E-334 Public Disclosure Authorized

RIGA DISTRICT HEATING REHABILITATION PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

Public Disclosure Authorized SECTION SIX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW Public Disclosure Authorized RiGAS SILTUMS Public Disclosure Authorized

December21, 1998 A , FVB j j&t&rfafebyr&no& District Heating RehabilitationProject Final Report, Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 1 6.1 Introduction ...... 1 6.2 Present situation...... 1 6.2.1 Location...... 1 6.2.2 Fuels ...... 3 6.2.3 Emissions...... 4 6.2.4 Air quality in the city ...... 6 6.2.5 European standards regarding air ernissions ...... 7 6.2.6 Environment and Economy ...... 8 6.3 Situation after suggested conversion...... 10 6.3.1 Location ...... I 0 6.3.2 Fuels ...... I1 6.3.3 Emissions ...... I1 6.3.4 Air quality in Riga ...... 15 6.3.5 Environment and economy ...... 15 6.4 Summary...... 17

December 21, 1998 - FVB - g:lidal97360draftfitnal,rpoflrig,ams.do Riga District Heating RehabilitationProject Final Report, Section 6 Environmental Impact Review

6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 Introduction The goal for this environmental impact review is to investigate the environmental effects of rehabilitation project. The environmental situation regarding air emissions, before and after the planned rehabilitation, is compared. Handling of rest products and other kinds of waste such as asbestos is also being described.

6.2 Present situation

6.2.1 Location The district heating system in Riga is mainly supplied with heat from eight large plants: TEC-l, TEC-2, , , , Daugavgriva, and Vecmilgravis.

TEC 1, TEC2 and Andrejsala are owned by Latvenergo and the other district heating plants belong to Rigas Siltums.

The plants in Riga had the following capacity/production in 1997:

Table 6.2.1.1 Fuel, ca pacity and produc ion of the district heating plants in Riga. Heating plant Fuel at present Capacity Production 1997 (Gcal /h) (Tcal) TEC-1 gas/heavy fuel 530 634 oil/milled peat _ TEC-2 gas/heavy fuel oil 1100 2241 Andrejsala gas/heavy fuel oil 250 494 Imanta gas/heavy fuel oil 300 424 Zasulauks gas/heavy fuel oil 200 286 Daugavgriva heavy fuel oil/wood 48 53,3 Ziepniekkalns gas/heavy fuel oil 104 186 Vecmilgravis gas 140 159 small boiler houses gas/coal/wood _ 229 Total 2672 4706,3 Source: Riga Siltums Annual report of 1996, Andris Boze facsimile dated 1998 02 02

The district heating system also consists of a large number of small boiler houses. Altogether the small plants produced 228828 Gcal in 1997.

December 21., 1998 - FVB - gwsidai97360drdaffi.dreponrisgsee6dod Riga District Heating Rehabilitation Project 2 Final Report, Section 6 Environmental Impact Review

Fi ure 6.2.1.1 Map over the district heating plants in Riga

Mos he lag disbtrict eti pls ar la o t r r=.~~~~~~~~~~~~.

' . /ran.l t X \4

Most of the larger district heating plants are located outside the city center, except for the Latvenergo owned Andrejsala, which is located quite close to the city, right on the riverbank of the . No private houses seem however to be situated in the direct neighborhood of the plant. TEC 2 is situated outside the city, south- east of Riga, in an industrial area. TEC I is located north of the city center, on the outskirts of the city, in a small industrial area.

Ziepniekkalns is situated outside the city, to the south of Riga. Daugavgriva is situated in a small suburb north of Riga, on the left bank of the Daugava, quite close to the Baltic Sea. Vecmilgravis is located in another suburb north of Riga and right of the river Daugava.

Several of the small boiler houses - and also the larger district heating plants Imanta and Zasulauks - are located quite close to the city centre, on the west side of the Daugava. Most of these small plants are however fired with gas, which means that not many vehicles have to pass through the central areas in order to provide the plants with fuel.

December 21., 1998 - FVB- g.id&973601drqfi-I -p-1 rg dod Riga District Heating RehabilitationProject 3 Final Report, Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

In general the location of the heating plants is good from transportation point of view.

6.2.2 Fuels

The two mostly used fuels are natural gas (6800 Tcal in 1997) and heavy fuel oil (900 Tcal in 1997). In TEC 1, 470 Tcal of peat was combusted in 1997. Only small amounts of wood and coal are used in the system.

Table 6.2.2.1 Fuel analysis o heav fuel oil water (wt %) 3,00 sulfuir(wt %) |2,10 SNetheat value of combustion (kJ/kg) |39000 Source:Ainars Ozols,Riga Siltums

Table 6.2.2.2 Fuel analysis of natural gas CH4 (vol %) 97,70

C2 H6 (vol %) 0,80 N 0 0,90 Net heat value of combustion (kJ/Nm3 ) 33500 Source: Ainars Ozols, Riga Siltums

The heavy fuel oil is transported by train. Upon arrival the mazut is heated by steam and poured into a receiving reservoir. During this process HC is emitted to the air. The estimated amount of emitted hydrocarbon is presented in the table below. The storage of mazut in oil containers also causes emissions of HC. This too is presented in the table below.

Table 6.2.2.3 Emissions from storing and unloading heavy fuel oil 1997.. Actual emissions Actual emissions HC emission limit from storing in from unloading values (ton) containers (ton) mazut (ton) TEC-1 1,7*) 1,7 TEC-2 4,0 *) 4,0 Andrejsala 5,4 *) 5,4 Imanta 3,0 0,6 4,2 Zasulauks 1,0 0,2 3,4 Daugavgriva 0,06 0,01 0,088 Ziepniekkalns 0 0 2,078**) Vecmilgravis 0 0 0 Small boilers 0,07 0,01 0,137 Total 15,23 0,82 21 Source: Andris Boze,facsimile dated Feb 2, 1998 *) Total emissions **) The norm was given in 1997 10 09. Since that time mazut was not burnt.

The system for unloading and storing mazut is sometimes (like in Daugavgriva) in a bad condition, which creates undesirable working conditions. Therefore, an investigation should be undertaken to see if it is possible from an economnicalpoint of view to carry out the unloading of mazut in a more environmentally friendly way.

December21., 1998 - FVB- g:LWidai97360/dnflflmreponiigo.-6.doc Riga District Heating Rehabilitation Project 4 Final Report, Section 6 Environmental Impact Review

6.2.3 Emissions Emnissionsto air

In 1997 the average emissions from the different district heating plants were as follows:

Table 6.2.3.1 Emissions in mg/MJproduced ener from the district h atingsystem Heating plant dust S02 NOx V205 CO HC C02 *) (mglMJ) (mg/MJ) (mg/MJ) (mgfMJ) (mg/MJ) (mg/MJ) (g/MJ) TEC-1 99 414 181 0,23 0 0,64 37 TEC-2 3,0 182 238 1,3 0 0,43 64 Andrejsala 0,38 14 55 0,19 0 2,6 64 Imanta . 7,8 687 39 2,7 0 2,0 73 Zasulauks 4,0 313 17 1,4 0 I,I 72 Daugavgriva 11,5 562 75 2,2 823 0,3 93**) Ziepniekkalns 3,2 337 103 1,4 91 0 69 Vecrnilgravis 0 0 24 0 0 0 70 Small boilers 203 211 83 0,7 159 0,08 74 These data are calculatedfrom the values of production (given in table 6.2.1.1) and the values of emissions in ton/year (given in table 6.2.3.2). *) The emissions of C02 are calculatedfrom: Oil: 80 weight% C content, LHV (lower net heat of combustion)= 39 MJ/kg Gas: 75 weight% C content, LHV =33,5 MJ/Nm3 Peat: regarded as a biofuel with no net emissions of CO2 **) These emissions should be somewhat lower, because the production with wood is not included

The emissions, reported from Rigas Siltums plants (Andrejsala, Imanta and Zasulauks), especially those of Nox, are remarkably low - the same level or lower than NOx emissions from modem plants.

During 1997 the plants emitted the following amount of pollutants, given in tons.

Table 6.2.3.2 Emissions in tons from the district heating system (power production is not included) Heating plant dust S02 NOx V205 CO HC" C02**) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) TEC-1 263 1100 480 0,6 1,7 97000 TEC-2 28 1711 2228 12,3 4,0 600000 Andrejsala 0,78 29 113 0,4 5,4 133000 Imanta 14 1220 70 4,8 3,6 130000 Zasulauks 4,8 377 21 1,7 1,3 86000 Daugavgriva 2,6 127 17 0,5 186 0,07 21000"" Ziepniekkalns 2,5 264 81 1,1 71 0 54000 Vecmilgravis 0 0 16 0 0 0 46000 Small boiler houses 195 203 80 0,7 152 0,08 71000 Total 510,68 5031 3106 22,1 409 16,15 1240000 *) Emissions from storing mazut in containers. Source: A. Boze, Riga Siltums, facsimile dated 1998 02 02 **) The emissions of C02 are calculatedfrom table 6.2.3.1. ***) These emissions should be somewhat lower, because the production with wood is not included

December 21.. 1998 - FVB - sid.19736O1d,oftfi.delponligo6.dg. Riga District HeatingRehabilitation Project 5 Final Report,Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

Emissions to water

The drainage water from the oil storage tanks goes to a water settling reservoir. The oil on top of the reservoir is separated from the water. The water in the reservoir is discharged to the municipal waste water network. The table below shows the average content of oil products in the water that is discharged from the plant to the waste water network.

Table 6.2.3.3 Average values of oil products in drainage water 1997 Actual average value of oil Norms for oil products products in drainage water content in drainage water (mg/I) (mg/I) TEC-1 TEC-2 Andrejsala 0,84 4 Imanta 0,6 4 Zasulauks 0,3 4 Daugavgriva 0,3 4 Ziepniekkalns 0,4 0,5 Vecmilgravis 1,8 4 Small boilers __L Source:A. Boze, Riga Siltums,facsimile dated 1998 02 02

Waste, ash and asbestos

The boilers are swept with steam soot blowers. The small amounts of ash from the oil burning plants are transported to the Getlini-2 landfill. The waste, - except for used fluorescent lamps, generated at Rigas Siltums- is also transported to the Getlini landfill. The used fluorescent lamps are taken care of by a recirculation company situated in Liepaja. In 1996 a total of 91O m3 waste from Riga Siltums was transported to Getlini-2.

When reconstruction takes place, it is sometimes necessary to remove asbestos from the plants or distribution system. The contractor (who is in charge of the reconstruction) is then also responsible for the correct treatment of the asbestos.

According to EC standards, countries that are members of the EC are obliged to prevent or (if not possible) reduce emergence of asbestos waste and emissions of asbestos to air and water.

When plants or buildings that contain asbestos are torn down or if materials that contain asbestos are being transported, this shall be done without causing any significant pollution of the environment. Therefore, a working plan for the activities should be established.

The member countries are obliged to take the necessary actions to prevent asbestos fibers and asbestos dust from being released to the air.

Waste that contains asbestos must be deposited at an approved landfill.

December 21, 1998 - FVB - g.Lid.976da)ifi aleponlrigrti6rdo Riga District Heating RehabilitationProject 6 Final Report,Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

Noise, dust and odor

The operation of the district heating plants does not cause any significant odor or dust problems, since natural gas or heavy fuel oil is used as fuel. The information that has come to hand does not indicate any occurrence of noise disturbances.

6.2.4 Air quality in the city

The emissions from the district heating plants contribute to the concentration of harmful substances in the air. But there are also other sources. The traffic is by far the largest source of nitrogen oxides.

Table 6.2.4.1 Estimated emissions of various substances in Riga (1991) Dust CO S02 N02 HC ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year Industries ( 1991) 9300 6700 6700 2250 Traffic (1991) 65000 4800 10500 District heating plants (1991) 1200 6700 15700 5700 District heating plants (1996) *) 30 1 10 2400 140 6 Source: "Evaluationof air pollution control and air probationprogram for Riga"; 1993 09 03; Stockholm Energi AB, Teknik och Miljo *) May-December 1996. Not including TEC I and TEC 2.

The emissions from various sources in the city (and also to a certain extent outside the city) cause the following concentrations in the city air:

Table 6.2.4.2 Actual concentration and limit values of SO2 and NO 2 in Stockholm and

Rtiga______

i______0 _ |Sulfur dioxide Nitrogen dioxide average conc. max. conc. average conc. max. conc. ug/m 3 ug/m 3 Ug/M3 Ug/m3 Riga (actual level) 9,9 177 42,7 162,5 Riga (permissible 50 l 500 2) 40 " 85 2)

level) ______Stockholm (actual 5 3) 35 4) 47 3) 110 4)

level)______Stockholm 50 3) 200 5) 50 3) 110 5 (permissible level) EC-standard 40-60 6) 350 5) 50 7 200 8) Sources:A) Facsimilefrom "Rigadomes vides aiszardzibasparvaldes gaisa monitoringanodala" dated 1997 11 04; B) "MilUo2000"- environmentalprogram for the city of Stockholm, Miljoforvaltningen;C) European Communitylaw 380L0779/Sdated 1980 08 30 and 389L0427/Sdated 1989 07 14. I) Dailypermissible max. concentration. 2) Single permissiblemax. concentration The data from Riga are based on measurementsperformed 1997 01 15-1997 11 04. 3) Averagevalue (permissibleand actual) for half a year (winter). 4) 98-percentileof 24-hour values measuredthroughout the latest years (-1995) 5) 24-hour limit value (98-percentile) 6) Guiding levelfor yearly average value 7) Guiding levelof 50-percentileof hourly averagevalues measuredthroughout a year 8) Limit level for 98-percentileof hourly averagevalue

December 21,. 1998 - FVB - g:isida9736O/dafiflIeponri/gaec6.doc Riga District Heating RehabilitationProject 7 Final Report, Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

6.2.5 European standards regarding air emissions In table 6.2.5.1below the EC-standardsfor S02- and N02-emissionsfrom new plantsare presented.

Table 6.2.5.1EC-standards for S02 and NO2 emissions

Sulfur dioxide Nitrogendioxide Dust Plant size EC Plant size EC Plant size EC standard MWI, standard MWh, standard MW mg/Nm3 mg/Nm' mg/Nm3 Liquid fuel 50-300 1700 all 450 all 50 300-500 400-1700 ___ 500- 400 _ Gas fuel all 35,00 all 350 all 5 Source: Directiveof the EC board 388L0609/S 1988 12 07 and 394L066/S1994 12 24

Below,these standardsare comparedwith the actualemissions from the plants in Riga.

Table 6.2.5.2 A poiaeemissions ponthe district heatin , lants in Ri

Heating plant Fuel at present Capacity SO2 NO2 Dust (MW) (mg/Nm3) (mgfNm') (mg/Nm3) TEC-1 gas/heavy fuel oil/peat 1290 -3500" 300-500 35-100h TEC-2 gas/heavy fuel oil 1280 -3500') 300-500 35,00 Andrejsala gas/heavy fuel oil 470,00 -3500) 5103),345 ) - 0-3 Imanta gas/heavy fuel oil 390,00 -3500') 3104) - Zasulauks gas/heavy fuel oil 260,00 -3500') 3403) Daugavgriva heavy fuel oil/wood 56,00 -3500") 3104 ) Ziepniekkalns gas/heavy fuel oil 160,00 -3500") 4514 )- Vecmilgravis gas 160,00 -3500"' 1803)1 Source:A inarsOzols and Egon Friss, Riga Siltums 1) When heavy fuel oil (2 % S) is burnt. When burninggas the SO2-emissionsare negligible. 2) One of the boilers in TEC I is sometimesfired with peat, hence the higher dust values.The EC standards for dust emissions from solid fuel from new plants are however 50 mg/m3. 3) Gas was used as fuel when the measurementwas carriedout. 4) Heavyfuel oil was usedas fuel when the measurementwas carriedout.

The tables above indicate that the emission of sulfur is higher than the EC standards when heavy fuel oil is burnt. Though the standards are only valid for newly built plants, they can be interesting for comparison. The emissions of nitrogen oxides are in general at about the same level as the standards or lower. Note that the EC standards are monthly average values, whereas the NO2 values in the table below are instantaneous values, that are very dependent on the load and on the value of excess oxygen for instance. The monthly average valuescan be both higherand lower than the valuesgiven in the table above.Very few measurements regarding dust emissions are carried out and therefore it is difficult to draw any conclusions regarding the dust emissions.

December21,. 1998 - FVB- g. idai973601drs,fifl-r pon rigwsec6drc Riga District HeatingRehabilitation Project 8 Final Report, Section6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

6.2.6 Environment and Economy Latvian Environmentaltaxes

According to Latvian laws, all plants have to apply for permission to operate from the regional environmental protection committee. Each plant gets individual conditions for operation including limit values for emissions such as dust, CO, SO2 , NO2 , V2 0 5 and hydrocarbons. All plants also have to pay tax for these emissions (generally about 10 Ls/ton of emission). If the limit value is exceeded, the owner of the plant has to pay four times more for each ton above the limit value.

Table 6.2.6.1 Taxfor various kinds of emissions (Ls/ton)

ITypeof emission Idust IV2051S02 INOxICO ICHX| Ls per ton of emission 3 10 10 10 4,5 10 Source: Law on natural resourcestax

The plant Imanta exceeded the limit values of NOx emissions last year, because high amounts of mazut were burnt at the beginning of the year. The limit value was 59,7 ton and the actual value was 69,7 ton.

Table 6.2.6.2 Tax paid for the different plants in 1997 Heating plant dust SO2 NOx V2 0 5 CO HC total (Ls) (Ls) (Ls) (Ls) (Ls) (Ls) (Ls) TEC-1 789 11000 4800 6 0 17 17000 TEC-2 84 17000 22000 120 0 40 40000 Andrejsala 2 290 1100 4 0 54 1500 Imanta 42 12200 1000 48 0 36 13000 Zasulauks 14,4 3770 210 17 0 13 4000 Daugavgriva 7,8 1270 170 5 837 0,7 2300 Ziepniekkalns 7,5 2640 810 11 319,5 0 3800 Vecmilgravis 0 0 160 0 0 0 160 Small boilers 585 2030 800 7 684 0,8 4100 Total 1500 50000 31000 220 1800 160 85000 Source: Table 6.2.3.2 and table 6.2.6.1

In 1997 Riga Siltums paid slightly more than 28 000 Ls in total in environmental taxes. (Also included are the tax for usage of ground water and the tax for emissions in water.) The tax paid by Latvenergo is also included in the table.

Swedish environmental taxes

It is difficult to evaluate how much the emissions "really" cost the environment. One way is to compare with Swedish environmental taxes. The thought behind these taxes is to make flue gas cleaning profitable. For instance, the charge for nitrogen oxide emissions is so high that in many cases it makes the installation of SNCR (Selective Non Catalytic Reduction) or SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) profitable. The payment for NOx emissions is not a tax in general terms. It is a charge that all plant owners have to pay to the environmental administration, but if your plant emits less than the national average value of NOx emissions, then you receive more money from the administration than you originally paid. On the other hand, if your plant emits more than the average value, you receive less than you paid originally.

December 21,. 1998 - FVB- -id g: 1973601d-offi al .pm W9-6.d- RigaDistrict Heating Rehabilitation Project 9 FinalReport, Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

The tax of carbon dioxideis set to a level, which makescombustion of biofuelsmore profitablethan combustionof fossil fuels. The carbon dioxidetaxes also correspondto the costs of reducingthe CO2 ernissionsin the flue gases, for instancethrough a special kind of filter (report UY 97:150 from Vattenfall Utveckling).

Table 6.2.6.3 Swedish environmental taxes

Type of emission SNOx IC02 Lsper ton of emission l 28 1150 3080 Source: Swedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency

If Swedishenvironmental taxes were appliedto the emissionsthat are generatedin the district heating systemin Riga, the "cost" would be 50 MLs.

Table 6.2.6. Costs if Swedish taxes were applied in

Heating plant C02 NO. S02 Total (MLs) (MLs) (MLs) (MLs) TEC-1 2,7 1,5 1,3 5,5 TEC-2 16,8 6,9 1,9 25,6 Andrejsala 3,7 0,3 0,03 4,1 Imanta 3,6 0,2 1,4 5,3 Zasulauks 2,4 0,06 0,4 2,9 Daugavgriva 0,6 0,05 0,1 0,8 Ziepniekkalns 1,5 0,2 0,3 2,1 Vecmilgravis 1,3 0,05 0 1,3 Small boilers 2,0 0,25 0,23 2,5 Total 34,7 9,6 5,8 50

With higher taxes it is of course easier to make such investments, as flue gas cleaning equipment, profitable. Selective non catalytic reduction of NOx in TEC2 would, for instance, have a payback time of less than a year. But even with Swedish taxes it wouldn't be profitable to invest in sulfur dioxide cleaning equipment in any of the plants except for Imanta.

This chapter is by no meansan attempt to show the necessityof Swedishtaxes, they are merelyshown for comparison,because it is difficultto find other methodsof comparison.

Assi2nedvalues for emissions

A third way to estimatethe "costs" of environmentalimpacts is to assigna value (in this case in US Dollarsper ton) for each emission.In the report "KlaipedaGeothermal DemonstrationProject" dated April II, 1996, the WorldBank estimatedan economical value for each emission.

December 21,, 1998 - FVB - 5:sddoA97360Odrafifinareponl.rigas.t6doe Riga District Heating RehabilitationProject 10 Final Report, Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

The values per tons are as follows:

Table 6.2.6.5 Assigned values for emissions

|Type of emission Idust lC02 IS02 INOx | Ls per ton of emission | 6001 4,21 3601 150I Source: Report "Klaipeda GeothermalDemonstration Project" II April 1996

Multiplying the assigned values by the emissions in tons, you receive an estimated value of the environmental effects caused by the emissions. The estimated values given in Ls are as follows:

Table 6.2.6.6 "Costs" in MLs for the assigned values

Heating plant CO2 SO2 NO, dust Total (MLs) (MLs) (MLs) (MLs) (MLs) TEC-1 4,0 0,4 0,07 0,16 1,0 TEC-2 16,8 0,62 0,33 0,02 17,8 Andrejsala 3,7 0,01 0,02 0 3,8 Imanta 3,6 0,4 0,01 0,008 4,1 Zasulauks 2,4 0,14 0,003 0,003 2,5 Daugavgriva 0,59 0,05 0,003 0,002 0,64 Ziepniekkalns 1,5 0,95 0,01 0,002 1,6 Vecmilgravis 1,3 0 0,002 0 1,3 Small boilers 2,0 0,07 0,01 0,12 2,2 Total 32,3 1,8 0,47 0,31 34,9

6.3 Situation after suggested conversion

6.3.1 Location The future alternatives do not include any new plants. All the suggested altematives mean that the small boiler houses on the left side of the Daugava will be closed. Alternative 2 includes the installation of a new gas turbine in Imanta. Alternatives lb and 2 include the installation of a new boiler in Ziepniekkalns. All alternatives include the installation of a new boiler in Vecmilgravis.

The planned energy production for the different plants is shown below.

Table 6.3.1. 1 Tcal offuel used in the plants according to the suggested alternatives in the year of 1999 (alt 0) and 2006 (other alternatives).

TEC-1 TEC-2 Andrejsala Imanta Zasulauks Ziepnikkalns Other ______~~plants*) Alt O 1046 3814 527 445 314 0 802 Alt Ia 0 4913 144 345 243 0 621 Alt lb 0 4913 144 694 141 0 617 Alt 2 0 4913 144 1094 46 0 617 Alt 3 0 5887 0 564 0 0 370 Alt 4 0 5887 0 564 0 0 332 Source: Report. Section 5. ProductionPlants

.*)Other plants include Vecmilgravis,Daugavgriva and small plants. See table 6.2.1.1.

December21,. t998 - FVB - g:Wdu973601d,.fifna1reponig--6-d- Riga District Heating RehabilitationProject 11 Final Report, Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

6.3.2 Fuels The mix of fuels used in the future willprobably be about the same that is used today.

6.3.3 Emissions Emissionsto air

In the diagramsbelow the estimatedemissions of CO2, SO2 and NOx for the different future alternativesare shown.

Alternative2 involvesthe installationof a power producingturbine in Imantawith an electricityproduction of 295 GWh (in the year of 2006). Alternatives3 and 4 includea higherelectricity production in the Latvenergoowned plant TEC 2 (298 GWh in the year 2006). Since - in all these cases -heat and electricityare producedsimultaneously,this is beneficialfor the environment.Even though the emissionsin the city of Riga will be slightlyhigher, it will mean loweremissions totally, since otherwisethe electricityhas to be producedsomewhere else. In the diagramsbelow this amount of electricityis includedas lightblue columns.These columns are calculatedas if the electricity(in alternatives0, 1a and I b) is produced in coal- fired powerplants (withno simultaneousproduction of heat). Of course,this might not always be the case. However,coal- firedpower plants are often used as an exampleof powerproduction technique used on the margin.The blue columns in the diagramsbelow showthe estimatedemissions of such production.It is importantto stress that these figuresare only estimatedvalues. Naturally, emissionsfrom coal fuelled power plants vary fromplant to plant.

The suggestedmeasures to reduceheat losses in substationsand networkand to increase the boiler efficiencyof the plants (alternativesI - 4) will also have a positiveimpact on the environment.

Figure 6.3.3.1 Emissionsof C02 from the different alternativesin the year of2006.

Emissionsof carbon dioxide

2500000

2000000 :otons of C02 from pow er prodin 1500000 coalfired power productionplants D tons of 002 frompower prodin RS 1000000- plants g * tonsof 002 fromheat productionin RSplanta 500000- - g3tons of C02 fromLatvenergos plants

ARt Aft At Aft Alt Ak 500000 0 1. lb 2 3 4

December21., 1998 -FVB - g. Ijdak973601doratfia1,epor0 gw6-do Riga District HeatingRehabilitation Project 12 Final Report, Section6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

Regarding the emissions of carbon dioxide, alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are the most beneficial. With the same procedure of estimation, the current carbon dioxide ernissions amounts to 2,66 million tons per year. Hence, alternative 3 with emissions of 1,52 million tons per year implies a possible armual reduction of 1,14 million tons of carbon dioxide for the rehabilitation project.

Figure 6. 3.3.2 Emissions of S02 for the different alternatives in the year 2006

mnissionsof sulfur dioxide

12000 -

10000

6000 ; oa ton f SOxfrom powerprod i coaJfired power productionplants

6000 - .3 tornsof SOxfrom power prodin RS plixts

84W0** _ c - - | | tons of SOxfrom heatproduction in FSplants 2000 l l l l 3tons13 of SOxfrom Latvenergos

0 AnfO Al la Atl1b Ant2 Al3 Al4 -200

The emissions of sulfur dioxide are the lowest in alternative 2. This is due to the fact that the electricity producing unit in Imanta (suggested only in alternative 2) is fuelled by gas, which generates insignificant emissions of sulfur dioxide.

Figure 6.3.3.3

Emnissonsof nitrogen oxides

7000

6000

5000 - O3tons of N'x from power prodin coal firedpower productonplants 4000 - C]tons of NOxfrom power prodin RS

3000 -plat 0 *tons of NOxfrom heat production in 2000 RS plants K Ktonsof NOxfrom Latvenergos 1000 plants

0 Al 0 Alt a ANlb AR2 AR3 AR4 -1000 -

Judging from the emissions of Nox, alternative 2 is the most beneficial. The higher nitrogen oxide emissions in alternative 3 and alternative 4 might be explained by the fact that the NOx emissions reported from the plants owned by Rigas Siltums are surprisingly low - even lower than the estimated NOx emissions from the brand new gas turbine in Imanta. In the latter alternatives, Latvenergo plant TEC 2 (with reported NOx values that are considerably higher than in Rigas Siltums plants) is used to a higher extent and therefore

December 21) 1998 - FVB- g:idk973601dr,, fi..) eponrrigw-6dd Riga District HeatingRehabilitation Project 13 Final Report,Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

the nitrogen oxide emissions are slightly higher in these alternatives.

Table 6.3.3.1 Emissions of dust, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and vanadium pentoxide in the year of 2006 for the different future alternatives. Alt_ Alt Ia Alt lb Alt2 Alt3 Alt4

dust 767 282 256 95 109 112 HC 17 13 14 11 13 13 V205 27 31 31 28 33 33 CO 671 671 373 373 316 344

The emissions of dust, HC, CO and V205 will be reduced in the future alternatives due to the simultaneous production of heat and electricity as well as due to the suggested measures to reduce heat losses in substations and network.

Emissions to water

The suggested measures will not considerably impact on the emissions to water.

Waste, ash and asbestos

No change of the waste handling is suggested in any of the alternatives.

Regarding ash, there will be no significant change from the current situation.

All future alternatives include modification of the distribution network and the central and individual supply points. This process will include removal of asbestos from old insulation materials in pipes and boilers.

According to EC standards countries that are members of the EC are obliged to take necessary actions to prevent asbestos fibers and asbestos dust from being released to the air.

When plants or buildings that contain asbestos are torn down or if material that contains asbestos is being transported, this shall be done without causing any significant pollution of the environment. Therefore, a working plan for the activities should be established.

Waste that contains asbestos must be deposited at an approved landfill.

Regarding the handling of asbestos we suggest the following:

D the parties involved should - if required by the Latvian legislation - apply for permission from responsible authority

> a working plan should be established, which should contain description of working method

> handling and safety instructions should be worked out and be easily accessible at the working site

> all the workers involved should get proper training which should include information about the characteristics of asbestos, information about the necessary safety measures, information on demolition techniques and practical exercises.

December 21., 1998 - FVB - g.isida197360ld,.Jffiraierporigraec6.do Riga District HeatingRehabilitation Project 14 Final Report, Section6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

>) it is important that the training is adapted to the actual working conditions

D the demolitionshould be done in a way so that asbestos fibers and dust are prevented from being released to the air; if necessary the packing which prevents asbestos dust from being released must be used

D asbestos waste and packing, which contains asbestos, should immediately be taken care of and be stored in a closed container until it is deposited at an approved landfill

> the working site should be shielded and the pressure should be below that of the atmosphere so that the spreading of dust is prevented

> smoking should be avoided during the work

> all the workers should have tight fitting protection clothes with headgear and breathing masks

> the protections clothes should be made out of a dust repellent material and be without pockets

> the protection clothes and breathing masks should be cleaned after each working period

> before the breathing mask is taken off, the protection clothes should be vacuum cleaned in a special room

shower and washbasin should be easily accessible during the work

after the demolition is finished the working site should be cleaned; dust should be vacuum cleaned or washed away, compressed air blowing or dry sweeping should be prevented

transportation of asbestos material should be done in a way so that no dust or fibers are released to the atmosphere

As substitute material for asbestos we recommendthe following:

Boilers

The boilers should be made airtight with refractory and covered with mineral wool, which should be covered by steel jackets.

Pipes

For underground pipes we recommend insulation of mineral cotton/glass fiber wool with the protection by galvanized steel plates or tar paper. For pipes above ground, polyurethane is the best -known substitute material. For more information see chapter 4.3.

Noise, dust and odor

During the implementation of the suggestedimprovements,there will probably be some noise on the working sites and in the neighborhood due to heavy vehicles and excavators.

December21.. 1998 - FVB - g:Asidal9736o0daftfincoI,ponrigac5ecA6do Riga District Heating RehabilitationProject 15 Final Report, Section6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

6.3.4 Air quality in Riga It is difficultto say anythingabout how the suggestedmeasures will influencethe air qualityin the city. Probably,the reductionof emissionsfrom the districtheating plants will be counteractedby increasedemissions from the traffic and maybealso from the industry.

A likelyscenario is that the contentof SO, in the air willbe lowerin the future - due to loweremission from heatingplants and industries- and that the contentof NOx will be higher - due to the increasingtraffic.

6.3.5 Environment and economy The economicalevaluations below are attemptsto comparethe "cost" of eachalternative for the environment.In the calculationsbelow the ernissionsfrom the heat and electricity productionin RigasSilturns and Latvenergoplants are included.Alternatives 0, 1a and lb includelower electricity production than the other alternatives.In these cases the same amount of electricityhas to be producedsomewhere else (outside the city of Riga).In the calculationsthe emissionsfrom the above- mentionedelectricity (the excesselectricity producedin altematives2,3 and 4) is also included.The calculations are based on the assumptionthat this electricityis producedin coal fuelledpower production plant with no simultaneousproduction of heat. (See chapter6.3.3.)

Latvian environmentaltaxes

The Latvianenviromnental taxes are one way to estimatethe environmentalcost for the differentaltematives:

Table 6.3.5.1Latvian taxesfor various kinds of emissions(Ls/ton)

|Ty`peof emission |dust IV IS2 NOx CO CHx Ls pertonofemission 1 31 10| 10| 10| 4,51 10| Source:Law on naturalresource tax

Whenthese valuesare multipliedby the emissionsgenerated in each alternative,the following"costs" are achieved: Table 6.3.5.2 Estimatedenvironmental costs (Ls) in the year of 2006, based on Latvian taxes.

so2 NOx dust HC V2O5 CO Total Alt 0 116000 61000 2300 200 300 3000 182000 Alt la 79000 53000 900 100 300 3000 136000 Alt lb 80000 52000 800 100 300 1700 135000 Alt 2 45000 44000 300 100 300 1700 91000 Alt3 54000 50000 300 100 300 1400 110000 Alt 4 54000 50000 300 100 300 1500 110000

Usingthe Latviantaxes as a normn,alternative 2 is the most beneficialfor the environment. This is due to the favorableenvironmental data of the new gas turbinein Imanta,suggested in this altemative.However, alternative 3 and altemative4 cause only slightlyhigher emissions.

December 21,, 1998 - FVB - g ,id.19736O/dr.ofitd"por.Irigo.e6doc Riga District Heating RehabilitationProject 16 Final Report, Section 6 Environmental Impact Review

Swedish environmentaltaxes

Another way to estimate the environmental costs is to use Swedish taxes:

Table 6.3.5.3 Swedish environmental taxes |Type of emission I C02I SO2l NOx| |Lspertonofemission | 281 1150I 30801 Source: Swedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency

When these values are multiplied by the emissions generated in each alternative, the following "costs" are achieved:

Table 6.3.5.4 Estimated environmental costs (MLs) in the year of 2006, based on Swedish taxes.

C0 2 So2 NOx Total Alt 0 58 13 19 90 Altla 50 9 16 75 Alt lb 48 9 16 74 Alt 2 42 5 13 61 Alt 3 43 6 15 64 Alt 4 43 6 15 64

Using the Swedish taxes as a norm, alternative 2 is the most beneficial for the environment. This is due to the favorable environmental data of the new gas turbine in Imanta, suggested in this alternative. However, alternative 3 and alternative 4 cause only slightly higher ermissions.

Assigned values for emissions

A third way to evaluate the alternatives is to assign a value (in this case in US Dollars per ton) for each emission. In the report "Klaipeda Geothermal Dernonstration Project" dated April I1, 1996, the World Bank estimated an economical value for each emission:

Table 6.3.5.5 Assigned values for emissions

Typeof emission Idust IC02IS02 INOX I Ls per ton of emission 6001 4,21 3601 150 Source: Report "KlaipedaGeothermal Demonstration Project" 11 April 1996

If these values were applied, each alternative would have the following environmental "cost" (in the reference year of 2006):

Table 6.3.5.6 Environmental "costs "for the different alternatives( in the year of 2006) if the assigned values are used. (ALs).

_CO 2 SO2 NOx dust Total AltO0 9 4 1 0 14 Alt Ia 7 3 1 0 11 Alt lb 7 3 1 0 11 Alt2 6 2 1 0 9 Alt3 6 2 1 0 9 Alt4 6 2 1 0 9

December 21,, 1998 -FVB- g.WridW97360/drajtfiAM1IW,or:n'9=6.doc Riga District Heating RehabilitationProject 1 7 Final Report, Section 6 EnvironmentalImpact Review

When evaluating the alternatives using these assigned values, alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are the most beneficial for the environment, due to the cogeneration of heat and electricity.

6.4 Summary The suggested future alternatives will generate the following amounts of emissions:

Table 6.4.1 Estimated emissions (tons) for future alternatives Alt 0 Alt la Alt lb Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

CO2 2070000 1780000 1730000 1510000 1520000 1530000 so2 11600 7920 7970 4460 5370 5390 NOx 6050 5250 5210 4380 4960 4970 dust 767 282 256 95 109 112 HC 17 13 14 11 13 13 V 205 27 31 31 28 33 33 CO 671 671 373 373 316 344

All the suggested future alternatives (alternatives 1-4) are beneficial from an environmental point of view compared to the situation without a project (alternative 0). Alternative 2 generates the least emissions (slightly less than alternative 3 and alternative 4). If the emissions are related to the utilities (amounts of energy) produced, the following result is achieved:

Table 6. 4.2 Estimated emissions in g/Gcal produced energyfor future alternatives Alt 0 Alt la Alt lb Alt 2 Alt3 Alt 4 CO2 330000 311000 311000 272000 272000 273000 SO2 1860 1380 1440 803 961 964 NOx 968 915 937 787 888 889 dust 123 49 46 17 19 20 HC 3 2 3 2 2 2 V205 4 5 6 5 6 6 CO 107 117 67 67 57 62

Judging from the tables above, the diagrams in chapter 6.3.3 and the tables in chapter 6.3.5, alternative 2 is the most beneficial from environmental point of view. This is due to the favorable environmental data of the new gas turbine in Imanta, suggested in this alternative. However, alternatives 3 and 4 cause only slightly higher emissions. In alternatives 2, 3 and 4 electricity is produced simultaneously with heat. This is beneficial for the environment since this amount of electricity would otherwise have to be produced somewhere else, most likely with a higher environmental impact.

The suggested measures to reduce heat losses in substations and network and to increase the boiler efficiency of the plants will also have a positive impact on the environment.

The suggested measures (altematives 2-4) will lead to a reduction of the CO2 emissions in 2006 by almost 15 %, the NOx emissions by slightly more than 15 % and the S02 emissions by more than 50 %. compared to no rehabilitation project.

Compared to the current situation, carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced by 43 % or 1,1 million tons per year.

December21., 1998 FVB - g:Lido973601da/ifireponlolgosc6doc