminated water discharged into the Tosmare Lake and infiltrated into deep aquifer (below the till) is impossible without long-term observations. However. experience from similar objects (for example, in L.Tirelu purvs, in Tukums District) gives the rate between runoff and infiltration to be about 4:1 (a system where bog ditches cut through peat and a sandy aquifer). Thus, the following may be estimated (evaporation from land and water surface is not considered): 80 % of the leachate and contaminated surface runoff is discharged directly into the Tosmare lake in year 1975-1998, i.e. 120 thousand m3 of' Iclchate and 80 thousand m3 of contaminated surface runoff. (o:. I

20% of thie Iclachateand conitaiiiilLlncadsulirface ILilnol has in Fllitl-late(ilnto -roundwater, i.e. 30 thousand1Salnd (20 thousand m-i respccti\ ce! .

Well B-3 and B-5 characterizes thC outflow of, Icalchate l'romathc landfill and the average 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' total nitrogen and 0.04 kg of phosphate phosphorus from the above figures.

The volume of contaminants discharged into the Tosmare Lake may also be estimated by the total rate of contaminated surface water and groundwater.

The total rate of contaminated groundwater will not exceed 0.5 m3/day, calculated for the bottom part of water table aquifer, which is thin sand layer (0.1m) between the peat and the till. This flow is negligible compared with the discharge of contaminated surface water.

Contaminated surface water is discharged into the Tosmares Lake through one ditch only 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 be estimated at 11 kg of TOC, 7 kg of total nitrogen and 0.001 kg of phosphate phosphorus.

The results obtained by the different ways of calculation are simnilarfor TOC and total nitrogen and may be used for an estimate of the total amount of pollutants discharged to the lake since 1975. Approximately 90 tons of TOC and 40 tons of total nitrogen were discharged to the Tosmare'Lake during the 23 years. This represents a pollution load of approximately 300 - 600 people.

The relation of the natural nutrient load to the landfill impact is unclear, but the landfill impact should be considered. The lake overgrows very fast and the leachate contribution may accelerate this process.

6.5.3 Grobina site As mentioned in Chapter 3, no surface water and slight groundwater contamination has been found at the site "Poligons" used by the Grobina town and parish, as well as partly by the Liepaja City (Sikari Ltd.).

Suirface water

Surface water is not contaminated, and electrical conductivity of water does not exceed 450-500 mikroSJcm.

' Calculaltedfrom the COD-Cr. :2

Groundwvater

Groundwater contamination has beenifound aroullndlexisting dmIL site ''ol igon1s'' (see Figure 6). It has rathlerlimitcd distribution (abouL0.6 hectzir-es).and the following parameters characterise thc contaminationlevel (well no. 5): COD - 200 mng"O2/l.NHI 4 - .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

The impacts on surface water and groundwater may be divided into two groups: 1. Inevitable impacts: - generationot 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 of leachate will not be provided, - contamination of groundwater: permanent, if liner is not installed; secondary - if contaminated leachate is discharged into surface water bodies recharging groundwater.

Percolation of atmospheric precipitation through solid waste and extraction of dissolved or suspended materials always takes place in all landfills. When water percolates through the solid wastes that are undergoing decomposition, both biological materials and chernical constituents are leached into solution. Therefore leachate collection and treatment is a pre-condition for any waste treatment plant and landfill operation.

The data on generated leachate amount are presented in sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3, while information about the existing and possible future leachate composition is characterised in Table 6.3.

The precipitation penetrating into the waste will be consumed during the anaerobic decomposition 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 be estimated as follows [17]:

C68H 1105 N + 16H,O = 35CH4 +33CO + NHA

The landfill gas is usually saturated by water vapour. The quantity of water vapor escaping from the landfill can be determined by assuming that the landfill gas is saturated with water vapor and applying the perfect gas law. Therefore, the actual amlounltol lcachate wvill bc less than it is staied in 6.3.2 and(l 6.3.3, but the water consuimption lor landfill gas production and waler vapour escaping the landfill has not been consi(dce-edin our calculation.

The data presented in Tatble 6.3. especially concerning cxpccted composition. could be different, since the chemical composition of leachate varies substaiitially depending on the actual waste composition. the precipitation and its intenisity. age of the landfill, etc. Nevertheless, the figures presented in Table 6.3i may be used as background information for evaluation of the chemical composition of the leachate.

Table 6.3 Leachate composition Parameter Skede, Grobina, Expected compnosition' Maximum unit well no. 10 well no. 4 First 2 years After 10 Content at l 2vyears Getlini,Riga 2 pH 7.7 6.7 4.5.-7.5 6.6-7.5 TDS mg/l 35200 630 39000 Na+ 13600 69 200-2500 100-200 15000 I K+ 4)0 7.8 200-1000 50-400 50 M2o 16(0 33 50-1500 50-200 92 Ca' 230 105 200-3000 100-400 220 HCO3 20900 23000 so4 - 120 73 50-1000 20-50 120 Cl_ 9380 47 200-3000 100-400 9700 COD mgO2/1 2150 200 3000-60000 100-500 5500 BOD 7 120 15 - - 180 BOD5 - - 2000-30000 100-200 N/NH4 mg/I 520 6.9 10-800 20-40 4500 Nt 0, 840 9.7 9900 P/P0 4 9.5 0.065 12 Cd uig/l 3 0.09 8 Co 52 0.10 I 670

Cr10t 240 1.0 7400 Hg 0.1 0.06 <50 Pb 9.2 0.30 <100 Zn 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 collect non-contaminated runoff from the surface of the landfill. - installation of liner to limit or eliminate movement of leachate from the landfill 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. table 11-13. 2 Source: Feasibility Study and Preliminary design of Remediation and Continuet Operation ol ihe Getlini 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-onlmienitalrequirerrments. and both natural (clay) and synthetic miaterialscould be used. In both cases. to avoi(l the accumulation ol' leiaclate in the bottom of' a l:indfill. the bottoml area has to be g,raded and a collection system established. - creation of a leachate collection system. Leachate coliection pipes have to be placed lengthwise directly onl geomembrane. To promiioteefi'ectivc drainage , the bottom needs a gradient of 1.2 to 1.8%, - construction of a leachate holding and treatment facilities. The capacity of the holding tank depends on the type of treatment facilities and the maximum allowable discharge rate to the treatment facility. Typically, leachate holding tanks are designed to hold from I to 3 days of leachate production during the peak leachate generation process. - establishment of a control and monitoring system.

Sk-edesite

Discharge of the treated leachate into Tosmare lake or to the groundwater aquifers is not possible. Therefore, the collected leachate has to be delivered after pre-treatment to the Liepaja city waste water treatment plant (further - WWTP) for treatment. The WWTP 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 Feasibility study 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 section 6.3.3).

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 face and in the energy cells. Two or maximum three vehicles may operate at the site simultaneously. The number of collection vehicles that on the average will arrive at the waste treatment plant is estimated at twenty per day. Private vehicles that bring their own waste will also occur. Air pollution, noise and vibration is both an occupational health as well as an environmental issue. The occupational health aspects are presented in Section 6.11.

The recurrence of wind directions and wind velocities are characterised in Tables 2.4 and 2.5 (see Chapter 2). The prevailing wind directions are shown in Figure 20. lIoth the summer garden society "Skede" (north of the area proposed for a new waste treatment plant) and -'Ataugas" (south-west of the proposed area) are located on the lee-side of the proposed plant and are not expected to be disturbed by odours. N N NNW 25.0 NNE NNW 25.0 NNE

NW 20.0 NE NW 20,0 NE 15.0 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 -SSE S S Wind rose, January Wind rose, April Veja roze, janvaris Veja roze, aprTlis

N N NNW 25.0 NNE NNW 25.0 NNE NW NE20.0 NW20.0- NE NW ,NE 15,0 , 15,0 WNW 10.0 ENE WNW 10.0 ENE W~~~~~~ E~N W EEE

WSW ESE WSW ESE

SW SE SW SE SSW SSE SSW SSE S S Wind rose, July Wind rose, October Veja 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 cdiffCIClltat Ske(lc and Grohilla since the number of potentially disturbed people is larger in Skecle. The air pollution from frequent burning of the waste is a disturbance as well as dust Iromlithe 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 impact on the environment. Landtfill gas may cause explosion at the site if not properly collected, vented or utilised.

The global impact is due to that the anaerobic decomposition of the waste gencrates methane, which is released to the atmosphere if not controlled. The methane in the landfill gas is a very potent greenhouse gas with an effect of 21 times that of carbon dioxide.

Mitigating measures

The local disturbances at the landfill will be controlled by disposal of the waste inside a berm, which will constructed from demolition waste and other inert material to an elevation 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 is exposed to the atmosphere for a prolonged time. The berm will not only protect the surrounding inhabitants from the impact of the noise and dust, but also the visual impact of the waste management operations.

Secondly, the introduction of proper covering of the waste will reduce the odour, risk for accidental fires and release of gaseous emissions.

The impact on the atmosphere will be reduced by collection and utilisation of the landfill gas. In the feasibility study the maximum collection of landfill gas is estimated 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 sludge is added in the cells.

6.7 Assessment of Biological Diversity Two Dotential sites for Liepaia waste treatment plant were investinated. the former military 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 additional surveys in Skede in August, 1999. 0:37

6.7.1. Introduction

An inventory of biotopes. VLZCtfltiOn. flora an11dfaUna wa'IS Made to aISSCSSthe biodiversitv ot'the arcas.

The assessment of the hiotopes was based on the naltu-c of thc ve-etation structulc and they are divided in 3 categories: 1. Valuable biotopes - biotopes. where important landscape and naltul-evalucs are preserved, including rare species and the species of the Red Data Book, 2. Less valuable biotopes - biotopes. where the natural structure has been degraded to various extent due to human activity; 3. Artificially-created (man-made) biotopes - biotopes, where natural vegetation has been fully extinguished to set up fields or where ruderal plant communities have appeared, as well as places where agricultural or other activities have stopped but no significant nature values have been restored.

The assessment of the flora and fauna has been carried out at the potential waste treatment sites and their sUIlToundings,using the route method. The main attention was paid to species of the Red Data Book, as well as to species that are indicators of value of 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-west shore of the Tosmare lake and Skede road. During implementation of the study the proposed site was moved further away from Tosmare lake, and the new site was visited 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 in Figures 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 area are important not only for Latvia, but also for Europe. The potential site borders the very 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 for biodiversity - "Tosmare Lake" and "Medze beach" that were determined in two projects carried out by World Wildlife Fund [58]. It means that the importance of the area 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 ol the flora in the selected area since 1972 during investigations ot the flot-a in the MaScdnei\L C6 T~~~-

, -' .., - ~ ~'~0-'...j~~0*,~~

CO Ej Ve.,cka -_; 6 , ,r:di.00& , ..

/. ~~~- ,a

-T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7

~~~\ = t ______

01~~~~~~~~~

Reg _ 7oivriibooileuatrtrj

Sil Mavri4,~~~~~~~4 itp

1000~ 00~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~rgsSae :50

7auAre~ ~~~~~o itp

00~ ~ ~ IzNU tdtm plb ana ait

Site~~~~~~~~~orwsedratetseete ln Dabs legaTosmares roezasJ 21. zrn.:iotop nov~tEj0m. 9.0 Fig. Evalution21 o bioop iSed

1f Borderyhig valure bitprservhn e staricioae

Ma.zvrim.:Biotopui oetjusSFd Fig. 21value ationtfoitospnSkd

it /j/ ;d~> Sum m mer gardens I'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

~~' ~',, -t /,

~~~ /~~

APZIMPJUMI/ILEGEND Merogs/Scale1:10000 Augu sugu atradnes/Localitiesof plantspecies 1 - Baltijas donislJuncusbalticusIBaHic Rush 9 - Sikaisabolifnsllrffolium dubiumfLesserTrefoil * 6. 9. 14. IS. 2 - Gada staipeknisLycopodiumannotinumAnterrupted Clubmoss 10 - Sikziedu ±ibulitislEuphrasiamicranthaiEyebright species * 3. S. 3 - Galvainais donislJuncuscapitatusADwarf Rush 11 - Sipolinu donislJuncus bulbosus/BulbousRusn 0 3. 4. 5. 11. 12. 4 - lesirma kapsmildzene/CorynephoruscanescensAGrey Hair-grass 12 - Skrajais donis/Juncus squarrosus-leath Rush 3. 5. is. S - LinustarenRe,Radiola tinoidesl 13 - VaIlu staipeknislLycopodiumclavatumlStagshorn Clubmoss * 1.t0. § j >5.(.9 6 - Pakalnu neaizmirstuleAMyosotisramosissima/Early Forget-me-not 14 - Vinkalnu sipolslAlium vinealelCrow Garlic * U 9 10 15. 7 - ParastaeLIrvmirteAVyrica gale/Bog Myrtle 15 - Agra airalAira precoxIEarly Hair-grass -Smarziga naktsvijole/Platanthera ifolia/Lesser Buterfly Orchid

(Z) PurvmirteskromaislBog myrtle stand 2 Sausa plava (smilKukrupis, sila kirzaka) _ ,,Tosmares ezera dabas lieguma robeza '-.-.1 Dry grasslands(Natterjack,Sand Lizard) Border of Tosmareslake nature reserve Sauso p!avu un virsaju komplekss ar retajim dzivniekusugim Liepajas pils. un Medzes pag. robeza (smilsu krupis, sila kirzaka, raibspirnu smiltisisenis, parkskis) EsosaizgiztuveLandill _.- Administrative border between Medze Dry grasslandsand heaths with rare animal species Teritorijajauna CSA poligona ierikosanai parish and Liepaja City (Natterjack, Sand Lizard, Band-wingedLocust, Red-wingedLocust) Area foreseen for a new waste treatment plant 22. zim. Retie biotopi un sugas Fig. 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,uucls capitalutsin 1988. because it was Supposed as extinict in Latvia unltil thlat year. DLIIinig the detailed flora investilations in April-May. 1999 14 species ol thle Red Data Book were found in the area:

Baltic Rush .JuMCUsbahllicis (in heath and dry grasslands) Interrupted LYcopodiiuin (in wet pine-common alder forest) Clubmoss au111oz)iuni Dwarf Rush Junciwscapiltalus (in depressions in heath and dry grasslands) Grey Hair-grass (in dune grasslands, on sandy roads) Corynephorus canescens Rtadiola linoides (in depressions in heath and dry grasslands) Early Forget-me- Mxsotis rcmosissinzia (in dune grasslands) not Bog Myrtle Myrica gale (in forests, shrubs) Lesser Butterfly Platanzhera bifolia (in common alder stands) Orchid Lesser 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 clavatumii Crow 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 meadows is unique for Latvia. This species was included in the academic edition of Latvia's flora [61] and in the Plant determinant [64]. Existence of that species in Latvia could not be proved. as none of herbarium samples was left and no specific locality was known. Therefore, this species was excluded from the list of plant species in later overviews of flora [65. 62]. Due to the above mentioned, Early hair-grass is not included in the Red Data Book. So, just in 1999 the existence of this species is proved for the first time in Latvia. As the growtlh at the Skede site is located near the eastern border of distribution area, conservation of this only known locality is important lor the 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 celllet of heath communities is Creeping Willow Salix repeis. :11I

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 tilaliyvc distribution l(()l. Dwarf rush is foundelin the area, fromiithe CGouplll of quanlitalivc distributioni 4 species arc fouLLd (Girey Hair-g(-rass. Evebri ght species Euplhrasio: micrantha, Radioa linoildes, Creepineli Willow), but tf-om lhe Girou(opIll - 7 species (Crow Garlic. Rockcresses species Arabis g,erarthi. Bulbous Rush. Hleath Rush. Early Forget-me-not. Bog Myrtle. Lesser Trefoil). Baltic Rush should be added to those flora rarities. which is incluLdedin Group 11 lor rare littoral species common for the Piejura lowland. Out of the species found in the proposed area, it could be concluded that 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 rich complex of annual plant species ol this area is composed by Dwarf Rush together with Radiola linoides, Eyebright species Euplirasia niiicranitha,Early Hair-grass and Early Forget-me-not.

The territory features a rich mosaic of biotopes. Heath and dry grasslands should be suggested as very valuable biotops.

Heaths. No large continuous areas are covered by heath in the possible site. Forest stands and grasslands are located among them. Heath communities at Skede have richer biodiversity than inland heaths. The Baltic Rush - included in the Red Data Book, typical only for Piejura lowland is found in this area. Very rare Creeping Willow grows in the area as well. Early hair-grass and Eyebright species Euphrasia inicrantha could be found on sandy roads and on sparse places in the heath, as well as Radiola linoides and Dwarf Rush in depressions in the heath. In some places the heath changes to dune grasslands, but that change is not very sharp so Early Forget-me-not and Lesser Trefoil, more typical for dry grasslands, could be found there. This is an important biotope for several insect species (mainly hymenopterans and grasshoppers and locusts), including the Red Data Book species - Red-winged Locust Psophuts stridulus 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, Wildlife Fauna and Flora from May 21. 1999. That means that the biotope is threatened across Europe and special attention should be paid for its conservation by establishing protected areas.

Dune grasslands are located on the higher elevations, surrounded by heaths and forest clusters. Typical grasses as well as lichens and mosses dominate there. Species from the Red Data Book are found here - plants (Grey Hair-grass. Early Forget-me- not, Eyebright species; fauna (Red-winged Locust, Band-winged Locust and Natterjack). 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 Protectioni of Natural Biotopes, Wildlife Fauna and Flora. That means those biotopes are ot interest for European Council and for their conservation network of protccted areas should be established. o-d-

AmoniIlicthe lorests wel coimniloil alder and pine fOrests (dni ite. as well as iii xcd pine. bi-ch and comlmoni(iiial(der stands. Tecy a1r verI' yoLIIg. dCVCeloCedin thle deprcssionis. In manVyplaces those stands covcrI artiflicial depressions with deeper holes inside. Despite secondary type of thosc loi-est stainids,several lRect Data Book species are l'ound: Bo;. Myrtle. Lesscr 13utterflyOrclid. InteCruptcd Clubmlloss adll Stagshorni Clubmoss. Alihouch localities oi' those spccies are nlot very rich. tiley enrich 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. which consists of dense, up to lin high Bog Myrtle bushes. This species is included in the Red 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 bodies enrich 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 only exception is dune grasslands and heaths where Band-winged Locust Oedipoda coerulescenis - species from the Red Data Book Category 1, and Red-winged Locust Psophuts stridulus - species from the Red Data Book Category 3, are found. On the forest edge Poplar Admniral Limnenitis populi - species from the Red Data Book category4, was found.

Dune grasslands are habitat for protected amphibian and reptile species found in the area: Natterjack Bufo calamita - category 2 of the Red Data Book and Sand lizard Lacerta agilis - category 4 in the Red Data Book. The last one lives also in dune forests adjacent to the grasslands.

The bird fauna in the area features a rather significant diversity. Presently, the common so-called background species dominate in forest.

The chosen area is inhabited by a small number of ecologically plastic species of mammals that are typical for the described biotopes. In a pond the introduced American Mink Mustela visoni is found that have become an unwelcome saboteur.

Short characteristicsof nature values in thzelarger area

The Tosmare lake with its shoreline is one of the most significant areas for the biodiversity in Latvia. The sionificance of this area has been evaluated, developing several nature protection projects. It is included in list of the World Wildlife Fund project "Nature Protection Plan for Latvia". Medze beach is included in that list as well. The Tosmare lake has also been included in the "CORlNE Biotopesl project 1631. which contains information about the places with the grealest sionificancc lor the biodiversity assessment of Latvia.

The area is characterised by extremnely great hiotope divel-sity. inclutding miotopes characteristic of the coastal lowland, and also biotopes that al-e rare elscwlhci-c in Latvia. All types of mirkesarc repre-senedhere. 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 nmeadowsadll(i NusIhy pastures.The forestsalre relativCl y oula. with swamipsland somt'eotthel types of wet fOrestspredomiinating. I)rlier forests ol'te1 feature single oaks. Apart fromI 'irasslarilnS and wet forests the lake floodplain is characterised also by reed beds and clubrush beds. The stanl(dsof' Greaet Fen Sed-e rCladiuni inariscus) are of particular significance. The formnerconnlectioIn of' the lake with the sea determines the presencc of several species, which are characteristic of brackish soils and bracklish waters. At lcast seven of the biotopes described in the nature 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

At least 7 biotopes endangered in Europe and included in the European Union Directive on Biotopes (habitats) (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conzservation of niatural lhabitats anGdof 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: - Batrachiumiibaudotti - Carex demnissa - Cladiun mnariscus - Dactylorhiza baltica - Dacrylorhiza incarnata - DactvlorhiLa fuchsii - Euphlrasia rnicrantha - Euphoorbiapalustr-is - Genrianella utliginosa - Gynmnadenia con opsea - Iris sibirica - Junlcius balticulis - Laserpitiurn pruttenicum - Myrica gale - OphrYs inse lifera - Prinilula fjarinosa - ScIhoeniis ferugineus - Serrntula tinctoi*f - Trc1A7 hl -111)IcUhIplosir

- TriI0/ hutIhllriIimIuml

Some of' the above species are of spccial significance: Fl Orchidr O)phrvs isecl!('iur, which is found only in two morc localities in Latvia now. and PrOUSian SerloUn.tail species Laserpitiunnpruticnicum. for which it is one of tvo existin; locailities.For the protection 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 protection of species Great Fen Sed,c Clad iumniinia-iscus and Marsh Spurge Eqplhorbia palutstriis are growing in the direct vicinity of the potential waste deposit site.

The following species among those recorded in the Red Data Book of Latvia have been found in the Tosmare area: I species of mammals (Stoat Muistela erminiea). 6 species of birds (Bitterm Botalarus .stellaris, Common Crake Gr-ls grus, Black tern Chllidonzias niger, Savi's Warbler Lociustella luscinioidcs., Bearded Tit Panzurus biarmicus, Penduline Tit Remi:z pendulinus), as well as 2 species of insects (moth Agonopleryxr bipunctosa and Poplar Admiral Limiienzitispopuili) and I mollusk species (Mossnail Cochlicopa nitens).

The whole Skede beach, where dune grasslands are left in large areas, is important territory in terms of biodiversity. Wet inter-dune depressions and open sandy spaces are 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 Vetch Vicia lathvroides should be mentioned. It is a rare species and it is included in the Red Data Book. Dune Gentian Gentianella uliginosa is found in wet depressions, but Hen and Chickens Houseleek Jovibarba sobolifera - in the dry grasslands. Among rare and The Red Data Book species should be mentioned also Toadflax species Linaria loeselii. At least 13 rare and protected plant species are found here. Besides other above-mentioned animal species found in dune grasslands of the potential site, Tawny Pipit 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. More intensive traffic could cause additional load to air and noise pollution on the ecosystems of the nature reserve. as well as wet forests and other wetlands that are situated to the west of the reserve and are a significant element of biological diversity of 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 that are rare in Latvia and endangered in Europe.

Establishment of the waste disposal site will destroy localities ol'at least 14 protected plant species and 2 very rare plant species. Besides, tor one of those rare plant species this is the only known locality in Latvia. Localities of 3 protectecd insect species. one (1:4' amphibiall species and ol1CrcplitIc specics hie (Iestiove(i as wcll. 1-[or Band-win.ocd Locust OL'(dip)odaco'ndI sc'e,listhis locality is onicof two. Known InLaitvi a.

The operation ofthc landfill will halvea significant adverse imilazcton thc contdlitioniol at least 21 rare plant species and biotopes (7 hiotopes rar-c or close to extinctioin I Latvia and 7 biotopes ot European significancc).

The operation of the landfill will have a significant adverse imnpacton localities of at least 9 rare animal species.

The operation of the landfill will cause an additional load on the territory of Tosmare Lake nature reserve and biotops ol Skede dunes. sands and grasslands. Plant communities of dunes and sands are especially vulnerable to invasion of weeds and alien plant species. Close to the cities and recreation areas weeds and alien plant species invade on free spaces not occupied by local plants. Waste disposal site might increase that process, by disturbing the natural stability of plant communities and at the same time promotin- distribution of alien plant species around the landfill in natural plant communities. The seaside plant communities could be very appropriate habitat 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 destroy biotopes, wild plants, and habitats of animals and ecologically or aesthetically significant elements of landscape in the protected territory of the Tosmare reserve. The proposed waste treatment plant is located in close connection to the protected area.

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 is located in the former military training ground. Former agricultural lands constitute the largest part of it and former homesteads as well as the remnants of different army rmilitary infrastructure objects.

Biotopes andflora

The former military training ground occupies the largest part of the area. Its vegetation is formed by species typical for abandoned agricultural lands. common across the country. There is a significant proportion of synantrophic species. introduced as a result of human activity, including adventive species that are alien to the local flora. The most significant component is the orchards that have been preserved and some isolated fruit trees. Some small water reservoi-s play a certazin role. The character of the biotope leads to the conclusion that the presence ot' rare or protected species in the area is rather impossible. It is not possible to gel a complete picture 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 <-dki3E 7~~>K ,~ S ine ki '---

X,%' \ . < - X ,/ '', ~gSkuiavEr#,rFr2SIh4P> ,,' , ,, ,'ja

\ -,/ I , oO~ n .X, <3,

iKra ,| ,iW1,\,-~ ~ s, .} , /

> | ,, S _ 28 n -- 8 111 .2, .

1 _I _ _ > 1 238 ~ EJBij.armijas |

--'r- , -e: s g f alasteritorija (Metbe rtfi) 6

6

~vjiteri

1 iLW < 1A A~~~~ = *,

v ;as-i rani I >S

APZIMEJUMiA.EGEND

_ - ~~Vertigsmeza biotops ar dikstu vipoliti _ - ~~Forestbiotops of highvalue marshyviolet |Mazak | vertigs meAa biotops Forestbiotops of lowervalue |Cilv§ka veidotibiotopi HumanE t made biotops - _ ~Izveletaatkritumu apglabEsanas vieta Siteselected for wastedisposal

23. zini. Biotopu novertejums atkritumu apgabasanai izveletaja vieta Grobi,as pagasta Fig. 23: Evaluation of biotops at selected site in Grobina parish . Liepaja vicilliltv. However. consideringr thc strulcture of Hiotopesand tlh iecent history of the area. it miehitnot he of priolrity i pil;nC rilomthe point oi vie\\ ol Iflorli and vegetation protection.

Available botanlical literature does not givc any inform-lationabout thc presence of raec or 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 other invertebrates that have adapted to living in biotopes, strongly influenced or created by human activity. There is no evidence of any rare or protected species, and no significant diversity of species can be expected.

The avifauna is represented only by the most common species. There is a possibility of 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 (Lan2iuscollurio) which is significant in the European context. The likelihood of the presence of rare or protected species in the selected forest area is small otherwise.

The chosen area is inhabited by a small number of species of mammals that are characteristic for open biotopes, among them predominantly rodents. Some forest mammals, e.g. Red Deer (Cernus elaphus) and Roe Deer (Capriolus capriolus) feed in 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 of Grobina Sub-Forestry of Liepaja Forestry. Draining has left a significant impact on the forests. Birch, spruce and pine stands are dominant. The forest features a relatively large 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 many sectors of forests have preserved a natural structure. Their plant communities are formed by species that are common and typical for these forests. The rare and protected species are represented by violet specie Viola iuliginiosathat is found in the forest area. Breeding of Red-breasted Flycatcher (Ficedkla parva) significant specie in 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 any rare species of plants, animals or areas in need of protection.

Potential inmpactof waste disposal site on biodiversity

Establishment of a waste treatment plant in the area will not destroy any sensitive biotopes or rare plants. The presence of some rare bird species, quilte Co111111011iI (:-45

Latvia. is piossihWc.allhou.zh not optimal hiotopes lor those species arc represclle'd in the area.

South and cast ot the clhoseni arca biotopes afectctd by huLulnilactivit dom1inate. featuring only biologically plastic species. So. the estahlishlmlcnitot ai wastc ielalentIt plant is not likely to have any significant impact on ihe composition) of the plallt ziand animal species or their living condiionls.

In the adjacent forest n0oth and west of the chosen site, where intensive forestry activities 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 be enhanced by the use of forestry machinery during the period when the soil is not frozen, thus causing the progression of the newly introduced plant species deeper into the forest.

Greater transport intensity is not likely to have a significant impact on typical species found in open country landscape. The migration of adventive plant species is likely to affect mainly secondary biotopes and human-created biotopes.

The impact on biodiversity in the area of the waste deposit site can be divided into 3 belts:

* 500 m - invasion of synantrophic (including adventive) plant species is possible in natural and semi-natural biotopes. Direct exposure to dust and chemicals can affect plants and invertebrates; * 1 km - the site will attract insectivores, rodents and small carnivores, scare large 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 affect the composition of the species of aquatic organisms and the proportions of different species in various distances, depending on the season. the character and the amount of contaminated 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 of different chemical substances and compounds or disease agents through the food chain or through direct contact. In this case the affected area and the range of the affected species could be much wider than above-mentioned.

Measutresto 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 but directing, the run-off around the former military training ground to prevent contamination of the ditches. 2. To prevent, as far as possible, the access of animals to the landlill by setting up 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 developa systcm ot wterlcourse Cualilty assesSileIll ;1id to carrV out water hiolowflCalqLualiy\ tCsts rc-ularly. 2. To develop a monitorinn programn and methods for repilar conltiol of' ithc nurnhers of certainl animazl groups and species (rodents, foxes. seacuilfs aild corvids), the contlellt of pollutants in animal tissuLesand the hcalth status ol the animals. 3. To carry out a botanical inventory, once every 3 years. around the waste treatment plant (0.5krm radius) and the access road. to detect and prevent the potential invasion of the expansiveplant species in the natural biotopes of the area. 4. No forestry activity is recommended within 0.5-km radius from the waste treatment plant. 5. Forestry activities in the forests located from 0.5 to 1km from the site should be carried out only when the soil is frozen, to reduce the possible impact of forestry machinery on the ground layer and the progression of adventive plant 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 the surrounding and lower vegetation on the landfill.. 2. To encircle the site, along its borders. by ponds and ditches with no run-off to other waters and with abundant vegetation of caulescent plants for a faster decompositionof nutrients and pollutants that reach the waters. 3. To carry out botanical monitoring of the site once in 3 years, in order to control cenopopulation dynamics of the adventive species and to prevent the potential spreading of expansive species outside the area of the closed-down landfill. 4. To continue botanical monitoring of the site once in 5 years of the biotopes within 0.5 km radius of the site, to control the dynamics of the adventive species of plants.

6.7.4. Comparisonof the potential sites

The comparison of the potential sites has been made on the basis of quantitative criteria. 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 the more valuable area.

The potential waste disposal sites are very different regarding the biodiversity. A waste treatment plant in Grobina will not cause any serious decrease of hiodiversity or adverse impact on the surroundino biotopes. The situation is completely opposite in Skede. Important species and biotopes for Latvia and Europe will be destroyed and operation of the waste treatment plant may cause i-r-eversibleclhanges in the Tosmare lake nature complex and in the Skede dune vegetation andanimiial communities. Tahlc 6.4 Characterisation and (quantiticatiolnof l)iological criteria Criteria Characterisatiom ol' criteria Quanlifi- I | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~catiotn Ovel '20lh 5 1. Proportionl of very valuahle I0-2()'i' 4 Ibtaiotopes UDa)pIt()'/' 3

1.25 and over 5 2. Index of the natural and 1-1 25 4 man-made biotopes 0.75-1 3 0.5-0.75 2 0.25-0.5 1 11 Less than 0.25 0 3. Assessment of faunain 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 5 The Red Data Book Categories 3 and 4 species 2 Significant impact (sites with natural., minor changed 3 biotopes) I 5. Impact of roads on the Medium impact (sites with human impacted biotopes, 2 migration 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 3 biotopes)| 6. Threat to the vicinity Medium impact (sites with human impacted biotopes, 2 of selected sites e.g. forestry activities, peat excavation) Minor impact (sites with specially man-madebiotops) I

The comparison of the selected sites is provided in Table 6.5. Table 6.5 Comparison of biological diversity for potential sites Criteria Number of points l ______G robina Skede The proportion of very valuable biotopes 0 5 Index of the natural/man-made biotopes 0 5 Assessment of fauna 5 15 Assessment of flora 0 40 Impact of roads on the migration of plant species in the 1 2 area Threat to the vicinity of selected sites 2 3 Total | 8 70 6: 5 I

Colnclutsiolns

Skede From biological diversitv viewpoint it is not advised to establish a waste lcltilreiat plant in the Skede vicinity in Liepaja city.

Grobina 1. 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 particularly protected areas. 2. Breeding and feeding of some protected bird species is possible in the potential waste treatment plant area. However, considering the fact that these species are rather common in Latvia and the site does not feature the optimal biotope of these species, 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 area will not cause big or significant losses to the biodiversity. 4. If the suggested impact mitigation measures are observed, the establishment of a waste 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 landscape spaces (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 be located to Skede in the northern part of Liepaja city southwest of the existing city landfill. At present birch trees and meadows that are overgrown with different types of bushes cover the proposed landfill site.

A mixture of peat and sand covers the northern part of the existing landfill. A summer garden co-operative is located further north (1st photo in Annex 16). A newly planted forest of birch trees, black alders and pine trees is found north -and east of the planned waste treatment plant.

A proposal for a new nature reserve in the area is under preparation. The territory is currently extensively used. The landscape and the biological diversity in the area are significant criteria for awarding it a status of' national importance. The laindiuse is shown in Figure 24.

_ ~ - ~~~~~111.C c7~~~~~~~~~~~~S~~kukehvII S USu ;,a Bodnielid, / i5 a eOGa , > , , , S S SU9GSX oO,;

Itr kn ki ...... }{~~~~1 ^0 /7 ,, a . , '1'

I~~~~~~ -e /"

Vasarnicu nasbJv

APZiMEJUMIILEGE NDMrosaI12OO r | ~Mazvertigasplavas NosedudTki I_ Meadowsof low value Pool _ ~~MazvertTgasmeza zemes Plavutransforma&cijas virziens Forestlands of lowvalue krumaposun mezazemes ~~ ~Liepajaspilsetas atkrHtumu izgaztuve D>irectionof meadowstransformation Landfill of Liepajacit into bushesand forest lands r Vasarnicutipa apbuve I I ~~~~~Potencialaizgaztuves teriHorija timerpardnuligSummerbuildingsgardens [ j! ~~~treatmentPotentialareaplant for waste

24. zim.: Zemes izmianto.sanasstruktulra SJ*de Fig. 24: Land use structurein Skede I i t I x,O-2::'-.

M rogs/Scale 1:25000 APZIMEJUMI/LEGEND MazvertTgaslauksaimniecib§ izmantojamas zemes (ganibas un krujmaji) Agriculturelands of low value (pasturesand bushes) IVid§jv§rtigaslauksaimnieciba izmantojamas zemes m I Agriculturelands of mediumvalue Vid§i vgrtigas melior§tas lauksaimniecib5izmantojamas zemes Drainedagriculture lands of mediumvalue Mazvertigas mezazemes mI Forest lands of low value Vid§ivertigas me2a zemes Forest lands of medium value F.-77. Potencialivid§i vertigas meza zemes (kr0mAji)

g-Rf '-_.-.- Forest lands (bushes)of potentially mediumvalue 'Mazbertulu" auglu darzs Orchard belongingto "Mazbertuli' farm Grobi,naspils§tas atkrtumu izgaztuve Dump site used by Grobinatown Viens§tas Single farms Aug!u darzu un mezu puduri Clumps of orchards and forest rII Parpurvotasteritorijas Wetlands Buvju grausti mI Ruins of constructions Tentorijajauna CSA poligona ierikosanai K/ Area foreseen for a new waste treatment plant

25. zim.: Zemes izmantosanas struktfira poligonam izveletaja vieta Grobinas pagasta Fig. 25: Land use structure at selected site in Grobina parish

-_ N*I" W.~~ ., - ':o ---- a ~~~~Skukes9.

f spr;_c Moa a j \_- 10 rX - ~oca-0>1 3_ 0 adni'kij0 J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ aa

;~~~~Ea.^ ' _ An0-' 7 La Vckark hi== 1,0 8 0

.~a

8 ~~ ~ *XsD<~ ~ ariopa .: ...... \ °aa .j 'O~~~~~~~a |a g-

Pornerani~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Bac ale.arhlndcp

C, L Ansuses L -. ~~-I ~Coee ~~' ladilIBrce ars ladsap

C A- a~~~~~~~

L- - H aeiUkst

a~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O

Merogs/Scale1:25000 APZIMEJUMI/LEGEND

2t6.itumu izgaztuveit.andfill ______Melnalkinu Wig.26: Landscapes at the site proposed for a new w Blackalder marshdumbrtju landscape ainavu telpas II Apbertaatkritumu izgaztuve jBe5rzu dumbrdjuainavu telpas [ ~~~Coveredlandfill J Birchesmarsh landscape tla [111111tlpas/Di~u Pools ainavu landscapePines andbirches coniferous forest landscape

______Griilu plavuun bEirzu puduru ainavu telpas Priedesun bgrzu jaunaudzes ainavutelpas [ ~~~Sed'gemeadows and birches clumps landlscape Pinesand birches saplings landscape

ainavutelps/Busheslndscape I I Vasarnicasapb0jves ainavu telpas [.i ~~KrumajuaiautlaL adcp 1se Landscapewith summer houses r n ~~~Virtuplavas ainavu telpas -, PerspektTivaisplgn Heathermeadows landscape L...... J Prospectivewaste treatment plant

26. zimi.:Ainavutelpas poligonampiedfivitajii vietii "Is'kde" Fig. 26: Landscapesat the site proposed for a new waste treatment plant at "Skede"l

wEgbs>_5Eg e

Dums/t use by Grbn tow

* ~~Merogs/Scale1:25000 APZMEJUMI/LEGEND

. GrobinasDiISiunaip&proa pilsetas atkritumuv izgaztuve\etas __Dump site used by Grobina town PSavuar krDbmuun koku puduriem ainavu telpa Meadows with clumps ot bushes and trees landscape D,ki un parpurvotas vietas I IPools and wetlands Sekundaro eglu, b§srzuun priezu audzu ainavu telpa Secondary landscape ot eagle-trees, birches and pines W [ SaurlapjukDdre,nu ainavu telpa Narrow-leavedpeatmarsh landscape Eglu un priezu audzu ainavu telpa Eagle-treesand pines landscape mLauksaimniecibas zemju ainavu telpa Agriculture lands landscape mMelioritu lauksaimniecibaszemju ainavu telpa Drained agriculture lands landscape Auglu dArzu un mezu puduri Clumps of orchads and forest Viensetas Single farms Buvju grausti I I Ruins of constructions -9- Novadgravis ~I Ditch

Teritorijajauna CSA poligona iefiko§anai \/ Area foreseen for a new waste treatment plant

27. zim.:Ainavu telpas poligonam piedavataja vieta Grobi,as pagasta Fig. 27: Landscapesat the site proposed for landfill in Grobina parish'

f < 4 a ~~C-; SkuXes ,,u,,c, F

nisk-~ ~~~~~1 :2Bangas.. Ss52~ i ' , :; - 2 truk9rnek, 4\:

R.g . 2 '1 ' * 49 - PTh,n-

' :;'4 '* ig' " ' X~~~~~~~~~~gk S~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~S

a cr- *- a

c° X /J /¢ f t he < R l T ~~~~~~~~~~~i O

/ t w/ t~2 o ;,I U"1!G)

t0<0

Merogs/Scale 1:25000 APZIMEJUMIILEGEND

-.- T¢ Vvizualiaugstvertiga ainavu telpa lzcilas skatu perspektives ^^>- ^- 1Landscape spaceof highvalue Excellentview prospectives 0 ~~Vvizualineitrala ainavu telpa Potencialaizgaztuves teritorija Visuallyneutral landscape space Potentiallandfill area =! Vizualipiesam~ota ainavu telpa Visuallypolluted landscape space

28. zim.: Vizualo ainavu telpu vertejums Skede Fig. 28: Evaluationof visual landscape spaces in Skede

Ainavu

M6rogs/Scale1:25000

APZiMP-JUMIILEGEND

VizuAlipiesAmota mnozaikveida ainavu telpa Visuallypblluted mosaic-like landscape space ZjVizudlin9itrAlaatkl&ta lailksaimnnieCibas zemjuainavu telpa Visuallyneutral opened agriculture lands landscape space Vizuglineitrdla mozaikveida laiksaimniecibas zemju ainavu telpa Visuallyneutral mosaic-like agriculture lands landscape space Me2uainava telpa Forestlandscape space Ainavu-pies&rnojumaelementi (bDvju grausti) Eementsof la'ndscapepollution (ruins of constructions) AinavupiesArnojuma elements (atkritum u izggztuve) Elementsof landscape pollution (landfill) AugludArzu un melu puduri F Clumpsof orchadsand forests Skatuperpektives no viensGstam ~< Viewprospectives from farmer houses ~~ ~Teritorija jaunt CSA poligonaieriko§anai Areaforeseen for a newlandfill

29. zim.: Vizuiili ainavu telpas poligonampiediviitajii vietii Grobigiaspagastii Fig. 29: Visual landscapesspaces at the site offered for landflillin Grobina parish

(0:7s

Thc designated(nature protectioni recime ol thc area is an minportantl'actor that niakes the transformation of l'orrestand nicadows into ;1 waste Ir-eatmnelltplant less suitable.

L~andvalue

The cadastre value of the Skedc lanndfill and surroundings is one of' the lowest in Liepaja City because ot' the location in a remote district, the existing land usc restrictions, pure engineering- geological conditions and lack of infrastructure. A new method for estimation of land value is under preparation, however, location, land-use restrictions 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 the Litorina Sea with the lagoon type lakes (for example Tosmare Lake) sets the character of 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. Other landscape types found here are firstly sedge meadows with osier (2nd photo in Annex 16) and birch tree clumps and secondly meadows with heather. Earlier, the meadows were used for mowing. Now they have not been mowed for a long time and are gradually transformed into a forest ecosystem. Some old opened melioration ditches still remain but are gradually overgrown. Basins located next to the old landfill (3rd photo in Annex 16) drain to the ditches and the water in the ditches and in the basins is 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 waste treatment plant territory (4th photo in Annex 16). A melioration draining ditch, that is connected with the basins flows through it. The fen is one of the most valuable types of forest vegetating conditions from the biological and landscape point of view. The fen in Skede is very typical with characteristically micro relief. A fen with birch trees and black alders is located also in the West from the landfill that, by a gradual increase of relief, is transforming into pine growth. Eastwards from the proposed waste treatment plant area a birch trees vaccinziosa nmel. is located.

The existing landfill (located to north from the proposed new site) is partly covered by a 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-ounting area: * hydrolo-ical Iregmllelis Chaw'ed(l aronld a landfill. and as a r'estl ic\aClof CrlW(lLl]d\?atCr Ihs iS Ca;sdU.(l. * plants to non-cliaractrlcstic f'r forest, micadows ind swamips ecosylstclleS have spread in the' area adjoining to [he existino laiil(lli.

Evaluation

The existing natural meadow landscape will, as a result ol sucCeCssion,in a certailln time to be transformed into a forest ecosystem dominated by birch tress. Therefore biological and landscape diversity will be reduced. It might be expected that lurther bogging-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 current existing biological and landscape values of relative natural meadow. From landscape ecology viewpoint, it is tvpical example showing how meadows are overgrowing when mowing of grass does not take place.

At the same time a meadow together with a nearly existing fen, form an interesting landscape 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 fens mixes 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, proposed for 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 carry out the rehabilitation plan for the Skede landfill. * To keep the existing landscape complex, it would not be desirable to expand the 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 new waste treatment plant in Skede, then, for the providing a normal functioning of forest and meadow ecosystem, the melioration ditches have to be cleaned up.

Visual characterisation of landscape

The visual landscape is characterised by an extensive presence of meadows and black alder- birch clusters. Just foregrounds, which stumble upon forest walls or hills of trees and bushes, are dominating in the proposed waste treatment plant territory. The landscape pattern is typical of forests and wetlands in the coastal lowland. The visual landscape is presented in Figure 28.

If the visual pollution of different solid waste is ignored then a good view including meadows forests and the Tosmare Lake opens up from the oldI waIste heap. (5th piloto in Annex 16). In the future the landfill malyserve as a good viewpoint. Eshniat101io1

1. Fromoia VisLal landscape viewpollit. area propose(d for w\sle disposal is petCty successl'ullylocated. becauseit is hiiddlellflroml thc Wider SU.rOunl1dinlls by ioIest and the existing landtfill. By arranging a Inew waste treatment plail it \will bc possiblc to close and tid\' tip the existing landfill ar-ca. 2. Aesthetically high valuable open forests with great biological and( landscape diversity arc located near the proposed site. Constructioni of thc waste treatment plant could reduce this value.

Conicllusionls

The landscape does not have a high visual value with the exception of fens overgrown by black-alders and birch trees.

The potential waste waste treatment plant location between the thick forest and the old landfill is successful from a visual aspect. However, taking into account the aesthetic value of the landscape of fen, birch trees and black-alders it would not be preferable to install a new waste treatment plant to the south of the existing landfill, but further to the west the conditions are more suitable.

To keep the Tosmare Lake valuable landscape complex. which is significant not only in the regional or state context, but in a European context as well, it is not advisable to locate 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 plant is located in Grobina pagasts on Mezbertuli household land. According to the land organisation 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 that land for pasture or forestry. The proposed waste treatment plant is located in the former 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 the territory is consists of neglected agricultural land, partially overgrown with forest and bushes.

Grobina town landfill is located in one part of the proposed-waste treatment plant territory. State forest land is located to the west and north of the proposed site. The rest of the territory left by the Soviet Union Army is not used and is gradually overgrown with bushes. Neither Grobina pagasts. nor Liepaja region has any territorial plans how to use this land. The land use is shown in Figure 25. 0}:(' I

Conicluxsions

The poor cnvir-onimlcltalconidition and the dCficienIt usc Of theil aeCais onC plrecond(ilion for usiln a part of the land 'forwaste disposal. The regional planning IhSa10 include a protectioni zone according to the legislation of thle Republic of Laivia. 11 thc waste treatment plant would he constlrcted, a new access road has to he built outside densely populated areas (Gr-obina town and Purani and Liepakali).

Lanzd value

Clay loamy soil dominates in agricultural land of the potential territory. Mezbertuli farm was a model farm in 1930ties. The land cadastre valuation indicates an average value of 1 ha Mezbertuli household land to be 162.2 Ls what corresponds to average value of agricultural and forestry land. Considering the land pollution and bogging-up several 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 value will exceed 50 points.

The area proposed for the waste treatment plant has a land at an average value. The land value is reduced due to presence of halfway destroyed buildings left by the Soviet 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 as serious argument against a location of a new waste treatment plant at this area, because extremely high investments are required for the land sanitation, its cultivation for agriculture use or afforestation.

Landscapes

Landscape ecological characterisation

The proposed waste waste treatment plant is located in the Vartaja wavy plain on the border with the coastal lowland in a basic moraine plain. The territory is plain with several moist hollows, were a bog-formation process is observed. The soil parent material is moraine loam. Sod-podzolic clay soil, sod-clayzolic soil is found in several places. The major part of planned waste treatment plant is covered with secondary origin landscape of white alders and pines, as well as abandoned agricultural land with clusters of pine trees and different deciduous trees. Forests of vacciniosa rierf imal.type, where a mix of pine trees with fir trees and birch trees dominates, is formed on a swampy peat soil south-west of the area. The forest is meliorated. A draining ditch flows near the existing Grobina town landfill. The ditch is polluted by waste. A forest west of the waste landfill, is dominated by firs and pines The forest is of' the Myrtilloso-polvtrichosa and Myrtilloso-sphogosa f'orest type. Meliorated and intensively used agricultural lands are located south anld east of the landfill. The landscape classes are shown in Figure 27. Otn the abandoned ancicultiiial klands9 inI IIIChITeilrN 0oof pmlO)OSCd Wast i-CaInI)tll pti llnt a mosaic landscapc has lbcen established. Fromll ecoloicail lIoini o0 vicw suclh landscapes ar-e cl1assilid as di\CIfSI;Cd la111dSCaIpe.However. chanl(ed lCvel o*' groundwater.as well as contaminated enviroriment r-edCLIeC1h1C eCOlogical value of, thic landscape.

Colnclu.siolns

The localisation of a waste disposal site to the proposed site InlGrohina pagasts will not essentially influence the normal fuLnctioningof the existing landscape. However, the melioration system has to be restored in whole Mezbertuli land, and the Grobila city 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 a visual landscape of the landfill territory. The landscape has a marked mosaic character. Destroyed constructions left by soviet Army essentially reduce the aesthetic value of the landscape. At the same time landscape has such elements, which can cause an emotional experience to number of inhabitants. For an example, flowering fruit-trees on the ruins of army constructions (lOth picture in Annex 17) former orchard of the Mezbertuli household behind a rocket storage bunker (11lh picture in Annex 17).

Close-up and middle sight views dominate as there is no hill or other elevated point for 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 plant construction will not change much. 2. However, there is a number of valuable landscape elements, which may be used for tourist attraction.

Conclusions

The proposed waste treatment plant area from the landscape point of view is located very properly, because it is hidden from a wider surrounding by forest and tree clusters.

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 the area.

Visual construction debris has to be removed, at the same time reserving interesting landscape 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(iill Grohi I pagasts. will niotdeteriorate 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 used in 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 6.6 Comparison of land value/use and landscape for potential sites Criteria Characterisationof criteria Skede site | Grobina site Land use and value Dominating land value Little value Middle value Land use abandoned meadows abandoned aoricultural land Landscapes Landscape characterisation Typical landscape of Not a typical landscape for Latvia. lowland wet forests and Visually polluted, abandoned meadows. agriculture land. Incorporation in visual Visually hidden Visually hidden landscape

Essential factors of landscape Great biological and Territory is suitable for installation ecology 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 Mezbertuli household in Grobina pagasts is the most suitable site for the location of a waste waste treatment 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 on Figures 30 and 31. 0y64

Fhzurc 30

s/ Po,it,I \- e jz-r - - / tt2;am / 0 $§kult

// KaJ4 - ' /\ZuY -- I -- *~~~~~~tOAe~~~~-d '~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~/ ' _ uISSe_ ai . ,,' , 0 /c

[~~~~~~~OA~~~~~~~~~~'idi-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

/ Vasarnicas

.,/I , I- N l / I6),

. : : j - )$ Cb. [>slDdoni iS} APZiMEJUMI/LEGEND

-I - \< \ / 2 aI Ukiii 1 \ \\ - / D Existing landSII '-' / I /'' > ~,f ~~_/ n Eso/ita\\}/ 1rz5Pnotapoligonateritorija L.J Area proposed for new landfill

/',.;:,----_ rs\F; 3 km_ azonas D\Kukp robe2a S km zone Tosmareq eZ. Aizsarg&jamier kultras pieminekii

/\\s/lil/ Protected culture environments | Lpn~d~\ I EfP A J/ A \ . .r30. - . ;zim.:Potencialas ) 'c: f senvietas vai Z.'WVA senlietusaarupatradumu vietas ~~~~- ~~~~~~~~~Potenlial historical heritage ID7 or single pisces with antiquities finding 13 W~~~~~~~~~~~~Mrogs/Scale1 -25 000

Fig. 30: Location of'potential historical heritage Umd ~~~andcultural environments, Skede 30. ztm.: Potencittliis senvietas A ti~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n kulittiras pieminekli, AkEde

12k- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dreirran i / N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MAki

a RUdzIAI '16 ~~~'

v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

N ~~~~~~~~~~~~SkuianftfT '

~~~~~~~~/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AbelesN ftne~~~~\Kiaudil

KrilMi

li. aimljs

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ V,lferi lbp

7'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

c Egies~ -~- - -~- - -~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ae freen o anw adfl

Exislintg lanrdpfill m ea

orsigea pfareseewitr antiquitiesfindin

AJzvAIi andcuPtotetal cltrenvironments, rbnsprs IN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~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 thIcState Cultural Monuments Protectioni Inspection (heniceforth - DC SCMPI). tilc archives alid tlic funds of the Department of Archaeology of Latvia History MuscuLml(henceforth - LHM A), the Register of State Protected Cultural Monuments. in force as of 1998.29.10. (Latvijas Vcstnesis No. 369/372; 375/380), has yieldcd no evidcncc of the presence of any state protected cultural monuments at the potential waste deposit site "Skede".or at roads. leading to it or in its direct vicinity. Likewise, there is no evidence of any findings of separate archaeological artefacts that could be an indirect proof of a potential archaeological site.

The study of the cartographic materials (Russian army map of 1947 (with amendments 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 low and 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 possible archaeological sites.

According to the LHM archive data, in, 1842 Fr. Krauze has recorded a hillfort on the west shore of the Tosmare lake (LHM A - Liepaja city file, PN 1533/24; also Nicrolivonica, Table 61). E.Brastins. who visited the site in the 1920-ties, has found no 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 the place where the artefacts have been found; however, it seems that they have not originated from the marshy and swampy area around the northern part of the Tosmare lake.

The visit to the potential waste deposit site leads to the conclusion that the landscape to 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 relatively wet thicket/shrubbery. The area around the present landfill is littered with household waste.

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 the northern end of the lake should be checked by a qualified archaeologist. Su,nnitarv and opiiiioii

1. The landscape at lhepotential waste deplosit site anld its VicinIIly is of no cultur,al or historical value. 2. There arc no state-protected cUIltural monumilents or information abouit aIny findings of archaeological arteflacts at thc potential waste deposit site or its direct vicinity. 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' protection aspect, there are no objections to the establishment of a new waste deposit site to the S. 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 Cultural Monuments Protection Inspection (henceforth - DC SCMPI), the archives (henceforth - LHM A...), and the funds (henceforth - LHM ...), of the Department of Archaeology of Latvia History Museum, the Register of State Protected Cultural Monuments, 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 any state protected cultural monuments. Likewise, there is no evidence of any findings of separate archaeological artefacts that could be an indirect proof of a potential archaeological 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 cultural monuments 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 - also architectural monument of national significance - No. 1343.: Map 2:2.3). - Grobina hillfort (Skabarzu mound) with an archaleological sitc -anlcient town (also archaeological monument of national significance. No. 1340.: Map 2:4). Ancient burial site - Porninu (PHir5nul.)senikai is locatcd in less thanonle kmi Iromilthe site proposed for the wiiste treatmentlll (ancicelntcemlieter.y achaClCO[O'iCal 111oni1meCIn! ol national significance, No. 1344.; Map 2:5).

Separate archaeological ar-lefacts lhlavebeen found withliln3 km there arel-lpaces wherc: - in the town of GCrobilna(spear - LHM. inv. No. A 8516: - 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 national significance, protection No. 6426.) is situated about 2 km to the NE from the selected site. 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 explained by its long-term intensive population. A burial dated 2nd millenium B.C. has been found-in the archaeological burial site Atkalnu senkapi; In 7 h _8 1hcenturies Grobina was an important Scandinavian port on the banks of the Aalande river; three large Scandinavian burial sites - Porani, Smukumi un Priediena - also date back to this period. Later Grobina was an administrative centre of Courland (Grobinta hillfort with ancient village), but starting with the 13th century - a fortified German settlement (Castle of the Order). Therefore Grobina is a significant area, rich in cultural monuments, widely known in the world.

During the site visit to the potential waste treatment plant it was found that the landscape has been degraded, the terrain has been changed, adapting it to the needs ol the Russian military base (ditches, fortification walls, bunkers have becn set up). The area features numerous half-rUined buildings, it is randoomly littered witlh hotselhol(d waste. This area is at a discord with the cultural environment of Grobina town and is an unattractive background for the ancient burial site - Poranu senkapi. It is a paradox. but it seems that the area in fact could be clecanecdand tidic(l up. setling up a modern waste treatmient plantt. It must he noted that the Northlerni part of the potential waste treatmetlt plant is already being used as a dumpsite Ior the towni ol Grobi na.

Measures to be takent to protect cultutral environmnent

Although there is a high concentration of cultural monuments in the vicinity of the potential waste deposit site, the establishment of a waste treatment plant would be acceptable provided the following measures are observed:

- the degraded environment on the landfill site and in the area has to be cleaned up (the half-ruined buildings have to be pulled down, the deformed terrain has to be levelled, unauthorised dumping of waste outside the site has to be prevented);, - on the south border of the site trees or shrubs/bushes have to planted to ensure 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 the State Cultural monuments inspection. Any road relocation or land excavation work has to be carried out under the guidance of a qualified archaeologist. In the event of finding, 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 acceptable provided the following measures have to be strictly observed: - the degraded environment on the site and in the area is cleaned up - on 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 the State Cultural monuments inspection. Any land excavation work has to be carried out under the guidance of a qualified archaeologist but in the event of f-inding lnew artefacts 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 the potential sites.

Minimum and maximum numbers respectively show suitability or non-suillability of site for proposed action.

Table 6.7 Comparison of cultural and historical heritage for potential sites Indicator Evaluation results Grobina site I Skede site Value of cultural and historical landscape (10 3 3

points ) | ______Number of cultural monuments under protection 5 within the 3 km area Number of cultural monuments under protection 4 closeto the 3 km area l I Potential 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 the aspect of cultural and historical environment and landscape protection, Skede in Liepaja is a more appropriate site for a waste treatment plant. No cultural monuments would be endangered but the survey of the two potential archaeological sites on the shores of the Tosmare lake would not incur big costs, and the evidence of the sites probably would not require further archaeological exploration.

With a view to the cleaning of the cultural environment around Grobina town, i.e. in the area of the former Russian military base and provided the above conditions and the landfill operating rules are scrupulously observed, the establishment of a waste treatment plant would be acceptable also in Grobina, if it not possible to clean up the former military base in some other way.

The choice of Grobina for a waste treatment plant site causes a much greater risk to the 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 cultural monuments, Skede in Liepaja is a more appropriate site for a waste treatment plant.

If the environmental, nature protection and other factors give a substantiated preference to setting up a waste treatment plant site in Grobina. it could be acceptable from the aspect of cultural monuments protection aspect. All design plans. in this case, have to be approved by the State Cultural Monuments Protection Inspection. All the requirements stated by this institution concerning the waste treatment plant design. its implementation and operation, should be observed. (o:71

6.10 Impacts on humnanhealtlh

This section covers the humlian healith aspects for thc populatiOn In thC suLr0ndin(1il1Cs ol the landfill while next section covers the occupzationialhelelth aspects for thc workeirs at the site.

The most important risks to human health, comfort. welfare or lifc quality associated with 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 plant on people in the neighbourhood, social, technical and environmentalaspects should be considered. Different conditions strengthen or reduce this impact by acting directly or interacting. 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, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides. (These gases are dangerous only in very high concentrations - in a closed room they can cause hypoxia). Other gases with irritant effects are produced in small amounts. - Substances, which emanate from non-separated hazardous waste. These waste 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. (These substances 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 and asthmatic or other allergic reactions).

Soil, groundwater and surface water chemical pollution is possible by the following substances in hazardous solid waste

- Heavy metals (Pb. Cd, Hg, Cr etc). which can harmfully affect several systems of the human body - Ammonia, nitrate and inorganic salts (these substances mostly deteriorate the organoleptic qualities of drinking water). 0:72

Noi.s

People who live and work-in the neiiehbotir-lhoodare exlposecdto noise from activities at the landfill and from transpor-ts.The IMain souIces of noise arc wastc trans"port vehicles, bulldozers and fronlal loaders. The noise is irregular and disconltinILous which 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 most dangerous of them are spread by mammals and insects.

Infectious and parasitic diseases, which are directly or indirectly connected with a landfill, are leptospirosis. Yersinia infections, rabies, gastric infections, toxocariasis, trichinosis, spirillosis, and to a lesser extent - tuberculosis, tularemia, cat-scratch fever etc.

Expositioni process

The magnitude of discharged pollutants depends on disposed waste volumes, content and management methods but also on meteorological conditions.

The main transmnissionroutes 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 the substances 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 environment are 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 fromiipriv.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,gsof 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 Grobina pagasts.

Skede

Inlhabitanits

The Garden co-operative 'Skede" with cottages and small gardens (about 1580 land pieces) is located near the selected site. Currently the co-operative has obtained status of "summer gardens settlement" (the decision no. 3 of the Medze pagasts council dated 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 bog contaminates drinking water in those wells.

Health data

There are no official statistics data on the presence in the area of such diseases that can 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 of muddy and boggy deposits. Therefore, people do not use this water for drinking, and bring water from Liepaja city.

In the future, if an extension of the landfill in "Skede' will be accepted. it can be recommended to install 2 water supply wells screened in the Joniski - Akmnene aquifer. 0:74

Grobina pagasts

In1habitan1ts

5 residential houses - "Ataugas". "Egles", "Purani". "Piladzi, "Kalisi"are locatedat a small distance from the proposed area in Grobina pagasts. The distance to residential areas in Grobina town is approximately2 km.

Land use and resources

The area immediate to the proposed waste treatment plant site is not used for economic activities. The terrain next to the living houses is used for agricultural purposes (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 data on the presence of such diseases.

Water supply

Inventory of wells used for drinking water supply in the vicinity of the site proposed for a new waste treatment plant has been carried out in August, 1999. Obtained results are characterisedin Table 6.8.

Table 6.8 Results 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 and farm well in m surf., land head to, °C in m surface Ataugas Lukjanskis dug 1 3.13 0.60 1.54 2.14 7.35 564 Eglitis 14.0 Piurani Laimonis drilled 7.74 634 BErzin_ 16.1 Pl15d2i Fjodors dug 0.20 1.56 1.76 7.25 727 Golovanovs 1.97 21.0 KariTi Petrevics dug 4.57 0.55 1.66 2.21 7.16 1095 20.8 Vilteri Talis dug 3.52 0.30 2.50 2.80 7.00 1605 Bergranis 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 submersible pump is installed in the well, therefore measurements of the depth and water table were not possible. (7:75

EC measurements show that the water at the farms "Vilteri" and "Kalisi' almost certainly is contaminated, since the EC value reaches 10(5 and 1095 1p S/cm. Tllis corresponds to a TDS value of about 1.5 and 1.0 g/l respectively. A possible explanation could be that this contamination is related to earlier activities of the armly at the area located northwest of the farmhouses. The contamination has likely migrated via drainage ditches from the earlier training area, and the wells have been recharged 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 is required.

It is rather possible that the army has left some water supply wells which are not plugged, although such wells have not be found at the site proposed for the waste treatment plant and 0.5 km surroundings of the site. If the site will be approved for construction of a new waste treatment plant an inventory of abandoned wells has to be provided.

6.10.3 Conclusions

Skede

1. Children live permanently in the neighbourhood of the proposed site. They are playing near the landfill, and may be exposed to and accumulate contarninated substances. Children are more sensitive to the exposure of toxic substances.

2. The landfill is a potential breeding place for rodents, wild dogs and cats, which can increase the number of animals infected by rabies, which potentially expose the inhabitants, in particular, homeless people and domestic animals.

3. Taking into account that inquired people from the nearest houses did not mention specific concern about their health (asthma, allergic diseases, and chronic windpipe diseases), the inhabitants do not experience any risk to the human health as high.

4. As no indication on the occurrence of infectious diseases related to landfills was registered in Liepaja region for the last years, no essential increase in such diseases is expected in the future if the proposed mitigation measures are effected.

5. Increased pollution of drinking water is not expected, if the proposed mitigation measures are effected.

The air pollution near to the landfill can not cause harm to human health because of the following:

* gases like methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, that are generated by waste decomposition, are in an open area not dangerous for human health, * other gases that are caused by the decomposition of waste do not exceed 1% of the total gas amount, therefore the concentration in the air will be small; 0:70

* thc cxpcctcd aniountoi toxic substaSn1c1sWill not he sillltniCicnt. lclause the amount ol' hazaldous solidCIwaste do not cxcce( 1-2 ol lotal MSW volume and the concentration ol'dan-crous substances in air will be sinall: * Permanent rcsidcnts in lhe territoryvnext to the wastc tii-ci-eamletplant is not foreseen.

6. Persistent pollutants l'rom the landfill are not expected to IrcICh the nearest gardens.

7. Neighbours may experience nuisance because of the noise from waste transport near their houses.

8. The noise levels arising from activities at the landfill will most likely not cause humans health disorders, however, long and increased levels can influence people's well-being and comfort.

9. It is possible that inhabitants use Tosmare Lake for recreation purposes, and expansion of the landfill, if preventive measures will not be provided. may increase the water contamination and cause danger to the human health. Hazardous substances accumulated in the lakle fish used for food may become detrimental to people'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 living houses 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. Recommendedmitigating measures Skede and Grobina surroundings

1. To reduce bad smell, contamninated leakage water and dust coming from landfill wastes, as well as to reduce the spread of infectious diseases, the waste pile should be covered with a daily soil cover.

2. To reduce the possibilities of spreading diseases, rat extermination should be performed at regular intervals.

3. To prevent domestic animals from getting infected with rabies, careful immunisation has to be provided.

4. For gardens, which are not farther than 300-40() meters from the waste treatment plant 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 Ihc Devoniai aqluiifershould he instlliCL at thiC SUlilmllelrgardelns 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 qLualityhas to be checked carefully and. likely, that the dug wells havc to he replaced by artesian wells. Additionally. inventory of area of the earlier army base has to he provided in order to find any abandoned wells left by the army.

7. To reduce noise caused by waste transport passing living houses, trees and bushes should be planted or other noise barriers should be arranged along access roads near permanent residential houses.

8. To limit the level of acceptable noise in the area of the permanent houses and inside them measures should be taken reduce noise caused by activities carried out at the waste treatment plant.

9. Work in the landfill has to be organised in the way that eliminates outflow of toxic substances.

The waste treatment plant has to be fenced in order to prevent people and animal from entering the area.

6.11 Occupationalhealth 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 management process is mainly connected to hazardous waste that has been mixed with common household waste. As stated above these wastes should be prevented from entering the site. 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 the following 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'canraise a wide spectrum ol helielil haar..ARds from skin irritation to acultc poisonino to cancer. * Acute cxposure to high closes of harmlf'ul substances nmalinlyhappens dluc to accidents or omiltingzsafety rules. * Chronical intoxication couldl happcn through uptake of small amnounts ol harmful substances during ai long timc. Clinical symrplomns in tilis case can become apparent after very long latent period. The lirst ildicationis can ble hidden for a long time period (urpto 40 years).

It is difficult to assess the impact of harmful substances on human health, because it depends on interaction of several collateral factors. The main factors are the following: 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 other health risk factors; - synergistic effects of different chemical substances. Synergistic impacts are 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 disorder of the circulatory system like asthenic reactions. Working long time period in adverse conditions can cause stable changes of arterial tonus promoting the development of hypertension.

Vibration

Work-ers who are subjected to impact of vibrations for a long time can develop disorders of the central nervous system such as asthenia.

Typical symptoms of general vibration influence are vestibulopatia what becomes apparent as headache, giddiness, noise in ears, sleepiness. The most stable changes appear in lumbar and sacral vertebra becoming apparent as deforming osteoarthrosis.

Ergonomical aspects (:7')

Work in MSWLb nmnallernlent is conneected with several inclors, which call flicilitate damages of stay and motion systemi ol pcople. This prohlemnmostly is colInIcCted WEiih ergonlomical aspects. Th.e maini croollomilical lactols that call imprlactemployees In landfill 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 different genesis in shoulders, neck and back. Even if the neck is kept in a slightly bent position, it can create a discomfort if the pose is kept for a long time. Such discomfort in working place can lead to chronic pain. The exposure to vibrations in driver's cabin when the engine operates can be a significant risk factor for development of pain in the lumbar and sacral part of back.

Working outside People working in open-air all the year are exposed to different weather conditions and 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 cause spasms (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 of the 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 of several stress factors, different by genesis and type of impact. Employees involved in MSWL 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 of stress can facilitate development of some diseases and other pathological states. It should be borne in mind that all kinds of harmful impacts acting simultaneously strengthen the harmful effect. ON)

6.11.2. Assessment and preventive IUclEaSUI2'S The followino employees zIrc exposed to thc dif-fercnt healthi risks at MSWL management process: - drivers; - drivers of bulldozer and drivers of fronotloader; - workers: - guardsmen.

Drivers

The waste treatment plant will be served by waste transport drivers subjected to occupational risk factors: such as vibration and sitting pose as well as to biological and chemical pollution from exhaust gases and wastes.

Prevenitionz In order to protect drivers' health it is necessary to observe the safety rules and when the drivers cannot avoid contact with the waste - special protective clothes should be used.

Drivers of bulldozer andfront loader

Drivers of bulldozer or front loader in MSWL will be exposed to several occupational risks. * 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 in work cabin.

Prevention In order to protect the health of drivers of bulldozer and front loader it is necessary that the driver's cabin is maximally isolated from noise and vibration produced by the engine. Hearing protection should be used e.g. tampons and antiphons. The arrangement of the driver's cabin should be ergonomically favourable. In order to reduce adverse impact of vibration drivers of bulldozers should be allowed regular breaks. Bulldozer drivers should be provided with protective clothing against adverse weather conditions and direct contact with waste.

Workers

Among the MSWL staff, workers are most affected by occupational helalth risks. Wor}kerswill be exposed to the following risk factors: * Noise from equipment for processing and pressing of waste. 0:8 I

* Exposur-c to halml-nfulChemicial SUbStallCCS Iflrom MSW by ihllallatiolnoI gases. dust par-ticles as well as through absorption by skini conlact. Thle possibility of inCestion ol halul substanices also exists. * For work momeints thal involve bending anid lifling hi;N plysical cXCtlioniis sometimes needed. * Work goes on outside all year. * Bad odours and unsafe working conditions create additionlal occuLpational stress.

Prevention Workers should strictly observe work safety and sanitation rules. Special protective clothing protecting from direct contact with wastes and ensuring against unfavourable weather conditions should be used when sorting wastes and operating the waste treatment plant. Activities demanding big physical exertion, lifting of weight and similar activities should if possible be done using technical equipment.

Guardsmen

Guarding personnel in the MSWL can be exposed to noise and unhealthy odours as well as experience isolation in the working place.

Prevention Guardsmen should not stay in close vicinity of the waste if not required. The guardsmen should use protective clothing if they have to handle waste.

Operating regulations

The operating regulations should contain details concerning occupational health aspects and preventing of occupational hazards.

Arrangement of buildings

In order to ensure good working conditions in MSWL it is necessary to include into the project the following elements: 1) rest room, which should be heated, ventilated and equipped with artificial lighting,- a place before rest room where to take off clothes, 2) kitchen, which should be heated, equipped with, sink, water supply, hot water and ventilation 3) toilet, equipped with artificial lighting, hot water supply and ventilation 4) shower room, heated, equipped with hot water supply and ventilation 5) 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 new waste treatment plant

The summary on possible impacts can be divided into 3 groups: (: , 2

1) impacts durina COIlStuctiOII peCIiOdt, 2) impacts during oleralioti. 3) impacts alter closure.

The impacts and the possible miti-atioll ImlC.lSLUrCSare Su111mmariSed in Tables 6.9. 6. 10 and 6.1 1.

Table 6.9 Impacts and mitigation measures: construction period Impact Mitigation measures Changes of hydraulic Construction of a surface runoff system, avoiding water logging in the vicinity regime of a new waste treatment area Surface 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 allowed contamination Air pol]]tion Impact will be negligible and does not require mitigationmeasures Noise 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 only material production from quarries where excavation is permitted (limits are issued), for both sites it and suppy is likely the Dubeni (sand-gravel) and Rolava (clay) quarries.

Table 6.10 Im acts and their mittigation measures: operation period Impact Mitigation measures Surface water contamination Proper operation of surface runoff and leachate collection system. Discharge of collected contaminated water to WWTP (Skede) or treatment at site (Poligons). It is possible that in the future "Poligons" can be also connected to the central wastewater treatment system in Liepaja. Minimisation of the open waste surface at the waste treatment plant and regular covering of waste layer. Establishment of monitoringw system and regular discharged and treated water quality control Groundwater contamination Establishment of a liner, where needed, at the base of the waste treatment plant. Proper operation of surface runoff and leachate collection system. Minimisation of open waste surface at the waste treatment plan and regular covering of waste layer. Establishment of a monitoring system and regular water quality control at least twice a year. 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 and regular covering of waste layer. Introduction of forest belts along the waste treatment plant boundary (where they do not exist). Extraction and utilisation of biogas. Changes of species Mitigation measures are problematic, although forest belts along the wastetreatment' plant should be introduced(where they do not exist). Minimisation of open waste surface at the waste treatment plan and regular covering of waste layer. Fencing of the landfill area. Paving l______of the access roads. Monitoring of species changes. Continuation f'ollows W83

Continuation of Table 6.11 Impact Mitigatioll measures Decrease of land values Cainnothe avoided. although drainage syslemllind accesseslo arca COUcld e ii)jproved Infective diseases and spreadine Mininmisation of opcn stirf.ace aniidrLCOular Cover of waISte avCer-. of parasitic diseases Fcncine of aruea. 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 system Decrease of landscape's visual Introduiction of forest belts (where forest is not developed currently) value along the waste treatment plant boundary and neighbouring vicinity Intoxication of inhabitants with Regular control of drinking water quality. Awareness and education harmful substances on people

Table 6.12 Impacts and mitigation measures: post-closure period Impact Mitigation measures Groundwater contamination Regular control of cover layer conditions. Collection and treatment of leachate. Monitoring of groundwaterquality Surface water Control of runoff water quality from the site area. Regular monitoring of possible leaking from waste body. Control of the treated 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 be observed with one exception - the Skede summer gardens settlement is located closer than 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 permanent inhabitants 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 area for 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 are located in area adjacent to the land property "Mazbertuli". - the access road should be carefully assessed considering the interests of the local inhabitants. 7:1

7 Technologicalalternatives

The descriptioni ol't he technological alternatives covCrs: * waste collection and transportation. * recycling. separation ainldrecovery. * 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 engaged in primary collection, but will co-ordinated that through subcontractors, the study has focused on transport of the waste from those areas in the region that currently dispose their waste at the local dump sites. The assessment and the proposal 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 collection and transportation in Latvia reaches as maximum 60%, although normally in the Europe it reaches from seventy to ninety percent of the total waste management budget.

The collection and transportation system is closely linked with other parts of the waste management chain. Consequently, any changes in treatment, recycling and disposal will have great impact on the system. Important factors include population density, housing, street and road condition in the waste collection area.

The household waste falls within municipal responsibility. The waste is collected at source by the municipal organisation or private companies contracted by the municipality, together with commercial waste. Conventional hospital waste, similar to household waste is expected to be collected by the same vehicle fleet as the household waste.

Industrial waste is mainly transported by private contractors or the industrial companies themselves.

]Demolition waste and garden waste amounts are not included in the volumes transported 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 with wagons are dominating, see Table 3.6.

In order to reduce the cost for transportation to the treaetmlentplant or disposal site transfer stations can be used, but in case of the Liepa'a Regioni it was iound that transfer stations are not required. Collectiolnl aid tanlsportation ol' wate f'rom Licla'ja and (rohlnizatolwns to the disposal sites at Skcdce or (irobilna atra expectel to he cdone ais today. i.c. Inainly w1ith compacting vehilcles Ind side loaders. It wvill he takeln for Oranted Ha'll non-served inhabitants in Liepaja oif today will bc served in IheC luItuel-Cas specified in the w,aste pro,g,nosis.Table 5.3.

For collection and transportation withill Ihc rcl1ionl outside Licpaijaand Grohilna towns two alternatives have been asscssed.

Alternative A Collection and transportation with side loader

Alternative B Local contractors (in small pagasts the inhabitants) deliver the waste into bigger or smaller containers collected by compacting vehicles. A number of simple re-loading stations are required

The frequency of collection is very important relating to the costs for collection and transportation. Collection at 14 days intervals instead of weekly ones gives normally a cost reduction of 30-40 per cent and the capacity for transportation will rise. The comparable combination in Table7.1 indicates the required number of bins 750 1 and number and volume of containers for weekly as well as 14 days intervals. 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 1 Alternative B Container vehicle for one-man or two-man-operation Table 7.1 Household waste collection and transport in parishes and towns (except Liepaja town and Grobina towns) Householdwaste AlternativeA AltemnativeB Parish or town Number of 750 1 bins Number and volume of containers M. 3 Tonnes weekly fortnightlv weeklv FortnightI Aizputespag 150 30 5 9 1 x4 2 x 4 Aizpute town 2000"1 4401" 55 110 8 x 6 15 x 6 2 52) 8 1x4 ) 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 7.1 HouehtoiSOd\N; asv Alleivnal-itcA AI'nialivc I | IParisl)n11r ImN .w NntilllbCi'o1 750 1 bins Ntu h.r ;'nldi I ||mo 1I) 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 5 K/dManq:-,s 250 5) S 14 2 x 4 I x 4 LIz7.1S 81) I6 4 6 1 x 2 I x 4 Med7Cs 152 31 5 I x 4 2 x 4 Nicasc 4(( 5( 12 22 2 x 5 3 x 6 Otanki-i 9)) 97 15 30 3 x 4 4 x 6 Pavilosta town 630" 120( 18 33 3 x 5 5 x ( I 2 . . o) 32 lx12L 1x2 Priekitles nag 66 1 3 5 1 x2 I x 4 Prieklies lown 136o0,' ,,) 36 75 5 x 6 9 x 6 Rtic.axs 2001) 41)() 56 110 7 x 6 14 x 6 Salks 151) 3() 5 9 1 x 4 2 x 4 Tndaikn, 501) 100 15 30 3 x 4 5 x 5 Vainodes 651) I1( 20 38 3 x 5 5 x 6 Vecnils I10 2( 4 7 1 x 4 I x 5 Vergales 50 11 3 4 1 x 2 1 x 4 Virgas 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 3 4 m 3 21 19 5 m3 14 14 6m 3 20 63 "including waste similar to household waste from hospital 2, in hospital Table 7.2 Time consumption for collection and transportation Collection and transportation Average speed, km/h Skede Grobina _ ~~~~~~~~~~hourlweek| ~hour/year hourlw |Hourya Alternative A: weekly intervals, bins 750 1 60 25.7 1 340 22.6 1 180 50 29.6 1 540 25.9 1 350 40 35.5 1 850 30.9 1 610 30 45.4 2 360 39.2 2 040 20 64.9 3 380 55.9 2 910 Alternative A: forthnightly intervals, bins 750 1 60 18.2 950 15.7 820 50 20.8 1 )8(1 17.8 93(0 40 24.6 1 28(0 2(0.8 1(180 30 30.9 1 61(0 25.9 1350 20 43.7 2 27) 36.2 I S8 Alternative B: weekly intervals, containers 6() 27.6 1 4411 24.5 128(1 50 31.5 1 64(0 27.8 1 451 4L 37.4 I 950 32.8 1 710 ColItI.ltiolll fol lows 7:4

COMLKti1101tioo"Fi tlhic7.2 ('ollectioti ain tranisportationl A.crage qvd. lilhk Sperlv (.oh,inl hlor/week I hour/year I hour/week houlrlear 30 47 .32460) 41.1 141) 20 ('7.1 349)457.8$ (M Alternative B: fortniiglitlyintervals, containiers 60 1N.4 1 (M1(1 16.9 870 50 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 a vehicle loading capacity of -5tons and the geographical areas within which the waste is collected and tranisported to the disposal site are presented in the Feasibility Study together with the, actual routes for both alternatives.

Alternative A involves automatic side loader for one-man operation and alternative B compacting container vehicle for one-man or for two-man operation. Two-man operation is preferable.

The operating cost for side loader and container vehicle will be of the same magnitude.

The cost for the 750 1 bins in alternative A, weekly intervals as well as 14 days intervals, will be lower than the containers in alternative B. To alternative B must be added the cost for local collection and transportation to the, containers and construction of simple transfer stations.

Thus the information given above indicates that the lowest cost for collecting and transportation can be obtained from alternative A, fortnightly intervals and 750 1 bins. Compared with weekly intervals the cost reduction for fortnightly intervals will be around 30 per cent. In districts where 14 day intervals are not suitable 1 week collection period is proposed.

7.2 Recycling, separation and recovery

The results obtained during experimental waste sorting are presented in Chapter 3. The waste sorting at the sites is proposed to continue. and a tariff system supporting separate waste collection may be introduced in the future. The system established during the experiment during the first half of 1999 can in the future be expanded with separate collection of paper. In order to facilitate the development of a separate waste collection system education and information campaigns are necessary.

Recycling has been detailed described in Chapter 3. and the markiet is rather limited in Latvia. Currently, there is a good mar-ket t'utrfollowing recyclables:

ferrous and non-ferrous metals - unllimited. 7:'

e cardboard and paper - Iii itedil, while still profilahle it' Cardhoard is bailed. * glasss - limited. becaiusc the closest recycling factory "(irizinikalns" is located in Riga. Nevertheless. collection of' glass mi;ght be plialy finianced thlougLl tariffs in order to rcducc wastc volume. d plastics - limited. but ver-y unstable because all activities of plastics recycling completely dpcend on donations 1From the Latvian Environ-mental Protection Fund. Likely. that this will occur probably a limited time, like the recycled material are rather expensive and have very 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 that disposed waste amount can be reduced per 10-20 % rather fast. if a proper separate waste collection system will be introduced. In the future, if the market for 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. the current situation without any changes. In this particular case, however, the baseline is defined as the rninimum requirement according to the National Solid Waste Management Strategy [36] prior to the new Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers "On Establishment, Management and Closure of Sanitary Landfills" (February gth, 1999) [43].

Thus, the baseline alternative has been interpreted as closure of the small dump sites and establishment of an environmentally improved regional landfill with leachate collection and treatment, but no gas extraction. This alternative is called 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 alternative sites of great interest for exhaustive studies, namely Skede and Grobina.

At Skede the existing deposit occupies about 7 hectares. of which 3 hectares are in operation. The proposed area for expansion is -15 hectares, but the available land area south of the site is substantially laroer. about 20 hectares, if the future expansion is limited to the forest boundary in the SOUth. About 45 hicctares opCfl land was originallY available at tih (iGrobina site ol which - I hectar-Cis useLl blr CuIIrIrenitoperat ions. Thc total land area inlcltudilng surrouniding forest is abouLt(5 hectari-es.

The EIA has provided infornmation on restrictions iromiiscveral viewpioinlts.C.o. land access in Grobina. biological piotection arcas. water-lopin1 1problems 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 for estimating the required area for final treatment and disposal and about 15 hectare 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 be landfilled separately.

The alternatives considered for the two sites are characterised in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 Alternatives considered for the Skede and Grobina Alternative Sub-alternatives Comments Remarks- Alternative A, Skede Alternative Al Gas extraction from existing landfill, Income from See Figures combined with energy cells, without clectrical no 32.33.34 addition 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 electrical energy 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(.37 encrgy Gas extraction from energy cells. witlh addition of sewage sludge l Alternative B2 Landfilling without gas extraction - -~~.--.--- V

/ ~~~~~~~1 0 00 .1600 9~ ~~~4 _0; 49.11< g

t4904 ^/ s % ( , J X 8 d ,/8 - > "Y 4 915987

9.04~~~90 0 3 LEGEND/APZiMEJUMI +14853 - A44849_ gI <4901 .j48j 49 17

Existingconstructions/ ai +~~~~~~N 1448(8 Esosasekas 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~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' - ° /I /.2f 1 -1

C=Administrrdtirn/6affbuildng/Adminisrativaeka / ! _ /, ,, ,, o o o // ( U \ ;6' {' H ( 4 j- \' ' / 18t5-rD

E = WoCkshoplRemontd~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~arbic / ---- i Bg /\*~

~~Inerto mabnalulaukums pagaidu uzglabasanas -- CtQS - / /[ 7

aks-.t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~8Izkrt'aeaupgiuugaaaa L11~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P A =asengiineA8esot n reiAtkntume pinmaa un akm 4fe 49r§ns L = eahae atrpumpingweniltraeaasuknesansubm< M = Ernistraince4eeat buln/dnnsrtv jti / / 0 0100m

E - Extrispfeotigcldarbrucain o ediin '9F FHosed - Noreccingaresekas uzves atrtm hsrie akm 0 ExpupeiG mestal gas pmigwlsOie flfnAnsubm 13 Ha I Prdpouwstedoragdistamo tlonritmuglbsnladm -. [B 149 D = e-ghriFg/SvcePreojoektertfis titsegikau ugabian buv gsasuk

lzioo mnsweill stGfizesurglbuminalakm

I=Leaia water pmimnt1ga pumplningfwels/Cnifianas urt,umnns ubm Inertomatedlilu anprposedlayoupagFi.a33:Sdedezagdail

L Leachatewater pumpin33.giw. 33.LIIm. PAnfgonsPoligons "S Stadc" ,kedc" - prinprincipiala ipiiiiaurhums shema

Proposed~~ ~ ~~ ig 33onkdesarfil-cropsensaou

m / tA LEGENDApZIMJUM

E~DExisting conStruCtions, E-SOtiC-kas un btives a L LeachateWarPmpnWel InitiaasOkndtanasurbums 6 8 pipe,pem Dn 90,B 204 Leachatewater 3 tntintritasavdk~anas caurutes, 90 m DN Gaswelgs/G4zes urburmi

Embankment/Uzbsrums

after closilre 'ig. 34: Skede landfill 34. zim. Poligons "Sk Je-9p sJegsanc9c 8

Io ? 00~o '._1S')' 'l ,

,'__ '______'9_o

~~~~~~6~~~~~~~~~~~~~, ~E oti k s nbje

l ~~~~~~~~~~EmbankmenWAzbbrums O 20 40 60 80 tO0 m|

Fig. 35: Grobina - existing landfilll 35. Grobina, esosais poligons '9m.

\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *%

A

LANDFILL AREA

EXISTING ATKRITUMU KRATUVE LANDFILL - ESOSA - IZGAZTUVE u'

\ ' = w - t ', :,, .... x\ t-... , J 'LEGENDlAPZiMEJUMI

A = Industrial waste t Rupnieciskie atkritumi B = TIernporarystorage / Atkritumu pagaidu uzglabasanas laukums LEACHATEWATER - C - Municipal waste / Sadzives atkritumi TPEATMENTAREA i D = Receiving sortingarea /Atkritumu pienemsanas un iskirosnnas laukums E = Workshop / Remontdarbnica INFILTRATA I . F Administrntion/staffbuilding /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 generators K = Entranoe/ leeja L = Waler suppli well / Udens apgades urbums ENERGYcELLS / ENERGIJASSLJNAS Proposed constructionsl Projekt8t5sekas un buves Existing constructionsfor demolition/ 0 20 40 60 80 100 m Noiaucamis ekas un bives

Gnswells / Gazes urbumi

Embankment / Uzberums

Fig. 36: Grobina landfill - proposed layout 36. zim. Poligons "Grobiia" - principiiiaa shenma

...... GEDAPiEJM \ LEACHATEWATER : |~~~~~

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 100m

Fig. 37: Crobina landrill after closure 37. 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 cxisting laindfillar-ca and to prolong its lifetime, it is proposed to cicalsc the total alrealanld utilise the space between the old an current landfill. the existing landfill will be covered and a suriace anld icachate collection system installed. The cover shall have a sufficienltly low permeability to give a net infiltration of 50 mm/year. In alternative Al. 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 for this report. The local level +150 is set at a benchmark, approximately 5 m a.s.l. The landfill slope will be 1:3. The second stage will be to fill up the space between the old landfill and the present landfill when it is finished, - all landfilling should ideally be made inside a berm to minimise noise problems as well as to improve the visual impression of the site. The berm shall be constructed of inert material such as crushed building debris excavated soil or similar. The height of the surrounding berm shall be 2-3 metres and waste will be disposed in approximately 2 m lifts inside the berm, - to prevent wind spreading of the waste, bird gathering, smell spreading and gas emnissions directly to the atmosphere, the active area shall at the end of each working day be covered with a 10-15 cm thick layer of non-degradable material and intermediate cover applied as soon as each lift is completed. - the leachate will be collected from the existing landfill, new landfill and the energy cells and treated. the chosen technology of waste treatment alternative Al and A2 envisages waste disposal -into energy cells. Non-degradable. substances such as glass, metal and hazardous waste, not suitable for an anaerobic treatment process, will as far as possible be separated from the organic waste prior to disposal. - parallel to construction of the energy cells, waste still needs to be disposed at the existing landfill during the initial years of implementation. In the future only non-degradable materials (inert waste and residual waste after decomposition in the energy cells) will be disposed at the landfill, the energy cell can be constructed on natural ground or filled up ground, in the same way as ordinary refuse deposits. The bottom is levelled, slightly sloping towards a low point and sealed with a layer of fine earth with lowt permeability compacted with a roller. In the low point, a plastic drainage pipe is laid in a shallow, open trenchl ior collection of the leachate. - the heating system is a closed circutit andl designed for supplying enough energy to keep the inner part ol the cell at a lemperatulc of about 37TC. 7. 14

- theC 'refUSC ImuLIStbC fl;'Cnlete(l. p;II'liiLllal thlle dollcestic relutse. betfoIC bcill, disposed at thelllfinisCI hottoillm laCer. 'Thlls iS hest achieved by!Nai shredder/bta opener. The flramnltedlleclrieflisc is careuilly spreaid in layers o0nthc finiishiedibollon-m surflace. A belt convcyor- is uise(d fol tralnlsport of the waste m-omill sicShredder to thle energy cells. Fuirthler compaction besides that ol movin velhiclesis not required. - after shredding the waste sludge from the sewage treatment plant cain be 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 existing landfill can be excavated and included in the new landfill area with a bottom liner and a leachate collection system. Organic waste shall be separated into the energy cells. The first stage proposed to raise up to +155 in the local level system especially for this report. The local level +150 represents approximately 28 m a.s.l. - when the first stage is finished intermediate cover will be applied and the second stage starts up in connection with the first step. The same filling system will continue when stage two is finished and stage three starts up. Since organic waste will be treated in energy cells the landfill will not be equipped with a gas extraction system, the operation of the landfill and the energy cells will be the same as proposed for Skede.

The main features of the alternatives are presented in Table 7.4. Table 7.4 ComIparison of waste treatment alternatives Alternative 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 wvil1cotsist of two systems, o0nefO Ih llndFill and one for thc encr;v cells. The gas cxti-actioln systel lor I0hc enlery cells is equipped 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; gas pipes, regulating stations and main gas pipes.

Gas wells will be drilled vertically into the landfill body. The well will be constructed with perforated steel pipes with a total length which is almost the same as the depth of the waste pile. During the phase of disposal of waste and covering of the landfill the gas wells and pipes will be constructed in conjunction with the other works.

Each gas well will be connected via a gas pipe to a prefabricated gas regulation station where the gas from each well will be regulated and condensate removed. The regulation station is connected to the gas pumping station providing 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 enable injection of leachate into the energy cells.

The system will consist of similar equipment as in the landfill gas system such as gas wells, gas pipes, regulating stations, removal of condensate and a main gas pipe. The leachate injection system consists of injection wells and pipes. The flow of leachate to each injection well will be regulated in the regulation station.

The injection wells are made of perforated steel pipes and they are drilled vertically into the energy cells. The injection wells will be fed with heated leachate 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 the Feasibility Study. The results of the calculations arc provided in Table 7.5. 7:10

Ta1Ic 7.5 The total g,as ei ergy froiii landfill aid enerm cells in Sk-ede and (Grobina |Year +Wase tob (.as irom f(..as I om Gas fromt ANVh/ !y:I r g:Fs lor utilisation cnergi cells energy cells landfill sludge Alternative TonnesIvear NMiWhkIV 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( 251(K) 540(0 19700(1 2005 24850 1990 s I (X) 3(M 28)000 50I 22100 2006 25470 2040(0 4800( 30O0) 2820() 48(X) 23400 2007 2610(0 21000 4500 30(10 285(N1 4500 24(0) 2008 26750 2140(0 420)0) 3(0() 28600) 42))!) 244(0 2009 27450 22000 390)0) )000 289(X) 39()( 25001) 2010 28160 225(0(0 36(00 3(100 291(X) 360(0( 2550)0 2011 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) 28500 2016 33030 26400 1800 3000 31200 18(X) 29400 2017 33800 27000 151)0 3000 31500 15(1)( 30000 2018 34880 27900 1200 3000 32100 12(X) 30900 2019 35870 28700 900 3000 32600 900 31700 2020 36900 29500 600 3000 33100 600 32500

Without sludge in the energy cells the quantity of MWh/year for utilisation in alternative 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 to zero, for the second year to 35 per cent. for the third year to 60 per cent, for the fourth year to 85 per cent and the fifth year and thereafter to 100 % of the total potential gas energy. S-l

8 Financialanalysis of the alternatives

Thie financial analysis of'hlc alternalivcs incildels: - revieweof the investmenlt costs. - review ofthc 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 are calculated in the Feasibility Study. - The base investment costs for vehicles and container for the proposed system is Ls 3,277,000. - The base investment cost for remediation of the existing dumps excluding Skede is Ls 747,300. - The base investment costs for the different waste treatment alternatives varies from Ls 844,300 for alternative A4 to 2,285,700 for alternative B I, see Table 8.1 The investment costs are presented as base costs and inclusive contingencies and VAT (18%). All costs are presented in 1999 price level. Table 8.1

Investment costs for solid waste treatment in Liepaja region Alternative Basecosts Includingcontingencies and VAT SKEDE Al Gas extraction from existing landfill. combined with energy cells. Income 1 769 850 2 610 529 from electrical energy A2 Gas extraction from existing landfill. 1 834 85() 2 706 404 combined with energy cells. Income from gas A3 Gas extraction from existing landfill. 1 183 050 1 744 999 Income 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 407 350 600 841 and flaring GROBINA B] Gas extraction from eneigy 2 285 70)M 3 371 40)8

- ililillni-n (imnp rovermrent ol' tlhe CLurrcnti waste Collcl io n atnd(i tran'sp9ortation sVstem. remnediation ol tihe existill cLtdlml siltes, all alternative A4) - 3.277.000 +8443()00 + 747.30() = 4,868,600) Ls. - maximum (improvement of currenlt waste collection andC transportation system. rcmen-diation of' the existina- dLlmpnsites, and alternative 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 and VAT for the first 6 years for collection and transport. closing of the dumps and all analysed alternatives are presented in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2

Total investment costs for LiepAjawaste management, year 1 -6 Altermative Base costs Including contingencies and VAT Collection, transport, treatment: Al - Gas extraction from existing landfill. combined 4 024 120 2 610 529 with energy cells. Income from electrical energy. Closing of regional dumps Collection, transport, treatment: A2 - Gas extraction from existing landfill. combined 4 089 120 5 195 227 with energy cells. Income from aas Collection, transport, treatment: A3 - Gas extraction from existing landfill. incomefrom 3 437 320 4 367 115 electrical energy Collection, transport, treatment: 3 098 570 3 936 733 A4 Landfilling without gas extraction Collection and transport and A5 Closing of 1 670 000 2 121 735 the landfill Collection and transpori and A6 Closing of 1 828 350 2 322 919 the landfill with gas extraction and flaring Collection. transport. treatment: Bl Gas 4 805 933 6 105 938 extraction from energy cells. Income from electrical energyv Collection.transport, treatment: 3 615 133 4 593 026 1B2 Landfilling without gas extraction l

The table shows that the least expensive alternative for a new regional waste management system includes traditional landfilling at the existing Skede site(A4) and that the highest costs are related to energy cell technolooy at Grobina (B 1). 8.2 Operation costs

The curr-ent operation costs arc 2181.80S Ls (see Chapter 3. Table 3.13). A number of muniicipalities do not know actual costs, because wAIStCSCIvVices are carried out occasionally and completely covered from the municipal budoet. The current operation costs is estilmalcd to be abLout300.000 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 of waste to be collected and transported. The value of the nature resources 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 transport system is presented in Table 8.3. Table 8.3

- Operation costs vehicles and waste containers Year Operation costs vehicles O/M costs Total operation costs Ls containers, Ls Ls l______Skede Grobina Skede Grobina 2001 130 440 132 220 1 800 132 240 134 020 2002 141 51) 143430 3600 145 110 147030 2003 163 050 165 276 5 400 168 450 170 676 2004 163 050 165 176 5 700 168 750 170 976 2005 169 500 176500 6 000 175 500 182 500 2006 169 500 176 500 6 000 175 500 182 500 2007 169 500 176 500 6 000 175 500 182 500 2008 185 190 187 700 6 000 191 190 193700 2009 185 190 187 700 6 090 191 280 193 790 2010 185 190 187700 6090 191 280 193790 2011 185 190 187 700 6 090 191 280 193 790 2012 185 190 187 700 6 090 191 280 193 790 2013 185 190 187 700 6 090 191 280 193 790 2014 185 190 187700 6090 191 28(0 193790 2015 187 640 190 200 6 090 193 730 196 290 2016 195 660 198 330 6 300 201 960 204 630 2017 195 660 198330 6 300 201 960 204 630 12(018 195660 198 330 6 420 202 080 204750 2019 195 660 198 330 6 420 202080 204750 2020 195660 198 330 6 420 202 080 220475(

The operation costs for the proposed waste treatment plant are presented below. The costs varies during the 20 year period and a span is provided for each alternative Alternative Al 11) 15 - 134 115 Alternative A2 123 5Q* 8 - 138 28 Alternative A, 115 (63I 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 system including collection, transport and treatment will vary from minimum 206 788 Ls per year for Alternative A4 to maximum 356 757 Ls per year for Alternative Bl.

8.3 Revenues

The revenues in the new waste management system are generated by the sale of gas or electricity and through the tariff. A tariff of 4 Ls/year in fixed prices over the 20 year period has been applied in the financial analysis in the Feasibility study for all alternatives to give a reasonable financial rate of return for the most viable alternative.

The income from sale of gas or electricity varies during the years due to the increasing waste volumes and the construction time for each alternative. The potential 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 analysis gives 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 aiccessroad iln case o Bl ialld 2,3 * Costs for walter suprply to the Skedel SUmLIeIlrcolon! in casc ol A I - A4. * ReVenUC fIrOm11SaleC ot as whnlil applicable- 25Ls/MWh f0or electr iciv\ andl 5Ls/ MWh lor gas * Tariff of waste collection. treatment and disposal - 4 Ls percapita and year

The analysis also shows that the tariff level has a strong imrrpacton thc viability of the project. If the tariff is reduced to 3 Ls per captita and year the FIRR would be 0.6 % for Al. Cost escalations of about 27 % WOuld give a FIRR of 2.8% for Al.

The analysis also shows that an increased tariff of about 25 % would be required to cover the extra costs to establish the regional waste treatment plant in 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 Liepaja City in 1998.

The tariff level with an increase of 25 % to 5 Ls per capita and year that would be required if the proposed plant is established in Grobina is still reasonable. The proportion of the average national household income for the waste management services would be less than 0.6 % calculated for the period 1998 to 2003.(Stubenitsky, May 1999, Affordability of increases in household waste collection charges [66]).

Thus, the proposed tariff level is considered as affordable for the average income household and also for the low income household that currently pay for the waste management services. The calculation is based on the assumption that all inhabitants that will be part of the new management services also will have to pay for these services. For the lowest income household 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 towvirds establishina a waste disposal site. impacts of the new wastc treatment plant towards development possibilities in tlie area. impacts ol) landl owners. imllpacts on budget of local governments and houschold budget (aflordlability). These aspects are analysed for thc two sites: Skedc. in Liepaja city and P'oligons. in Grobina parish.

The World Bank consultant Mr. Alan Hancock has executed several attitude surveys. organised public meetings, specialist surveys and analysis of the media coverage of the project. SWECO and GeoConsultants have participated in the presentations at the public meetings and complemented some of the social surveys.

In accordance with ToR (see Appendix 1), a supplementary survey was carried out. 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 of this report has been followed by a set of conclusions, which will be drawn upon when finalising a public participation and, information framework for the main project to follow. In this final section, therefore, only a few main findings and inferences will be singled out, which seem to have general significance.

If Skede is finally chosen as a site for the central regional landfill, the summer co-operative needs to be treated with especial care. Its members, and in particular its Board of Directors, should be kept fully informed, and as- far as possible involved in the planning process (not simply as a matter of public relations, but because they have an intimate knowledge of the site and its characteristics). Some benefits for the community may also be considered (e.g. improved water supply), but these should be identified with the active participation of the co- operative. * Only those directly affected by the project have strong feelings about site location at this stage, but this may well change once plans become more concrete. Residents near the Grobina site, on the whole, prefer the status quo, but any anxieties about excessive expansion should be met through regular consultation and briefing. Among the general NGO community, opinion is more positive towards the Skede site, but the environmental NGOs are much less certain. feeling that they lack the data needed to form a judgement. Opinion should harden. however, once the feasibility study is complete. and economic and ecological arguments can be balanced. * Public consultations certainly should continue into the implementation stage, but they should be planned selectively and focused downi. Location, timing and content all need to be contextuzalised. Some trainino; Ior ComImI11unLityoflfcial s shIouldlhc colisiKrel-cClin the skill,s of social animation. * If attitudes are to be changced elfectively. this shotil(d be seenl ;1S ;1 klol- terni process, beginningin the scLhoolsaInid CduCation, CeCnlrCs. For this process to work. high-qualityz and approp riate materialisaIlre necessary * Waste management should bc conisidered alongside otlhci env ironmental issutes. and a holistic perspective adopted. * The NGOs are a key resource in mortlding. re-inforcinog or clhangin1g public opinion, and they should be co-opted at the earliest possible stage. They are most likely to respond positively if they are involved and kept informed while planning continues * The involvement of local media is also a critical factor. The project needs both a realistic information strategy, and the resources and full-time 'staff to carry it out, so that an effective communication network can be formed. This will also necessitate some training * Even though the pilot projects on waste separation have not been adequately integrated into the project, and some confusion has been caused as a result, it will be important for the waste management project to incorporate some elements of waste separation. Without this, the goodwill and active support of the environmental community is unlikely to be maintained. At the same time, the thinking underlying the project should confront long-term waste separation and energy conservation and replenishment needs in a practical way, not consider them to be an independent or marginal factor."

The surveys also revealed concerns both in Skede and in Grobina about the impacts from the current dumps and the future waste treatment plant, especially with regard to water supply, smoke and dust. A majority of the respondents 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 zone between the colony and the waste treatment plant considered important aspects ifor the acceptance of the project. i'n Grobina the attitude is more positive and an improved or alternative access road was mentioned as the most important issue to be managed to avoid disturbances.

ARecommendations 1. Skede: - for the Skede alternative the requested buffer zone has been considered in the preliminary design of the waste treatment plant and landfill. Moreover, the landfilling activities will be executed behind a soil berm to avoid wind blowing of waste and the waste will be covered. Open burning will be prohibited, - there are possibilities to or-anise local water supply for the suLmmer colony if so required and the budget in the Feasibility Study includes the costs for two wells. 2. Gr-obilIla., - r ilC ziccess road is planned to be imiprovcdito a hard surfaced r(oa;d, - thiLre aIC also two Options oirloczatiooIl o>a new access road. depending- on1the tlinal sitilne ol't ie area.

9.2 Attitude of local governments

The attitude of both the Liepaja City Council and Grobina Pagasts Coulicil towards 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 waste treatment plant does not coniflict with the city development plan, - when the problems arose with land owner, the Grobina pagasts Council found a possibility to allocate municipal land for a new location (see chapter 6).

The attitude of rural municipalities towards the project realisation is not simple: - they recognise that improvements in the field of waste management are required, because the service level is low and illegal waste dumping takes place, - on the other hand. they are afraid that the costs related to a new system will be non-affordable due to a long transport distance. It is the official explanation. However, a large part of rural municipalities do not collect tariff for waste collection and do not pay nature resources tax for waste disposal. If a new waste management system will be introduced, the municipalities will have to pay and to charge inhabitants for waste management services.

9.3 Attitude of people

The attitude of people in the. vicinity of the two proposed sites (within a radius of 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 and similar. People are generally against a new waste treatment plant location (see Table 9.1 and Appendix 21). However, in the case of Grobina site there are less complaints, and they are mainly related to disturbances caused by heavy traffic (dust, noise, smell). Therefore, public awareness campaigns should be provided. Otherwise the public attitude may cause problems for the project or even halt the implementation. Table 9.1 Attitude of people towards a new waste treatment plant Site For Against No opinijon Skede 3 2)1 6 Grobina parish 3 6 2 Grobinatown (alono 3 lII - access) 9.4 Impacts on developinent aad land owners

The local governiment whel-e a ne\ waste treatmiienltplant will he locatecd will undoubtedly benefit. Financial beniefitswill be described furt-her-.hut next to direct financial bienefitsthere will he someothers: - in terms of employmiientit is expectedthat 13 to 17 (depending- on the selected alternative) people will be employed at the waste treatment plant, of which the major part can be employed locally, - some infrastructure improvements will be made mainly in terms of access to the waste treatment plant (in Grobina), - improvement of the surrounding environment, when the existing landfill in Liepaja or Grobina will be established and recultivated.

Introduction of unit new waste management system will not disturb any local business in towns and pagasts, where waste services are provided by municipal or 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 waste treatment plant location. Therefore, the Grobina pagasts Council (see Chapter 6) has proposed one other land area owned by the municipality. This area may be used in case if consensus will not be reached 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 by local inhabitants (only ruins are left). Therefore, significant investments are required for the existing structure demolition and area 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 for the self-governments where the waste treatment plant will be situated and other local 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 1CSpa' principle. there shioLul(dniot be llnybUrde Oll teil bItIhid-clol local -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 rurail municipalities currenitly do not pay for waste scrviccs. - in view ol the low afbordability level the pagasts may have to financially support some of the poorest households. Therefore, all municipalities, especially the rural ones, should carefully consider the possibility for their people to pay for waste services, and to plan future measures to provide the enforcement of the waste management system (for instance, introduction of binding local regulations on waste management).

9.6 Impacts on National Budget

The project implementation and operation will have an impact to the National Budget: - 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 in year 2000-2019, and income for the central government (e.g. VAT payments).

9.7 Impacts on household budgets

The project implementation will require a tariff increase of 5 - 25 %(see chapter 8). The tariff may increase from 4 to 5 Ls/year per capita or 0.33 - 0.42 Ls/month per capita. Assuming that the average size of household in the Liepaja Region is about 3.2 persons, the tariff for waste services will be 12.8 - 16 Ls/year or 1.07 - 1.33 Ls/month.

This is considered as affordable in the Liepaja region. The households with the lowest income levels may however have problems to afford the tariff. - l

10 Comparison of alternativesites

The comparison and evaluation ol two alterniativesites 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 envirollnlental impact assessmlent. 3. Investigation of both sites and preparation of the draft report on environmental impact assessment. The report includes comparison and assessment of both sites. Liepaja city council decided to carry out environmental impact assessment on Skede and 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 plant will not conflict with the mentioned zone - closeness of summer gardens society "Skede" to the existing landfill and to the new site. - distribution of boggy sediments, and consequently - high groundwater table, in the vicinity of the existing landfill. However, a new site can not be 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 require substantial 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 generalisation and analysis of the obtained results. Therefore, a number of criteria have been determiined, 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 (for instance, geological structure. landscapes, etc.). Therefore, a semi-quantitative approach 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 waste treatment plant.

The evaluation system does not show exclusionary criteria, although they exist to a large extent in Skede. Formally it is not forbidden to establish a waste treatment Iable 1(0.1 of locatio..s ______Criteria for comparison Groupof Criteria Descriptionand topicality criteria the groundor underthe covcr of thin sandlayer Geological Landfill maybe locatedin the area,where clay sedimenitsare distributed upside aquifers.Thickness of clayeydeposits (till - sanldy structLurc (lessthan 5 m) or peatlayer (less than 0,5 m), and separateshallow and confinied I m loamnor loam,clay of differelltorigin) shouldbe at least5 m. Thicknessof peatcan not exceed land surfaces.Land(f-ill cal riot Desirablegroundwater level - 5 in or moreunder the grounid,the highestpermissible - I m belowthe Nature Hydrogeological lowveringof groundwlater beconstructed in the bogs,whiere peat layer exceeds I m, becauseexcavation of peatlayer and continiuos condi- conditionis operatinigcosts. Landfill table is required.Furtheriimore, last two factorscause drastic increase of landfill construictionianid especially tions of a drinkinlgwater, are riot alwayscaUses potential damage for grounidwaterarid territories,where groutrdwater is only source suitablefor a landfill construction watercourses, their dischargeand slope ofl tire l-lydrologic Drainageof area,capability to canalisesurfalce water and treatedleachate (existing conditions watercourse) densityof *valuablebiotops. \Valuahle Density of hiighily Erombiological variety viewpoinlt, it wouldbe recommended to avoid areaswith a high species.They areforriiio basefor valuablebiotups hiotopesare standards of naturalIlor-a and fauna, dwelliig-places of rar-eand protected 1987afrv action preservationof biologicalvariety. Accordinig the resolutionNo. 107of Cabitietof Ministersof LSSRon 10April is proliibited.as well causingstraight exteriiination of protectedspecies aiid chaiigesof circumstanicesnecessary for their existence as currencycompensations for destructionof valuablefields is definled alongrivers, lakes and the Baltic Sea Protectedareas Tile landfill cannot be locatedin anyprotected areas, including protection belts elementof the landscapeleaving effect on natural Value of visual As landfill during exploitationand post-closure period is consideredas significant landscape landscape;thus thiscriterion is consideredas relevant in landfrllsite selectionprocedure. andconstructioni of the landfill is not allov ed in cases.it the Social Quantityof cultural Ilhearea within 3-kmradius around the selectedsites had been analysed, of the monumentsin direct nearnesscan bestronrgly and monuments culturalmonuments can bedamaged or destroyed.Furthermore, perception consequencescaused by landfill. human affectedby the chanigesof visuallatidscape, increased traffic andother health Landuse Currentand possible future landuse has been analysed catisedby landfill, it shouldbe locatedin thieareas % ith a loh aspects Populationiin area In orderto exposepopulation as little aspossible to possibledamage aroundinhabited areas with populationmbor-e thani 10( of f (0.5) km radius populationdeinsity of the following prolectionizones shall present:I kim individualhouses. aroundlandfill inhabitants,and 500 m aroundinhabited areas with populationless than 100 inihabitanits, including the projectis not recoiiimenldcdin areas. Epidemiological Locationof landfill increasesinfectious risk in surroundingterritory. Implemnentationi of housinigareas in the directioniof security wherethe numiLberof risk factorsis characteristic.The inostrelevant are - dtinikinigwater wvells, dominianitwinds, farms, roads with intensivetraffic. l.o he CO()UnCie Continuatioi of Table 10(.1 of proposedproject. Attitude of local Positive attitude of inhabitants againstproject implementation is a relevantcoidition for theacceptance Social inilabitanlts the administrativeborders of and Attitude of local Positiveattitude ol the local governmentis a pre-conditionfor siteselection for a newlandfill withinl human government the mullicipality aie ili hydraulic Health Threatsto the Locationof the landfill is not allowedin the areas,whele shallow and conl-iniedaquifers usedfor watersupply aspects artesiandrinking connection (cont.) water aquifers In remaininigareas the Threatsto the Installationof the landfill is not allowed in the areas,where surface waster is only sourcefor watersupply. beevaluated surfacewater possibleeffect of the landfill onthe surfacewater objects should be considered and risk of waterpollutioni shoul(i objecls winds and numherol Possibilityof air Numberof inhabitedand individ'ualhouses, which could beaffected by air pollution.Direction of dominating pollutioniin 3 krn affectedpeopie should be takeninto accountby evaluationof possibleair pollution radiusaround landfill are located. If thiereis a Depositsof useful Constructionof the landfill is not allowedin the areaswhere deposits of usefulminerals of Stateimportance of the municipality Eco- minerals depositof regionalsignificance, resolution on the landfill installationcan be takenonly by the Council potentialsoil productivity.It shouild nomical Valueof Cadastrialvalue of the soil and forestshas been determined based on StateLand Service data on a landflilllocation w%ould be aLrcLa aspects agriculluralland be takeninto accountby selectinigthe site for projectimplemenitationi. The mostrecommiiiienided site and forests not availablefor agriculture of land.costs Availability of area Presentowners, their willingnessto sell or not the land for landfill construction.Cadastral and commercial value for a landfill relatedto foresttransformation location Accessroads Costsfor the accessroads construction around Landpreparation Comparativecosts of: clean-upof the areafrom treesand bushes, costs of groundexcavation, relocation of watercourses costs landfill Revenuefrom Comparisonof revenuesat the specificsite biogas abstraction ______Regionalor city Currentand future plans for the areause; disturbances to thoseplans which may becaused by a future landfill planningaspects Costsof waste Distanceand comparative operational costs of wastetranisportation I transiportation plin at tilC area with a hp-lhbioLoical )rotection valuc. but it cannot he adLvisedto utilise the ar;ea lor ihis purpose whereEaily Hfail.- grassA11ra p)rncox is localcd. since this plant is unique lor Lat\via. Further. it may be possible to agreewith tlhe pmrajorrt of the inhabitantts of the surImeCrearden scttlemcnt that collstluction of a necwvwastc treatment plant will improve the envir-onmcntalconditionis of thc area,sincc thc duImp will 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 have been found (see Figure 22). The Nature Preserve "Tosmare Lake" is also situated rather close. The opinions the real location of the preserve border differ, due to the uncertain determination of the borders of reserve (see Appendix 22). The biologists who carried out investigations for this study consider that the southwest corner of the proposed area is located within the Preserve. The border determination has been based on the map published in the governmental newspaper "Latvijas vestnesis" (see Appendix 22). which clearly shows that the proposed area is outside of the Preserve'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 garden settlement" (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 local government only can make the decision on location of a new waste treatment plant within its administrative borders. This decision can be made by the Liepaja city council (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 in Table 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 and economnicaspects - 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, the general conclusion is that Skede site can not be recommended for a new waste treatment plant location. The economic aspects are more favourable at Skede,e.g. the costs related to remediation of the existing landfill will be significantly reduced. Further, additional revenue would be obtained from biogas utilisation. If "Skede" site would not be selected for a new waste treatment plant, the investments required lor biogas extraction only fronm the old landfill would be too high). 2. The site Poligons is suitable for a new waste treatment plant location, since no exclusionary criteria are valid there. The main problems arc related to cultural and historical aspects and partly to the land ownershiip. A 1iiial a;(yiccnicnt u ith ttic 1iando\vneris iiot vet iII place. a1lit l ghl a p|'' iv piIa aI(necrcnlthas heen silnel. Table 10.2 Evaluation and tcomparison of sites Criteria Skede PoligOnls Nature coinditions l Geological StrluctrIelC 2 3 Hydropcolocgical conditions 2 3 Hydrological conditions 2 3 Biotopes of high value 0 3 Total: 6 12 Social and human health aspects Landscape value 2 3 Cultural and historical aspects 3? Land use 3 3 Number of in inhabitants ( in radius of 0.5 kim) 0 2 Epidemiologicalsafety I 2 Attitude of local inhabitants 1 2 Attitude of local governments 3 3 Threats to artesian water aquifers 3 3 Threats to surface water bodies 1 2 Air pollution (in radius of 3 km) 1 2 Total: 18 23 Economic aspects Deposits of useful minerals 3 3 Land value 3 2 Availability of the area for a landfill location (ownership) 3 2 Land preparation costs for a landfill construction 2 2 Access roads 3 1 Landfill construction costs 3 I Revenues from biogas abstraction 3 2 Transportation costs 2 2 Regional or city planningaspects 3 2 Total: 25 17 Grand total: 49 52

The advantages and disadvantages of each site are characterised in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3 Comparison of main problems for the Skede and Grobina sites Criteria Skede Grobina Exclusionarv criteria Biotopes of high value Can not be avoided No problems Number of inhabitants Summer gardens settlement No problems since inhabitants *Skede" is closer than 500 m of the "Ataugas- flarm are not against the location of a new !______waste treatment plant Temporarv exclusionarv criteria Geological structure: peat has to No problems No problems be less than Im Hydrogeological conditions: Embankment should be made at No probleims cround Nwatertable has to be area approximately 7.500 m2 deeper thal I ni f rom the ground surface Contintiation iFollow,s I J)-(.

('0o11itIat ion ol T'hic 10(.3

Criteria Skede Gr(oil.a )Othercriteria ! Culltural and histor-ical Vu11Le 1 No prohIcnis Access ro011dCa111 not1 cO aloneg ancient burial site 'Pora;inl senikapi" Epidcmiologicalsatety Risk is rather high dlue to Risk is comparativel\lo\k CIOSelICSS of tilC SLIlimmerl Eardenssettiemenit 'Skede'' Attitude of local inhabitants Partil ne-ative Less negative tilan in "Skcde". excluding -people living alonlg the possible access road from the Grobina's town side Threats to surface water bodies High to the Tosmare Lake Medium to the Alande River Air 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 holder in the new company which will .______. . _ own the landfill

10.2 Conclusions

1. The Grobina site is clearly preferred due to the natural conditions and human health and social aspects. 2. Two exclusionary criteria are valid in "Skede", the biological diversity and the closeness of the summer gardens society "Skede". Some rnitigation measures are possible, but the conflict cannot be avoided. However, the current contamination at Skede should be considered when a final decision is made on the site selection. 11 Sequence of the project iimplemiienitationaind materials

In general. thc proccduLe of design1,ing1andl sCquenCe1 oC' th1 pOjCect implementationi is regulated by the Regulations no 112 (Aplril 1'' 1997) "'General Regulationis on ConstLructionl" 1441. The sequence lor the piroject implementation should be followiing: 1. Decision by the Liepaja City on the selection of the site lor a new waste treatment plant. 2. Obtaining all initial requirements to design works from the relevant authorities 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 design works and obtaining the final approval from the State Expertise for Construction Works is clearly stated in the above mentioned regulations no 112. Therefore, only the construction phase and materials will be further discussed.

11.1 Implementation of the construction works

The proposed layout for the Skede and Grobina waste treatment areas and landfills are presented in Figures no 33 and 36. In each layout the following facilities 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 . Tlc sequence ot works mikht to some exteilt he chlan-ed depending oin tile selected location and alternatiVe. Table I 1. I Se tience of constructioii works Activity Skede G(ro)inIa Construction of the acccss Limiited.about ().4 knm About *. kml Terrain preparation Limited preparation of Demlolitioni of riniis left by the cmbankment; limited Soviet Arm'y: reme(liation olf thc demolition of old buildings: existing dumnpsite. levelling of the levelling of area, covering of area tihCexisting dump site Inventory and improvements Limited. because treated Existing ditches between the site of the existing drainage leachatewill he delivered to and the Alande River should be system the Liepaja city WWTP carefully investigaLted and, if required. treated and deepened External supply Power supply. telephone Energy cell area and/or Construction of energy cells, Construction of energy cells. landfill area. leachate including leachate collection including collection systems for collection system and system both from the existing leachate and surface runoff diversion of surface run-off and the new landfill; improvements of the existing ditches and digging of ______required new ones Creation of gas abstraction Installation of wells, and collection system from equipment, pumping station the existing landfill and distributionpipe Leachate treatment system Leachate collection system, Construction of a leachate pre-treatment, pumping treatment plant station and pipeline to WWTP Entrance road and gate, fence Depending on selected Yes alternative: both for the existing landfill and for the new waste treatment plant or only for last Receiving area with weight For both sites ibridge and control building Administrative and staff For both sites 'building_ Sorting area for household For both sites and industrial waste, and temporary storage of separated material Area for waste received from For both sites households separation lnternal roads. ditches, water For both sites supply well. and other utilities Area for cover material For both sites Biological. surface and Viciniityof both existing and Vicirity of new waste treatmcal groundwater monitoring a new landfill should he plant. and ditch at the distainceol al covered least lkem 1rom the treated lealchalte dischatrge Gas engine and transformer. For both sites when electricity is generated from the gas II-3

11.2 Implementationi schedule

For alternative Al anid B I thc followingz implemrientationschedule is envisaged. The phasing of the construction ol he cnlergy cells aie shown in Figures 33 and 36.indicating, the use of cell no IA for the first six months, IB fo tihe nlext six months 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 1.2 2ipmlementationSchedule Activitv 2000 2002 12002 ] 2003 [2004 12005 12006 [2007 Remediationof X old landfill l Construction of X x X new landfill l Construction of X x X x x x x energy cells I I I Purchaseof X x X landfill equipment Closureof old X x X dumpsI I II

The proposed implementation schedule will start with the environmental improvements at the Skede site, irrespective if Skede or Grobina is selected for the future operation of the regional site. If Skede shall be closed the remedial actions will convert to closure, comprising final cover, leachate collection and treatment.

11.3 Materials

The quality of materials to be used for a new landfill construction or existing dumps 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 Union guidelines [9, 40 and others] should be observed.

The available natural material that may be used for the construction works andl dump sites remediation have been investigated. According to 167], the Liepaja Region has: - 98 sand and sand-gravel deposits with a total amount of (categor-ies A+B+Cj) - 40.358,1 00 m3,3 - 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. TheC closest availahileLuarr-oly01ClIV and( sanId-Iavel arc: - Rolava (clay) - tota] resouri-ces(calcegories A+C,) - 304.000 n 3. deposit is available for clay excavation. The averagcethickness ot thic covering layer (basically soil) is about I Ima - Dubenu karjers (sand gravel) - total resources 772.800()In (category P0). The thickness of top cover varies between 1.2 - 3.0 Im and is mainly 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 21 km 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 environmentalimpacts during construction

The environmental impacts discussed for the siting of the waste treatment plant will in principle be valid also during the implementation period. The most common environmental impacts during the construction works are: 1) traffic and machinery - noise, dust, odour, disturbance of wildlife and the surrounding population, 2) construction works - suspension of particles in surface waters oil spills, release of hazardous chemicals etc, deterioration of vegetation.

During the design phase instructions to contractors should be included in the Tender 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 thc placemiientof solid wastes. waste trcaitimleiltplant operatinig recorids and billilng information. a load inspectioin plani for halzard-louswastes. alld sitc salety and security plans are important clements ol a waste treatmlent plant operation.

Operation of the waste treatment plant should be carried out in accordalnce with the Regulations no 38 "Construction. operation and closure of household waste disposal 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 plant have to be elaborated (see subchapter 12.1). * technical passport and management plant of the waste treatment plant have to be provided where details on daily operation are provided (see subchapter 12.2), * instruction on safe working methods and for actions during emergency 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 to aim 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 of a monitoring system, * Density of monitoring stations for biodiversity, ground- and surface water and spectrum of determinable parameters to be controlled, * Any other factors and aspects related to waste treatment plant operation.

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 creistration and inspectiol oli-its collmposit]ion. * traffic patternsat the site. * the timhesequence to be followed in the Filling opeeraltionls. * effects of atmosplheric prccipitationl. winds and other climnatic conditions. * commercial and public access.

The technical passport and the waste treatment plant management plan have to include all the above aspects of the waste treatment plant operation. The future operation 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 the material/waste, * weighting of the empty truck after emptying (if truck weight is not previously registered).

It is strongly recommended, due to security reasons as well as operational costs reasons, that the opening hours are 8 - 12 hours a day. The site should be in full operation from 7.00 in the morning until 19.00 in the evening, i.e. 12 hours in full operation. The waste treatment plant should have limited activity on Saturdays, i.e. the recovery station for public use will be open. The site will be closed on Sundays. The area has to be guarded for 24 hours a day.

The capacity of the proposed receiving and registration equipment at the site has to be designed by the amount of waste received during peak hours and not by 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 some internal 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 e recyclables 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 tlhc waste is sorted. mainly hv mechanical sorting dcevices. Othcr soited( mantcrial (such as filling. etc.) is diriected to separate arcas where the matcrial is useci or treated for future use such as covering. access roads etc.

Recycled material has to he temporary stored in separate arcas, while waste is delivered to consumer/recvcling f:acility. Other materials sorted out. such as hazardous waste, are also stored for future delivery to treatment or recycling facilities.

Sorted domestic waste is shredded. conveyed and disposed in energy cells (alternatives Al, A2 and B1). Sorted industrial waste is considered to be mainly inert and can be disposed at the landfill or used for a filling or construction 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 precipitation and 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 are identified: * 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 independent computerised system for registration of weight, kind of waste, supplier identification etc. This system will be linked to a supervisory monitoring system, thereby reporting the amount of the different goods brought to the plant each day.

The gas pumping and energy conversion system will be provided with its own control and monitoring system. The system will be based on PLCs (Programmable Logical Controller) for control purpose and a computerised operator system. This system will also be connected to the above-mentioned supervisory system, where main process statistics will be handled.

Workers and vehicle drivers will have the main responsibility for a proper waste treatment at the site under the guidance ol the supervisors. The supervising staff will have the responsibility for monitoring of the daily operation, that the waste is directed to the correct area, is properly trcated at the working face and covered according to iilstructions. 12-4

They shall also rcUulary niiOiltor the "as equipmilent. SLtIUSof draiiuIIzOe syselms and the leachate treatmencl t;iciliiies.

The leachate treatmuentptlant will also be pirovided witlh its oWil control systcm based on PLC technology. The man-ma.zhitlery interface will he a convenltional control panel with switches. signal lamps and analocLue insLrumentisor a PLC operator panel. The main ilnlormation about the process will be transf'erred to the supervisory system for r-eportingi-purpose.

Belt convevors, shredder. etc. will be manually controlled. The equipment will have its own starting system. A quick stop shall be easily available in case of emergency. However, connection to the supervisory system will not be necessary.

The supervisory computer system will be located in the administration building. The information from different parts of the total plant will be collected and presented in this system. The information will also be arranged in daily 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 operation plan.

Table 12.1 Staff required for waste treatment plant operation Alternative and number of employees Department A1 |A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 B2 Registration department = Weighing staff .2 2 2 2 2 Security department Dispatchers and guards 2 2 2 2 2 2 Waste handling department Deputy 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 I drhvers of vehicles & loaders 3 3 3 3 31 3 l Wastehandling personnel 6 6 4 4 l 6 4 of which: Municipal waste sorting _ I _ _I Enerpy cell construCtion 2 2 2 Wor/kers at energY cells I I I lIzduistrialwaste sor1ting I I I II Hazardouisw (aste sortinlg/storage I I I_Il_ I Metal sortiug/Ator-age I I II I I Subtotal 13 13 9 9 1.5 13 9 Total 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 lentcdin order to prevent llhe I'ollowin cases: * self-jlanitionof waste (instructionls on fire combatliin iI tihe case ol self-combustion should he pr-ovided). * access of non-autlhor-isedpersons 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 instructions are required)

In emergency cases, the following actions should be undertaken:

* Waste-nmass self-ignition Waste receiving has to be stopped immediately and the burning places have to be isolated from the airflow. Only after fire extinction and complete localisation of the confined areas, the waste treatment plant operation can be continued. On the sites where a burning process has taken place, the area needs a proper cover.

* Occurrence of toxic substances If toxic substances (particularly gaseous ones) are reaching a waste treatment plant by any reason, it has to be closed until deactivation and neutralisation of those substances have been achieved. Concrete solutions depend on kind and danger of any specific substance (e.g. danger for human health, risk of explosion).

* Explosions Whenever explosions have occurred in a landfill, it has to be closed until the reasons for that have been clarified. The usual operations can only be restarted when all necessary actions for safety restoration have been undertaken.

* Othiers In any other emergency case (unexpected storms, floods, etc.). the landfill operation has to be limited or temporarily stopped.

By taking into account the above mentioned, it is necessary to develop a strategy 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 sites are common and hard to extinguish. The risk of fires at the sanitary landfill will be minimised by providing the waste with a tight cover, which in any case is one requirement to optimise the collection of gas and rninimisation of the leachate generation. Further, the extraction of gas w'ill remove the most easily combustible material within the landfill. I 2-h

Fire fighting cequipmilciltshall bh casily accessihle and thie hlicilsodslol ir, fighting regularly practisedl.

The supervision staff is responsible for that the stall coniplics wiLih occupationial 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 the above 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 any leakage of leachate from the bottom of a landfill.Lysimeters have to be used for sample extraction from the unsaturated zone. Monitoring for gases is necessary to detect the lateral movement of any landfill gases, - surface water and groundwater monitoring is necessary to detect changes in water quality that may be caused by the escape of leachate and landfill gases. Surface leakage water quality should be controlled before (background value upstream) and after passing the landfill (downstream) in order to deterrnine the quality of the discharged treated leachate (at least 2 observation stations). At least 5 wells are necessary for groundwater monitoring, one for determination of the background value (in groundwater flow before it comes to the landfill), others for the control of groundwater quality change after passing the landfill. The parameters and frequency of sampling are stated in Regulations no 38 "Construction, operation and closure of household waste disposal sites" [44]. - landfill air quality monitoring consists of 3 parts: monitoring of ambient air quality at and around the waste treatment plant, of landfill gases extracted from the landfill, and the monitoring of the off gases from any gas processing treatment facilities. Parameters have to be analysed and frequency of sampling are stated in Regulations no 38. Taking into consideration that gas monitoring never has been provided in Latvia, it may be mentioned that gas sampling devices can be divided into three categories: passive, grab and active. Most commonly passive sampling is used, i.e. gas is sampled by passing a stream of gas through a collection device in which the contaminants contained in the gas stream are removed for subsequent analysis. l3 1l

13 Closure and post-closure activities

Post-closure activitiCsshould bc carr1-ie]doul in accoridanceWith R 11tilations no 38 "ConstirucLioll, operation and closuire of houseiold waste disposal sites" [441.particularly the requirements stated in Section IV "ClosuLe oi' waste disposal sites" have to he observcl.

Landfill closure and post-closure care is very important in order- to ensure that completed 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 aside enough money for sufficient maintenance of the closed site.

The long-term closure plan must include a design of the final landfill cover and landscaping of the completed site as well as long-term control of runoff, gas and 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, landfill surface grades, re-vegetation, and maintenance of the landfill gas and leachate collection and treatment'facilities), and environmental monitoring.

Typical elements of a landfill closure plan are characterised in table 13. 1.

Table 13.1 Typical elements of a landfill closure plan [171 Element Typical activity Post-closure land use Designation and adoption Final cover design Select the infiltration barrier, final surface slopes and vegetation Surface water and Calculate stormwater quantities for runoff and select perimeter drainage control system channel location and sizes to collect runoff and to prevent runon Control of landfill gases Select location and frequency of gas monitoring and set the operations schedule for gas extraction wells and flare. if required Control and treatment of Set the operation schedule for leachate removal and treatment, if leachate required Environmental monitoring Select sampling locations and frequeincyof monitoring as well as systems 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 thc design must satisfy two fuLnctionsat thc sitc: 1. Ensure the long-ierm post-closure inteority of the landhill witI respect to any Ciemissionsto 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, the final closure plan needs to be prepared several years before closure and temporary storage of the final cover allocated within the landfill area. The designed slope of 1:3 can be adjusted for the local conditions to enable a road to be constructed to the top of the landfill.

The closure plan for Skede, Figure 34, envisages a viewpoint to be established at the top of the landfill. A less sophisticate closure plan has been envisaged for the Grobina site, Figure 37.

The final cover shall have several functions, top cover for vegetation, filter layer, drainage, hydraulic barrier, gas control. Those functions require usually a combination of natural clay and sand material combined with geotextile. There are no EU directives on the final cover. For the preliminary design a 50 mnu net infiltration per year through the cover has been assumed. This would require a multilayered top cover and establishment of vegetation. The vegetation should mainly comprise grasses and not trees and bushes, which may 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 since the top cover may require the space for the surface runoff ditches. The separation of the surface runoff requires a proper gradient of the slope as well as a sufficiently low permeability of the soil between the leachate and runoff ditches.

The greatest risk can be assumed for the site 'Skede" is a possible pounding of surface water in area, because the site is mainly located in an even ar-ca with small gradients of the ditches to be constructed. Thle followilng fcatUles muLlsthc incii(luedin thic desi ln of dra'lmna Control lac ItilCs: - collection and routing oi sturiaLcewvaicr of thelacnae'dfillsur-f'aIce in 111h shortest possibie distance. - selection of chainiel and drainage ways thiat will carryl water at adequate velocities to avoid deposition. - use of sufficient surface slopes to maximise the rcmovail of surfal-ce runoff and the same time minimise surface scour. - material specifications for the drainage features that allo-w repair and replacement as the landfill settles.

13.3 Control of landfill gas

Landfill gases must be controlled for as long as they are expected to be generated 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 long as extraction economically motivated. The material used in pipe manufacturing must be flexible, to withstand movement when the waste layer settles, and strong enough to withstand the loading of vehicles passing over the surface when maintaining landscape plants and the gas extraction and collection facilities.

13.4 Relocation of leachate drains and ditches

The ditches that function as open peripheral leachate ditches during the active phase of the landfill need to be reconstructed to collect the leachate as subsurface drains and the unpolluted surface runoff when the final cover has been applied should be diverted to new ditches outside of the leachate drains.

]Leachate treatment facilities are designed and built when the landfill first starts operations. The same facilities are used after closure until the leachate quality has reached acceptable levels.

13.5 Leachate control and monitoring

When the landfill is closed there are limited possibilities to have operational personnel at the site. Thus, the leachate treatment should aim at passive technology that not requires daily maintenance. Filter technology and gravity flow systems should be the first priority. Unfortunately, such systems are not expected to function at Skede and Grobina and regular inspection will be required. 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 grounIlldW.ter is required 30 yeaLrsafter closure according to the Regulation of thc Cabhinct oi Ministers "On Establishment. Management and Closure ol Sanitary Landfills" (1999). The monitoring prcogramme will be similar to the programme during the active phase, but withi longer intervals between sampling and fewer parameters to be analysed in order to keep costs reasonable.

Environmental monitoring facilities that are installed during landfill construction and operations will be used also after landfill closure. Functions of monitoring facilities are characterised in Table 13.2.

Table 13.2 Functions of monitoring facilities Functionsduring operation I Functions during closure Groundwatermonitorin ! wells Upgradient Water sampling at location to get Same functions as during operation i ~~~backgroundwater 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 lysimeters Lysimeters 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, complete correct 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 facilities Leachate 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 1Controi of impact on flora and fauna Same functions as during operation once every 3 years . control of function 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 onl the basis of criteria descrilbed in detalils in Chapter 10. All criterial havc becn classified 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 as objective as possible. The suitability of the area for a new waste treatment plant location has quantified by applying marks from 1 to 3. The highest mark indicates the highest value and 1 the lowest for each criteria. In the case of exclusive criteria, and if the impact can not be avoided or eliminated, the mark 0 has been applied. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 14.1.

Table 14.1 Evaluationof alternative sites Criteria Skede Poligons Environmental conditions (4 criteria) 6 12 Social and public health aspects (10 criteria) 18 22 Aspects of Economics (9 criteria) 25 18 TOTAL _ _ 52

The evaluation and comparison of the sites show that the site "Poligons" in Grobina parish is. more suitable for a location of a new waste treatment plant. Additionally, exclusionary criteria are not applicable to "Poligons", but two apply on the "Skede" site: 1. The biologicar diversity is very rich, and 15 rare plant species have been 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 from biogas abstraction. etc.). 2. Reduction of costs for the existing landfill remediation, if a new waste treatment plant will be built (common system for leachate collection and delivery to Liepaja WWTP, monitoring system, etc.).

Although the financial aspects favour Skede, the extra annual revenue required for selecting the Grobina site is estimated at 130 000 Ls only to get the same economical result. see Chapter 8. The tariff increase required to cover the extra costs are considered to be acceptable. 14-2

Conclusions

The curr--entstudy and clata analysis hndicatcs:

1. Two cxclusive criteria apply to the Skede. whicl lezids to thc conlcitision that the site cannot be recommnended for the new, waste trcatmelellntplant.

2. The Poligons site in Grobina pagasts is acceptable for the ncw waste treatment 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 the cultural heritage studies). It is obvious that investment costs required for a new waste treatment plant construction at this site will be higher than for Skede (see Chapter 8 and details in Feasibility Study). Nevertheless. from nature conditions. social and public health aspects the Poligons site is more favourable. Therefore it is recommend for a new waste treatment plant location.

3. The local governments only can make the decision on the location of the new waste treatment plant, i.e. the Liepaja City Council and the Grobina Parish Council. 15 References

1. Andrusaitis G. (ed.).iRed Book ol the Latvian SSR. Rig.a. I 985. Ill Latvian.

2. Biologically Rich Naltll-e Ohbjccisanld 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. US EPA publication 600/2-86/073. December. 1985.

4. Development and Application of Waste Technology. Thesys and papers presented

at 2 nd International BayFORREST conference. July 1-3, 1998, Germany.

5. Districts and cities of Latvia. Statistic Yearbook. State Statistic Committee of Latvia and Statistic Institute of Latvia. Riga, 1997. In Latvian.

6. Division into Districts of Small Rivers of Latvian SSR. State Hydrometeological and Environment Control Agency, Riga, 1987. In Russian.

7. Economic Development of Latvia. Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Latvia. Riga, 1998.

8. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. Volume I. Policies, Procedures, and Cross-sectorial Issues. The World Bank technical paper number 139, December, 1991.

9. European Community Environment Legislation Waste. Volume 6. European Commission, Directorate-General XI, Environment, Nuclear safety and Civil protection. Brussels, 1996.

10. Explanatory Note 'to Geological Maps of Latvia. Sheet 31 - Liepaja. State Geological Survey of Latvia, Riga, 1997. In Latvian.

11. Feasibility Study and Prelirminary design of Remediation and Continued Operation of the Getlini Disposal Site, Latvia. SWECO in association with Geo Consultants Ltd. and SKAFAB, 1997.

12. Feasibility Study, Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment of Sustainable 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 of Sustainable Solid Waste Management for Liepaja City and Liepaja Region. Draft Report. 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. ScCaic 1:200 000. State Geolo6ical SuLIVeyol Luavia. Riga. 1998.

16. Geological Map of Lalvia. Sheet 31 - LiepLaja.Quaternary deposits. Scale 1:200 000. State Geological Survey ol Laivia. Ricaa, 1998.

17. George Tchobanoolous. Hilary Theisen. Samuel Vigil. InteLnzaiedSolid Waste Management. Engineering Principles aind Management Issues. Singapore. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

18. Groundwater Abstraction and Monitoring in Latvia. State Company "Latvijas geologija", 1995. In Latvian.

19. Groundwater Protection strategy. Approved by I.Emsis. State Minister for Environmental Protection. Riga. January, 1998.

20. Groundwater resources of Latvia. State Geological Survey of Latvia, 1998. In Latvian.

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 site of 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 Latvia in October 1 4 h, 1998.

27. Law "On Environmental Protection". Passed in the Parliament of Latvia in August 6 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 FeblrLaly5 l", 1997. I s .3

32. Law 'On Self-governments". Passed in thc 1'arliamlentof LaMViajn JUnCe8''. 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 1989.

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 in association with Geo Consultants Ltd.. 1997.

37. Occupational Safety anid Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities. 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 "General Regulations on Construction". Riga, April 1st. 1997

46. Regulation no 210 of the Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Latvia 'On Application of Provisions of the Law "On Natural Resources Tax". Ri-a. June 2 0 1996.

47. Regulation no 194 of the Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Latvia "Regulations for territorial planning". Riga, September 6 "', 1996. 15-4

48. Report on waste amouLntsand landfills in Liepaja Districl. (,eo Consultantl1s. I 998. In Latvian.

49. Ross Singleton. Pamela Castle anld David Short. Environmcntal Assessmenit. BrTcit Britain, MPG Books Ltd., Bodmin. Cornwall. 1999.

50. Special Economic Zone. Liepaja. Latvia. Presentation lor Investors. Liepaaja City Council, 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). Geo Consultants, 1998.

53. Towns and Civil Parishes in the Administrative Districts of Latvia. A collection of statistical data. Part 1. Central statistical bureau of Latvia and Latvian statistical institute. Riga, 1998.

54. The Encyclopedia of Latvia's Nature. Volume 1 -5. Riga, printing house "Latvijas enciklopedija", 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 for Latvia. Riga.

59. CORINE Biotopes Database. 1997. Riga.

60. Fatare I. 1992. Analysis of distribution of components of Latvian flora and its role in 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 Landfill Site in Liepaja Region.

These Terms of Reference is issued according to the Law an Envir onmenta} Impact .Assessment concerning new municipal solid waste! landfill for Liepaja region.

During preparation of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) all relevant Latvian iegislative requirements including ratified conventions should be followed.

Environmental Impact Statement should contain further mentioned issues and it has to be submitted to the State Enviironmental Impact Assessment BureauL

Introduction.

Project aim, tasks and quintessence. connections with other environmental protection activities in the region.

1. Amialysis of relevant environmental legislation demands related to proposed activitv.

2-Characterization of proposed landfill sites.

2. 1. Compliance with physical planning demands, land owncrship aid necessary land transformaion or compcensation issues.

2.2. Siting of the ncw landfill, charactcrztion of necessary territory and its surroundinngs, existing and previous land use,

,,.--c- .q- 1 ,_. _-,9- . n-c t _ 1 ___1Q 2.3 Existing acc-ss roads , necessanitv for niw access roads or rmprovcmert 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 and proposals 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-dingpatterns 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 km area,

2.13. Protected zones, possible restictions for landfill site im pmposed te-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 operation time.

3.3. Types of waste to be landfled.

3.4. Technology of waste collection, registration, filling, compacting and covering.

AR-C_-1aQG io: _8 +_r 1 _-1048: - -4; cc Necssaryc5 coverI materlal(-s), amount and extracting places

6 Filling svstem and dailY operation cycle

7- mount and pollution of infiltrate and surface runoff. proposed technical solution for t-eatment on the site! transportation to the wastewater trearnent plant.

. 8. Fencmngof 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 and necessary 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 and treatmenton the site or transporting to the nearest wastewater treatment plant 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 increasing noisc 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 to strengthening 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 pcrsh az1d region).

7 Technical and organizing measures to diminish or avoid possible im 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 the sourco or 1n landfilL recirculation of infiitrate, reatment on the ssIe or tansporing to the wastewarer reatment plant, different Liners and coverng matenais, collection and utilizarion of bioeas etc.

8.3. Comparision of alternatives using quantified cMteria where applicabic.

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. . Mvonitoringand handling requirementu during operation and ;%fter ciosure of landfilL

4 I Nec-ssarv wastewater collection, treatinent and dramage measures. nez:ssarv surrace water and oundwater monitonng.

9.2. Usefulness of biogas collection and utilization, necessary precaurional and controlling measuLres in that rcspect takina into account investigations in other inndfUllsin 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 of project

12. information about public hearings and changes made in Environmiental Impact Statement ( this point should oe reflected in Final Environmental Impact Statement).

Appendix 2

REFERENCE FROM THE STATE HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL AGENCY

\WINI) R(3SEIN I'I'ltCIlN'I'S!(1,otiiilolniI iitiiii)crl Iol)scr';hilioiis xvill Mjidy days) 01 I)AYS Wll'I(')IJ'OTWINI) (Froml lol;l Imibroilwr olkscr'alic0is) 1'11CENT'AGE LiIEPA.JA

______1989 Dill 110 sW WSW w wNw riw i lW di_ec wind I.I Nil' E NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW 3 10 10 40 16 8 6 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 9 6 17 30 5 1 2 0 I.I I 0 0 0 1 4 6 7 11 10 9 10 16 5 1 3 0 3 III 1 1 5 2 5 7 21 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 0 2 IV 7 6 ll 9 14 10 14 2 5 8 10 13 11 12 3 4 6 0 V 12 6 4 1 3 1 3 3 I 5 7 9 5 6 5 3 8 0 VI 19 11 7 2 3 2 5 3 4 8 12 7 7 7 7 9 0 6 VIl 9 9 2 3 6 3 3 4 3 7 6 11 12 17 5 5 3 0 Vill 3 8 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 8 3 7 12 9 6 2 4 0 IX 13 9 3 2 6 6 6 4 9 9 12 7 5 2 0 2 10 2 1 4 5 5 9 4 11 5 X 0 6 3 4 3 4 6 10 3 0 Xl 7 6 5 2 3 5 12 21 3 18 6 6 3 12 7 7 5 0 XlI 5 2 5. 3 7 7 3 4

1990

|t1IW direc |vind SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WOIW |4W _it lIIIIE NE ENE E ESE 2 13 7 8 16 26 4 2 2 0 I 2 0 2 3 2 1 3 9 13 17 14 14 3 5 0 0 4 II 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 9 21 8 10 18 27 5 5 8 0 1 4 2 I 0 4 2 0 I 5 III 3 9 11 14 1 6 1 3 2 0 IV 6 1 3 7 13 6 5 2 5 12 10 15 5 5 7 0 4 9 8 6 1 4 3 3 2 5 V 3 7 4 1 1 6 10 4 9 t0 0 VI 8 3 6 4 7 5 4 2 6 2 5 12 11 20 6 12 11 0 VIl 7 4 2 2 2 2 _ I 6 7 7 14 14 5 5 9 0 3 Vill 8 1 2 1 3 3 8 7 0 5 4 17 3 5 3 0 4 IX 9 10 10 3 7 4 5 10 5 2 4 5 17 6 4 1 0 3 X 4 5 2 2 7 6 16 12 7 3 8 6 19 4 6 4 0 3 YI 5 5 6 2 5 9 6 6 6 2 14 5 6 8 10 I *2 2 0 xii 5 3 5 2 9 7 7 14 mbur olIflMuoAbsulvilliols Nvil wiid %YNDR(OSE INI'l IWIRC N' IS (Vtiom lt nu1 (Vloll) foIl,l IIIImI)cr1 (ib)JscrvoIioI)S I'[R(INTAGIE (OF D)AYS WITIV101T WIND)

w W1IW liV' I it t dierec wind SE SSE S SSW SW WvsWv II il'IE lIE E EE E EE

6 4 0 3 t0 6 9 4 I 6 l 9 9 14 III 1 4 2 3 3

4 227 9 8 5 0 3 6 36I 9 IVI 7 3t 12 6 '

8 804 1 4 9 20 7 2 1 *2 2 XII 9 5 4 1 5 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~illb 3 7 9 22 9 6 Vill 5 46 3 3 6 1 0 7 i6 29 7 II 90 3 4 2 3 0 I I 2 2 0 0 4 3I 13 6 7 -2 7to1 12 43 6 26 II 10 2 9 6 3 8 12 71 16 6 1 4 3` 91 xi 1 0 31 4 0 14 9 7 9 2 2 2 a 5 V 12 9 7

e 17 9 II10 t 4 2i0 2S 4 IiwI SWS6WW IE fll ENE2 2 - 1 0 4 V t 7 16 29'lI 7 1 11 72 3 10 0 -~ ~ ~2 2 VIII -1 7 3 4 8 0 74 6 4 7 8 2 12 6 107 0 III IS 4 5 6 2 4 6 i 6 5 9 3 12 IV 8 3 7 9 14 0 0 3 6 7 6 6 6 7 I2 14 I 7 Xl 4 2i I 14 2

6i 12 1 3 5 3 ~~~~~9- 13 U6 ~~3 a 711 3 6 2 6 6 ~~ ~~ obscivaIionis \0 IlII I\ ild) \VI ND ROSE I N PI At(CF 1ITS (From IotalmIlimlberol Id mmmmlnjmI aII) ibsc Iva(i illgs I 11- ETG O1F I )A \'S WVIIIHOU1T\V' 1'1 O-(Fnit Ila

_ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~1993______w wolw olw 111W direc wind ESE SE_ SSE s SSW SW WSW II filuE IIE ENIE E 3 0 0 6 10 5 7 8 29 10 10 1 I 0 0 4 1 5 585 0 2 3 5 *5 3 8 8 1I 6 6 7 3 6 4 8 7 18 7 2 2 0 7 7 2 2 7 7 5 III 2 6 11 5 0 1 4 5 5 5 3- 5 3 2- 7 10 13 13 II 5 4 IV- 3 2 5 0 2 10 4 5 3 4 5 9 V 5 5 7 8 17 a ~ 7 22 6 7 8 0 3 3 1 1 2 5 6 13- VI -8 5 3 0 2 3 12 1'l 17 12 7 7 1 1 4 2 5 el 6 VII 3 2 3 03 8 3 4 8 29 12 6 3 0 2 3 3 5 7 ViIl 4 3 2 02 6 3 1 2 3 5 3 4 II1 13 16 19 5 4 IX 3 3 6 0 I1I II1 7 4 2 8 13 X 6 2 3 8 3 10 0 0 0 0 1 20 20 3 0 0 0 3 xi i 0 3 5 25 20 4 2 2 0 2 9 20 14 1 8 7 5 12 XII 2 2 1 2 8 2

______~~~~~1994 ______Diff [lo WSW W WI-l 11fW 1111W dlitec wjind E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW HHubE IIE EOIE 0 2 5 8 I12 13 6 5 5 1 I 9 7 10- 9 7 2 0 -0 2 I 1 8 0 2 3 5 II1 35 15 9 'I 2 ll 2 2 2 0 2 10 13- 9 Ii1 21 3 2 2 2 3 4 5 I 7 III 5 3 4 8 0 I 4 5 4 10 9 6 8 IV 4 2 6 5 I16 6 3* 5 3 5 4 8I 12 7 3 3 1 2 V 14 11 12 0 1 5 16 16 26 9 7 5 0 0 0 0 2 3 7 VI 4 0 9 0 1 I 4 2 9 9 10 I11 5 5 7 3 3 2 VII 19 5 5 0 4 2 5 3 6 5 12 5 I11 5 8 6 10 7 5 Vill 4 3 0 0 3 8 4 4 7 II1 15 13 IX I I 4 5 16 4 9 lb1 7 5 2 02 6 8 18 5 3 - II X 3 4 2 I 5 2 J 2 6 18 5 7 3 1 0 3 5 6 3 11- 8 2 xi 8 7 6 01 :27 13 6 8 10 9 8 2 XII 2 2 ~~ ~~2-0 2EI oI obsem~ilions 10ilwld WVIND)ROSIi7 IN PITC~(ENIS (Flom, totalI iuaiii1her obscrval ions) (F D)AYS WITIHOUTWI'\INID (Fiom total miimber of PECNTG LILKPA.JA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~1995 ______11W111W dlirec wind S SSW SW WSW W WIIW i IIE EIIEI E ESE SE SSE II hulE 02 2 0 2 12 2 7 10 8 5 7 4 7 3 2 4 '1 1I I 19 25 5 4 20 0i 0 4 12 IS 12 II 2 0 0 0 0 2 7 8 5 5 20 3 0 4 t0 I I 5 10 16 III 6 4 4 7 0 2 a 8 4 2 7 9 5 6 5 9 9 6 3 5 IV 7 3 6 6 0 6 .4 7 7 7 8 9 7 5 3 9 3 3 V 13 7 8 5 0 8 4 5 5 3 8 9 10 I1I 9 5 2 5 4 VI 11 7 4 3 0 2 S 5 3 2 7 13 13 ViI 4 4 r6 6 7 9 3 3 8 0 5 2 3 3 11 3 12 6 ViII I 1 9 8 7 2 8 2 2 4 0 2 1 1 8 2 7 3 7 6 IX 2 2 6 10 20 41 13 1i 14 8 5 6 0 I 1 2 4 10 14 6 X 4 1 0 1 0 3 12 5 6 7 11 5 7 5 10 6 6 3 3 9 xi 4 8 63 0 4 6 12 10 0 2 2 9 XII 5 3 5 3 15 11

_ _ ~~~~~1996______I ~~~~~oifflie vwind SW WSW W WO,W 11W IIIIW direc. ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW ____ 3 rJrIE NlE 0 2 0 1 4 3 1 3 20 21 1i 10 4 0 2 2 7 11 0 2 4 4 3 6 3 13 11 9. 13 4 3 II 6 7 5 7 0 6 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 9 8 22 1s 9 6 4 III 4 6 3 0 '1 4 13 8 7 2 3 115 9 8 2 4 7 9 IV 3 3 4 2 0 2 2 8 5 11 4 10 2 3 4 12 22 3 5 V 3 6 3 10 0 3 3 3 8 9 16 9 16 8 2 2 2 1 2 VI 1 3 5 0 3 1 8 5 16 22 11 7 3 5 3 4 2 4 VII 2 4 5 0 1 5 3 2 2 1 8 3 4 4 9 16 16 14 ViII 3 3 5 0 3 3 4 7 1 2 0 2 9 16 17 9 12 7 ix 2 2 4 5 0 2 9 6 10 Is 12 12 2 X I11 3 1 2 4 7 5 1 0 0- 0 4 13 12 8 9 13 2 I 3 3 11 8 J XI 6 2 II 3 0 2 6 18 14 2_ 1 1 3 XII 1 I ~~ ~~4 ~~85 5

4 \\ill\inijld) WIND ROSE IN PFIRCE3NTS (Frooii lolal nuimber or ubsurvalioils loibuI miuuiucrol obscrvaliboils) PEIRCENTAGE3OF D)AYS W ITl IOUl' WI NI) (From

______~~1997 Difi rio w WI4W1 rw noW direc vwind SE SSE S SsW SW _WSW w lINE NIE ENE E ESE 6 0 6 6 a 7 22 9 7 0 1 2 3 6 6 I 12 2 3 6 3 0 0 4 10 17 15 16 6 3 1 a 0 2 5 II 6 4 4 5 9 0 2- 2 41 11 13 11 4 5 7 2 0 1 1 Ill 24 9 13 4 6 5 0 0 3 2 3 10 8 19 13 3 1 I 0 1 IV 9 6 7 5 3 3 5 4 5 1 5 6 V 13 13 8 7 7 0 3 3 a 9 9 3 6 4 I17 6. 5 3 2 VI 7 4 7 3 2 4 0 4 3 4 3 4 8 6 11 12 12 10 3 5 6 VII 10 2 6 2 8 9 0 11 6 3 7 3 4 VillI 7 4 7 6 15 0 0 5 3 20 19 8 8 10 1 4 4- 3 4 5 IX I 10 5 1 I I 13 0 1 5 2 3 6 9 12 8 3 5 6 3 5 4 X 6 4 3 1 1 0 2 14 9 3 0 2 5 6 6 8 13 11 13 1 xi 5 2 4 3 I 0 0 15 15 16 17 2 4 xii 1 2 3 4 11

______1998 ______Nlo IIIJE IIE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dill NiW 1111W direc Yind SSE S SSW SW WSW W WN4W flJE N ENIE E ESE SE Ii 7 14 3 3 3 0 2 2 6 9 17 7 9 I 5 5 5 3 2 4 0 0 7 8 21 26 6 1 1 1 0 0 6 5 II 7 6 1 4 5 3 0 3 6 10 5 4 8 10 6 S 6 6 4 5 Ill 9 3 3 4 2 2 4 0 14 11 '11 7 6 4 IV 7 5 8 9 0 2 8 10 7 6 5 10 7 4 3 4 2 2 2 V 11 9 10 3 6 3 0 2 4 6 9 20 II 10 3 2 2 6 3 2 3 VI to 24 26 3 5 5 0- 1 I 3 2 4 15 VII 5 1 0 3 2 4 6 0 0 5 3' 8 II 27 9 3 4 3 0 4 3- VilI 6 4 1 0 4 0 3 9 9 4 4 5 7 3 6 9 14 8 15 IX 2 16 21 6 2 1 0 -0 4 2 4 6 6 10 1 x o 1 4 8 9 0 2 2 2 2 0 15 22 117 8 1 1 xiI 1 I 6 5 IS 16 3 0 3 0 3 5 6 10 12 5 9 1 XII 1 4 7 3 3 2 (MI/SIC) F)R)1 7PE~\VN))1II(l( A\'FIRA(jf7 WIND) SPITED IIFP I\IMONTH

______1989.0 1111W SW WSW W Wi-jw 1W E:SE SE- SSE S SSW ri. NifE tIE EIIE E 6.5 61I 64 ______4.3 5A 6.2 59 6.8 3.4 1.5 48 ___ 4.8 8.3 7.7 60 7 7 50 50 517 6,9 76 1.0 2.5 .14 8 0 II 7.5 6.9- 8 4 5.5 3 8 3 7 -30 3.2 3.4 4.8 5.6 5.3 2.0 2.5 1.3 2.11 2 6 3 4 40_ III 24 3,3 5 0 4.1 33 3.8 4.2 43 53 4 8 IV 4.3 5-2 3.7 3 0 .31 3 1 3 4 2.7 4.0 4 6 4 2 1.5 1I4 2 0 21 2.6 V 4 1 4.1 3.9 3 2 3.1. 40 2.7 3.1 308 4 9 3 1 3 0 2.2 :38 2 5 2.8 VI 4~3 3.5 3.3 4.5 3 5 3 8 4 6 3 7 3.3 2.4 3.3 4.7 4 3 2.9 16 2.9 2.2 1.8 VII 3 8 5 5 5 6 5 5 4 9 3 0 2,6 2.0 3 5 4 6 5 3 3.2 2.7 3.2 2 7 2.7 ViII 4 9 4 3 3 3 3 2 4,0 3 0 2.3 2.6 3.6 34 4 7 3.3 3.4 1.5 2.0 2.1 4 0 IX 4.1 6.2 5 8 6 0 4 3 3,9 3,11 2.8 3.9 4 9 4.2 8 3.2 4.0 4.0 3.7 4 4 4 5 X 4 6.9 5 7 7.3 4 9 3 5 37 2.8 3.9 3~6 3.5 xi 4 7 4 3 3.4 3.4 5 1 5 7 5.0 6.7 9.3 6 2 4 8 3.1 3.4 I3.1 2.4 ,5.0 XII , 7.7 3.7 2.8 3.3

______~~~~~1990.0__ 1111W SW WSW W WI-IW 11W ESE SE SSE S SSW II lIlJIE IJE ENIE E 5 6 5.5 4 0 4.9 6.7 7.8 9.5 7.3 2.1 2.3 1.7 3.4 43 I 2 8 2.3 7 0 55 5 2 4 0 4.2 5.3 6.1 7.3 8.6 _ 2.0 2.0 4.0 II 3 0 _ 86 8.0 6.0 6 3 7 0 2.0 4.0 2.8 6.8 6.8 3.0 2.0 2.7 2.5 4 3 III 5 2 4.5 4.3 5,2 4.7 5 0 2 7 . 3.0 3.6 4.8 2.8 2,6 3.3 3.4 2.2 IV 5 0 4 3 4 0 3 8 2 7 3 5 4 0 2.4 2.0 1.6 4 0 37 3.2 2.7 4 0 4.6 4.7 3 6 3 9 V 4 2 2 6 3,2 2 9 3.2 4 0 3.4 3L4 2.4 2.8 34 VI 3 6 2.6 2.4 2.9 4 5 4 3 45 3.7 45 4.4 3 7 2.6 3.3 1.3 2.5 25 VII 3 7 2.4 3.3 2.2 3 7 308 5 0 2.5 4 5 3.6 4.2 3.7 2.0 1.8 2.0 11.5 1.9 Vill 3 3 1.3 2.8 6.4 3 8 4 8 47 2 8 4.2 4.0 46 6.6 3.8 3.4- 3.2 2.5 3.5 Ix 3 4 3 4 9.7 7.1 4 4 3 7 3 7 4.4 2.6 2.6 3.8 6.2 4.6 3.5 3,0 2.3 3.5 3 8 4 6 X 5 6 49 5 9 5 6 6.2 3 6 3,3 3,9 2.1 3.2 3A xi 4 2 4 0 3.0 2.4 40 3 7 6.4 7.6. 7.6 1 7 2 8.9 2.3 2.9 3.0 2. 4 xi, 4 5 3.7 2.5

6 1..11Il' I -II, I I'./ ,,0 M H II llI t ______AV_RAG_W____1_ __

xI, s *sW SW%r Nsk'' Wv WI It 3 NINE 1NE EliIE E ESE SE "a,13L. ______I' 31 4 4 20 :30 'I i 5 7 1. 8.?7 6.5 I 4 3 4 7 4.5 30 3.6 1.0 25: 9* 3 1 3) 'I I b 4 53:1 SO4 II 50a 3.9 4 7 3 8 4 2 4.3 3.53 2 9 2 U 35 23 :3.9 40 363 9 .313 3. Ill 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 2. 30 2:3 35 53 31 33 6 IV 4 6 4.1 4 3 3,6 3 4 2.9 2 f 2 7 37 210 2.9 50:1 55.0 SI1 43 V 4 4 3 2 3 9 3.1 3 4 3 0 3.3' 2 6 :37 P9 6 1 5I0 4 1 3.3 VI 40 1.0 4 6 3.7 3 0 3.7 33 2E 2 3 21 3 0 :35 413 .34 VII 2.7 2.8 2.6 2 6 2 3 2.8 4 1 20 2:3 9 1(1 :ss 41 50 Vill 28 J 2.1 J 1.5 1 8 2.11 1.3 4 4 4 7 29 34 46 3.5 5.15 58a 5 4 IX 2 3 4.4 4.0 2.5 3.0 2 6 31E. 2,2 30 'II 10 55.! 6.4 6 1 x 5 0 3.1 2.4 2 5 2.1 2.4 41,I 566 53.5 536 59 45C. 4 0 40 2.0 4 1 4.0 1 0 2 3 xi 19 5, IC,(H I5. 7.4 7 4 e f. II I 5.1 3.9 37 2.5 33 30 2.2

19!12.0

Wr WI\fN I I'\ -- II E ESfE Si: I,3 . S SSW BVj 'A XSW ______I I lfE lIE ElfIE 4' I S 113 2. 5.13 - 81 7 1 I 5 8 7.0 1.8 I 3 1.0 22 75.( 2.7 25 3 13 .9 .1: 5.3 4.3 II 6 0 2.5 4.2 2.3 3.0 3.4 E Cl - 1 2 0 31 53(3 !53.1 7 4 Ill 4 6 3.3 3 5 .45 2 9 3.0 .16 :3. - 313 4 . 91 8 4 2 5 5 3 0 1.3 1.15 4 5 5.5 3.3 3 2 2 3 5 51,2 5.2 5.1 3 6 L.- V 4 0 2 0 2 6 2 9 2J7 2.3 4 3 24 . 3 2.7 1.9 .:sa i3.0 :?, VI 34 2 9 2.5 3 5 2.6 2 4 1 3 .1 40 3. 5 0 'l I! - 22 1.6 2.3 1.8 1.5 L.8 20 VII 38 21C 2.3 2 3 24 ' I9 4 a 52 5 2 4 I10 30 2.7 20 2.3 Vill 4 .3r 2.6 3 .4 3.A .11 5.13 3.8 -1I3 IX 4 1 2.4 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.1 6b4 f 2.5 1.8 2 9 3J.0 63 .jd1 78 X 3 7 3 6 __1.7 2.3 3.0 3 4 4' '94 (38 0i13 8 5 'I 4 I 5 7 4 3 2.5 1 0 3 0 2.5 3 5 3:'1 36... 4 II 22 3.5 1.6 1.5 19.39 A\'ERAGE WINI SIEIJ IPRtvION'I I (N1/SEIC)FOR DIFLI[UN MNI) OIIJDIRE-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 10 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 I FOR D)IFFFRISNTWIiND DIRECTIOUNS AVERAGE WIND SPTEDI PUR MONTI (MIOSEC) LIEP'AJA

______~~1995.0 ______1 WSW W WNlW 11W I it SE SSE S SSW SW f1INE NiE E1NE E ESE 6 0 4 3 5 3 ___ II 4,9 5 1 6 5 4.6 5 4 2 0 2.1 2 1 4 5 3.7 4 0 4 4 4.0 5 8 5 1 4 6 5 2 3.5 5,9 6.1 5.6 5 6 5 0 7.0 ____5.0 6.2 4 9 4 8 II 3,5 5 0 5 8 7.6 6.1 1.6 1.0 2.2 40 4 4 III 4 4 3.0 2.7 4.6 5.0 4 5 5 0 368 2.8 2.6 3 9 5 0 4.0 2 4.0 3.6 2.7 3.1 3 3 IV 4 3 4 4.0 35 3.1 6.1 2.6 2.0 1.9 2.8 3.A 5.4 3.2 2.5 2.3 3 3 3.6 2 3 2 9 V 3 4 3.4 4.5 2 9 2 9 2.3 2 0 1.7 22 1.4 VI 3 8 3 3 2.1 18 3 1 1 9 2 6 2 5 3 0 3 9 4.0 3 5 3 0 2.3 2.7 2.7 1.9 VII 3,1 2.6 2.3 2 9 18 2 6 2 5 16 1.6 2 8 3 3 3.2 3.4 2.1 2.4 1.5 2.3 2 3 Vill 3.2 2.9 9 6.6 4 8 2.0 2.3 3.2 4 0 3.7 4.0 4 1.8 2.0 3.1 3 2 1 tx 1.2 2 4 4.3 5.7 5 3 4 0 4 1.0 1.9 3.0 3 6 3 7 2.3 1.5 1.0 1.2 5 0 X 4.7 5.0 5 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 2 3 2.1 2,7 3.3 5 8 36L 2.1- 2.3 2.5 2.7 3 6 35 3 3 xi 2.0 3 8 60 40 r3.2 2.4 i2.1 1 9 XII 3 4 2.7 2.5 1 30

______~~~~1996.0

WSW W WI iw 11w 1111w SE SSE S SSW SW liE ENIE E ESE 2 5 2 0 2 0 ______II1 tIfIE 1.0 2.3 3.0 2.1 2.5 2 9 3.A 3.8 I 1.7 2.2 1.8 1. 44 3 7 2 9 3 5 2.6 2.3 2.1 5 0 64 2.8 4.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2 6 II 3.7 3.1 3 3 15 20 2 3 2 5 3.1 2.4 2 3 2.7 3 9 2 3 2 3 1 7 1.9 2.5 3 0 4 3 4 1 III 2.4 3 6 2.8 2 9 2 4 2.7 2.7 1.8 1 4 1.5 IV 3 0 3 8 2.6 2.5 2 2 2 5 268 2.0 2 5 4 1 5.3 41 2.8 30 29 1.8 2 V 2 0 1.7 2.8 3 7 2 9 2 9 2 4 2 1.8 2.1 2 8 3 5 3 9 2 0 1.3 2.4 3.0 2.3 2 8 3 2 VI 3 2 5 9 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 0 2.4 1.3 2.9 4 3 3.7 ViI 3 6 2.6 2.4 2.3 1 8 1 7 2 3 2.9 2 6 3 8 2 0 3 8 8 2.2 2.7 2 9 2.6 Vill 2 1 1 4 1.8 1 2 8 2 3 2 6 4.1 5.3 5 2 1.0 1 3 2 2.4 1.7 1.8 2.8 IX 3 5 3 3 3.6 2 3 0 4 6 2 9 3 0 2.1 2.7 3 7 3 1 3 0 1 3 1.8 1 7 3.2 2,2 7 0 x 2 5 1 6 6 9 7.4 6.4 5 8 5 0 2.6 2.7 13.3 3.7 7 1 5 2 5 2 9 2.0 1.7 5 2 4 4 xi 1 4.8 5 6 5 5 5 3 5 3 1.8 2.3 19 28 2.7 XII 5 3 3 7 3.1 2.4

9 [DIFFE3IdLNT\VINDJ DIRE3CTIONS AVEIRAGEWIND -SPEED iPERMONTIII (M/SEiC) FOR

I'AJ 1997.0 1111W SW WSW W WIW 11lW ESE SE SSE S SSW ti NINE NE ENE E 4.7 3.6 2,9 4 5 1.2 2.9 3.6 49 5.2 2.0 2.0 18 1.3 I 468 2.8 5.7 7.5 4.7 5 2 3 7 5.3 4.5 6.9 7.3 5.2 5.4 5.0 4.8 1.51. 2,9 4.4 II 4 9 4 3 4.9 5.5 3 8 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.5 4.1 II 4.0 3.4 2.2 1.4 3,6 3 2 5.3 5 9 4.9 -35 1.3 1.4 3.5 47 3 6 4.0 __3 ______3.4 2,8 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.3 2 9 4 0 4.3 3.4 3.2 2.4 28 2.3 2,9 V 2.9 ~~~~3.7 3 4 3.4 2.9 2.1 24 23 21 2.0 16 2.7 2.1 2 2.9 2.8 1.8 22 3.3 VI 3.7 44 4.2 1.7 2.3 2.9 29 2.1 IS 1 3 VI 3.7 2 2.3 2 0 2 2 21 2 5 1.9 4.0 3.1 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.8 16 1.9 1.2 Vill 2. 2. 1.7 5.9 5.9 4 7 4.2 1.9 2.5 4.6 5.0 5.8 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 4 1 IX 34 3 4 8 3.7 4.1 4 0 4 4 1.8 2.5 11.4 2.5 2,6 25 1.8 2.3 1.9 11.1 3 0 3 0 X 3.4 6 0 2.5 8.2 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.9 2.2 XI 22 2.5 2.5 2.1 4.5 4 8 4 6 2 6 3 3 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.8 40 1 5 2.3 1.6 1.8 2.5

______~~~~1998.0 tJW 1111W SSW SW WSW W WIJW E ESE SE SSE 5 II IJUE UI1E EE 4.8 3.4 3 9 3 9 2.5 3.4 3.8 41 6.1 2.5 '1.5 1.6 1.8 2.5 I 5 8 3.0 5 9 6.1 4 2 2.0 4 8 5.0 3 4 3.1 4 8 4.5 45 2535 1.0 1.0 3 7 II 3 9 4.6 4.1 5.2 ~40 25 1.6 2.2 1.9 2.5 4.5 4 1 2.9 1.8 2.1 1.9 1 8 2 7 III 3.2 2.9 37 22 2.2 2.8 3.9 3.4 3.0 3.1 IV 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.0 17 3 1 4 4 1.6 2.7 3.8 3 3 3.4 1 8 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.4 V 4 1 27 2.4 28 2 6 2 5 256 1.7 2.9 4 8 4 3 3 1 2.8 2.0 2.6 3.0 2.2 VI 27 3.3 4.1 4.3 2 8 2 9 3 4 1.7 2.3 2.6 3.7 3 9 2 0 2.1 2.8 1.0 3 VII 3.3 1.0 43 4.1 5.3 35 38 2.3 3.0 2.2 2.6 3.7 44 Vill 3.5 2.4 2.1 2.3 4 0 3 0 2 4 3.7 3 1 4.3 3.3 2 9 3.7 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.9 ix 4.0 1 8 1.6 6.4 6 3 s0 4 0 4.1 5.1 7.1 6.5 6.9 1.8 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.6 X 1.0 5 0 3 8 5 2 5 5 4 0 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.0 4.0 3 0 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.5 69 xi 1.7 6.4 5,6 59 62 34 1.8 2.1 2.4 . . XII 4 3 2,3 1. 6 MONII-ILY PRECIPITATION,in mm LIEPAiA Max' VIl Vill IX X Xi XII I . I III IV V VI 102 79 73 102 35 7 34 78 100 34 1989 18 42 50 126 65 137 25 78 109 46 137 128. 1990 65 62 33 12 123 53 80 72 123 82 47 24 65 76 2 1991 54 40 134 65 96 71 134 51 55 65 25 14 78 1992 56 63 172 172 60 50 15 97 52 24 6 81 48 1993 80 54 82 82 75 79 52 68 81 55 24 37 3 1994 69 27 27 110 56 41 74 34 68 _5 51 41 47 110 1995 64 60 107 52 18 32 49 83 14 45 10 12 107 15 1996- 52 47 192 45 12 23 69 192 24 42 23 49 68 1997 122 65 43 122 25 47 62 107 46 1998 62 49 43 35 134 97 192 110 109 172 137 192 Max* 80 63 81 65 107

MAXIMAL DAILY PRECIPITATION,in mm LIEPAJA Xi XII Max' V VI VIl Vill IX X I__ _ III IV 16 17 17 18 31 10 9 3 9 19 31 1989 4 9 34 22 14 32 34 13 17 17 12 10 4 12 26 1990 18 15 21 21 21 20 10 16 21 2 14 1991 17 11 14 17 27 5 11 27 11 15 13 1992 11 9 14 15 22 19 5 12 31 10 11 1 1I 10 31 1993 9 19 35 3 35 16 11 14 13 11 10 12 17 8 11 1994 12 5 26 11 26 17 24 16 8 1995 Il 9 8 10 5 21 8 18 16 22 10 4 8 21 4 22 1996 9 8 27 15 6 17 19 20 10 1997 7 9 8 14 27 22 13 23 18 13 29 16 13 15 5 12 29 1998 e 35 29 35 32 34 21 21 Max* 17 19 20 17 27 26

Nlax* iaximial vaioc or lic ctirrcill ycar 1989-1998 ta.x** nia\inuul valtie of each iionlli dturingligc liiic period

II~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix 3

QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR DATA COLLECTION

Aplitfidix3

'WECO. GEO CONSULTANTS datc

Questionary on Solid Household Wvaste Mlanaaement in ...... the parish

1. GENERAL INFORMATION IIDistric: Parish. town I ' ourneroatnoulation 'Number of landfill *operatine closed N,umber of inhabitanTs serviced by the c_entralisedsvstem

Please. make above mentioned questions everv separatelv from 2 to 6 chapter

2. GENERALE INFORMLATION ABOUT LAtNDFILL

Nam e of a landfill ______Does permission for a landfill operation has been issued bv the Environmental _IHealth Center ( wvhenand wvhere) Manadincs organisation: telephone, Iaddres's Year of a start of the operation and-T year of the closure ( scheduled year of closure. if landfill coerates) Does operation of a landfill is controlled if receivine area exist. its oneration time) I !Number of empiovers at the landfill inumber of duties, for example, Guard,, _bulldozer etc.) Source covering operational costs (municiDalirv.use of a landfill is free. etc.) Location (where. distance to the nearest settlement) Landscape (field, quarry on the bank of a river or lake or other) Distance from the nearest dwelling house 3. LANDFILL LOCATION SCHENIE

Set Appendix

Notes: 1. To indicate scale 2. ht be on single pa_e

4. TEHYICAL CONDITIONS OF A LANDFILL

Area. ha ___ $1Thickness of the waste layer. m Waste compaction ( if occurs - used techniques) I Infrastructure ( if ves - what it includes) 1 Local power supply, water supply.| If telecommunication. swage svstem Access (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 by veaetation)

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 COMPOSITION Wastetypes: FPlease indicate the total waste voitlilue kil m l) aLd vwastecoitnposilioni in " or instanice - solid household waSte - 20 m50O. of total and soon) iTotal waste volume m'}vear: 1. Household: - Solid household - L-iquidhousehold A- Sludee - Parklesarden waste W-aste from streets sweerinu. | other_(please specify) I NIon- hazardous industrial waste I frommetal processing _ - from Uimberworks (also sawdust) - from textile industrv - from food industrv - Slud2e from local industrial wastewater urification other (please sDecifv) Hazardous industrial waste ( piease

Demoiition waste L Hospital waste WasteW. from early military areas (please ;inDecifv) . Agriculture waste: Animals burrin2s other (please stpecifv) 'Waste disposal scheme (all waste disposed in one pile. waste are separated. lhazardous waste is seoarated etc.) Location of waste suppliers (please. indicate parishes and towns utilising a landfill) _ __isin_ _a

Enterprises - larger waste suppliers .. (name and waste volume)

______5-4______; 6.STUTDYOF POLUTIONS AND GROUND - WATER MIONITO)RING I 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 Regional Environmental Board or Public Health Center on inspections of the landfill

7.CONFLICTS WITH OTHER INTERESTS Pleaseindicate distance in km U'rban areas (towns: Iarge settlements and sinale farms) I Land used for agriculture 11

Protected 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) . 1,.i2. Earlv 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'.nll mterprise. private esnterprise. iihaonlmits memselves) L)oes above mentioned org,nis:alon cirves onlN vcar parish or otthers as e pieaseplel SDecif ) Existine waste collection svstem containers without containers - sacks other ___ Does all vaste is collected together. or separate waste collection exists tit . es. please . specif-)

Size and number of containers ------m| ao.

* Frequencv of waste collection ? Vehicles used for waste collection p iease specifv: type. capacity\ compaction .ate. number of vehicles) .Average distance between waste ioroducer an landfill 4.VAS-\TEREC'Y CLING Does \vaste sorting taies i)TECE" - durinu collection - in thelandfill Who deals with asItC collectioll lor recycling ( municipal enmerprises. prn ate :omoanv. etc.)) Which types Of waste are collected for reevcling: paper - cardboard non - terrous metals - ferrous metals - bottles - broken alass - plastics : - - wooden waste - other *

Deliverv and revenue from recvclinj:- - paper c-ardboard - non - ferrous metals !- terousmetals - borries UMI - broken glass - plastics wooden waste - other

Utilisation of sawdust ( where disposed. used for recycling or burning. Please specifv amounts) Do you have waste composting ?W'hat is comDost production (m 3/vear)a V 1(). RE (GL7-ATIONS. TAXkIIFFS iintl PROPERT'i RIGHTS I)o vou have local regulations nn N-w:ISCle management. If ves. pleasC. add.

.Actualcosts for: wastecollection andIrtnspotatii n - - Ls.ycr - waste disposal Lother related exDensss Required finances: - waste collection and transpotation ------Ls;vear - waste disposal - other related expenses UIsercharge ( 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 in the user charge? - yes or no - if ves. oleasesDecifvwho collects ]_and owner( municinaiirn.private) ? Doesland propertv is registered in Land cadastre ? rWHO owns the waste ? H "r I

Z7I Appendix 4

STATEMENT ON DRAFT REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON WASTE DISPOSAL SITE FOR THE LIEPAJA REGION

(unoffical translation)

4-1

Appendix 4

STATEMIENT ON DRAFT REP'ORTON E,NVIRONMENTAI, IMI'ACT ASSESSMENT ON WASTE, DISPOSAI, SITE FORlTHE' LIEJ'A.IAREGION (unot'lficial translzitioni)

Envir-onlmenta;ilImpact AssessmenltState Bureau has revised and, inviting informal experts. evaluated Draft report "On Environmental Impact assessment on Waste disposal site for the Liepaja Region" passed to the Bureau by the Liepaja City Council. Draft Report has been elaborated by SWECO International in association with Geo Consultants Ltd. Environmental Impact Assessment Report is done on two offered 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 all environmental requirements. and will service all local municipalities in the Liepaja District. 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 city Council.

Several published articles in newspapers during a preparation of programme, initial public hearing and public hearing on draft EIA report on a new landfill site did not rise large public activity and Environmental impact Assessment state Board has received only one letter from the summer garden's society "Skede". Letter is signed by 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 is unsatisfied with the existing landfill "Skede", because - in case of southern and south- western winds - unpleasant smell and smoke are felt in the settlement of summer houses. 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 was rninimal, although the Liepaja City Council has published several publications in the newspaper "Kurzemes vards" informing inhabitants about possibility to acquaint with content of the draft report and to express their attitude to the project.

Analysing draft report, Environmental Impact Assessment State Bureau has taken into consideration opinions of the Liepaja Regional Environmental Board. of invited experts and opinions expressed during the public hearinc.

TFheintrodluction piart of the draft report (does not conltain general information on the project foreseeing improvements in waste management sector and general description ol a new lan(idfill, althouLh it was required by ToR. Proposed alternatives should be characlerised more pt.ecise and mlore obviotus in the finail report. Positive should be menteioniedi'1'he good p)olygraphmount.ing andl richi illustrative material has to he evalutiled positively. Nevcrtheless, different repetitions describe similar and sometimes, unforltutalelv. malerial oI secondary importance. For example. the malp of Qiualernaryse(diments. opposite to the (Grobina case. is not provided for the "Skede". Occilurelncesof prolected species of pIlanls arc not shown. ihe map showing territory 4-2

planning !.0 1111(dproperties. where borders ot1 the ol the Tosmairc Nature rescrve have to he shlown. is not preseltLLd. Borders ol a new lan(l illI are not shown at the otherwise very inlormiativemap of tlhe fact data (Appendix 4). Without ol serious motivalioll th map showin tlhe "Piladzi" dlump site in the Nica Parish is placed into the report while the dump site is not analysed fCurtlherin the report's text. Description oi existing waste managemicnt systemn in the Liepaja district is very broad and iniormative. However. payments indicated in the report. which are provided by parishes as nature resources tax for waste disposal. are essentially differ from figures which are in disposal of the Liepaja Regional Environmental Board. Rather -roundless seems to make conclusions on yearly waste production in multi-storey and private houses on basis of sorting of the 2.2 m) of waste. There is no sense to consider 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 be considered as representative ones.

It will be usefulness to arrange information in manner undoubtedly and identically understandable in the final report: numeration of wells or other sampling points should be same in the text, tables, figures and annexes, otherwise obvious contradictions are found in different chapters. For example: - analyses presented in Appendix 9, marked as "Baltex2" and "Ditch" can not 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, while description of geological cross-sections of wells (Appendix 6; 6-6) shows only 0.7 m thick layer of the peat. It should be taken into consideration, that peat thickness is considered as one of the exclusive criterions. and therefore evaluation has to be accurate, - contradiction between chapters 6 (6.33) and 13 (13:2) - the first one advises afforestation of the area with deciduous woods, while the second one suggests just grassland, because roots of tress and bushes damage covering material.

It is uncertain, why geological cross-sections are presented about territories which, in the better case. are neighbouring with sites suggested for a new landfill. It is completely uncertain in case of "Poligons" for which part of the area the cross-section is made. It has to be explained more in details how 58800 t (1) of nitrogen haven been discharged from the landfill which occupies 7 hectares (6:20). Provision of explanations on relative height's system (if it is existing) is required. because it is stated that the height of waste pile in the landfills "Skede" and iPoli-ons" will reach I(6) Imand 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 not situalt(e withii tihe Liepaja City. and therefore decision of lhe Grobina parish council on a nlew sitC is reqiuired. Distance between the proposed site "PoliLons" and the nearest dwelling h(USCS 'Alaugas" (carly na(c- Stui zind EoIi (early name - "IuLiC") is not dileteiiiinedin the Dratl Report. Inhabitants of the ''Ataugas" are not inlrnrcd about tilhccutilTii poi-ect. In general. study gives imnpressionihalt particular chapiers are writlenlby good specialists in their ti-eld the rich fact daLta has beeni Collected, allhollugh ietleto gaps ol' woIk or-zanisation or dIef-iciency essential works rIIe niot done or-arc not i-ellected:in necessari-ydctaiils. Enumeration ol contradictions andl g,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 EnvironlmiientialImpact Assessmcent Slate Bureatu have to hc cIIreLullyconsidered and answered in the l'inal rcport. Special attention shoulid be plaito introtductionpart 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 wvhichhave to be improved and Supplemiented.

Revising two evaluatcedalternlative sites and taken into consideration exclusive criterions mentioned in the report. seems, that additional investments for the "'Skede" site as prospective one. Rather more better to pay attention to possible remediation possibilities of the existing "Skede" landfill, however, if the initiator of project is interested to continue investigation of this place, it is necessary to provide number of additions, which should be incorporated in the final report:

Liepaja - "Skede":

* Documents confirming the ownership and plans for further use (suggestions provided in the Liepaja City development plan) of the area proposed for a new landfill, - It is necessary in the proper way to draw up borders of the Tosmare Nature Reserve in the map, DDocumentary confirmed information about the legal status of the summer garden society "Skede" is required, Information about nearest water intake places is necessary, * Unacceptable is subchapter about spreading of protected plants and animals at prospective for a landfill site. Report was submitted in the EIA State Bureau at the beginning of July, but there is written in the report, that flora and fauna are inspected on April and May, and additional investigations are required on June. It is not clear, why it has not been done. Seven mentioned rare biotopes are not named at all, besides it. is not clear, which species are distributed at the area proposed for " new landfill. Supplementary, occurrences of protected species of plants are not shown at the map for the "Skede". Therefore it is impossible to understand - do the mentioned 21 protected species are really distributed at the area proposed for a new landfill or all species which are found at the all territory of the Tosmare Nature Reserve during different investigations are named. Also formulations about occurrence of protected species are too general and this part of the report should be improved. Unfortunately, major part of these works can not be dlone correctly at the end of summer. Therefore the EIA State Bureau was pressed to invite additional experts in order to inspect in nature sites prospective for a lanildill sites. In flact, the EIA State Bureau was piressed to carry out the work realisation ol' which was the (tuty o lthe report's authors. Results of inspection (added in Appendix) show, that site ollered for a new lalndf-illat the "Skede". in somc 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 species have been fouind as well, 'onl;rmniiy of sile tO stated by reoulatiorisizeqiuirciiients 3O.38 ol the Cabinet ol Minislct-s -(0I ('onstruction. Manzaenient andl Enclosure of Municipal Solid Waste l)isposal Sites" (arlicies 4 and5) has to he analysCLd.In case of discrepancy proposals for pK)ssiblctechnica;l solutions and their estimate have to be provided. 4-4

hozn thIllisviCWpoil(l, i't llgtll ht usefulness to dlehineoccurrence and thickness ot peatlayer at all area proposed for a landfill. in order to deline amount of peat has to hc excavated,and also amount ol ground water hiis to pulmped out and to evaluaitepossibilities fOrgroundwater drainage.

Grobina, "Poligons":

* Informationis required about conformity of site 'Poligons" with the Development plan 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" is located within forest in distance approximately at a distance 300 m to west from the area offered for a new landfill (early name - "Sturi"), and anybody here was not informed about a possibilities for a new landfill location at the neighbouring area before a visit of employees of EIA State Board and Liepaja Regional Environmental 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 from the dwelling house, and also will occupy the higher and dryer area. e Taking into account objections of inhabitants. possibilities to make access road from the "Liepaja - Ventspils" highway site have to be considered. Obviously, it will be more expensive solution, although the road will be shorter and will less disturb for the Grobina inhabitants. It is possible that, at least partly, the existing dirty 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 water during the first year of the landfill operation, in future years and possibilities fortheir purification and drainage has to be provided, because one of proposed perspective development variants of water supply and wastewater treatment foreseen by the "Programme 800+" is a delivery of Grobina Town wastewater to the Liepaja City wastewater treatment plant using penstock, - Territory proposed for a landfill and its surroundings should be inspected and a location of existing, non-used or plugged artesian wells has to be detrmined. * After appraisal of above rnentioned suggestions its is necessary to obtain acceptance of land on solutions .offered for a new landfill and access road If agreement with owners is not possible, it is advisable to look for alternative variants. * After final selection of a site the correct geological information will be necessary. because existin- geolouical cross-section is made for area situated south-western lrom the otffcrectsite. * UlleLluivocal iniormation is necessary about groundwater tlow direction. and dama-c cause(dby the landfill lor water suLpplysources used by the nearest houses. Also measures should he carried out, if water soiurces mi-ht be damaued. should he plroposedt. * C(oIlnl0or1itV ol SilC tO rcqLuirements stalted y regulations no. 38 olf the Cabinet of Minister-s (n ('0i1nsItruCtiOll. Maniagementand Enclosure of Municipal Solid Waste l)isposal Sites"., each point mnctiionedin articles 4 andl 5. has to he evaluied. In case of discrepancy. pr-oposalls lor possible technical solutions and tIelir estimatelhaive to be provided. D)ireetor ol 13ureau Janis AvotipA Appendix 5

PUBLIC CONSULTATION IN LIEPAJA CITY. MINUTES OF THE MEETING

July 15, 1999

f-i1

Liep;ija Regional Solild N'lasi MNIanagment l'rroject PuIblic Cotnsultation in Liepaja Cith

N'linuies of the Mieetin-

Place: Liepkin City Council Time: 14.00 on 15"'.uh.1999 Participants: Lisi attached (available in hard copy)

G.Ansitp: opens the meeting. invites the public to put questions to the Consultants. to express their views, proposals. comments. Asks the public to register. Gives the floor to the Consultant.

Consultant: introduces himself: Per Olof Seman, Sweco which in cooperation with Geo Consultants are working on Liepaja Regional Solid Waste Management Project. Explains that the public consultation is held according to the Latvian legislation 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 data presented in the Report.

Explains ex-tension of the Solid Waste Manaaement service to a araeter number 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 plant and energy cells in Skede. Points out that the new location is outside the restriction area with very high value biotopes (Fig.18 in rLA Report) and it is moved into direction to the WTP. Tells about Lyasextraction .- romthe existing landfill in combination with ener-zvcells

Describes the Grobina site and the proposed future development

i..Ansir,is Invites the participants to put questions to tIheConsultants.

(,)ictlion (hy Representative lf-omSkedLe cooperatine) 5-2

l-l,%%ai ioTn a residentialI area iloes a1lIidfilli haive to 1)c',eAround 500(1 people are living, in Skede cooperative. That is a bo-gy place. totally unsuitable lor a laTndfill.'vith the l;ke from oOe side. and the sea front the onher.

Consultanst: In response say's that first he will finish telling about the technological alternatives and cost estimates, and then - anout the environmental aspects.

Tells about the costs of each alternative. Details on financial analysis which allowed to keep costs within reasonable limits.

Explains the site selection criteria applied in the study.

Consultanst: Invites to ask questions.

Question: W'hatdistance is required to the Baltic Sea?

Consultanst: Previouslv it was 3 km. However, in accordance with the existing legislatiom there 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 neszativeas there are more inhabitants and they are more active.

Tells about comparison of both sites using the point svstem; the method used shows that Grobina is more suitable than Skede.

Question: Are the issues concerninn the land ownership in Grobina solved with the private owners?

Niedols (City Executive Director): No. No proposals are received from the owners Several solutions have been re-arded, however. withouitanN results.

C(omment The land shall be expropriated.

(')llSULtiLT1 The law does not lorsee expropriation of laniid. 3-9

Qeisltion *rTll SkxdestEe is close lo tihesea and tihe lake. Why is thci diflcliciC sOsmall betwveen Skede and Grobina" Wh) atre thze ranisporlalion costs so close')

Consultant: Thc transportation costs tOir Skede and Grobina arc close. the total difference is IO". for tonlkm. Geolomv in Skede is worse. concernintt both surfiice and uround water Explains 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 are the points split in such proportions'

Consultant: Exnlains that it is not a definite methodoloDty,it is just a way how to orianise discussions using points from 1 to 10. If another point system were used, we would get a different result. We used this point system in order to or2anise the data. We tried to balance between the environmental and economical values, and the weizht of each value can be discussed. You are welcome to come up with vour proposals on site evaluation criteria.

Question: If Grobina is selected. will the Skede site be remediated?

Consultant Yes. 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 .stationsare needed.

Question If Grobina;is sleeited. wvillSkede be closed? Constiltani dYes Closuic ot SkedcexCistinL. landfill is part of the: pro.ject

Question; What does Skede closure depend on" We. residenis of the Skede cooperative. want tiie Skede landfill to be closed. We hlave 1(00 plots of land witth5000 inhabitants. We are against a landfill nearbv. You are talking about economy. however. you should more think about people

G .Ansiis:

If the regional landfill will be developed in Grobina, the inhabitants of the Skedecooperative will be in a winning position. If Skede will be selected for the new landfill. then all the requirements will be met to mak-e as small impact as possible on people.

Quesiion (Chairman of the Skede cooperative): 1 have lived in skede for 41 years. It was a big mistak-eto start a landfill in skede.We are suffering from smoke and smell. All surface water from the landfillflows to the Tosmare lake, all fish has been poisned twice. The sugar refinert tak-eswater from the lake for technolozical use, and then the sugar is used by all of us. It is more than obvious that the Skede landfill shall be closed. If Grobina cannot be developed due to any obstacles, then another site shall be looked for. The Grobina pagasts has to think more broadly, on a national level. The Skede cooperative is being developed into a village.

Comment: The Tosmare lake is announced a protected area where all construction works are restricted accordino to the Reoulations of ?2 June,l999 by the Cabinet 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 to the nearest house?

Consultant The law reqcuiresat least 50)0m.

euestion Howxfar is it from the Skede laidfill lO tihecooperati\ e? Is ithe klindvalued laking inltoaccount thle existing Cirobinaladtcfill'

Local Consultant - . Prols The 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 and an existinu landfill, so the land cannot be used. Who will want to buy it? If vou cannot submit the land value. we are not able to compare the two sites. We klnowthat 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. Aktthe beginning of the project it was required that both sites are available. and such a confirmation was received. The information provided turns out to be false and 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 new company.

A. Hall din: As far as I understand, you' want to become shareholders and invest vour land in the share capital. Or, do you waantto rent vour land to the new company?

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 CGrohinasite Yes But then aher let.,s sav five vears. there will be dividends. If not. it does not miatter anyway. We l':lvou1 clean environment includinu the Baltic Sea and.Nve want the Liepaja beach lo re,xeive the Blue Flag 5-6

Quiestioln Is 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 the value 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 and an existing landfill, so the land cannot be used. Who will want to buy it? If you 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 the beginning of the project it was required that both sites are available. and such a confirmation was received. The information provided turns out to be false and 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 new company.

A.Halldin: .As far as I understand, vou want to become shareholders and invest your land in the share capital. Or. do vou want to rent vour land to the new company?

Private landowners of the Grobina site; Yes, to invest in the share capital.

A\.1-laildinl .\ceordin" to the Statutes the nexv comnpanvywill not have anv dividends.

PT-iVZ11 lan1IoWvnelsol tle Grobina size; Y es lUti thle zfIter let'S say live vears. there will be dividends, If not. it does nIo( n:iattel anv\wy\ We tavour clean environment including the Baltic Sea ;uId we wvanlttile liepajlabeach to Ireceive the I3 lue Flag. 5-7

.1 A\otins (EIA Bur-cau) Encourages thic thrtee represe.ntauies frotmithe Skede cooperalite wliti are speakinu.oni belhalf of the whole cooperative to collect signatures and subm1it to the EIA Bureau to demonstrate that all of thL'm hav\ethe same opini(on

G..Ansins: The lccal press published information on the comingi.Public Consultation and the possiblity to comment the Reports.

JAvotins (EIA Bureau): lt may happen that in the very final statte the people start expressing their neazative attitude. Did Grobina inhabitants have a chance to read and comment the Reports and express their views concerning the future solid waste management activities in Grobina? Won't it be a surprise for Grobina inhabitants?

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 possibilityto participate.

Representative from Grobipiapagasts Council: It obviouslv was the responsibility of Mr.M.Eksteins, Mayor of the Grobina pagasts.

Question: Who is the initiator of the Project?

Answer: Liepyja Municipality.

G.Ansins: Public awareness study has been carried out in the Skede cooperative and among Grobina inhabitants residing along the access road to the existina Grobina landfill.

A.Halldin: The results of the Public awareness studv carried out last vear showAthat just a small number of inhabitants of the Skede cooperative were against development of the Skede landfill. Tha data which are at our disposal state the 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 to develop a landfill near the Sea" The Swedes themselves w\illstart shoutinu. thet the Sen is poliuied.

A. Haildin 5-S

The aim ol the Project is to stop pollution of the Tosmare lake. the leachate will be collected. We are not talkino about activities that will increase the present problems. we are talking about solution of problems.

G .Ansins: Closes the meeting bv saving "thank you" to the participants and invites evervone 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: Nica Depth of a well: 7.0 nm Lithological composition of sediiemnts: (ev/oo- wlnlv-al. in Thi,.kWSS.v gical in oIC'aver. in Liihololgicul coflIpOsiiionl indCx ' romn to Mn bQ, 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., IEQTItv' 0.6 1.4 O.S Sand-gravel-pebblesediments (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. lgQ3ltvb 2.7 3.S Sand-gravel-pebble-stonesediments with admixture of larger l _ | boulders (0 more than 10 cm). 1°Q;ltv | 3.S 4.9 | I I | Sand, fine grained. bluish-grev.with rare admixture of

I _____ 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

Dateof drilling: 19.03.99. Location: Nica Depthof a well: 7.0 m Litholoeicalcomposition of sediments: Geolo- Interval, in Thickness gical m of laver, in Lithological composition indeLx from to in Ig tv. 0.0 1.5 1.5 Sand-gravel-pebble sediments. yellowish-grey, with medium ! ~~~andcoarse --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. 3;lQ1tv 4.0 4.3 0.3 Sand. medium grained, with admixture of peat and mica, ______0.7 black. IgQdltvb 44, . _ _.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: Nica Depthof a well: 7.() mn Lithlological cor position of seLirnMnMs: G,oIo- ln'e1elnci7 in nAi "NS gical in I1I/. 177 'Ltho/o0ca/ L)IimposXj i(,, index yron |) toI lglQ-ltvb 0.0 n2.0 2.0 Sand-gravel-pebbie-sionesediments IgQ .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: Nica Depth of a well: 7.0 m Litholocical composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval. in Thickness gical n? of i*er. in Lithological composition inder 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. 0 1oQ,ltv -93 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: Nica Depth of a well: 7.0 m Lithological composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval. in Thickness gical m of layer, in Lithological composition index 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*fdrilliniz: I S0 9). Location: Groblia Depth of01 %ell: . m Litholocical coninosition ol' sediments:

Geoio- 1171rvI li. In Tiu,-AicL'.n .-ical Sr in o, Anvr. :n ihlugl .. IlS(JLUnL(Irlpe).vii.nio lfl(IL'.Y 1I ()111 | 10 l ______tQ4 00.0 0.3 0.3 Technouenicdeposits. 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 small lenses of ereenish-grev sandy loam and red ocher, with ______admixture of eravel and pebblesof 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: Grobina Depth of a well: 6.7 m Lithological composition of sediments: Geolo- Intenal, in Thickness gical m of lver. in Lithological composition index firom i to ni tQ4 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~~~~~~raveland pebbles.

Well G-3

Date of drilling: 18.03.99. Location: Grobina Depth of a well: 7.0 m Litholoeical composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval, in Thickness gical m of layer, in Lithological composition index 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 1Loamy 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 JrillimngI S.Oi.91°. Location:.Grohitut Depth of;a well: 7.() m Litholo"ical composition of sedinlCis

G('olo- llJlL' l I1l. In Tizwn.vCSN gical ;it o/Vlaer. iln Lithohloicul C..(xiii/1)OI7 inldex Jiroll | rn tQdx 0.0 1.8 | L Technogenicdeposits. Household wasle. demolitioni waste. 0.0 1. Lb Ioruanic waste. luQ.l' I.S 2.2 0.4 Sand. tine grained.vellowish-grey. _Q;ltv 22 7.0 4.8 Loamy till. liizhtreddish-brown with graveland pebbles. with I small lenses of areenish-ure\ sandy loam.

Well G-5

'Date of drilling: 18.03.99. Location: Grobina Depth of a well: 7.0 m Lithological composition of sediments: Geolo 17nenral. in Thickness !gical I ? of laver. in Lithological composition indef |rom | to m_ tQ4 0.0 4.5 4.5 Technogenic deposits. Household waste, demolition waste, ______I______organic waste. 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. finet rained with andgravel 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. Skede Depth ola well: 3o.0 In Lithological comnosition ol'sedimen __ts: _eoi IIoItm Uia/.In Tii3 k _ gical in1 .) ia.n.'r. in LUlIU.dgi.,a/ coZfpxl/)r)SUli indecx trintZZ Ia (1 1) Index l0.0 1'.5 . Technoaenice 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._ Sandwith peat.fine _rained. darkurev. gQEIt 4.6 5.6 1.0 Clay. bluish. with aravel and pebbles. plastic gQ.Itv 5.6 4 3.S Loamy till. heavy. hard-plastic. reddish-brown. witihgravel ______2d_ai_ 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 graveland pebbles (0 up to 3.5 cm). gQ-lrv 16.0 2.6 7.6 Loamy till. reddish-brown. with !zraveland pebbles. gQ 3.tv 23.6 31.6 S.0 Loamv till with pebbles and boulders, reddish-brown. I______1I |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 greenclay. in the upper part - dolomite breccia with red clay. D a}; 34.7 36.0 1.3 Dolomite marl, weathered, with clay fill, spotted. greenand

Well L-2

Date of drilling: 03.03.99.- 05.03.99. Location: Liepaja. Skede Depth of a well: 27.2 m Lithologic l composition ,f sediments: Geolo- Interval, in Thickness gical m of laver, in- Lithological composition inde-c fromn to m vQ.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 1Clav. 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-darklgrev. °Q ltv 11.8 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 J22.6 2. I Loamy till with bouldersand 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;. Skcde Depthi ot a wxell:2x5 ni Litholocical composition of sedilmlicls: GLeoio- lflI'r'adI. ,I, TlIU!-~7.cSS .incal 1 nO/ itl :L? Lu.iLid gi'cal colmposmIofn Index ii-nl,r fo III vQ, 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 5.1I 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 16.5 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 I19.9 20.0 0.] Clavev dolomite. greenish-grev. D-ak 20.0 20 0.4 __Marl. Ii-ahtereen. 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, Skede Depth of a well: 4.5 m Lithoiogical composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval, in Thickness giccal m of lover,in Lithological composition index 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. mQ46lt- 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, withgravel andpebbles. plastic. I,.7

Well L-5

Date ot drillinm: 12.0(.0)(4. Location: Liepaja. Skede Depth ol a well: 4.o ni Litholoeical composition ot sedimiemts: Geolo- InwrvIzi. In Tincklicss. gical Mn i; i.ner. in LahlwlvlgwalctmpositoliI( 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. MO" 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. Skede Depth of a well: 3.0 m Litholoaical composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval. in Thickness gica | m of laver. in . Lithological comzposition index 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 1Peat, 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, Skede Depth of a well: 4.0 m Lithologica1composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval, in Thickness gical m of laver, in Lithological composition index from to m vQ4 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. Skede Depth of a Well: 4.0 ni Lithological composition ol sediments: Geolo- Inirval. 1jn ThICAnI11CXX giCal in Ij hner. 11i Litjliog,JicalComp)oXsIoUi index frotm lo 11I VQI o0.0 O 2.0 _A Sand. tine zrained. vellowish-urev. ino., 2 26.0 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. Skede Depth of a well: 4.0 m Litholocical composition of sediments: Geolo- Internal, in Thickness gical 17t of aver. in Lithological composition index from 7mto vQ., I0.0 2.0 2.0 Sand. fine -rained. vellowish-2rev. ImQ41' 2.0 22.6 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, Skede Depth of a well: 15.0 m Lithologic l composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval, in Thickness gical m of laver, in Lithological composition index 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, Skede Depth of a well: 15.0 m Lithologic I composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval, in Thickness gical m of lver, in Lithologicul com77position index Jrom to m tQ4 I0.0 14.5G 4.0 Technogenic deposits. Waste. mO,' | 0 14.5 0.5 Sand. finetrained. bluish-e±rev. gQ.zltv |14.5 15.0J 03 Cmav.blue. with admixture of graveland pebbles. Well L-12

Date of drillinu: 13.03.L)N. Location: Liepaja. Skede Depth ota well: 13.4 m Lithoio,ical comnosition ot sediiietits: GeXojo- 1nlen-ill. 117 ThJL,AIL.X.1 C;L'Ol- ifiLrl in Thit .r.,wsxgLc/,¢ZR.xiw fl~~?ti~J~~'. "' LaholoI.'gwl COMPiOSVJIiM indL'x 7i*-on Ioi I______

tQ4 0.0 13.0 13.) Technogenicdeposits. Waste. EQ-dtv 13 0 13.1 0. -Q,ltv 13.1 13.4J 0.3 Loamvtill. reddish-brown.

Well L-20

Date of drillinc: 20.03.99. Location: Liepaja. Skede Depth of a well: 1.75 m Lithoiogical composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval, in Thickn7e.ss gical m of laver, in Lithological composition index nom ! to "I mQ-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. Skede Depth of a well: 1.75 m Litholozical composition bf sediments: Geolo- Imerval, in Thickness gical m of loaver,in Lithological composition index from to m t rnQ4 " |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 of freshwater 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. Sktde Depth of a well: 1.7 ni Lithological cormposifion ot'sedinienes: Geolo- Ilntertal. u TIi w.'s gicall in oft iaicr 'n i Lizlu.'lugi.ca/ . U/)XJII(.')i/, index Iroil) I') Mn mQ, 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. t mQ4 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. Skede Depth of a well: 1.65m Lithological composition of sediments: Geolo- Interval, in Thickness gical m of iM;er,in Lithological composition index fronm lo mi rnQ," ! 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 0.05 Loamv till. arev. hard plastic.

Well L-24 Date of drilling: 1999, 3 March Location: Liepaja, Skede Depth of a bore hole: 2.85 m Groundwater level, below the Earth surface: 0.2 m Lithological composition of sediments Geological Interval, m Thickness Lithological composition index from to of loyer.m ___ 0 0.1 0.1 Soil mQ. 0.1 0.2 0.1 Sand. fine _rained. grev b04 0.2 I 0.6 0.4 Peat. medium decomposed. dark brown mQ, 0.6 I 1.5 0.9 Sand. fine and medium -rained.grev 1.5 2.3 0.8 Peat, well decomposed. dark brown eO1ln 2.3 2.85 > 0.55 Sand - gravel - pebble mixture Well L-s

Datc oftdrillinmI lQOQ. I Ma\ Location: Liepaia. Skede Depth ot a bore hole: 3.2 m Groundwater level. below tilc Earth siurfacc:0. i m Litholo-ical composition ot sedimenits Geolo,gical Interval, in Tilickness Lt:holohgicalcolsUXim) indcx from to nln'er. ni I hO. 0 1.0 1.0 Peat, medium decomposed. dark brown mOc). 1.0 1.4 0.4 Sand. finegrained. grcv 1.4 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 May Location: Liepaja. Skede Depth of a bore hole: 3.0 m Groundwater level. below the Earth surface: 0.1Im Litholocical comoosition of sediments Geological interval. in Th7ickness Lithological composition index from to otMver.m bQ. 0 0.6 ! 0.5 Peat. medium decomposed. dark,brown 0.6 0.9 ] 0.3 Peat. weakly decomposed. dark brown mO, 0.9 1.4 0.5 Sand. fine grained. grev 1.4 1.8 1 0.4 Siltv sand. grev 1.8 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 >0.15E Loamy till with gravel and pebbles. grey

Well L-27 Date of drilling: 1999, 2 Mav Location: Liepaja. Skede Depth of a bore hole: 2.3 m Groundwater level, below the Earth surface: 0.2 m Litholozical composition of sediments . Geological Interval, m Thickness Lithological composition index from to of laDei.m bO. 0 0.3 0.3 Soil

m0 4 0.3 0.5 0.2 Sand, coarse and medium grained. brown 0.5 1.1 0.6 Sand. fine orained. brown 1.1 1.5 0.4 Silrv sand. erev 1.5 1.8 0.3 Silt.grey 1.8 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. Skxde Depth of a bore hole: 0 m Groundwater level. below thc Eanh surfacQ:0.05 m Litholoeical composition of sediments Gelocicall I val. IJI 7i,,ck,xSS L iCLaLU)/)OIId')1? index from to irranve). hO4 0 0. i 0.5 Peat. weakly decomposed. dark brown mO.04 0.5 0.6 0.1 Sand. fine and medium gTrained.graV | gO).ln 0.6 1.0 ! 0.4 Loamy till with -,raveland pebbles. "rev

Well L-29 Date of drilling: 1999, 2 May Location: Liepaja. Skede Depth of a bore hole: 3.5 m Groundwater level, below the Earth surface: 0.4 m Lithological composition of sediments Geological Interval. m Thlickness Lithological composition index from to otlaver. m -

______< 0 0.2 0.2 Soil mQ4 0.2 0.9 1 0.7 Sand. medium 2rained.brown 0.9 12.8 L 1.9 Peat. well decomposed. dark brown 3.5 1 0.7 Silt brown Appendix 7

WELL COMPLETION I Appendl(Iix7

Well conipleflon (C'emwetion 11ell Deuthi o/a BourelIole Cavising etlrheli.s I;'ille,* SeLliienltltiolrilhterv tl # nlwell,in in diaimeler,/III jIj7p h,iiervl,', in _ iant,afer,nn 7nTpe hlilerva'cl,in Diamineter,imit un(letrthie 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 63 N-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 - 63 N-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 63 N-4 7.0 112 Ferois 10.41-- 1.5 89 Sieve 1.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.( (o.04. .______IVC _10.3 - 7.0 63 el.6-66 63667._ __ N-5 7.0 112 Ferous 10.96-- 1.05 89 Sieve 631.6-6.6 6.6-7.0 (1([(1.1 IPVC -10.3- 7.0 63 . _ o .0.4 G-I 7.0 112 Ferous +0.76-0.74 89 Sieve 4.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.0 PVC -(0.5- 7.0 63 _ 0.-04 G-2 6.7 112 Feotis -1-0.6- 0.9 89 Sieve 4.3-6.3 63 6.3-6.7 I VC 0.0 - 6.7 63 0.0-3 G-3 7.0 112 Ferous +1.08- 0.5 89 Sieve 4.1-6.1 63 6.1-6.5 'PVC 10.5- 7.0 63 _ 0.0-0.3 CG-4 7.0 112 lerous 4 1.5- 0.5 89 Sieve 4.6-6.6 63 6.6-7.0 PVC 4+0.2- 7.0 63 6.6-7.0 0.04-0.- G-5 7.0 112 Fei-ous 1-1.19- 0.7 89 Sieve 4.6-6.6 63 ._____PVC 0.0 - 7.0 63 O.4 -32) L-1 36.0 151 Ferous -10.4- 32.0 114 1Ierfog-ed 32.0-35.8 89 35.8-36.0 .erous 1-0.7- 36.0 89 luble 27.0-27.2 .0.4 - 23 2 L-2 27.2 151 1erous 4+0.4- 23.2 114 IPerifored 23.2-27.0 89 Ferous --0.5- 27.2 89 tube 89 26.3-26.5 *0 3 -- 13.6i L-3 26.5 151 Ferois '0.3 - 13.6 114 Perfored 22.5-26.3 .. . .______Fei-otis -10.7- 26.5 89 tutbe. 6-4.0 0 0-0.4 L-4 4.5 112 Ferotis -'-0.5- 1.0 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 3 PVC 10.3- 4.0 -63 _ Sedinenttion interval C'emwenttiont Casin igilbes Fieier 11ell Depth OJf Bonrehole tube/il/e,; in interval,lit in lDiutJh,,e,mtmInierval, Type tit Diameter, min undler ihie # wiell,in yin djiiniEeeei-,m T)pe Interval, 0.0-0.4 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 3.6-4.0 1.-5 4.6 112 1erotis -10.5- 1.0 63 ___ .. ______PVC 10.3-4!0 0.0-5.4 89 Sieve 0.65-2.65 63 2.65-3.0 L-6 3.0 112 Ferous 40.4 -- 1.1 - 3.0 63 I'VC -t0.05 3.6-4.0 0.0- .4 - 0.9 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 L-7 4.0 112 I-eIOtls 40.6 . - 63 PVC -10.1 -4.0 0.U-0.- 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 3.6-4.0 L-8 4.0 112 Ferous 10.4 - 1.1 63 PVC 0.3-4.0 1)-f1 I 89 Sieve 1.6-3.6 63 3.6-43.0 L-9 4.0 11 Fet-ous 4-0.5 - 1.0 I_VC 10.2- 1.0 63 89 'eifloi-ed 5.0-15.0 50 L-10 15.0 93 I7erous i10.5- 15.0 , lu~~~~~~~~~tbe 50 [elo-is +-0.5- 13.2 89 Perfored 3.9-13.2 L-11 15.0 93 Itilxc 89 I'erlor-ed 3.6-12.7 50 L-12) 13.4 93 Ferotis -10.5- 12.7 50 I'erlored 0.25-1.75 50 L-20 1.75 50 Feerous 0 - 1.75 . ~~~~~~~Itibe 0- 1.75 50 1Peilorled 0.25-1.75 50 L-21 1.75 50 Ferotis _ - _tube Perfored 0.2-1.70 50 1.70 50 Ferous 0- 1.70 50 L-22 gtlbe 50 . Perf'ored 0,15-1.65 1.65 50 Ferotis 0 - 1.65 50 L-23 ______~~~~~~______lube _ _ . 1.85-2.85 50 50 PVC 0 - 2.85 50 Perfored L-24 2.85 tube 50 Perloi-ed 2.20-3.20 50 3.2 50 PVC 0 - 3.20 L-25 ______ttibe 0 - 3.00 50 1'crfored 2.0-3.0 50 50 IVC _ _ _ _ L-26 3.0 I ublc ______0-1.0 50 50 PVC 0- 3.50 50 I'crfored L-29 3.5 .tibe Appendix 8

RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES, LATVIA

CIi of gr-ounitwater-mudayses, Lal(via n Z flestifis i')1 dCr 1 IfI 1 (1))I Color I NII, O1 7 SO,'-I Alkalhii1 c'0)-t IN(-Ilo Mi, I C( II o. nigP/ I I _ mci/I jj~~~~~~~~~~~IJPi)g NN AJ ______g______

(08 - 00(1 O01 ] 0.53 0.003 0.01 0.006 0.02 00(5 . 1 .9 0.58 12Z 0.67 63 34II5 ____ 04 0 0.9 12 L-12 1o 9.1 0.002 <0,13I1 0.003 0 0)2 0,01 2 I 6.2 1. I <0,5 14 0.48 0.32 0 26 62 35 30 29 7.5 0.00(3 0.012 (0.09 117 - 0I 4 L2 490 54 9.2 <0,5 23 0.59 0.41 (1.0(1 (1.01 75 43 10 4.7 0.9 '0 6 0143 (I' IA 720 59 7.2 120 47 <0.00l 0.)1 1353 0302 03 9 2,9 92 25 1.8 2401 318 IS 290D 28 49 31 5.9 01.03 0.-II 189 - 06 00 L-4 440 24 3.8 85 120 2.2 (17 0.026 (1.59 (3.37 36 6.4 56 23 0.9 44(l IS 4.7 92 27 25 (1.011 0.02 01.1401 LI5 12(0 33 7.7 260 3.6 0174 I1(1 24 45 413 8.5 ()02 (3.33 16 Il4 O fig' L-6 590i 57 7 2 170(1.1 (161 <0.00! (10.02 0.062 16 2.3 23 8.8 1.1 'JO! f Th7ij 160 4.8 1.3 39 7.1 9.6 <0.0)01 0.11 0.22 3101- 007 17 L-7 2(0 13 1.4 5'10 1.6 1.1 29 9.4 24 12 1.9 0013 ('19 2 3 "''12 I" f [-8-Th 12 0.6 2303 41.2 1.6 <0.1103I0.131 (324 3.8 17 IS 0.82 2 0 31 ) '07 73A 213 6(1 16 I 26 <0.00)I 0.1(1 0.032 (.(1.I 1)18 1 [-9 260 IN 35 1.31 3003 3.7 1.5 180 56 2(O( 82 IS5 0.116 (106 2f0 2 1)'0 20) I' [-22, 13(100 22(0 2(0 450 3.3 1.5 1.0(06 (0.036 0.035 43 5.3 1410 52 3.6 ) I 1 0 2 0! I' 4101 IS 7.8 89 27 38 0.002 (1.06 (1033 O)1)3 00O7 2.7 [-21I 19(1 70) 3.9 55(1 3.8 1.5 86 28 48 45 5.2 11.0 01)1) 65 .1 07If3I L-22 400 14 5.5 3.8 6'I10 7.0) 5.6 <03,0(1 03.1)3 03.013 22 - 76(0 24(1 15 0)7( 170(1 55(3 3101 42 31(00 110 (1.15 0,0184 131)3 1106 2 0 19 0 L-23 71001 2'4 1.3 83 4.6 (1.87 <(1(001 42 68 62 12 84 803o 831 5.9 1410 (.9 _ _ L-24 .7.5 47 _____ 69 [-25 78(1 __ 01.703______2.7 ____ 1301 350 16 (1.74 L-26 ___ 1.8 ____ 87 0)02 0) (89 L-9 22(3 24 <0.0O9 1)02 (127 3)1)2 0.09 3 .3 86 28 (1.76 451) 2.5 01.91 1.7 11(1 3-3 32 3.9 7.33) 03 311 2502 'iii -1-I 473I) I6 1.2 120 1.3 (1.61 <01.1(11 0.31 (15 17 2.6 3/l IS5 'Ill I & .) 92 190 87 S .140 I i 17

Appendix 9

RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER ANALYSES, SWEDEN

RAPPORT utfardad av ackrediterat laboratorium REPORT 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 RaI'I'CreC' P-0 Scialn i10 'o STOCKHOLM DaLze o'.4r-rrvJl 23 .-\pril. 100)0 Szanrionr: Liepaja Citx, Council Samtiplecollector: 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 IbrAccreditation and ConfornitvA \sscssmem (SWEDAC) under thc terms ot'S% edish Legislation. 1TheSwcdish accredited laboratories mect the rcquircmcnts in SS-EN 45001 10119). SS-L:N 45002 (1tXn9) and GiicdcGSolEC 25 (1990:E). This reporn may not be reproduced otherthan in fuil. exccpt wtih the prior wniten avproval o'tVSWEDACand thc *ssuam- laboratory

:krediterat laboratornumutses 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). SWECO Denna rappori tar endasi aterges i sin helhet. om InteSWEDAC och utktrdande laborator,um i lorvag :;kntflicen godkatn annal. - RAPPORT * - utfardad div a8(ckredilcrit labLoraltinini 7,C' REfR'04T t,:;4s,rrt'yi in 4 :ri n .I>'t. If('t

1004

VBB \IAK AB. Stockholm .' \o V IlI Environmental 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'tvCouncil SWInDi COLueIclo)r theclient

Sample No 134589 Sample Label Baltex 2 LW4C53 Samplina Date 'lI March. 1999

Aluminium (B) mgI 1. Z: Digestion HNOJ!FK.Cr-O Arsenic (B1 mulI -. 10 Benzene (GC.'MS) up.'l 0.78 Lead (B) ma1l '0.05 Toiuene (GCi'M1S) ue'l 0.°3 Boron (B) m- I 3.0 Ethvlbenzene (GC.'MS) u211 1.7 i. on (B) mg. l :X Nvlene (GC!MS) ual 9.3 Cadmium iB) ma I -0.10 NITBE (GC'MS) * ugil 0.16 Calcium (B) mc I ; SO - Nanhtalene ,u.:l 0.60 Potassium (B) maI S-0 Acenaphrviene a2!l <0.10 Silicon (B) mo.l 1 Acenaohtene u_l <0.10 Cobait (B) mcI 0.01 Fluorene .ail <0.10 Copper (B) md l 0.04 PhenanTrene ai;l <0.10 Chromium(B) mci 0.1S Anthracene 4iz] 1.2 Lithium (B) mdl 0.40 Fluorantene ti;] 0.80 Magnesium(B) mci 160 Pxvrene igil <0.10 Maneanese (3) mci] 1.9 Benzo(a)anthracene uc!l <0.10 Mviolvbdenum (B) m=l <0.0 I Chrvsene ug;l <0.10 Sodium (B) mcil 1500 Benzo(b)fluorantene 41 <0.10 N'ickel (B) mil , 0.09 Benzo(k)fluorantene UtsI <0.10 Strontium (B) m_l 0.89 Benzot'a)pyrene aZIl <0.10 Sulphur (B) mZc'I - Indeno(1.2.i-cd)pvrene usl1 <0.10 Vanadium (B) mci 0.04 Dibenzoc(a.h)anthjracene ucll <0.10 Zinc (B) mOi' 0.13 Benzo(ghi)perylene ucI I <0.10 B: Digestion 0.34 M HNO3 ---- PAH. Sum of 16 u°l 2.6 Mercury (Z) gic/I 0.29

*) NoTincluded in the accreditation.

Stockhoim 4 Mav. 1999 Vatenvardslaboratoriet

Tommv Karlss5n vice Laboratorv Manager

The Analytical Results appiyonly to the sampie in question. Laboratories are accreditedby theSwedisn Board ior Accreditationand Conmirnitm,scssmnint lSWFTDA( Llider thc tiermsoi Swedisl Lerislation. The Swedish accredited lahoratonesImeet tht rcquiremnenusin SS-EN 451)l1 t 1 1su. Ss-1EN4i002( )O O) andiISOAUC E i(iodLc 25 (1990:E). This report may not bc reproduced other than in lull. exceptwith thc prior writcin appral SWEi)AC avd tb. issuWaIU laboratorv

ckrediterat lanoratorium utses av Styrelsen fbr ackrediteringqoc teknisk kontroll (SWEDAC) enmiht ;voenskiatq. 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 ,. .,RAPPORT utfardad ziv ackretliterat la[-bor:11uottur REF'( bTIsr.*Jelle|t> . Ireo-1, f:,'1jIf 1L. if,').12 le,I

1004

\'BB \IAK AB. Stockilklilml . :,m \, V lII l Environmentaiand Natural ResourLs Pruicci \P-VI) 1 l)0ll Box: -044 uc: 1-UP-rcr. SCni.in .0 2 STOCKHOUL Djic of Irrivl 3 A\pril.1e01)( S. lU(fll. Liepa;ja il\ Cotuncil SaiwplkcoIlLctor: theClient

SamFie No 134590 Sam ie Label Well 5 Samviina Date 21 March. 1999

Aluminium (B) m2.1 0. IS Z: Digestion HNO;/3 K.Cr-C. -O Arsenic (B) maI <0.10 Benzene(GC 'MS) po/l <0.1 Lead ,3) ng I o<0.0 Toluene (GCIMS) Ug/l <-0.1 Boron kB) mg*! 0.40 Ethvlbenzene (GC/MS) uL/I <0.I Iron iB) m! l 2.1 Xviene kGCIMS) 4tg'1 <0.1 Cadmium (B) m2.c <0.1I0 MTBE(GC.'MS)* ut:Ii <0.1 Calc;ium(B) mg 1 79 Naphtalene uti <0.10 Potassium (B) m l .3 Acenaphrviene 421 <0.10 Silicon (B) m-d 6.5 Acenaphtene u_L'l <0.10 Cobait (B) mcI <0.01 Fluorene tic/I <0.10 Copper (B) mcl <0.01i Phenantrene tic/I <0.10 Chromium (B) mE1 <0.01 Anthracene tic0 <010 Lithium (B) m2.' <0.01 Fluorantene PC-[ <0.10 Magnesium (B) mil 36 Pvrene ugil <0.10 Manganese (B) m. 1 0.1. Benzo(a)anthracene utsl <0.10 Molvbdenum(B) m_l <0.01 Chrvsene uc;l <0.10 Sodium(B) mBd 1- Benzo(b)fluorantene ac' <0.io Nicke! (B) mZ;I <0.01 Benzo(k)fluorantene 421 <0.10 Strontium (B) m-n/ 0.17 Benzo(a)pyrene ggef <0.10 Sulphur (B) ma;l 13 Indeno(1.2.S-cd)pyrene u;l <0.10 Vanadium (B) m_I 0.01 Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene u_il <0.10 Zinc (B) mg,I 0.24 Benzo(chi)pervlene 4;l <0.10 B: Digestion 0.34 M HNO- PAH, Sum of 16 4]A <2.0 Merc:ury (Z) u/I] 0.06

t) Not included in the accreditation.

Stockholm 4 May. 1999 Vattenvirdslaboratoriet

Tommy Karisson vice Laboratory Manager

rhe AnalyticalResults apply crnlvto the samplein question. Laboratoriesare accredited by theSwedish Board lor Accreditation and Coiilbrritmi AS.Lcsstcnt (SWEDACI underthC l.ernpso(l Si'%lih Le2islation.The Swedishaccredited laboratones mcet the rcquircmcntiin SS-EN4501t( I II Xll. SS-EN40it12 (I17S° aIndISt0) 11W iitiud !i (1990:E). Thisrepon may nothe reproducedotiter than in lull, exceptwith thc priorwrittcn approval ot SW\EDAC Jnidthc tstngc aboratory

kreditlerataboratorium utses av Styrelsent6r ackreditenngoch leknmSkkontroll (SWEDAC) enliqtsvensh laLq. rksamnetenvid de svenskaacKrediterace laboratoriema upplyller kraven i SS-EN 45001 ,1%891 SS-EN 45002 (1989) ocri ISO/AECGuide 25 (1990:E). Denna rapponfir endast aterges i smihelhet. om inte SWEDAC ocneulfardande inboralorsum i lorval sktttlumin jlodkalilt 1n.i n RAPPORT utti-irdacl iv ickr-e(dilet ;1bor-lrl 101 iii TIr

1004

VBS \.IAK .AB. Stockholm V I.I EnT tronmental and \x.ttral ResotircLs 'l-row.'1\ 1S0 so\ >O' R .Icyvm: P-0) Sclmll;l I00 rt' STOCKHOL\I DL,Lw0/' rYVLhI 2 April 1.0 .s'.Iio)n. Licpaia (i'I\ CounCil Sampi co icU,or: thleCeiict

Samole No 134591 Samrle Label W'ell 0 Samolinc Date ' April. 1999

Aluminium (B) mc'l 0.o' .Molybdenum (B) m'l --0.01 Arsenic (B) me!l -0.1 0 Sodium (B) mtl2 130 Lead (B) m&'l -00E Nickel (B) m2il <0.01 Boron (B) minc1 0.52 Strontium (B) mc'l 0.Sn Iron 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 9.1 Porassium (B) mg/l 3.I . B: Digestion 0.m4IvlHNO, ------Silicon (3) m_il 11 Mercury (Z) uc l <0.02 Cocalt (B) mcil <0.01 Z: Dieestion HNO)'K.Cr-O- Copper (B) ma/I <0.0 I Benzene (GC!MS) 41.'I <0.1 Chromium (B) mrdl <0.01 Toluene (GC.!vS) t4c/l <0.1 Lithium (B) mail 0.01 Ethvlbenzene (GC,'MS) 4-1 <0.1 Miagnesium(B) mJIi 42 XVIene(GC.'MS) UV1 <0.1 Manganese (B) mail 0.49 MITBE(GC.MS) 42u_l <0. I

) Not included in the accreditation.

Stockholm 4 Mav. 1999 Vattenvdrdslaboratoriet

- .1 : .

Tommv Karisson _ _ vice Laboratory Manager

The Analytical Resultsapply only to the samplc in question. Laboratoriesarc accreditedhy Ute Swedish Board tbr A:creditationi and Confornitv AssessmciletSWEDAl tC-uneir ihc ermcso1t Scwdis%h Le2islation. The Swedisl accreditedlaboratories mect the requirementsin SS-EN 4()001 tI''')), SS-EN 4it0(2 (1108()and IS0411 t uidtic 25 (1Q90:E)l This repornmay not be repr)duccd other than in lull. except with thc prior written aipproval i SWII)\C an,i.h itme iaboratory

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:ESt Denna rapport takrenclasl aterges i sin helhet. orn mtie SWEDAC 4)Ch uftiardatndeL;ibor.%i6rsim, i orv;at :h.nftitmtno. tit(iiii .nt 1ml1 SWECO RAPPORT -tfardadav .ickredileral laL)oralotmiti RFEPnIT t ,ie'(tt:;i .1,1 -\(:u tit Lib '(. i ,

1004

VBBhVIAK AB. StockloIm hentr, V 1111 En\ tronmental and Natural Rcsources Pro. \ I00 I Box 340-LI R, cr.Zncc r , Scmnll 100lto STOCKHOLM Dat ot.-liri.,i A\pril 1000 .Stallon: Licpaja CitE ConllCi Sunfl .o!/ikcor. thceClient

SarmpleNo 134592 Sample Label Well 25 Sampling Date April. 190gu

Aluminium (B) m'l 0.40 Z: Di-estion HNOK,;;.Cr.O- .Arsenic - (B) mi 1 <010 Benzene (GC/MS) ,ut' 0.15 Lead (B) mg l 0.05 Toluene (GC'MS) ug'il 0.51 Boron (B) ml 1 i Ethvlbenzene (GC!MvS) -±g') <0.1 lron (B) mLI I Xv lene (GC.'MS) 42/1 0.74 Cadmium (B) mcil '0.10 MITBE(GC'MS) * uc/1 <0.1 Calcium (B) mc'! '70 Naphmalene ui!1 <0.10 Potassium (5) m 1 150 AcenaphTylene g/1 <0. i 0 Sili-on (B) mg ] 5.M0 Acenaphtene u2il <0.10 'Cobalt (B) m I <0.01oFluorene uo;l <0.10 Copper (B) mg 1 <0.01 Phenantrene ugil 0.8 Chromium (B) mc I 0.01 Anthracene uesl <0.10 Lithiium (B) ma I 0.01 Fluorantene

iNotincluded in the accreditation.

Stockholm 4 May. 1999 VattenvArdslaboratoriet

, . .

Tornmv'karlsson vice Laboratorv Manager

The Analyticai Resultsapply only to thesample in question, Laboratoriesare accredited by theSwedish Boardtor Accrcditation andCornlormiiy Assessmcnit (S\VEDAC) uisel.rtile nf Swedoh Legislation.The Swedishaccredited laboratories mectthc rcquircments in SS-EN450io)1 IQ119). SS-I N 4 I5n2 l(I I aild 25 (1990:E). ISt)llF i:iCic This report may not be reproducedother than in full. except with ihcprior wnrmenapponval of SWEDAC laboratorY 3nd1tic issnIIII

.ckrediteratlaboratonum utses av Slyrelsenfor ackrediteringoch teknisk kontroll 'erksamheten (SWEDAC) enJi,tlsvensk Jaq. vid dJesvenska ackrediferace laboratoriema upptvilerkraven i SS-EN 45001 (19891 SS-EN 45002 (1989) och ISO/IEC Guide 25 (1990:E). Denna rapportfar endast dterges i sin helheitom inte SWEDAC och uttardzinde laborr onroimtorv,i' l'.kr,iti),fnl,, ni *--- SWECO b- ,"E' RAPPORT ;*- utlardad av acklediierlt liao 1llri- itin

1004

VBE; \IAK AB. Stockholm CnI17 \Vo V I I I Environmental and Natural ResourcLs Profeurvo I I o . 5 -hoo) B.\ -10-14 RLde ICnC P-( SC111;111 00o2 STOCKHOLMvI Daic o/.-lrrvual 23 April. Io(0 Slation: L ictpait Council Sample enl/cctor: itheCtlite

Sampie No 134587 Samrle 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) Mum I 0. i10 Benzene (GC!MNIS) ugai <0.1 Lead (B! mcI .o05 Toluene (GC.!MS) uI <0.1 Boron (B) mL"l . Ethvlbenzene (GC/NIS) ucjl <0.] Iron (B) mLIl3 Xvlene (GC/MS) 4C.l <0.1 Cadmium(B) m2;l <0.10 MTBE (GC/MS) ueI <0.1 Calcium (B) mc 20 Naphtalene <0.10 Potassium (B) me;l _60 Acenaphrtlene uag <0.10 Silicon (B) m_/ .0 Acenaphtene USl <0.10 Cobalt (B) mcI <0.01 Fluorene i,0 I <0.10 Copper (B) ma;I 0.01 Phenantrene u I <0.10 Chromium (B) mci 0.01 Anthracene 0 I1 <0.10 Lithium (B) mci" 0.16 Fluorantene Io1 <0.10 Magnesium (B) mcil SI Pvrene Uo l <0.10 MV1anganese(B) mgcl 0.54 Berzo(a)anthracene guo1l <0.10 Molybdenum (B) mOl <0.01 Chrysene go l <0.10 Sodium (B) me/] 820 Benzo(b)Tluorantene gel <0.10 Nickel (B) mci = 0.0 Benzo(k)fluorantene gc_l <0.10 Strontium (B) mcil ;.0 Benzo(a)pyrene gc 1 <0.10 Sulphur (B) m_il -0 Indeno(l.2.3-cd)pyrene uggl <0.10 Vanadium (B) mail <0.01 Dibenzo(ah)anthracene u2ci <0.10 Zinc (B) . mg/i O.2S Benzo(ghi)perylene u_l <0.10 B:,Digestion 0.34 M HNO3 ------PAH. Sum of 16 uv I <2.0 Mercurv (Z) ge/I 0.04

C) Not included in the accreditation.

StockhoLm4 May. 1999 VattenvArdslaboratoriet

Tommy rsson\ vice Laboratorv N,6nager

The Analytical Resuits3pplv only to thesampic in question. Laboratoriesare accrdiLCdby tiheSwedish Board tbr Accreditatiolland Cn frniutv A%sessetnit(SWED)A) tunder tic thcrs bit-Sd%eiishi Legislation.The Swedishaccredited laboratories mccl the 4equirementsin SS-EN 4-;0w11 t io SS-E:N45i)tu2 Jklq) P a1.. ISOIilV 61otde 25 (1990:E).This reponmay not be reproduced other than in full. exceptwith thcprir wvrittenapprovai bit'SWEDAC anJ thc isaic laboratory

%ckrediteratlaboratorium utses av Styrelsentbr ackreditenngoch tekntskkotroll (SWEDAC) ornitctsvensk tag. 'erksamnetenvid de svenskaLicrediterade laboratoriernaupplyller kraven i SS-EN .15001 (198t) SS-EN 45002 (1989) onCISO/IEC Guide 25 (1990:E)e , SWECO Dennarappori tar encastaterges i sinhelhet, om inle SWEDACoch) u11arOanoe 1abLzrxfont'orn i tIrrvaozsn1zz?1ns.stR '" RAPPORT . utfardad av ackrediterat laboratorltirn ~- ~ E;POf7 zN:.UtXdt'V Jan Ax(:;m/c>:fntL.J(rjfx,ra1? 1004

VSB \'IAK AB. Stockholm Kundnummer V1114 Avfalisteknik Unr/Bnr Box 34044 Referens Magnus Montelius 100 2 STOCKHOLM Ankomstdatum 1999-06-C2

' -< ;- .:_ ' '5 ' -_ Stationsnamn Lettland Plats Provtagare Stefan Nilson

Provnummer 136564 136565 Tid Provt.zatum 990527 990527 Provmarkning Skede Grobina

COD-.r (Hach) ,A, 3100 220 fiOD-- mcil 170 14 Kloric 21000 51 Nitntkv6ve mc; 0.010 <0.002 Nitratkvave mcI 0.11 0.03 Amm;niumkvave rc. 960 6.9 Kvtve. totalt rm.n'l 1400 12

Stockholm 1999-06-10 Kopia till: Vattenvardslaboratoriet

Ulia Rydevi Laboratoriechef

Metoder och matosakerheter finns pi oversanJ forteckning.cat 96-04.01. etler biltlU denna rapport wga3erackredilerade rappont-i till litvdkAunncl) esuitatetavser anctast oet analyseraoteprovec. ckrediteratlatioratorium utses av Styrelsenlbr ackrediteringoch lekniskkontroll (SWEDAC) enlictt svenskliai. verksamheten vid de svenskaackrediterade taboratonemaupptyller kraven i SS-EN 45001 (1989.I SS-EN 45002 (1989) och ISOAEC Guide 25 (1990:E). ^enna rapDor iar endast Ateroes i sin helhet om inle sWr )r I sw rn

Appendix 10

RESULTS OF SURFACE WATER CONDUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS I Mitogs 1:10000 I Scale1 10,000 , :\Q/ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ma zd a r zllWi?I

5-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 6

tt - -a-- .4 - $~~~ f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rd1a,I"I

1 -b -Ng 60 11 0 l:'~ - -- -

I 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. I /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p-

°' 3lekirvaditsej Oer!u S/cm 1999 gad apils

WWPJN~AI

01 Waterconductivity, mS/cm (1 999, April) 01.Odenu elektrovaditspeja,mS/cm (1999. gada aprilis)

Results of surface water conductivity measurements Virszemes 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.S0iis . u mcina test ouramicn: 0.02 . 3 d

co ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10i

.-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .

0.21~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

0.2g

0.310 Wef[L- I

.ransrnssivitv [m4d): 8.3,5 10. X

H\yrauic concuc 'vity(rrva': 1.98x!!

Aquiferthic.'ess [MI:4.I00 Pumoing test analvss Date: 31.03.1999i Page I _Recoverymethcc atter Projec. ,evala. 1-3tvia

=umcg 7e' .c Nc_e- nu' co:Lvn

'7-~ ~ ~ ~~~7.E' AO -w iscna V :e !3.

.dt,

, ;ura*n:0i0 = n ! 'E' |

X,\ ' _ ~I I t i

C.*

0.20 oWeil L-2-

_ransr;,ssivity [m,di Z.5a xi O,

Hydrauiic ccnducdvity [rmVdi:=.as XIc

Aquifer thickness (ml: !.400 OumDingtest anaivsis Date: 31.03.1999 Page 1 Recovery method after H?E~S& JACOB.-. iE;S & JACOB ~~~Projec,-Liepala. Latvra Cznfined acuifer Evraluatedbvy Levins

PumpingTes; Nc. Tes. conoucuedon: Levins

Cissnarse 0.50 Us Pumping tes. ouration: 0.03 25 d

tJt, 101 .02

~~.OCI \ $, ', ,, i I ' "~~~~~~~~~:3 :.00- ~~ A. ... i .i ! ,. .i I ! ' i

:.08 . . . . I 3

40.2

-Well L-3

Transm_isawity[m2d1:1.09 x 10'\

I-iNcrauticco-ncuct2vty [mid]: 1.7.Ix 10'

Aquiferthickmess jmj: 6.300 I~ ~ ~~~~~l X

O.: 0.fl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .~~ -'- - 0.0------0.0 0.0 0.0

SiugNc. ,est eW:11L4cgncTesticv (mid]: - - - - o.:5LevmsI .0 ~~ ~

Weil~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L.C

1C HvCrui !.nuct11 xi O ,mdl ; Pumoingtest analysis Date: 31.03.19991 Page 1 Rec=very method atter . _'E Pro,iect iJepaja. Latvia ir-EIS & JACOB Confined acuiter Evaluated bv: Levins

Pumping Tes; No. Test conduced on: Levins L-^ ' Discnarueo.' u0Vs

2-mminc test curaticn: 0.0= c

~~~~~~>s ,II !: IC2

O.OA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1C

0.06

o.o,>ia

T,ansmissivitvf:~r 7:2 x I II I \

0.162 ,I

0.18 1 I

0.1620

'Nell :-5

Transmissivity fmZIcl: 7.52 x10

Hydiraulicconductivitv (rmdl: 5.27x 10°

Aquiier thicimess [ml: 1.400 I -4'

siugibasitest analyss Date:31.0319S9 I Page 1 lSOUWE-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~~ ~ ------! r------l- -l- - - - -,,------

. ' ' ' I I 1' 1 '' ' E~~~~~~~~~~I

o WellL-6

Hyvd.-auiic=ncucvity tVdi: 7.27 1IO 1i 11-7

t Pumping esy Dole: 31.03.1999 Page 1 RecOverY meUtod after Projecr Uspaa. L.atvia TiHES & JACOB Unconfined 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.:30x 10O

Hydraulic conduct:zviiyrrnidj: 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-.arcie0.' O V,s

F-umning test curaticn: 0.0-. 25d a

0.07. ,.- o I t \ . : ! i

0.00 !y au c ;ndu .vity [ . i I !IjI i*: I._ 0.06

0 j0 , i , iI j.I :

Aqfe thckes : m- i . . i i ;j;

- * *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0.05 - -- .e~ ;

cI te tfikns 320!0 Ii! I I ' I i , 11-9

Pumping test aiami Date: 31.03.1999 Page 1 Recoverv metthod atter Project Uepala. Latvta r-F.E1iS&JACB08 _'ncznfined acuiter Evaluated by: Levmns

P-umr-:ng aes. No. 7Tes; conducec on: Levins

L- ,

Discnarce 0.10 Vs

.umctng test auraticn: 0.01319 c

tt, C10' 1C2 0.00-

0. 6

i ! t I I !;'. I

0.16

C.s

~Weil L'

ransmssmity [m-ci: 1.46x 1

Hyd-rauficconcucmity [migd:4.85 x 10'0

Aquiferthickness [inl: 3.000 I Appendix 12

RESULTS OF VERTICAL ELECTRICAL PROFILLING, SKEDE I Appendix I, Results of vertical electrical prioilling

Apparent Picket no Relative coordinates resistivity x IjI om*m (h=')) I I t ~ t8'<. 75 2 i 4 4.S! 920.4 o8,______S _ 949.9 _ 37 4 \ 5418> '.949.9 12 '______I ______i 4 !9 7 6 o40 I 944 [ 6 7 i ~0S 1 944 4 8 1T 18944 1 2

10 454.3 808.3 29 I11 ! '8 3.8 767 32

12 __ __ 74928_ 3______32 I 13 I 595.9 !9 7s.71 42 14 643i.1 1 731.6 35 15 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______2289.1 5 44.6 1 39 21 2 3253.7 513.3 36 I______218.3 466.1 1 24 23 312.7 1 495.6 34 24 371.7 483.8. 45 25 430.7 466.1 64 26 1 483.8M 454.3 51 27 1 200.6 5311 31 28 1 147.5 554.6 1 3 29 94.4 578.2 1 27 30 41.3) 601.8 20 31 1 454.3 672.6 37 32 507.4 I 649 1 35 33 554.6 1 625.4 1 28 34 1 607.7 I 601.8 1 41 35 1 660.8 5 78.2 40 36 336. 35.7 1 [ 3)0 37 289.1 71 1 3' 38 12 36 790.6 42 39 188.8 1 820.1 87 40 413 1 944 I_44 To be continued C.nt')llUatiOt I.) t . ppcdixf\ I

43I I ' 42'.8 436)()_.6 l ______2 ; an 1g',$31. ' SEn-. I 14 1

44 I '0 .S 424.8 1 5 ; 45T (~~~').ol383.5 9~~~~~~~~~~~78.2o 46 ! 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

Apparent Picket no Relative coordinates resistivitv !~~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~y ~~ o-mOm (h=9 I 407.1 361.4 34

3 I 4724 784.7 T 36 41 1 590 i 72 5.7 45 5 ! 3777.6 70.1 19 6 448.4 678.5 38

7l 1 177 1 9';831.9 1 89 8 566.4 619.5 29 9 773 1.6 554.6 50 10 560.5 513.3 1 59 11 442.5 460.2 59 4. 12 531 944 12 13 342.2. 979.4 66 Appendix 13

]DETAILS ON FORECAST FOR FUTURE WASTE PRODUCTION

I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Forecast on future wasic aimotnms

Total vwaste amount in to\wlnsand cities Separaied bv waste ivnes. in nnlol compacted) M0unicipal Park- ;arden Hospital I Decniolitlti IIiLsLrIla I

'Aoar wsaste dsaIe Was Wase Waste Total

10QS_ 7952to 6000 1S-0 41 4 I o00 10())O20

I QQQ______I _42_5___ I18 1 4211 1545 1o(og 2000 I S2301 oi9 I a-,5 43094 16931 1116S5 2001 i S8067 i o4 1 2071 1 .1404 ' IS117 119348 2002 1 (5604 1 -220 2250 j 476') 14686 L 12961° 200'Q; I 103S61 I 7S36 2442 I 5050 I 21366 i 140555 2004 i 225-7 504 ! 264- j 5 4 1 23154 15221S 200 1 121730 1 Q184 1 262 56 ; I! 25042 164451 2006 i 125166 1 94 i 204 I 5651 T 25740 168952- 2007 128689 ! 9 09 i 30262 5669 I 26474 173567 20 01 13231 4QQ4 112 5687 27,2:3 1 17833i7 2000 i 136204 1 10i76 ! 203 -I-I 28020 183414 _2010 140196 i 105777 S2' 53 ! 28841 1 188646 2011 144300 0oSS7 333 5-59 I 29685 i 194024 2012 ' 148547 110 349 5 30559Q I 199589 201 153048 1 1154I 1 359 513 ,1485 1 205492 2014 i 158129 1 11°30 371] 5844 32530 i 212151 2015 162503 12260 3S1 5I5 33430 1 217889 2016 163362 123 3841 5906 33607 j 219041 J i201 164205 i1 89 i 3861 i 33780 222017' 2018 165064 12454 i 38SI 5967 3 3957 1 221323 2019 166066 i 12 29 3905 6004 ! ;4163 1 222667 2020 167100 1 12607 3929 6041 34367 24026 4064216 Total wasteamount III lkn\'IS InId c'i1cs scpiarailtcdov \vlSlC l m ' coinp;ic1 ed Niunicipal u ks- DemIe::niioollsitol Industrial Y eLir W\aMSIe' ' ;cllviCSj \;asle asic I W,iSIC 1 .

Io 2:2 30 ; ' !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,341or t to 2 I i 13 22Qu->479 z ! 3034 541) j 4211 , 1103() i 4-X | 20()0 235~05 3.105 553 [ 4.2l 1 112S- 2-i 2001 25162 i 322 ! ' 12(7%8 4.t.3 2002 i Thi0I2-11 i cA3 4,696 1 13124 4Q4S J 2003 i 296%5> 3 qI 8 6iS 5(150 14244 1 53585 2004 32165 i 42'47 7 56 -41 ! 154- 74 2005 1 47S0 45¢'2 i S8 5633 l66'qo 6251S 2006 35'76 2 i S4]2 1 5651 17166 64142 200- 36768 4S55 I S65 55660 1 17649 1 6S806 200S -7-8 4a2 I 88IS | 18149675261689 200° i "rSQl' 5138iS311 i 91 18680 6Q! 1;Q d 010 400'6 i Q2SQQ42 ; 192_' 7 124° 2011 I 41''9 5-44 i Q69 r Z7Q 19740 73191 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 2016i 466?5 6163 1097 i 5906 22405 i 82246 201 7 46916 6195 1103l i 5937 1 22520 I 82671 2018 4716 1 622', 1109 i 5967 I 2638 83102 2019 1-47 6265i 116 I 6004 22775 83607 2020 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 - demoiitionwaste - 1.0 industrial waste - 1.5 Total N-vasicamounl iII nlla-silhess'par'li ed ;Lv vp!cs. Ili v I, 1oll0C0IUcic(1) N'lunicipal Pniks- I spitaI D.noirioi;!u hmdusinal Year "vasl.c -ii Jwcs i asIe Waste WIsc j i j wIsle

10004() I - IS I 160 o' I

* 2000 I 5342 S5c) - 1185 1 _7J.N 1 "

200i 520 1I 175 i 54 j 7(}7) * 2002 58,8 s 3s"2) - I Il(> ! n1306 78oS 200 , 6430 42" 1 142S I St860 L00O4 $694 !4 I4o14Q 34 0332 2005 S >45 i 503> i - i 16736 10(2 2006 i 76S4 i 500z I I6Q4 10208 200 1 771 i I- I 1715 1 10I3 !200S 8 '118-Ss , _2 1 - 173S 0]47-i 200 7Q44 '- 1762 j s 10615 2010 850558 ! 1787 j S I 10768 2011 SV-O 545 1814 ! 2 10930 t '012- .41 1 1 I14- 1094 i201- 844 i 1870 1 404 1 11270

201 8 5 6 - i1;71 1900 410 11450 ;.01' . 1Si0 1 SO - 1932 41V 1163 j

2016 Ss -00 -9 1964 424 liS; 101 9010 oOO 1998 1 431 12039- : O 2S 9169 o l - 20-3 439 1222 > 2019 933~>4 ! o22 1 1 2070 1 44 ! 12473 21 0 95;07 2108 i 455 I 12703 234013 Total wvasteamount in inanslhcsSC0r'aiL'j 1,\ N%;ISlL:I'NlTCs. 1 N ILOfl(v ipacit NijLnicipal I Pal- Piespital ollDldillollniIIiildusuiji Caear ! wasic j .ir-dcns VISIC' ;asltc ";1sic i t X\1lSiL I

!008 i-t' I I it 21 1000 140: ! - Ii 1() I 6- 0noo0 I2-2 ,N _ 1 is8I 171 , ()

2001 151 1 1 I 117; | Ih i 04

F 00- 1 1682 j0 - lOs 1S,' 200 j I40 211R | 142S 1 205 36S8 N2004 1 Qi5 ! I1544 1 223 4000 2005 215oI 22 1673 ! 24 1 4322 2006 j 218i 2 R_ 1644 ! 244 ! 4376 200- _20Q 25 17t 15 247 4429 E 200S 223Q:( 2o I I -738 i 250 4488 200 1 2270 265 1 1762 I 2)5 4550 2010 202 i 2o ; 1787 I 57 4615 V 201 I i 2;'- i _-i ! - t 1814 I 261 4685 2: ~012 i 2372 ! 2 i 18I41 I 265 4755

i2013 E 2410 i 281 - 1870 I 269 4830 20i4 2448 286 1900 i 27 49017, 2015 24I9 2940 192 | 27 8 4989 016 ! 25 : - 1964 1 283 5073 _01 1 2574 300 1998 J 287I 5159 NOIS 2620 306 - 203 3 293 5252 2019 266- 3111 2070 298 '346 J t M20 2716 31, 2108I I 30-3 5444 t ~100302 Total wasie amoulit. III V'(inoI comIpIattLd and compa dMcd) Towns Pzir:shes, Tota.l 1 owns. lsIi s otr11.ii Y'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() 417(4 I "";' 447"1 200()t IlloS- i 118824 420 31o0 458IQ 2001 1 149SIQQ k)9 1>477 45653 1 3(134 4RoS7

2002 ! 12961 i° _S_S I 1374 7 49487 I' I 859 2 003 I 1405; I StO4 1 144154 I 5 585 36SS I 5 27 2004 1 )5221SI T 032 i 161550 I 57Q44 40(0 6144S 2005 16445 1 10S2 1 174533 62518 1 432 66840 2006 I 168952 I 10208 i 17160 I 64142 4ST 6851 2007 173,567 ' 101 I ISiS38 65806 T 4424 702-- 2008 I 178-33 10-4 1 IS1ssio 67526 44SS i 72014

2i'009 i lSi414 i0H~ 1I 4029 - 69359 j 4550 73909 2010 188646 ' 10 oS I 190414 1 71249 1 4615 75864 201] 1 194024 1 103() I 204954 73191 i 46S5 77876 2012 199589 11 0Q4 i 210683 75200 i 47995575

2013205492 V~~~~~0 216762 77333 i 483--0 - 82163 2014 2 1211 1'0-I 223601 79729 i 490 - 84636 [2015 1 2178S9 ! 1 i 295'S 81813S 498S 86802 i2016 i 219041 1S ,319230876 82246 S 2017 i 2201`2 i 0 9 232 82671 5159 87830 * 2018 I 221 32-3 i 237 83-1102 5252 883254 2019 2662 7 1-'I I 2-35140 S3607 5346 8895 2020 124026 1 1 0 2^36729 84128 5444 8957 TOTAL 4064216 i - 401 4298229 1536173 100302 1636475 Total \astel am.ount in I\Icsrcliln sc';ii cd 1i\ t t \a'wIsto. Ill 'N' 1flo1l C('ti11 Cd %Iin iLtpa; I I.s-1iosplwl DCiuJ,t,i,nl Indi.Irlol I \ear ' V2SlUz ''aSIC.lvi'dcmn c ISI c w 1al,; Year IC I o1al~~~~~~~~~~~~~"sI a.sle :!

I OL)S 84C44 , 3 I I ______1__ I oO47f) .1Oo° S-104" v41 18t'1 1 --- I I 7 15 1 I 1 IS()71 2000 S7t'43 >o1 Is~ 54044 n I'8 11824 2001 4. o34 ()0 2(0I1 i 674 | 18 I I 126r477 2002 1015S2 >12 2250 N15 I1t | 137487 r 2003 110300 2o i 2442 647S 21674I 1 149159 2004 I 195561 ' 5 2S - ' 689) 2 40 11 6155 1 2005 1292-5 1 Oos-2St'2 306 2540 - 17453 200t 132805:345 i 005°>2 i 2q48 ! 1 2611 1 179160 200 1 136420 10-24 1 3026v -384 26844 183898 2008 140169 10506 312I ! 42 1 27598 j 188810 2000 14.1148 10805oo 3203 7473 28400 194029 2010 i4S254 11114 29 199414 2011 1524'9 11432 0077 204954

2012- 156S50 ! 11-60 3403O62 i 30966 2 06 3 2013 1614S2 1210IO S5 9 683 i 1889 216762 20-1 16664S 12501 3- 1S T .44 ;2940 1 223601 201 171-1 12S40 3S_1 87 1 .38-47 1 22952S :01t !-219 i2Q15 3S-1 7S70 ! '40^31 230876 201 1 215 1 3861 79> i '11 2 201S 1 4-.23 1-065 388i S000 3496 233575 201° I75400 1I35 3 95 8074S '4610 235140 202( i,6607 13240 1 3929 S149 i 4822 1 236729 TOTAL 3194139 239446 OQ990 164195! 6294591 4298229 1: --

Total uaste amouint in region separated bv wr rxPesof 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 4425S 1900 2,14474 j .___t_ i 40 1 i;-l I 111L-, 44'°l 2000 250312 1 I ____ 54Q4 I 1458 45810 2001 1 2665 1 --lo_ I 50 [ 5674 1 12247 4____ 2002- 29023 35806 6I4 I 6075 133 12 5285Q 2003 3115 j 4133 68S 6478 141440 5727 2004 ! 3416(0 1 4S0 75t 6890 15662 1 6]Q48 2005 36936 4S411 S IS 7306 i 16036 66840 2006 1 37945 4077 841 7345 1 17410 1 68518 2007 38977 511 3 I 865 7384 1 17S96 702'3 2008 40048 52;53 S8Q i 7425 I 18399 T 72014 2000 . 41185 403 915 44-7 18933 | 73909 2010 1 4235 8 i 9_954 75-22 19484 1 75864 o011 4 3566 1 S-l I 969 1 7573 20051 1 77876 2012- 44814 5SS1 998 7624 20638 79945 i 013 1 46138 60-55 1028 j 7683 21259 1 82163 2014 I 47628 6251 106: 7744 1 2195] I 84636 2015 48918 6420 1 1092 ! 7807 1 22565 1 86802 2016 49206 645 i 109' 7S70 22688 87319 2017 ! 49490 1 6495 1 1103 1 7935 22807 1 87830 2018 i 49781 653 i 1109 8000 1 22931 8835A 2019 50114 6576 1I i 6 8074 237 88953 20210 504!59 1 6621 1123 i 8149 232-20 39 572 TOTAL 912625 119-36 202183 1 164 195 419636 163647 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, BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, SKEDE SITE

14-1

14. pielikums Appendix 14

Biologiska daudzveidiba Skedes apkartne Biodiversity at Skede site

1. att.: PalieVuplavas uz Tosniaresezera pusi. Fig. 1: Flood-meadowsbetween TosmareLake and landfill Skede.

2. atti Melnalkku niedr-ajarobela ar izgiiztuvi. Fig. 2: Border of Comimonalder reed stand with the landfill. 14-2

3. att.: Dilciizgaztuves dienviduun dienvidausirumumabL Fig. 3: Ponds along southern and south-westemside of the landfill.

4. att.: Purva tilbite dilcivecas 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.: Purvmirtesaudze. Fig. 7: Stand of Bog Myrtle

8. att.: KApuplava uz rietumiemno 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, BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, GROBINA SITE

15-1

15. pielikums Appendix 15

Biologiskadaudzveidiba Grobinas apkartne Biodiversityat Grobina site

,XMI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. att.: Armijas pamesta s teritorijasGrobigas iecirkmi. Fig. 1:Former army areas at Grobina site.

2. att.: KArkluaudzes. 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 dArzsMelbertu)u maju vieta. Fig. 4: Orchard at former Mezbertulihouse. Appendix 16

PHOTOGRAPHS, LANDSCAPES, SKEDE SITE

16-1

16. pielikums Appendix 16

AinavasSIedes izgaztuvesapkirtne Landscapesat Skedesite

~ '

1. att.: Skats no vecas Liepajas pilsetas atkritumu izgaztuves uz mazdirzi*iem. Prieksplana ar kidru un smilts maisijumuapberta atkritumu izgaztuve, talplina mazdirzi#u apbuive. Ainavekolotiska ziga savstarpejinesavienojama zemes izmantolanas veidu.kombinacija. Fig. 1: View from Liepaja City landfill to summer gardens. In front landfill covered with mixture of peat and sand, in background summnergardens. That is incompatible combination of land usage from the view of landscape ecology.

2. att. Skats uz perspektlvo SkcedesCSA poligonu, kur patreiz ir grisXuplavas ar dazadu sugu karklu un berzu puduriem. Teritorija saglab&jugiesatklItie melioricijas gravji, kuriem ir ne tikai liela nozime pie hidroloAiskarezlma regulsganas, bet tie palielina an ainavas biologisko un ainavisko daudzveidibu. Fig. 2: View to the proposed Skede landfill, where currently are sedge meadows with birch and osier clusters. Open drainage ditches are left in the area. They are important not only for regulation of hydrological regime, but also increases biological and landscape diversity of the area. 16-2

3. att. Skats uz nosedumudilkiem pie vecis Liep&ijaspilsatas atkritumu izgiztuves. Tie veido lotiipatneju cilveku veidotu ainavu, kcurano vienas puses palielin ainaviskcodaudzveidibu, bet no otras puses ir kaikinmiski, ta arnvizuali lotipiesirpota. Fig. 3 Settlng ponds at the old Skede landfill. They form specific man-made landscape that on one hand increases landscapediversity, but on the other hand is strongly contamiinated and littered

4. att.: Melnalks u un boezu dumbrijs uz dienvidiem no perspekttivikitdes CSA poigona. Fig. 4: Black alder and birch swamp to the south friomproposed Skede site. Appendix 17

PHOTOGRAPHS, LANDSCAPES, GROBINA SITE

17-1

17. pielikunms Appendix 17

Ainavas Grobinas perspektiva iecirkna apkartne Landscapes at Grobina site

1. att.: Prielu, eg}uun berzu mezaudze uz dienvidrietumiemno perspektivksatkritumu izgaztuves Grobinaspagasti. 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 Townlandfill.

2. att.: Skats uz perspektivo Grobivas CSA poligonu, kur patreiz ir pamestas lauksaimniecibas zemes ar dazadu sugu karklu, priedes un berzu koku un krumu puduriem. Ainavai piemit mozaikveidaraksturs. Fig. 2: Proposed Grobina site, wherr currently are abandoned agricultural lands with clusters of osiers, pines and birch and bushes. Landscape has mosaic structure. 17-2

3. att.: Sekundarasizcelsmes prielu puduri uz bijusam lauksaimniecibaszemem perspektivajaGrobbvas 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 site create very interesting and specific landscape.In background abandoned underground bunker.

4. att.: Raksturigi ainavas elementi perspektivaja Grobiqas CSA poligona ir Padomju Armijas pamestas pussagrautasbuves. Fig. 4: Characteristicelements of landscape at proposed Grobina site is half-demolished abandoned buildings of Soviet Army. 17-3

5. att.: Emocionals vizualas ainavas elementsir ziedogs augju koks uz Padomju Armijas biivju drupu fona. Fig. 5: Emotional element of visual landscape blooming aple tree in front of building ruins of former Soviet Arny.

6. att.: Saglabajies Meibertu1usaimniecibas auglu darzs perspekivaja Grobi4as CSA poligona. Fig. 6: Old orchard of Mezbertuli remained at proposed Grobina site.

Appendix 18

DESCRIPTION OF WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURE

.

Is-I

Appendix IS

Description of water samplin;, procedure

20 vlarch. 1999

Well L-3 Static GW level - 4.78 m bclowvwell head Depth of the * ell - 25.7 m below wcll head Pump - MP1 Grundfos Pumping rate - 0.6 l/s

_~~ . L . ~ ~

11 -53 Start of the pumping 11-j6-. 50 12 - 03 5.53 12 -'07 8.4 987 7.40 12 -13 5.54 8.4 962 7.44 12 - 17 8.4 951 7.44 12 -2 55 8.4 942 7.43 12 - 28 8.4 932 _7.43 12 - 33 5.55 8.4 920 7.43 Sampling 12- 37 .8.4 905 7.43

Well L-7 Static GW level - 0.87 m below well head Depth of the well - 4.81 m below wrellhead Pump- MPI Gnmdfos Pumping rate - 0.35 I/s

i: GW i,,.&' TL-mvr-1-are. 'C E. 2d' .tS: Th 13 - 01 Start of the pumping 13 - 04 2.84

13 -06. 2.71 3.8 . 220 7.38 1; - 10 2.71 3.6 221 6.92 13 - 16 2.71 . 3.6 223 6.84 13 -20 3.6 228 6.83 13 -23 3.6 237 6.81 13 - 26 2.71 3.6 245 6.80 Sampling 13 - 3() 2.71 3.6 250 6.80 IX-2

Well L-9 Static GW Icvcl - (1.97m bclow Ncll hicad Dcpth of the rcll - 4.70 m below wcll hlcad Pump - Supersub Pumping ratc - 0. I 1/s

14 -II Start of lhe pumping 14-14 1.32 14 - 16 1.34 14 -23 1' 5(1 3X89 (,.72 14 - 26 5(1 .97 . (,x 14 - 30 1.3.8 5.() I96 6.80 Sampling

Well L-8 Static GW level - 0.64 m below well head Depth of the well - 4.57 m below-well head Pump - Supersub Pumping rte - 0.1 1l/s

. - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...... _...... 14 - 56 Start of the pumping 14 - 58 1.07 15 - 01 1.09 15 - 06 1.08 4.0 299 6.37 15 - 08 4.0 302 6.52 15 - 12 1.(8 4.0 306 6.58 15 - 14 1.08 4.0 309 6.59 Sampling

Well L1 Static GW level - 4.18 m below well head Depth of the well - 33.45 nt below well he3d Pump - MP1 Grundfos Pumping rate - 0.6 l/s

.:1';'...... -'' ;+11-4 ' -. 4 , .. -',' ,,;- ':-- j 15 - 53 Start of the pumping 15 -55 4.85 16 - 00 4.85 11.2 703 7.87 16 - 02 10.9 691 7.44 16 -05 10.9 688 7.38 16 -08 4.87 10.9 684 7.35 16 - 12 10.9 683 7.34 16 - 15 4.88 10.8 6S5 7.33 16 - 18 4.89 1(1.8 683 7.32 Sampling 16 - 20 4.89 1(M.8 683 7.32 Well B-I StaticGW level - I. 4 m bclowwcll head DEcpthof the vell - 3.20m below w'cllhlcad FPump- Supersub FPumpin,rate -0.11/s

I, -(0 Start of thc pumping 17- 12 1.7S 17- lo IS 665 7.01 17 -20 66:' (.74 17 - 24 1.78 3.7 605 6.74 Sampling

Well L-2 StaticGW level - 3.91m belowNwNell head iDepthof the well- 26.35m belowwell head Pumnp- MP1 Grundfos Pumpingrate - 0.6 l/s

17 -57 Stan of the pumping 17 -59 4.63 18.07 4.82 18-=08 8.1 703 7.3 18 - 10 8.0 702 7.46 18 - 13 4.87 8.0 701 7.49 18 - 18 4.88 8.0 700 7.50 18 -26 4.88 8.0 700 7.51 Sampling

Well L-4 Static GW level - 0.69 m belo%NNvell head Depth of the well - 4.37 m belowvwell head

18 - 35 Cleaning of the well using MP1 Grundfos :1 March. 1999 W ell L-6 Static GW level - 0.48 m below well held Depth of the well - 3.03 m below wcll head

10 - 30 Cleuiing of thl well using NIPI Gnindfos

W\ell L-4 Pump - Supersub Pumping rate - 0.05 Vs

2- w . k - . . .I>4 S--X 10 - 50 Stan of the pumping 10-55 3.8 3.7 711 6.6 10 -9 4.0 3 4 596 6.68 11 -O 4.0 3.4 53 5 6.62 11 -08 4.0 ; 522 6.51 Sampling

11 - 10 .,.' 523 6.59

Well L-5 Static GW level - 0.90 m below well head Depth of the well - 4.45 m below well head Pump - Supersab Pumping rate - 0. 1 Vs

12 -34 Stantof the pumping 12 - 35 1.29 12 -3-19 1.32 2.6 606 6.84 12 -44 1.30 2 597 6.85 12 - 49 2.' 595 6.82 12 -54 1.30 2.6 594 6.81 Sampling 13 -07 1. 0 2.6 596 6.85

Well L-6 PVC sampler

13 -20 5.8 659 7.5 Sample 13-30 5.0 733 7.1

Well B-2 Static GW level - 0.93 m below well head Depth of the well - 2.78m below welLhead Pump - Supersub Pumping rate -0.1 lVs

14 - 3() Start of the pumpingt 14 -55 1.96 1.6 270 6.7o 14 - 59 1.96 1.6 't68 (09 Sampling AApril. 1999 Well L-'0 StatCGW level - 0.6,5m below well hcad Depth of the well - 2.49m below well licad Pump- Supersub Pumping ruet- 0.0i 1/s

_16 -;35 Stan of the pumping 16 - 4(0 4.3 14() 6.60 16 - 3.6 1430( 7.0 17 -00 145( 7.10 17 - 06 3.0 1450 7.02 Sampline 17 - 10 2.8 1460 7.02

Well L-21 Static GW level - 0.83 m below well head Depth of the well - 2.50m below well head Pump - Supersub Pumping rate - 0.03 I/s

17-3 0 Stan of the umping 17 - 35 510 17 - 41 3.0 526 6.62 17-49 2.7 521 6.91 17 - 55 2.8 519 6.97 Sampling 18 - 00 2.6 496 7.05

Well L-22 Static GW level - 1.08 m below well head Depth of the well - 2.49m below well head Pump - Supersub Pumping rate - 0.03 I/s

18- 15 Start of the pumping 1B- 19 3.3 562 18 - 22 3.0 570 6.55 18 - 24 3.1 555 6.88 18 - 30 3.0 548 6.88 Sampling 18 - 37 2.9 541 6.77 U elI L-'3 Static GW lcvcl - 07 rn nmel( ell huid Dcpth 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 thevptilinpinu 19)- 1' 4.(' . o 10 - I 4; 4. t 7) ti-7 70) N - '4 4 o f)1401 0. 0, Samplinu

19 19- 30t 44^ _ ,'9)544()

.pril,A PQ9

VVell L-24 (temporarv) Static GW level - 0.87 m below surface Pump - Supersub Pumoing rate - 0.03 U/s

18 - 24 Stan of the pumping 936 19 - 6 .8 961 6.67 19 - 10 5.8 96-4 6.80) 19 - 14 967 6.83 19 - 20 . 970 6.82 Sampling

I Mav. 1999 Well T-3 Static GW level - 0.26 m below surface Depth of the well - 4.75 m below surface Pump - Supersub Pumping rate - 0.05 I/s

- ~~ ~..-

13 - 50 Start of the pumDing 14-25 525 285 6.25 14- 28 5.3 29() 6.32 14-i2 5.5 2-8 6.34 1 -3;5 5.5 2S8 6,.31 SamDimeS I8-7

AellL-25 (tempor:ary) Static GW level - 0.1 m below surfiace Pump - Supersub Pumping rate - 0.03 lls

18 - 30 Stan of the pumput; _IS -5 6.5 107() 6 4 18 - 41 6.3 108 6.86 18-47 6.2 1(SI 6.88 Samvlina 18 -55 6.2 18)4 6.89

2 Mavy 1999

Well T-1 Static GW level - 3.96 m below surface Depth of the well - 21.3 m below surface Pump - Supersub Pumping inte - 0.07 V/s

_~~~~~~~~~~~ _ 10 - 55 Start of thepumpMg 16-18i.2 724 7.32 16- '7 8.2 744 7.35 16 - 39 8.2 745 7.35 16 - 53 8.2 745 7.35 Sampling

Well L-26 (temporary) Static GW level - 0.1 m below surface Pump - Supersub Pumping rate - 0.03 V/s -~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pt iale:ieonur;sltlrt. "C £t i- ' ). uScL Hc'P. 13 - 20 Stan of the pumping 13 - 27 6.5. 521 6.20 13 - 32 5.9 . 494 6.52 13 - 36 5.8 394 6.62 13 - 39 5.6 424 6.58 Sampling 13 -44 5.6 414 6.43

Well L-29 (temporary) Static GW level - 0.4 m below surface Pump - Supersub Pumping rate - 0.07 V/s

20 - 57 Start of the pumpmg 21 -0 5.99 5) 21 - 10 5.8 250 565 Sam_fin.

Appendix 19

MAIN DATA OBTAINED DURING SAMPLING 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 (Orgranolepficch2araclcristi Laboratorv ms;cm aiialv,sis L-1 10.8 68 7.3 Slizht addition of sand. without smell Extended L- 8.0 70 7.5 I Bright. uncolored. without smell Extended L-3F 8.4 91 7.42 Bright, uncolored, without smell Extended L4 3.4 52 6.55 Yellow color. marsh smell Extende.d. L-5 2.6 60 6.85 Yellow color. marsh smell Extended L-6 5.0 70 7.3 lAdditionof sand and silt. without smell Extended L-7 3.6 25 6.80 Yellow color, marsh smell Extended L-8 4.0 31 6.59 Yellow color. marsh smell Extended L-9 5.0 40 6.80 Yellow color. marsh smell Extended L-20 [ 2.9 145 ] 7.02 Yellow color, marsh smell Extended L-21 2.7 51 7.00 Yellow color. without smell Extended L-22 | 3.0 55 | 6.80 Yellow color, marsh smell Extended L-23 1 4.5 | 690 6.8 Dark yellow color, strong rotten smell Extended L-24 5.81 97 | 6.82 Yellow color, marsh smell Extended L-25 6.2 1 108 16.88 |Yellow color. marsh smell Shortened L-26 5.6 | 42 ! 6.5 lYellow color. without smell Shortened

L-X7 | -1 23 | Yellow color. uncolored. without smell INo L-28 400 1 IDark yellow color. strong rotten smell INo L-29 225 1 IBright uncolored, without smell INo B-1 | 3.7 66 | 6.74 |Yellow color, marsh smell lExtended B-2 1.6 27 16.78 lYellow color, marsh smell IExtended T-1 ] 8.2 75 | 7.35 jBright uncolored, without smell IShortened T-3 5.5 1 29 | 6.32 Yellow color, marsh smell |Shortened Ditch | 7.4 | 660 1 7.0 |Yellow color. strong rotten smell lExtended Pool I I3700 --- Da-rkYellow color, strongzrotten smell IShortened

Results of surface water conductivity measurements, Grobina

Meas. point EC (200 C), ms/cm I Meas. point EC (20°C), ms/cm 1 57 I 4 62

2 57 5 . 42 3 54 I 6 58 Data of measurements:March 24.1999

Appendix 20

ABSOLUTE HEIGHTS OF WELL HEADS AND GROUNDWATER TABLE I Appendix 20

Absolute leiblits of well headts :iid ,roun.idwater t;)ble

If ell SurlJxwc,in 1Jellhead. ni if 1l/iwld.> (.;rmindI-raler (Gru,:iZ,l- 1Ailfot a.m.x.l. IIhio", in level, In bLeimr wtah'r elecl. 11eCUPSUelr/c11 0/ surJ,~' i 11/ellhCad it am.x.a IntsI !rciltral%I"erlevel L- I~ I>| ()(o 595 | . 4.1 S- 1.77 20-Mar-'> L-2 ,1 0. 7 3.x | Al -I.03 20-Mar-9)9 j L-- T 4.21 0.70 4.91 4.78 0.13 20-Mar-99 L-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-99 iL_6 I1.-8 l).3S 1.96 0.48 1.48 21-Mar-99 L-7 4.20 0.67 4.87 0.87 4.0() 20-Mar-99 L-8 4.43 0.42 4.85 0.64 4.21 20-Mar-99 L-9 4.62 O.0A) 5.22 0.970 4.25 20-Mar-99 L-10 14.59 (.47 _ T L-11 14.10 j 0.2 I 7 _ I L-12 11.14 (0.60 _ B-1 4.48 0 .60 5.08 1.34 3.74 20-Mar-99 B-3 5.00 0.6()0 5.6 I 1.35 4.25 21-Mar-99 B-2 _ _ 1 0.93 21.03.99 L-20 1 0 02.05.99 L-21 _ [ 0.83 _ _02.05.99 L-22 j 1.08 02.05.99 L-23 {1 | j 0.87 02.05.99 L-24 ] j___ j______1 0.87 03.04.99 T-; ______T 0.26 01.05.99 L-'5 1 ______I______| 0.1 01.05.99 T-1 _ 1 i 33.96 02.05.99 L-26 I _ i 0.1 02.05.99 L-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 a very diplomatic way - making a decision on most suitable site for a landfill. Liepaja City Council will rely on investisation results and expert's recommendations. Costs will be taken into account as well. so it would be cheaper for inhabitants. Just now it is too premature to judge about 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 land piece. It is located in Medze pagasts. Referring to the information provided by a person who is responsible 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 cases surrtmerhousesare built there. some of co-operative members are even registered there. At the beeinning this co-operative was formnedby army people. mostlv non-citizens. It means that forrnalisation of land as their property costs more than for citizens. The formalisation and registration of one land piece costs approx. 150 Ls. The cadastre value of one land piece is approx. 65 Ls.

According to co-operative members. the co-operative was formed in the end of 70ies. The marked territory was swampy, a lot of black earth was brought there with a purpose to meliorate the soil. The amount is different for each of the ploL 50-300 auto loads were mentioned. If we look at the area in the springtime. early May. we can assure. that instead of a swamp a bloomy garden is formed. People are willing to remember their primary enthusiasm and heavy work. but one 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 next to tlheLiepaja City border and near to the Tosmare Lake is formed in 1972. The members of the co-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. A respondent. who got a garden in 1980 in the second newest part. which is located within a distance of 100-200 m from the garbage hill. assured that some time ago when a gyardenwas assigned, 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 and the garbage site, there are not any plantation. except some trees. The Landfill is not enclosedand people, 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 that comes from the landfill in case the wind is from that side. Drinkingnwater

The majoritv of inhabitants does not use local water. only teewtold that Lhey mav bolilit buLt drinking 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'ood preparation . Onlv in the 17'h street can the water be used- The local water is used for watering ol gardens.

Smoke, airpollution

Air pollution after a waste burning. is noticeable particularly in the early morning. In case of the fog at nizht-time. gardens are covered by 'smo2". The smoke is very strong. it it imrtates the eves and . eyes are watering. In cases when the wind blows from the landfill, people with respiratorv diseases during daytime return back to the city. People consider dust from the waste burning. 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 30 min walkina.

Estimating that situation, it is hard to understand how that can happen, how two so contradictorv objects can exist so close to each other and it can last for such a long time. It is not possible that the situation can become worse than it is. therefore any modernisation and infringements can be only for good.

From another side - people has gained a very negative landfill experience during these years and a message about landfill closure would be accepted with a great relief by the locals. In case of enlarging 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 case that project would not seem to them acceptable.

30 persons were inquired in the Gardening Company. mostly from the streets, which are close to the landfill. The impact of existing landfill is so apparent, that it is verv difficult to speak about some future perspectives and enlarcement possibilities. More detailed information about new landfill project. waste storage. sorting and processing technologies is possible in case an opinion of some people could be changed.

Summary on questioning results: attitude towards landfill modernisation and enlarging in direction to the Liepaia citV FOR DO NOT KNOW AGAINST. Number 3 6 21 Score 1 2 7 GROBINA

Grobina pagasts

The problem of waste was raised in Grobina pagasts a Ionugtime ago. We were *"inup to our ears". was admitted bv Mvlayorof 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 in the 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 of former 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. The major problem is the landowner's attitude. The whole territory of a former army shooting-range is located on private property. The pagasts has offered a bargain: 30 ha of good forest aaainst 50 ha poisoned ground. An owner primarily agreed on this business. but finally he was not satisfied wviththe offer and the deal did not take a place. Members of the landowner's family participate in every meeting, usually only the landowners are participate in public hearings. Now the owners to participate in the implementationof the landfill project and do not want to abandon their land rights.

Grobina town council

.Although the distance between designed landfill site and Grobina town is approx. 3 km. it is interested in the localisation of the regional landfill. because of a planned reform to establish joint: administrationsof towns and pagasts in the future. In this case the location of a landfill in the paeasts will be advantageous also for a town. The selected site is located in the outskirts of the pagasts. near the border with Medze pasasts. It should be noted that this site would never be usedifor agrnculture.because of the existing pollution. To assess the impact to the human health of town inhabitants. special investiaations are needed. The use of European level of technology causes expectations that impacts on the environment and human health will be minimal. Landfill site has a "good geology", however a problem with waste waters is not solved by existing technology. Water, which collected. is canalised in the forest. At the moment Grobina inhabitants pay 25 santims per capita for waste collection. Disposal of waste in the landfill is for a definite cost - 0.5 -1 Ls per container/load. Two Liepaja companies take waste to the Grobina site. The inhabitants would be interested in waste collection with conditions 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. The family property covers 93 ha land, including a part of the former army territorv. The owner considered 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. The land owner did not agree on this by principle. Now it is doubtful if thev accept a change anv more. They support a landfill project and consider the idea as a good way to use that land. but they are eager to have advantageous conditions The owner would be willing to lease the land for a period of 30 years in accordance with world-wide acceptable standards. The family is ready for discussion 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. hoxveverbehind 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 next to the "Puranu' household. Present landfill satisfies them because it is farther away and intercepted bv wood clusters, however. if we speak about enlarging that territory, some people remembers the 'Puranu'' case. People are more concerned about the road rather that about the landfill location. Some of houses (Sunaisi. Purani) is located at the access road. The road is not asphalted and the traffic raises a cloud of dust. The waste that is carried to the landfill not always is covered. waste falls off and litter the roadsides.

Even more disaffection was announced by inhabitants of the region regarding a road from a landfill through a Grobina private house area. The road to the landfill through Grobina Town is called Skuju Street. Also here houses are located close to the street. Street is not asphalted and appropriate for large transport flow. Inhabitants of surrounding cross streets are influenced much less by dust. however they are concerned either about a large transport flow and that a nearby landfill could destroy an existing pleasant atmosphere of area.

As well as town inhabitants. also pagasts inhabitants would be interested in asphalting the road and nearest streets. A lot of inhabitants expressed a suggestion to build a new access road from Liepaja -Ventspils motorwav, which would not go through Grobina town.

Grobina town inhabitants are comparatively less informed about landfill project - some has read about it in newspapers. some has aot an information from previously distributed questionnaires. Objections made by town inhabitants were more deliberative. possibilities of joining for protest action - more realistic.

Building a new access road can significantly influence Grobina town and pagasts attitude towards 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 for making any decision on it, they needed more informnationabout waste storage and processing technologies.

Summary on questioning outcome: attitude towards installation of a modern landfill in thie territorn of former armyv FOR DO NOT KNOW AGAINST Number 6 |5 17 score 2

More detailed data summary see in the summary below. SiuZzpzan,oia qu slfiinlingresltrs Alavo6-8, 1999 Licpaja -ardceiiig C0171)(117V "SLJde

No. Street Landfill impact assessment. comments, Attitude 11. 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 Against from the forest. They burgles houses, breaking off plantations. during wintertime some crude iron furnaces were stolen. 4 1. Some kind of standards has to be defined, how big wife impact is acceptable. some kind of zone would be Against. needed. at present not much is known, water is carried husband with. For 5. 1. When wind is from that side - there is nothing to Against breathe.burning chernicals. cellophane, smoke makes eyes 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 Against considered that some people had vegetable poisoning, i______because of washing them in that water. I 8. 1 7 years ago it was possible to fish in the Lake. Strong Against smoke in the mornings. wife is asthmatic. she does not rive in case of wind from that side. Scavengers are walking in crowd. fimmvand going stealin2. 9. 1. Most important that Lake is perishing. Particularlv Against difficult to breathe at nightime in case of fog and smog. 10 1. Water stinks as sewerage Xainst 11. 1 Nothing bad is sensed No matter 12. 1. Live for the second year and feel nothing bad Do not

______.___ }nowk_ 13. 1. Since 1970 has not been near the landfill. at times can No matter feel smell 14. 2.mas. When it burns, they drive home. Forest around is Against polluted very much, afraid of eating mushrooms. Metal l______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. Against 17. 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 end of the street - is a bus stop. Scavengers are walking through. but strawberries are blackened with smoke. 20. 3 Since 1976. when plastic is burned there. the burnina Atrainst l______can feel even more. 21. 3. It does not influence too much No matter 22. 5. When wind. then can feel. It is better to modernise, For because nobodv will eliminate that. 23. 5. If burns - smoke Against 24 . 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 - it becomes muddv. 25. 8. When it bums. then can feel it. It would be better if | Against l______Iwaste is buried. 26. | 8. They take water with them. do not like scavengers A_ainst

27. l __8. i Do not believe. that it will be eliminated somedav No matter 28. 9. Pity about the lake and forest Against 29. 9. Do not fell so much, water is carried with Do not l_____ -______[know

Grobi4a pagasts

No. Houses Lpndfill impact assessment. comments Attitude 1. 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 For I______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 is non-citizen. 4. Parani /Irniece Stink, land is for use. cars are driving by. and Against waste 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 not somewhere. To decide on it. more know information is needed about a project. technologies. which will, be used. It is better to construct an entry from Ventspils motorway. 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 21-7

it flies in the air. pollutes roadsides. kiiow crassland. stock do not eat it. non- esthetic view. I will a-ree if road is asphalted and

_arbaee carried in closed vehicles. 7. Kukuli Mlostlvlive during summertime. There are Against craws. daws. Smut comes from the old landfill. xaste comes down from vehicles. no control: scavengers_ S. Kapelkaleji It is planned to create a resting-place with Aiauinst horse ride (30 horses). Thev think Grobina will become a living place for businessmen. Realistically it is understandable. that selected place is suitable for a landfill. but personally thev are against it. 9. Ziedi4i Do not know anvthing. Afraid of smoke Husband - for, wife - ______a gainst 10. Meta streetI They would endure in case " road is asphalted For and straightened. A dangerous roundabout way is next to the 'Sunaisu' household, were ______

The part of Grobina town, that is crossed by landfill transport route

No. Street Landfill impact assessment. comments I Attitude 1. §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 azainst 3. Apsu No impact. experts has to decide Do not

_ .I . I know 4. 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 the way to the landfill, visiting gardens as well. Suggestion - Way to the landfill in another place- from Ventspils motorwav. 5. Skuju Too close to Grobina, dust from the street - A-ainst ______insufferable 6. Skluju Dust from smoke and vehicles. Against 7. Skuju Street deck is not adequate for such a huge Against transport. When it drives, whole house shakes. Too close to Grobina. S. Skuju Afraid that it can stink during summer. for More for safety reasons - better to dig waste, that way no smell would be there and no seen as well. In case road is asphalted and no smell, then we would agree. 9. Kaleju If it continues as it is now. then forest will go A-ainsl

Appendix 22

APPENDIX No. 98 TO THE REGULATIONS OF 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 iollonso .111ti 15. 9t99)1(4J . 21 lRetlI;lations ol' nlmliti i're serves"

N,, |N in )NUI Ipliul.i IIItItll\t 1t l1.1n.

I.h 0-7 To. niri1 wesIt ;ilo1il2 11wt(::ialli:at Sdwnle o- tles prtsc.servetick till thlenottlh-te-weslertl elirner 01 ITosinare lA,ike" tle 7"' ralintu il latitil houtse IAuzselhi' ! . 1.7 7-X To soith and west al._. ilt: Laike s

- \ tI.xl-ltnd.s. erossoinflanrmVs , .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 border between 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".

= J 8>q-~i k /\ southem border of the farm "Seli' /; -j rLiS>=1.10 10-Il\ Fy To north-east along the souther /! ,~\ n . . border of farm "Sli" and to south /9>v^-^1 5 \ along the westerm border of farm y ;_ *w "Mi~~~~~~~~~~keli"till the south-westem corner of farm "Mikeli' 1.11 11 12 To east from the southern border of _ JI the farm "Mikeli" till the border of Ifarm "Janiki" 1.12 I2-13 To south and to east along the /R .. 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 November Preser velo"T osmare ortne"N t Liepaja citv Preserve "'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 forCN1 plan determination of the border ' 15-16 Ti north-east along the t'rest's Liepatja District. Liepaja Head Forestry boh)raiertill the Cietoksna Chaiiel Medze pagasts. Grohina forestrs -' I t- 17 To north-west alone the Cietksna 1.1 1-2 From the borderbetweeni the Medze Channel till the eross with \iesturs pagasts and Liepaja City to north Str,m alonc the drainawe ditcih till the 2.4 1I- IS l'o northi and nort h-west alone tihe crossof drainauekihches Viestura Street till the accese.road I. 2-3 T'locast aloinethe draintahceditcl till - it) hliclandfili iWer Sip1v lineI .. IS- It I'o CalSt and ntorth-ca%t aklion the ;. 4 1 .-n t al ie rti and eastern oirder of tlhe powerCstipply lie ald Ili.II itace I ilill til the bonIer l'ti een lilii till the 011t1l 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 114 i 1itllou soti-w'st thie ri;tillee lepata t ,,1 M1ics Iiag istd till liiteli 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.oi.Iei t'l tlhc flpris.l, Il: est ralel-enlo. 7 5 till

_ ilite dralleitc'lh