Procurement and Processing of Municipal

REPUBLIC OF BELARUS

Public Disclosure Authorized

INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Component I: Mechanical Waste Separation Facility in the City of Grodno

Public Disclosure Authorized

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

FINAL REPORT

JANUARY, 2010

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 14

1.1. Objectives and Scope of the Environmental Assessment 14

1.2. Background of Proposed Investments 14

1.3. General Description of the Proposed Facility 15

2. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 17

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION IN THE PROJECT AREA 19

3.1. Environmental Aspects 19 3.1.1. Description of the geographic location of the proposed facility 19 3.1.2. Climate 19 3.1.3. Air Pollution 19 3.1.4. Landscape, geological and lithological structure 21 3.1.5. Soils 22 3.1.6. Hydrography and hydrology 22 3.1.7. Surface waters 23 3.1.8. Vegetation 26 3.1.9. Wildlife 27 3.2. General overview of environmental media resistance to anthropogenic impacts 28

3.3. Socioeconomic Context 30 3.3.1. Economic situation 30 3.3.2. Demographic situation 30 3.3.3. Morbidity patterns 31

4. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED INVESTMENTS 33

4.1. Air Impact Assessment 33 4.1.1. Description of air pollution sources 33 4.1.2. Assessment of impact in terms of ground level concentrations. Area of influence 37 4.1.3. Gross emissions 41

4.2. Assessment of Impact on Surface and Ground Waters 41 4.2.1. Description of surface and ground water pollution sources 41 4.2.2. Analysis of impact 42

4.3. Assessment of Impact on Soils, Vegetation and Wildlife 42

4.4. Assessment of Physical Factors’ Impact 44

4.5. Assessment of Impact on Socioeconomic Situation in the District 44

4.6. Assessment of Potential Emergencies 48

5. ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 48

5.1. “Not Having a Project” 48

5.2. Alternative Technologies 48

5.3. Alternative Project Site Locations 51

5.4. Conclusions of the Analysis of Alternatives 51

6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 51

7. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 59

8. SUMMARY OF EIA CONCLUSIONS 59

9. REFERENCES 60

Annexes: Annex А Letter of the Republican Center for Radiation Control and Monitoring №10-05/100 dated 21 January 2008 on background concentrations and estimated meteorological parameters

Annex B Situational plan (1:5000) Annex C Institutional structure of municipal solid waste management in the Republic of Belarus

Annex D Situational plan (1:5000): Alternative location of the facility Annex E Public consultations

Tables: Table 1.1: Key products and by-products of the mechanical separation ...... 16 Table 3.1: Annual average wind rose ...... 19 Table 3.2: Composition of emissions from stationary sources in Grodno in 2006 ...... 20 Table 3.3: Average and maximum one-time concentrations of air pollutants in Grodno in 2007...... 20 Table 3.4: Water quality in the Niemen river (by main ingredients and parameters) in 2002- 06...... 25 Table 3.5: Condition of surface waters and bottom sediment in the Niemen river by hydro- biological parameters in 2006 ...... 25 Table 3.6: Wild hoofed mammals and wolfs in the Grodno Oblast ...... 28 Table 3.7: Background concentrations of air pollutants in Grodno ...... 29 Table 3.8: Main demographic parameters in Grodno ...... 30

Table 3.9: Age structure of the Grodno population ...... 31 Table 3.10: General morbidity patterns in 2006 ...... 31 Table 3.11. Death rate by causes ...... 32 Table 4.1: Emission sources parameters ...... 35 Table 4.2: Description of admixtures and summation groups ...... 37 Table 4.3: Maximum ground level concentrations of pollutants ...... 38 Table 4.4: Estimation of the average annual concentrations...... 39 Table 4.5: Maximum allowable emissions ...... 41 Table 4.6: Allowable nitrogen and sulfur dioxides concentrations in the air for selected plants ...... 43 Table 4.7: Temporary norms of maximum allowable concentration of air pollutants for wood species of “Yasanya Polyana” Museum Estate ...... 43 Table 4.8: Description of toxicity of pollutants content of emissions from the proposed facility ...... 45 Table 4.9: Estimation of the aggregate pollution indicator ...... 47 Table 6.1: Risk Mitigation Plan ...... 53 Table 6.2 Monitoring Plan ...... 56 Table: Calculated background air pollution concentrations in the vicinity of Tumashi ...... 62 Table: Meteorological characteristics and coefficients determining conditions for atmospheric dispersion of pollutants ...... 62

Figures:

Figure 1.1: Municipal waste generation in Belarus during 1995-2005 ...... 14 Figure 3.1: Air pollution in Grodno ...... 21 Figure 3.3: Water pollution index along the Niemen river stream in 2002-2006 ...... 24 Figure 3.3: Surface water pollution in the Niemen river basin ...... 25 by hydrochemical parameters in 2005-2006 ...... 25

Executive Summary

Introduction

Solid waste management is an important problem and priority in urban areas in many countries. This is the case in Belarus where cities are facing increasing quantities of solid waste generated from varied residential, commercial and industrial sources. While most cities in Belarus provide generally effective core collection and disposal services, the national policy defined in the Law “On Waste Management” (2008) directs that a greater emphasis needs to be placed on the recovery of materials and energy from solid waste streams provided that environmental requirements are met and that economic efficiency considerations are also taken into account. Although solid waste component source separation and capture for recycling in Belarus has been limited to date, the country is advancing the National Program for Municipal Solid Waste Management that also seeks to increase the level of source separation and independent collection of separated materials (such as paper, plastic and metal) to increase the recycling rate throughout the country. This direction is consistent with sound practice throughout the world where much is being done to divert solid waste components from disposal facilities thereby increasing their life expectancy and decreasing their potential environmental impacts.

Three methods of municipal solid waste collection is currently employed in Grodno, the location of the subject proposed Bank-financed project: container (78%), manual (14%) and apartment-level collection (8%). There are 165 container grounds arranged in the multi-storey housing area, 64 in individual houses area and 261 on the territory of garage cooperatives. There are 72 industrial enterprises in the city which also collect waste in containers. As of 1 October 2009, a total of 9,774 contracts for municipal solid waste removal were concluded. 34 route charts have been prepared for 41 refuse trucks for waste transportation to the municipal solid waste landfill. About 3,347 thousand m3 of waste were deposited in the city landfill during January 2005 – September 2009.

Proposed Project Objective

The main development objective of the project is to improve environmental benefits of integrated solid waste management in Grodno through recovery and reuse of recyclable materials in line with good international standards. The objective will be achieved by reducing the volume of waste that is disposed in landfills and reusing valuable recycled materials efficiently. The project will support important elements of Grodno’s Integrated Solid Waste Management Program.

Project Description and Location

The proposed project will consist of components that will cover investments targeting the construction of a mechanical waste separation facility (MWSF) in Grodno (located at Rogachi-Vyselki municipal waste disposal landfill); improvements to solid waste management in Grodno including provision of equipment for the collection and separation of waste at source; and project management. Details of project components are given below:

Mechanical Waste Separation Facility in the City of Grodno. The estimated cost of the component is about US$ 37 million which is to be financed by the Bank’s loan. Funds will finance the construction of a 120,000 ton/year modern mechanical separation plant for mixed household waste to recover recyclable materials. The objectives of this component are to: (a) reduce the amount of deposited waste; (b) recycle, extract and reuse valuable materials (plastics, waste paper, metals, glass, and possibly other materials); and (c) increase landfill service life. The component includes activities for the design and supervision; construction, procurement and installation of equipment; and support to start-up the operation of the plant, production of materials, and marketing thereof. The Government of Belarus has selected the landfill site for the construction of this facility. This component will have environmental benefits as reflected in reduced waste in landfills – in line with the government’s regulations, utilizing materials of value, reducing the need for controversial new landfills in the future.

Waste management Improvements: The estimated cost of this component is $4.0 million to be financed by the Government. This component will include a review of the current logistics for the collection of separated waste, and provide equipment for the collection of separated waste. Equipment will include trucks to replace about 10 fully depreciated trucks and about 2,500 containers to supplement Grodno’s program to increase coverage of collection of source separated material. An important part of this component is a public information and awareness raising campaign to inform the population about the importance of their participation to the success of the project. Public participation in recycling program has internationally been proven to have a direct impact on the success of any technical solution in this area. This program is included in the State Program for Recyclable Materials Collection and Processing 2009-2015, dated June 29, 2009.

Project Management and other Support Activities: The estimated cost of this component is estimated at US$ 3.65 million of which the Bank will finance $0.65 million for project audit, monitoring/evaluation, and training.

Municipal solid waste mechanical separation technology includes the following steps:

 weighting of a refuse truck delivering waste  waste unloading from a refuse truck in the receipt section of the production building  preliminary separation of coarse fraction  waste delivery onto a transporting conveyer  manual initial separation to remove glass and other hazardous components  sifting at two-sieves unit to sort out fine fraction of residual and fine fraction of alternative fuel  manual separation of waste coarse fraction after sifting to sort out materials of value (secondary materials)  grinding of waste left on a transporter in a primary grinder  separation of grinded waste in a vibrating sieve and a separator into residual and alternative fuel;  final grinding of alternative fuel left on a transporter  bailing of alternative fuel and secondary materials  transportation of alternative fuel and secondary materials to customers; transportation of residual to waste disposal landfill

Social and Economic Situation in Project Area (Grodno)

The Grodno Oblast has a population of 1,150,000, of which about 330,000 reside in the oblast capital of Grodno city (Grodno). The City shares borders with Lithuania and Poland. The dominating industrial sectors are food processing (26.9%), chemical and petroleum products (22.6%), machine building and metalworking (15.3%), construction materials (9%), forestry, wood processing and pulp and paper (7.1%), power generation (5.2%), light industry (4.8%), and fuel (0.3%). Annual growth of industrial production amounts at 11% on the average. The number of employed in the industrial sector exceeds 100,000 or 25.3% of the work force. Accordingly, unemployment is low. Average household monthly wage is about BYR 1 million slightly higher than the average for Belarus. The city has a well established solid waste management with 100% collection coverage. The current landfill Rogachi-Vyselki has an area of 19.6 hectares, and has been in use for 20 years. It received 159,200 tons of waste in 2008. The remaining life of the landfill is about 10 years and with a tonnage capacity of about1.63 million tons. The landfill is equipped with a weighbridge, waste is compacted, and leachate is recirculated into the solid waste accumulation in the landfill. Overall waste management is efficient and effective as reflected in a clean city and well operating landfill.

In essence the SWM system in Grodno provides the necessary requirements for maintaining healthy conditions through good waste collection service, and for protecting the city environment during the waste treatment and disposal stages. Given this situation, the Grodno city is now keen to move up the ladder in integrated SWM technology and aims to enhance resource management through high rates of reuse and recycling. The city has initiated a recycling program which remains in early stages. About 50% of the City is provided with containers for separate recycling, but it appears that awareness and participation by the population are at lower levels. The City recognizes the potential value both economically and environmentally of improving solid waste separation and the reuse of collected valuable material.

Baseline Environmental Conditions in the Project Area

The city of Grodno is located in the western part of Belarus upstream the Niemen river. The proposed facility will be located in the western suburb of Grodno at the existing landfill site. The closest residential settlement (Tumashi) is located 600 meters eastwards from the facility’s site while the Podiatly village is 600 meters northwards.

The main air pollution sources in Grodno are energy sector companies, mineral fertilizers and construction materials and transport vehicles. In 2007, emissions from stationary sources in Grodno totaled 12.0 thousand tons. Emissions decreased by 1.72 thousand tons versus 2006. Maximum allowable concentration (MAC) is exceeded for nitrogen dioxide (1.04 MAC), ammonia (1.575 MAC) and formaldehyde (3.40 MAC). Concentration of other air pollutants is within the established norms.

The prevailing soils in the Grodno Oblast are sod-podzol soils. Sod heavy and medium- podzol loam and pulverescent soils prevail at moraine uplands; boggy sod-podzol soild can be found in lowlands. Large areas of alluvial-meadow soils characterized by considerable humus content are found in the Niemen valley.

Grodno and the Grodno Oblast are dominated by sod medium-podzol boulder-loam soils with low content of humus, absorbed beds and phosphoric acid which is easily accessible for

7 plants thus underlying the need for mineral and organic fertilizers.

The river network of the Grodno region belongs to the Baltic Sea basin. The main rivers are Niemen, Schara, Molchad, Berezina, Ross, Kotra and Ditva. Lakes are generally small. The most important water asset of the project area is the Niemen river. The Niemen river ranks fifth among Belarus’ rivers by watershed area (the total area is 98200 km2, within Belarus - 35000 km2) and water content (9km3/year).

Surface and ground water resources are sufficient to meet water demand. River feeding is mixed. In early spring rivers are fed by melt waters, in winter by ground waters, and in summer and autumn by precipitation and ground waters. Quality of ground waters in the main water bearing horizons meets the sanitary and epidemiological requirements.

Wildlife of the surveyed project region is fairly diverse. The territories of the Ostrovets and the Slonim forestry enterprises are inhabited by deer, elk, boar, roe, wolf, hare, squirrel, hazel grouse and black grouse. The banks of the rivers are habitats of otter, muskrat, mink, beaver, wild duck and diving duck. There are no protected fauna species in the vicinity of the proposed project site.

Project Relevant Legal Framework

The 1994 Constitution of the Republic of Belarus (Articles 34, 46, 55) and the Law on Environmental Protection dated 26 November 1992 №1982-XII (amended on dated 13 June 2007 №238-З) are the fundamental laws establishing a legal basis for environmental protection and management, conservation and restoration of biodiversity, natural resources and assets and are intended to secure statutory rights of citizens to life- and health- friendlyenvironment.

The Law on Waste Management dated 20 July 2007 №271-3 established a legal basis for waste management. The Law is intended to reduce waste generation, to prevent harmful impact on the environment, public health, state-owned assets, corporate and individual property and to maximize reuse of recycled materials. As a follow-up to the Law on Waste Management, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, the Ministry of Housing and Utilities and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus have adopted a number of secondary regulatory acts. These laws and regulations have been followed in decision-making on designing the proposed facility, selection of the site and waste processing technology.

Environmental Impact Assessment is performed based on the Instruction on the procedure of environmental impact assessment of intended economic and other activity in the Republic of Belarus endorsed by the Resolution of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus dated 17 June 2005 №30.

Public consultations are organized in accordance with the following regulations:

 The Constitution of the Republic of Belarus  The Aarhus Convention (Presidential Decree dated 14 December 1999 №726)  The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Presidential Decree dated 20 October 2005 №487)  The Law on republican and local assemblies  The Law on citizens’ appeals  The Law on local governance and self-governance  The Law on architectural, urban construction and construction activity in the Republic of Belarus

The Ministry of Housing and Utilities of the Republic of Belarus is currently elaborating the Code of Existing Practices «Environmental protection and natural resource management. Waste. Municipal waste management. Rules of operation of municipal waste disposal sites». The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus is amending the Instruction «On the procedure of environmental impact assessment of intended economic and other activity in the Republic of Belarus» to reflect the norms of UNECE Espoo Convention (1991), the Aarhus Convention (1998) and the Environmental Code of the Republic of Belarus (the Concept was approved by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus dated 16 December 2005 №1460).

Project Alternatives

No Project. Under “No Project” option, impacts would include:

 non-separation of waste prior to disposal in the existing landfill would entail considerable loss of secondary materials and, consequently, would require additional natural resources for production of paper, plastic, metal and etc.  rapid filling of the existing municipal landfill with non-separated MSW would require further expansion of the landfill and, consequently, acquisition of additional land areas thus resulting in expansion of the area of environmental impact produced by the landfill.

A source separated collection of municipal solid waste has been employed in developed economies in the recent decades. It allows to: (i) maximize utilization (up to 20-25%) of the materials of value (waste paper, glass, scrap metals, textiles, plastics); and (ii) avoid accumulation of heavy metals in wastes already at the stage of waste selection at the household level

From the environmental protection standpoint, this method allows to partially decontaminate the waste stream already at the first stage of waste management, i.e. to avoid accumulation of heavy metal salts in the organic fraction. In terms of cost-efficiency, recovery of up to 20% of secondary materials from 1 ton of municipal solid waste increases profits of a utility company by USD 7.5.

Thermal MSW decomposition (incineration) with or without utilization of exhaust gases, is widely used throughout the world. Incineration has become the first technical option

9 widely used in the world. Countries with relatively small land area and high population density were the first ones which started to introduce MSW incineration facilities. The many years of experience allow to clearly articulate strengths and weaknesses of waste incineration. The strengths are: (i) manifold reduction of the volume of waste (approximately by 10 times); (ii) reduction of waste transportation costs; (iii) heat recuperation (incineration of 5 tons of MSW is equivalent to 1 ton of fuel equivalent); and (iv) reduction of the risk of soil and water contamination (relative sterilization of material is ensured at 10000C). Weaknesses are also obvious: (i) high relative capital intensity of construction (7-15 times higher than with the bio-mechanical treatment); (ii) irreversible loss (destruction) of valuable recyclable materials; (iii) low efficiency of ferrous metals recovery from sludge; (iv) high output of ashes from sludge (over 30% by mass); and (v) air contamination with multiple pollutants.

In case of incineration, emissions of heavy metals, chlorinated organic compounds, hydrogen chloride and fluoride with smoke and dust, require complicated and expensive response. Environmental contamination by dioxin causing pathologies in newborns as well as various tumors represents a particular hazard.

Since municipal waste incineration is associated with hazardous emissions, the countries where this technique has long been practiced make considerable efforts aimed at neutralization and capture of pollutants, as well as establishment of environmental monitoring systems. Due to weaknesses of waste incineration i.e. without preliminary separation and treatment, this technique has been increasingly rejected in the last two decades in Belarus.

Municipal waste disposal in landfills has been the prevailing method of addressing the problem of waste in Belarus and CIS countries. This method has its strengths and weaknesses. Establishment of MSW landfills requires acquisition of significant land plots, expenditures on ground water protection measures (arrangement of expensive hydro- protective foundation layers, etc.) and high operation and transportation costs. The method is not environmentally sound. Landfills are a source of odors, they are potentially fire and infection hazardous, they entail a risk of ground water contamination with poisonous filtrate, since even the regulated landfills are not adequately maintained. Landfill gas utilization should also be addressed. At the same time, however, MSW disposal in landfills is technologically simple and remains the main method of addressing waste disposal problems both in rural area and small residential settlements (up to 10 thousand residents).

Biological treatment of municipal solid waste following separation and mechanical treatment is the most progressive method and allows to minimize the amount of waste being disposed in the existing landfills because the residual of biomechanical treatment is an inert material which does not contain biologically active substances and can be disposed in landfills; to reuse considerable amount of materials of value (metals, plastic, glass, waste paper, textiles and etc.); to decrease the number of vehicles required for transportation of secondary materials to the point of use due to prior compressing of source separated materials; to get organic waste fraction which can be then used as nonconventional (alternative) fuel; to produce heat and electric energy from combusting a biogas which is a product of anaerobic digestion of MSW; to get concentrated solution of ammonium sulphate which is used as a fertilizer in the agricultural sector. However, this method remains the most expensive.

Alternative project site locations. An alternative to locating the facility at the municipal solid waste disposal landfill site is to locate it in the industrial estate. This option addresses engineering infrastructure issues (water supply, sanitation, heating, power supply and etc.) in a more cost-efficient manner and, also, opens a possibility, in case biological treatment of waste, of the efficient use of energy produced from a biogas at the neighboring enterprises. At the same time, however, there are limitations in terms of the size of the facility’s site given its expansion in the future; additional expenditures on transportation of residual material that remains after mechanical separation of waste; additional movement of MSW in case of sudden shutdown of a waste processing plant; nuisance factors (visual, noise and etc.) due to small distance from the place of residence and work of households. In terms of impacts on air, water resources, soils, vegetation and wildlife, an alternative location of municipal waste separation facility in the industrial estate in Grodno is identical to a basic option of its location at the municipal solid waste landfill site.

Conclusions of the analysis of alternatives. Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that proposed waste disposal and utilization options are the most appropriate from environmental and economic considerations. Location options are identical from environmental viewpoint on condition all environmental protection measures specified in the Feasibility Study (2009) are implemented.

Possible Project Environmental Impacts

The MWSF will be located at the existing waste disposal landfill site (Rogachi-Vyselki). The analysis of the environment in the proposed facility location suggests that: (i) the surveyed area is suitable for the proposed solid waste management activities given the geo-hydrological characteristics (soil, air, water condition) of the surrounding environment and location outside the city; and (ii) the design of the facilities to be located within the surveyed area should provide for measures intended to limit emissions of air pollutants and to prevent considerable intake of pollutants by soils.

Environmental potential impacts during construction are temporary and mostly related to: (i) dust from construction activities and traffic-related air quality impacts; (ii) sewage disposal and drainage; (iii) noise from construction activities and vehicular movements; (iv) soil contamination and effects on groundwater; and (v) effects on workers’ health. These short- term environmental impacts are likely to be localized and efficiently mitigated by applying good international construction practice and planning.

Long term impacts such as odor generation and effects on air quality and noise emissions are expected during the operation phase of the newly constructed sorting facility. To avoid such impacts, the operator will be instructed to perform regular monitoring of the facility in accordance with a comprehensive monitoring system for supervision and control of air quality.

To minimize the negative impact of the proposed facility on the environment during operation, the hdesign will ensure that the following activities are planned and implemented: (i) arrangement of gas scrubbing systems: dust-collecting filter for treatment of ventilation emissions from the production building, dust collectors 370П16х0,5 and gas scrubbing units in the welding and mechanical sections; (ii) arrangement of hermetic collector for wastewaters collection; (iii) construction of industrial wastewater treatment plant; (iv)

11 construction of rain waters treatment plant; (v) removal of topsoil prior to construction works and its further use for arrangement of lawns; and (v) site improvement and greening. Additionally, the contractor will be responsible to ensure implementation of the standard occupational health and safety measures during works.

Environmental Management Plan

The Project Environmental Management Plan outlines the mitigation, monitoring and institutional measures to be taken during the construction and operation of the mechanical waste separation facility to avoid potential adverse environmental impact as well as the actions, responsibilities and costs needed to implement these measures.

Information Disclosure and Public Participation

Two rounds of public consultations were held in the city of Grodno. The announcements of public consultations and the information on the proposed solid waste separation were published in the local printed and electronic media. The 1st round of public consultations on the draft EIA TOR took place on June 19, 2009 at the Grodno Municipality with about 8 people in attendance. The participants were interested in the choice of waste separation facility location and technology, the estimated length and cost of construction works, the investment payback period, the potential use of biogas, and expressed concern about the low level of consultations attendance.

The 2nd round of public consultations to discuss the EIA report, announced in the Grodno newspaper and on the web-site of Grodno municipality took place on August 19, 2009 and was attended by 124 people. Representatives of the local community and mass media and residents of the city took part in consultations. Among the questions asked were: (i) why the city does not have enough containers for source separation, (ii) could the glass factory provide guarantees of accepting source separated scrap glass, and (ii) does the country has adequate capacity for recycling of source separated waste.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment, it can be concluded that:

1. The envisaged method of municipal solid waste disposal is the most appropriate for the region from environmental and economic considerations. Atmospheric emissions from the proposed facility are expected to total 4.43 t/year (including 3.91 t/year fromstationary sources and 0.52 t/year from mobile sources); contribution of the facility in the gross emissions in the city will be 0.04%.

2. Maximum and average annual ground level concentrations of pollutants in the residential area, at the border of the standard sanitary protection zone and outside the zone are much lower than the maximum allowable concentration (MAC). Area of influence of the proposed facility is within the radius of 500 meters (limited by an isoline of the concentration equaling 0.05 MAC for butyric acid).

3. Given that wastewater treatment facilities are envisaged in the design, the qualitative composition of industrial wastewaters meets the requirements applicable to

wastewater discharges.

4. Environmental impact of physical factors is not expected to exceed the permissible level.

5. No air emissions and emergency wastewater discharges are anticipated.

The proposed facility is expected to produce a negligible impact on surface and ground waters, soils, vegetation, wildlife and human health. Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that operation of the proposed facility will not disturb natural-anthropogenic balance and, therefore, construction of the facility is feasible and desirable.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Objectives and Scope of the Environmental Assessment

The objective of the environmental assessment is to evaluate potential environmental risks and impacts associated with the construction and future operation of the Municipal Solid Waste Separation Facility in Grodno and identify ways for compliance with the key regulatory requirements of Belarus and the World Bank policies relevant to the proposed project. This EIA report has been commissioned based on Contract №07.026-1.07 based on Terms of References reviewed by and agreed with the Bank. This report has been developed based on information collected at the level of the Feasibility Study prepared for this proposed facility in 2008. This Feasibility Study included also an environmental impact assessment that discussed most of the current environmental baseline data included in the current report.

Overall, the current report examines alternative options of waste disposal and utilization, describes the baseline environmental condition and socioeconomic situation in the project area, identifies sources and types of potential environmental impact of the proposed facility construction and operation, and estimates the degree of impact on environmental media. The publications used for drafting this report and the information analyzed herein are listed in the References annex.

1.2. Background of Proposed Investments

Recycling and disposal of municipal solid waste is one of the key medical, environmental and socioeconomic challenges. Failure to ensure timely disposal and proper decontamination of waste may result in deterioration of the general sanitary condition of the region and pollution of soils, ground waters, air and water resources. The problem is particularly relevant because, firstly, generation of municipal waste is steadily growing. Municipal waste generation rates in Belarus in the last decade are illustrated in Figure 1.1. In 2007 municipal solid waste (MSW) generation rate was 0.877 kg per person/day.

Figure 1.1: Municipal waste generation in Belarus during 1995-2005

3500 3181 3000 2542 2500 1969 2060 1849 2281 2000 1744 1959 1993 1796 1500

1465 thousandtons 1000

500

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Furthermore, the waste composition is also changing because of higher content of paper, plastic, polymers, ferrous, non-ferrous and heavy metals used in electronic equipment and household appliances. The outdated technology of MSW altitudinal landfill disposal which is currently used is not efficient and requires allocation of considerable land areas and high transportation costs. Large amount of waste is discarded at local dumps or inappropriately incinerated at local landfills thus generating air and water pollution. Municipal solid waste management has therefore been identified as a government priority. The principal tasks are to mitigate anthropogenic impact of waste on human health and the environment and to address economic challenges.

Several waste separation technologies were proposed during the preparation of the Feasibility Study (2008), which are expected to:

a) minimize the amount of waste disposed in the existing landfills as a result of mechanical processing and separation b) reuse considerable amount of materials of value (metals, plastic, glass, waste paper, textiles and etc.) c) decrease the number of vehicles required for transportation of secondary materials to the point of use due to preliminary compressing of source separated materials d) get organic fraction which can be then used as nonconventional (alternative) fuel

1.3. General Description of the Proposed Facility

The updated Feasibility Study (2009) proposes construction of a mechanical municipal solid waste processing facility only. Output capacity of the facility based on the Terms of Reference for a Feasibility Study is estimated at 120,000 t/year. Range and output of key products and by-products as of the year of commissioning are shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Key products and by-products of the mechanical separation

Parameters Values

1. Processing of 120000 mixed MSW, t/year including: 2. Mechanical separation of recyclable materials total, t/year, 23808 including: 2.1 Waste paper (cardboard), t/year 10080 2.2 Waste glass, t/year 3840 2.3 Plastic (polymers), t/year 4608 2.4 Textiles, t/year 480 2.5 Ferrous metals, t/year 4752 2.6 Non-ferrous metal, t/year 48

3. Baled alternative fuel, t/year 56333 4. Wood, t/year 504 5. Residue, t/year 39355

The following buildings and premises will be located at the site:

 truck scales, weight-carrying capacity – 40 tons, two driveways;  MSW mechanical processing and separation block  services unit  storehouse for interim storage of recovered materials and alternative fuel  administrative/amenities unit with a built-in boiler house  outdoor parking for the facility’s vehicles and truck-loader  fire extinguishing pumping station  fire reservoirs (2)  industrial wastewater treatment plant  transformer substation  through passage  premises for rest  car parking

MSW mechanical separation process includes the following aspects and activities:

 weighting of a refuse truck delivering MSW  MSW unloading from a refuse truck in the receipt section of the production building;  preliminary separation of coarse fraction  MSW delivery onto a transporting conveyer

 manual initial separation to remove glass and other hazardous components  sifting at two-sieves unit to sort out fine fraction of residual and fine fraction of alternative fuel  manual separation of MSW coarse fraction after sifting to sort out materials of value (secondary materials)  grinding of MSW left on a transporter in a primary grinder  separation of grinded MSW in a vibrating sieve and a separator into residual and alternative fuel  final grinding of alternative fuel left on a transporter  bailing of alternative fuel and secondary materials  transportation of alternative fuel and secondary materials to customers; transportation of residual to MSW landfill

Heat will be supplied to the proposed facility from the own boiler house built in the administrative/amenities unit. Three solid fuel boilers TEМ-100 will be installed in the boiler house. To reduce air emissions, slightly lowered pressure will be maintained in production premises. Air removed by an exhaust ventilation system will be filtered.

Construction of the proposed municipal solid waste separation facility would allow to:

 reduce the amount of waste disposed in a municipal solid waste landfill  recover materials of value (secondary materials)  reduce transportation costs  improve hygienic conditions at MSW landfill

2. LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

 «On organization of waste use» dated 1 February 2002 №132;  «On endorsement of the Rules of establishing municipal waste generation norms» dated 27 June 2003 №18/27;  «On endorsement of the Instruction on organization of municipal waste source separated collection, storage and transportation» dated 30 July 2003 №26;

 «On environmental protection requirements applicable to arrangement and operation of facilities for municipal waste separation and processing» dated 20 December 2004 №38/37;  «On endorsement of the Classifier of waste generated in the Republic of Belarus» dated 8 November 2007 №85;  «On endorsement of the Instruction on the procedure of determining the degree of hazard of industrial waste and toxicity class of hazardous industrial waste» dated 17 January 2008 №3/13/2.

The above referred laws and regulations have been followed in decision-making on designing the proposed facility, selection of the site and waste processing technology.

Public consultations are organized in accordance with the following regulations:

 The Constitution of the Republic of Belarus (the right to freedom of meetings (article 35); the right to freedom of association (Article 36); the right to participate in public affairs (Article 37); the right to furnish individual or collective appeals to the government authorities (Article 40)  The Aarhus Convention (Presidential Decree dated 14 December 1999 №726)  The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Presidential Decree dated 20 October 2005 №487)  The Law on republican and local assemblies  The Law on citizens’ appeals  The Law on local governance and self-governance  The Law on architectural, urban construction and construction activity in the Republic of Belarus  The Instruction on EIA procedure. Chapter 6 (issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection on 17 May 2005 №30)

The Ministry of Housing and Utilities of the Republic of Belarus is currently elaborating the Code of Existing Practices «Environmental protection and natural resource management. Waste. Municipal waste management. Rules of operation of municipal waste disposal sites». The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus is drafting an amended version of the Instruction «On the procedure of environmental impact assessment of intended economic and other activity in the Republic of Belarus» to reflect the norms of UNECE Espoo Convention (1991), the Aarhus Convention (1998) and the Environmental Code of the Republic of Belarus (the Concept was approved by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus dated 16 December 2005 №1460).

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION IN THE PROJECT AREA

3.1. Environmental Aspects

3.1.1. Description of the geographic location of the proposed facility

The city of Grodno is located in the western part of Belarus upstream the Niemen river. The proposed facility will be located in the western suburb of Grodno at the existing landfill site. The closest residential settlement (Tumashi) is located 600 meters eastwards from the facility’s site; the Pod’iatly village is 600 meters northwards.

3.1.2. Climate

Climate in the project area is transitional from maritime to continental (moderately continental) and is characterized by fairly mild winters with long thaws. The average annual temperature is 6.50С. July is the hottest month (23.50С), January is the coldest month (- 5.10С). On average, there are 46 days with thaws (in December-February). The maximum temperature may reach 360С in July-August, the minimum temperature in winter time may be –360С.

The prevailing Atlantic wind is a reason of high relative air humidity and considerable cloudiness which, in turn, facilitates substantial precipitation. Relative air humidity averages 80% and may reach up to 90% in cold months and may fall down to 68% in warm months.

Grodno is located in the zone of sufficient humidification. The annual precipitation is 545 mm including 70% in April-October. Abundant storm rainfall is usually caused by cyclones coming from the south and south-west and is accompanied by thunderstorms in summer and snowstorms in winter. Dry periods are caused by anticyclone weather.

Snow cover appears in the first decade of December and, as a rule, is not stable. Stable snow cover establishes at the end of the second decade of December and melts in the second decade of March.

Western winds prevail in the area. The average annual wind rose is illustrated in Table 2.1.

Table 3.1: Annual average wind rose N NE E SE S SW W NW calm January 5 3 7 16 18 18 25 8 10 July 14 6 5 6 10 12 27 20 18 Annuall 10 6 9 12 15 13 23 12 9 y 3.1.3. Air Pollution

The main air pollution sources in Grodno are energy sector companies, mineral fertilizers and construction materials and transport vehicles. Air monitoring in Grodno is performed at four fixed stations (Figure 2.1). In 2007 emissions from stationary sources in Grodno totaled 12.0

19 thousand tons. Emissions decreased by 1.72 thousand tons versus 2006. The composition of emissions from stationary sources is illustrated in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Composition of emissions from stationary sources in Grodno in 2006 Emissions, Pollutant thousand tons 1 Carbon oxide 3.2 2 Sulfur dioxide 0.5 3 Nitrogen oxides 3.0 4 Hydrocarbons (without volatile organic compounds) 0.1 5 Non-methane volatile organic compounds 1.7 6 Particulate pollutants 1.8 7 Other pollutants 1.7 Total: 13.72

The average and maximum one-time concentrations of air pollutants in Grodno in 2007 are illustrated in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Average and maximum one-time concentrations of air pollutants in Grodno in 2007 Concentration, mg/m3 Pollutant Maximum one- Average daily time 1 Particulate pollutants 0,053 0,300 2 Sulfur dioxide <0,001 0,037 3 Carbon oxide 1,672 5,000 4 Nitrogen dioxide 0,033 0,260 5 Ammonia 0,027 0,315 6 Formaldehyde 0,0057 0,102 7 Lead 0,000066 0,000214

As seen from Table 2.3, maximum allowable concentration (MAC) is exceeded for nitrogen dioxide (1.04 MAC), ammonia (1.575 MAC) and formaldehyde (3.40 MAC). Concentration of other air pollutants is within the established norms.

Compared with 2006, concentrations of ammonia, formaldehyde and particulate pollutants in the air have increased. Emissions of carbon oxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and lead have tended to decrease.

Figure 2.1 illustrates contribution of pollutants to the atmospheric pollution index by air monitoring fixed stations.

Stationary surveys suggest that atmospheric pollution index (API) in 2006 was 3.2 which is the lowest level compared to other industrial cities of the country. Formaldehyde is the main contributor to the aggregate API (53% on average).

Figure 2.1: Air pollution in Grodno

- air monitoring fixed station ammonia carbon oxide - atmospheric pollution index nitrogen dioxide particulate pollutants sulfur dioxide formaldehyde nitrogen oxide

3.1.4. Landscape, geological and lithological structure

The Niemen lowland is located in the central part of the Grodno Oblast. The lowland surface is flat, a bit hilly in some places. Altitude above sea level is about 100m. Northwards is the Lida Plain with slightly undulating and partly plateau-like surface 160-200m high. The Oshmiany Upland is located to the north-east. At the south of the Grodno Oblast there is a south-west section of the Belarusian ridge the western edge of which is the Grodno Upland over 200m high. To the south-east from it there is the Volokovysk Upland reaching 254m above sea level followed by the Slonim Upland about 200m high and, behind the Schara river, the Novogrudok Upland with the Putsevichskaya mountain (323m) which is the highest point of the Oblast. The Novogrudok Upland is characterized by large hills and elevates over the neighboring Niemen Lowland by 80-120m.

The surface of watershed areas is covered by numerous ravines and gullies, often adjacent to slopes of river valleys. They occupy up to 10% of the territory of the Grodno district.

3.1.5. Soils

The prevailing soils in the Grodno Oblast are sod-podzol soils. Sod heavy and medium- podzol loam and pulverescent soils prevail at moraine uplands; boggy sod-podzol soils can be found in lowlands. Large areas of alluvial-meadow soils characterized by considerable humus content are found in the Niemen valley.

Grodno and the Grodno Oblast are dominated by sod medium-podzol boulder-loam soils with low content of humus, absorbed beds and phosphoric acid which is easily accessible for plants thus underlying the need for mineral and organic fertilizers.

Monitoring of agro-chemical condition of soils at agricultural land (arable lands, improved hayfields and pastures) was conducted in 2005 in the Grodno Oblast based on the data of the 10th round of large-scale agro-chemical surveys of the soils at agricultural lands. The following parameters were monitored: acidity (pH in KCl extract), content of humus and movable forms of phosphorus and potassium. Survey of arable lands of the Grodno district conducted by the Belarusian Research Center “Ecology” identified decreased content of phosphorus (by 19 mg/kg) and humus (by 0.03%) and increased acidity. Negative balance of phosphorus can be explained by insufficient application of mineral fertilizers the doses of which fail to compensate a loss of elements with yields and infiltration processes. Decreased content of humus is caused by application of low dose of organic fertilizers and low share of perennial grasses in the crop structure. Arable soil dehumification process is thereby observed; it is caused by intensive use of arable lands and insufficient application of organic and mineral fertilizers and by misbalance between perennial grass and cultivated crops in crop rotation.

3.1.6. Hydrography and hydrology

The river network of the Grodno region belongs to the Baltic Sea basin. The main rivers are Niemen, Schara, Molchad, Berezina, Ross, Kotra and Ditva. Lakes are generally small. The largest lakes of the Grodno district are the Kan-Beloie (717 ha) located 25 km to north-east from Grodno, the Rybnitsa (248 ha) located near the Ozery village 20 km to the east from Grodno, the Verovskoie (123 ha) located near the Glushnevo village 33 km to the north-east from Grodno and the Kalnitsa (109 ha) located near the Glushnevo village 32 km to the north-east from Grodno. The closest water bodies are the Verkhnee (18 ha) located 0.5 km to the south-west from Grodno and the Yubileinoie (41 ha) located at the Lososon river 3 km south-west from Grodno.

Surface and ground water resources are sufficient to meet water demand. River feeding is mixed. In early spring rivers are fed by melt waters, in winter – by ground waters, in summer and autumn – by precipitation and ground waters. Quality of ground wasters in the main water bearing horizons meets the sanitary and epidemiological requirements.

To improve hydrological condition of rivers, water protection zones have been established along small rivers within which economic activity is regulated.

3.1.7. Surface waters

The most important water asset of the project area is the Niemen river. The Niemen river ranks fifth among Belarus’ rivers by watershed area (the total area is 98,200 km2, within Belarus - 35,000 km2) and water content (9km3/year). It originates in the boggy forested areas near the Verkny Niemen and the Krasnoie villages (the Minsk district) and flows into the Kurshsky Gulf of the Baltic Sea. The length of the river from the river head to estuary is 937 km including 459 km within Belarus’ territory. The average water surface slope is 0 2 0.21 / 00 . Stream frequency along the length of the river is 0.47 km/km .

The largest tributaries are the Berezina river (226 km) and the Schara river (325 km). The closest feeders to Grodno (upstream the city) are the Lebeda and the Korta rivers from the right bank and the Zelvianka, the Ros and the Svisloch rivers from the left bank.

The Nieman river watershed is located within the Niemen lowland and is of irregular shape, non-central and more developed at the left bank. Percentage of forest land is about 25% including 5% of boggy forest areas. Percentage of lakes is insignificant (<1%). Wetlands and bogs occupy about 9%. About 100 thousand hectares of lands have been drained. Arable lands account for approximately 40%.

The Niemen river valley around Grodno is V-shaped with high steep slopes. The left slope has flood-free terrace 6-6.5 meters high and 70-80 meters wide. The river bed is linear, sand- pebble and stable. The left bank is concave; the right bank is steep, covered by ravines and merges with the slope of the valley reaching the height of 40 meters at the hydrological post site. The length of the Niemen river within the city is 6.6 km.

The Niemen river is a lowland river, mainly snow-fed. The annual runoff regime is characterized by high water in spring, relatively low water in summer and periodic floods in autumn. The river opens near Grodno usually in mid-March. The average duration of flood time is about two months; the average rise of the maximum level versus the lowest ranges from 2.5 to 4 meters increasing downstream. Summer and autumn low water establishes, as a rule, in mid-May and lasts till late-September (about 170 days). Smooth regime of low water levels is often disturbed by summer and autumn rain floods up to 1m high. There may be up to four floods per season in the rainiest years. The minimal levels are more often observed in July-August. Winter low water is more stable and lasts 80-90 days. In some years it is affected by thaws increasing the level by 2-3 meters.

The river usually freezes in the second half of December following the autumn ice drift. The average freezing-over duration is 73 days. Late freezing near Grodno is explained by discharges of industrial wastewaters into the river.

The river is characterized by considerable runoff overregulation. The runoff share of the limiting period is about 55% of the annual; summer-autumn season accounts for 35%, winter – 20%. The multiyear annual runoff averages 197m3/s, the maximum being 919m3/s, the minimum summer - 89.2 m3/s, the minimum winter - 70 m3/s.

The river water is of hydrocarbonate-calcium class, medium mineralization and is

23 characterized by slightly elevated mineralization and hardness at all regimes of water phases. During spring floods aggressive carbonic acid in the amount below 3.5 mg/l is recorded near Grodno.

The river is navigable and is used for industrial and household water supply.

In 2006 hydrochemical monitoring in the Niemen river basin was conducted at 28 water bodies (18 river, 1 channel, 1 stream, 7 lakes and 1 water reservoir), 49 river stations including at 5 transboundary sections of the Niemen, the Vilia, the Chernaya Gancha, the Svisloch and the Krynka rivers.

The identified prevailing pollutants along the Niemen river stream are ammonia nitrogen, iron, copper, zinc and manganese compounds. In 2006 the qualitative water content at the river station downstream Grodno slightly improved compared with 2005: concentration of organic substances by COD and BOD5, nickel compounds and petrochemicals decreased. At the same time, however, concentration of nitrogen and zinc compounds rose by 1.1-1.4 times.

The change of the water pollution index (WPI) along the Niemen river stream in 2002-2006 is illustrated in Figure 2.3. By integral quality assessment, the river water along the whole stream is classified as «relatively clean» (WPI = 0.6-0.9) except the river station downstream Stolbtsy (WPI = 1.1).

Figure 2.3: Water pollution index along the Niemen river stream in 2002-2006 1,2

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0 выше ниже выше ниже выше ниже н.п. г.Столбцы г.Столбцы г.Мосты г.Мосты г.Гродно г.Гродно Привалка

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 upstream downstream upstream downstream upstream downstream the Privalovka

Stolbtsy Stolbtsy Mosty Mosty Grodno Grodno village

Analysis of the Niemen river WPI by the main chemicals suggests that in 2002 – 2006 the hydrochemical regime remained stable (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4: Water quality in the Niemen river (by main ingredients and parameters) in 2002-06 Years Parameters 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 3 BOD5 (mg О2/dm ) 2.79 2.57 2.86 2.50 2.44 3 Ammonia nitrogen (mg/dm ) 0.31 0.48 0.36 0.36 0.45 3 Nitrite nitrogen (mg/dm ) 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.013 0.015 3 Phosphates (mg Р/dm ) 0.025 0.034 0.019 0.031 0.051 3 Zinc (mg/dm ) 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.011 0.012 3 Nickel (mg/dm ) 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.006 3 Petrochemicals (mg/dm ) 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.019

Condition of surface waters and bottom sediment in the Niemen river by hydro-biological parameters in 2006 is illustrated in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Condition of surface waters and bottom sediment in the Niemen river by hydro-biological parameters in 2006 Saprobity index Biotic index

phytoplankton phytoperephyton zooplankton macrozoobentos

The Niemen 2,11-2,03* 1,98-2,14* 2,39-2,07* 6-7* river 2,09-2,04 1,80-1,98 2,48-2,21 5-8 Grodno * the average annual indexes are given for the river stations upstream (left values) and downstream (right values) the pollution source; in the numerator – for 2005, in the denominator – for 2006.

Consequently, the qualitative composition of water in the Niemen river basin by hydrochemical parameters was slightly redistributed in 2006 versus 2005 (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3: Surface water pollution in the Niemen river basin by hydrochemical parameters in 2005-2006

2005

75,5%

1,9% 22,6%

2006 82,0%

18,0%

clean relatively clean relatively polluted

3.1.8. Vegetation

Vegetation cover in the Grodno Oblast is formed by forests, meadows, shrubs and bogs. The Oblast has scarce forest areas relative to other regions of the country. Forests occupy 30% of the territory and are distributed unevenly. The largest forest areas are located mainly in the Niemen lowland, in the Pribug Plain and the Oshmiany Highland in the southern part of the Oblast. The southern section of the Svisloch district is covered by the north-east edge of the Belovezhskaia Puscha (about 32 thousand ha). Percentage of forest land is the lowest at the Volkovysk Highland. Forests are dominated by coniferous species; the prevailing one is pine, which is easily adjustable to soil and climatic conditions. Pine belts are spread at dune sand soils of hilly parts of the Verkhne-Niemen Lowland. Pine/fir and mixed forests prevail within soil-forming rocks in more flat relief. Broad-leaved species – oak, lime and others – can be found at loamy soils. Birch, aspen and alder forests are widespread in the river valleys. Shrub layer consists of juniper, hazel, mountain ash, buckthorn, raspberry cane, cowberry, bilberry bush and heather.

Considerable part of the Oblast territory (13%) is covered by upland and water meadows.

Upland meadows are located at elevated interstream areas, consist of various grasses and are characterized by low yields. From economic standpoint, the most valuable are water meadows located in high-water beds and soils enriched by run silt. The prevailing species are foxtail and bluegrass with inclusion of sedge and other dicotyledonous flowering plants.

Bogs and wetlands occupy 3.3% of the Oblast territory. There are three types of bogs: upland- sphagnum, transitory-forest and lowland-grass. The prevailing are lowland bogs located mainly in the river valleys. Upland bogs are spread at the Volkovysk and Grodno Highlands, the Osmiany Ridge and the Lida Plain. The Voronovo, the Ivie, the Grodno and the Svisloch districts are characterized by the highest percentage of wetlands. Upland bogs are spread mainly at the Volkovysk and the Grodno Highlands, the Osmiany Ridge and the Lida Plain. The grass cover of bogs is dominated by sedge, graminifolious plants and miscellaneous herbs (buck-bean, cowberry and others).

Forest phytocenosises are part of natural and man-made assets of Grodno and play very important recreation, protective, landscape- and media-forming role. Field survey of the forest estate were conducted in the Grodno Oblast in 2005 covering total of 1,019.9 ha including 887.2 ha (87%) of the forested areas. There are 550.9 thousand trees of various species in the forest estate including 71.9% coniferous trees. Valuable large-leaved trees within the city account for 8.9%. The municipal forest estate is dominated by pine (75.2%). The oak-wood share is also relatively high – 18.3%. The share of derivative birch (3.2%), aspen (1.4%), poplar (1.4%), maple (0.3%), lime (0.1%), ash (0.1%) and willow (0.1%) forests is much lower. The average age of forest stand is 69 years; the average growth class – 1.4 and the average density is 0.63. The dominating are middle-age and semi-mature (IV-V age class – 61.4%) highly productive (68.8%) middle-dense (84%) forest stands.

Closed landscapes account for 79.3% of the Grodno forested area, semi-open and open landscapes – 9.0 and 11.7% respectively. In terms of aesthetic value, the major share of the surveyed areas is of low (50.6%) or relatively low (39.9%) value. Digressive effects associated mainly with recreation activity and anthropogenic pollution was identified, on average, at 32.9% of municipal forested areas. Heavy manifestations of digression (stage 5) were identified near power transmission lines and in some other areas.

There are no protected vegetation species in the vicinity of the proposed facility.

3.1.9. Wildlife

In 2003-2004 in the Grodno Oblast the populations of boar stabilized while the population of deer and elk slightly decreased (by 4.4% and 3.4% respectively). Population of elk remains at the 1991 level. The population of deer restored almost to the 1991 level. The number of wild hoofed mammals and wolfs in the Grodno Oblast in 2003-2004 is shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Wild hoofed mammals and wolfs in the Grodno Oblast Elk, Year Deer, thousand Boar, thousand Roe, thousand Wolf, thousand thousand 2003 1.50 0.95 3.97 6.00 0.12 2004 1.45 0.94 3.96 5.75 0.14

Monitoring of animal inscribed on Belarus’ Red Book focuses on Bison Bonasus, bear, lynx, badger, fresh-water turtle and rare bird species. In the Grodno Oblast monitoring is conducted in the Ostrovets and the Slonim forestry enterprises. The monitoring findings demonstrated that among the above referred animals only badger can be found within the territory of these forestry enterprises. The population raised from 6 animals in 2004 to 10 animals in 2005 in the Ostrovets forestry enterprise and remained unchanged (10 animals) in the Slonim forestry enterprise. Due to insignificant forest area, the main hunting management activities in the Oblast include the change of forest use regime, improvement of conditions for reproduction of hoofed mammals and protection of forest areas from poaching.

The following (not subject to special protection) species are found in the Niemen river: bream, pike, roach, silver bream, river perch, catfish, freshwater cod, ide, carp, pikeperch, chub and asp. After the river was dammed by the Kaunass Hydropower Plant, migratory fish is not longer found in the river within Belarus’ territory and currently fish fauna of the Niemen river is represented by standard rheophil and limnophil species. The general fish productivity is 70.4 kg/ha (1305.2 kg/km), commercial fish productivity – 47.2 kg/ha (874.5 kg/km); fishing reserve in the river – 118 centners. Bream is the prevailing and the most valuable fish (62.3% - 81.4% of the catch). The bream catch includes 4-9 year-olds but is dominated by 5-7 year-olds. In 2005 the catch of bream totaled 11.75 centners (9.6%). Among low-value species, silver bream and roach prevail in the catch (13.8% in 2005). Asp, ide, pike and carp are found in by-catches. The catch tends to decrease compared with the previous decade. In 2005 the catch totaled 14.76 centners only (given that the length of the section is 13.5 km).

There are no endangered species or vulnerable fauna at the project site (located at the current Oblast landfill).

3.2. General overview of environmental media resistance to anthropogenic impacts

The assessment criteria of landscape resistance to anthropogenic impacts through air include:

 accumulation of polluting admixtures (inversion, calm and fog parameters)  decomposition of pollutants in the atmosphere depending on general and ultraviolet irradiation, temperature regime and number of days with thunderstorms  pollutant carryover (wind regime)  dilution of pollutants by oxygen reproduction (relative forest land percentage)

By climatic parameters related to the number of inversions and air capacity for purification from pollutants due to their decomposition, the area falls into the transitional climate zone(from maritime to continental) and, therefore, the condition of the territory is rated as favorable. Since the area is located within the territory with sufficient humidification, self- purification ability of the atmosphere due to pollutant scavenging with precipitation is rated

28 as favorable.

The background concentrations of pollutants in the proposed facility location are illustrated in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7: Background concentrations of air pollutants in Grodno Maximum Background concentration one-time mg/m3 Maximum one- Pollutant (summation group) MAC, time MAC shares mg/m3 1 Particulate pollutants 0.300 0.270 0.900 2 Sulfur dioxide 0.500 0.005 0.010 3 Carbon oxide 5.000 2.130 0.426 4 Nitrogen dioxide 0.250 0.090 0.360 5 Formaldehyde 0.030 0.020 0.667 6 Ammonia 0.200 0.076 0.380 7 Summation group (nitrogen dioxide + ammonia + sulfur dioxide) - - 0.750

The analysis of values shown in Table 3.7 suggests that high background concentrations in the surveyed project area are reported for particulate pollutants only. The emissions from the proposed facility contain particulate pollutants.

A comprehensive assessment of the area in terms of air condition concludes that the surveyed area is acceptable for the implementation of the proposed investments on condition that respective measures are taken to reduce emissions of particulate pollutants (dust) into the atmosphere based on national standards.

Soils in the project area are mainly sod medium-podzol boulder-loam with low humus content and have medium capacity for self-purification from organic and non-organic pollution. Vegetation cover in the project area is formed mainly by tree-like species with long vegetation period. Therefore, the vegetation of the area, being fairly resistant to continuous emissions of pollutants, is characterized by low recovery level and low resistance to potential volley emissions.

Wildlife in the proposed facility location is composed mainly from synatropic species which are well-adjusted to anthropogenic impacts. There are no protected areas and natural reserves in the area of influence of the proposed facility.

Based on the analysis of the environment and natural conditions in the proposed facility location we conclude that:  by climatic and biological factors the surveyed area is fairly resistant to the impact of industrial enterprises  the design of the proposed facility to be located within the surveyed project area should provide for measures intended to limit emissions of air pollutants and to prevent considerable intake of pollutants by soils

3.3. Socioeconomic Context

3.3.1. Economic situation

The dominating industrial sectors of Grodno region are food processing (26.9%), chemical and petroleum products (22.6%), machine building and metalworking (15.3%), construction materials (9%), forestry, wood processing and pulp and paper (7.1%), power generation (5.2%), light industry (4.8%), and fuel (0.3%). Annual growth of industrial production averages at 11%. The number of employed in the industrial sector exceeds 100,000 or 25.3% of the work force. Average household monthly wage is about BYR 1 million slightly higher than the average for Belarus. Real GDP growth rate is an integral indicator of socioeconomic development of the country. In 2004-2007 GDP growth rates were the highest: in 2001 it totaled 93% of pre-crisis 1990 level, in 2003 exceeded the 1990 level by 4%, in 2004 – by 14.7%, and in 2005 – already by 27%. In 2007 GDP grew by 8.2% versus 2006; the industrial and agricultural output rose by 8.5% and 4.1% respectively.

The city has a well established solid waste management with 100% collection coverage. The current landfill Rogachi-Vyselki has an area of 19.6 hectares, and has been in use for 20 years. It received 159,200 tons of waste in 2008. The remaining life of the landfill is about 10 years and with a tonnage capacity of about1.63 million tons. The landfill is equipped with a weighbridge, waste is compacted, and leachate is re-circulated into the solid waste accumulation in the landfill.

Solid waste is generated in Grodno by residential, commercial and industrial sources. The proposed waste separation facility will process up to 120,000 tons/year of solid waste which is approximately 75 % of the total solid waste stream generated by Grodno’s population of about 320,000 people based on the total tonnage of solid waste received at the Grodno landfill in 2008 as measured by the existing weighbridge at the landfill.

3.3.2. Demographic situation

The Grodno Oblast has a population of 1,150,000, of which about 321,800 reside in the oblast capital of Grodno city (Grodno). The City shares borders with Lithuania and Poland. The main demographic parameters are summarized in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8: Main demographic parameters in Grodno Parameter (per 1000 people) 2006 Birth rate 11.8 Death rate 9.0 Infant mortality rate 4.3 Natural population growth 2.8

As illustrated in Table 3.8, natural population increase was recorded in 2006. By WHO classification, death rate in the city is average, birth rate is low. Death rate will increase with population ageing reflecting the age structure of the city population (Table 3.9).

Table 3.9: Age structure of the Grodno population Age groups Number of people Share, % Total population, including 321800 100.0 - children 48279 15.0 - adolescents 15487 4.8 - adults including: 258034 80.2 - able-bodied 207163 64.4 - pensioners 50871 15.8

3.3.3. Morbidity patterns

General morbidity patterns in Grodno and the Grodno district in 2006 are illustrated in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10: General morbidity patterns in 2006 Adolescents Adults (15-17 years) (18 years and older) Registered Registered Diseases cases per including first cases per including first 100.000 diagnosed 100.000 diagnosed people people Total 161574.9 96772.8 111048.8 49254.9 Selected infectious and parasitic 4027.0 3744.0 5851.3 4313.9 diseases Tumors 304.7 125.2 4337.7 768.4 Blood diseases 380.9 76.2 207.1 32.0 Endocrine diseases, nutrition and 1442.1 87.1 5256.4 601.1 metabolism disorders Mental disorders and behavior 9136.9 838.0 6921.7 1451.0 deviations Nervous system diseases 2840.7 484.3 888.1 244.3 Ophthalmologic diseases 14110.8 1833.9 5036.3 1638.9 Ear and processus mastoideus 1621.7 614.9 2400.4 1246.8 diseases Circulatory system diseases 2465.2 658.5 23774.0 2144.0 Respiratory tract diseases 67724.2 60568.1 18933.4 15682.8 Digestive tract diseases 15335.2 2470.6 9183.1 646.4 Skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases 6688.1 6345.2 3796.9 3514.8 Osteomuscular system and connective 11112.3 1131.9 4350.7 2186.8 tissue diseases Urogenital diseases 6845.9 2693.7 5734.2 1888.7 Pregnancy, delivery and post-natal 234.0 179.6 2919.0 2453.9 period Inborn pathologies, malformations and 1273.4 27.2 90.3 4.6 chromosome disorders Symptoms, signs and deviations from 1170.0 54.4 1201.8 275.3 the norm detected through clinical and

31 laboratory tests Injuries, poisoning and etc. 14861.8 14840.0 10166.4 10161.2

As seen from Table 3.10, adult morbidity structure is dominated by circulatory system diseases (21.4% of total diseases), respiratory tract diseases (17.0%), injuries and poisoning (9.2%). Adolescent morbidity structure is dominated by respiratory tract diseases (41.9%), digestive tract diseases (9.5%), injuries and poisoning (9.2%).

Death rate by causes in 2006 is illustrated in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11. Death rate by causes Diseases Total deaths Share, % Infectious and parasitic diseases 13 1.5 Tumors 166 18.6 Circulatory system diseases 486 54.2 Respiratory tract diseases 19 2.1 Digestive tract diseases 52 5.8 Injuries, poisoning and accidents 121 13.5 Others (including unidentified) 39 4.3 Total 896 100 The mortality structure in the city of Grodno is dominated by circulatory system diseases (54.2%), tumors (18.6%), injuries, poisoning and accidents (13.5%).

4. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED INVESTMENTS

A. During Construction Phase

The construction phase activities will include initial site preparation and civil works related to erection of the MSW facility.

Short-term environmental impacts are likely to be localized, temporary, and efficiently mitigated by applying good international construction practice and planning: (i) traffic, exhaust emissions and noise generated by vehicles and landfill related equipment; (ii) improper disposal of construction related waste; (iii) temporary pollution of air, soil, ground and surface water; and (iv) occupational noise and dust exposure of workers. Occupational health and safety issues for the workers and near site community during the proposed works will be followed according to international standards to prevent exposure to spills, gas emissions and fires or explosions that could be directly associated with these works.

The transportation of the excavated materials and construction related debris will be minimal as most of the material will be disposed off at the landfill site where the facility will be constructed. Transport vehicles used to carry construction machinery and materials could be a source of noise and exhaust emissions. The major roads are already in place, but relevant drainage system, and external facilities for water supply electricity will have to be extended at the future facility site. Installation of facility structures and related equipment will also generate temporary noise and minor dust-generation. Earthworks envisaged during construction could have potentially negative environmental impacts that include generation of dust or silt-runoff from exposed soil surfaces during rain.

B. During Operation Phase

4.1. Air Impact Assessment

4.1.1. Description of air pollution sources

The pollution sources of the proposed facility include: 1. MSW mechanical processing and separation block (emissions: particulate pollutants, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, butyric acid, butyl alcohol, methyl mercaptan, acetaldehyde, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, C12-C19 saturated hydrocarbons, soot, chlorine); 2. Services unit. Electric forklift charging section (emission of sulfuric acid); 3. Services unit. Vehicle maintenance and repair section (emissions: nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, C12-C19 saturated hydrocarbons, soot);

4. Services unit. Metalwork-mechanical section (emissions: inorganic dust SiO2 20- 70%, emulsol);

5. Services unit. Welding section (emissions: inorganic dust SiO2 20-70%, manganese dioxide, iron oxide);

6. Services unit. Electric equipment repair section (emissions: copper oxide, zinc oxide);

7. Vehicles (emissions: nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, C12-C19 saturated hydrocarbons, soot); 8. Boiler house (emissions: nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate pollutants, benz(a)pyren); The design provides for purification of the entire air stream stripped from MSW mechanical processing and separation unit (purification efficiency for particulate pollutants and soot – 98%). The welding and mechanical sections are outfitted with a 370П16x0,5 dust collector with 99.3% purification efficiency for inorganic dust and with a gas-cleaning device with 96% purification efficiency for manganese dioxide and iron oxide. Diesel forklifts are equipped with catalytic converters reducing the emission of carbon monoxide and C12-C19 saturated hydrocarbons by 50%. Emission sources parameters during operation are summarized in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Emission sources parameters

Gas-Air Mixture Coordinates on Index Pollution Source Pollutant Emission Point Parameters at the Gas-Cleaning Units Release and Emissions of Pollutants Map Emission Point Outlet

Process

0 /s

3 Pre-action

______, m/s

0 Post-action

source

Name Name Name

Pollutant

Кmax, %

pollution sourcepollution

Other end of end Other line

Height Н, Height m

Number, pcs Number, pcs Number,

Diamete D, Diamete m

# on # Indexon Map W Speed point of line pollution

efficiency Кe, %

Duration, hr/year Duration,

Point source, initialor

Volume Volume V1, m

TemperatureТг, TemperatureТг,

Target substancesTarget Frequency, Frequency, times/year

Х1 Y1 X2 Y2 Service life . Purification 3 Max. purification efficiency

Gas-cleaning coefficientGas-cleaning К1, g/s mg/m ton/year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Process Building for SW From the building - filter 1 1 16.0 0.60 55.02 15.556 20 1069 1006 - - filter solid particles, 100 98 98 0.80276 51.605 9.36153 3240 - solid particles Mechanical Treatment Separation soot 0.01606 1.032 0.187231 ammonia 0.02092 1.345 0.24407 hydrogen sulphide 0.00021 0.013 0.00250 butyric acid 0.04615 2.967 0.53819 butyl alcohol 0.01001 0.643 0.11661 methyl mercaptan 0.000008 0.001 0.00010 acetaldehyde 0.00057 0.037 0.00672 chlorine 0.00389 0.250 0.00089 sulfur dioxide 0.00653 0.420 0.00959 carbon oxide 0.04883 3.139 0.05383

hydrocarbons С12-С19 0.00926 0.595 0.01022 0.00442 0.284 0.00552 soot 0.00009 0.006 0.00011 nitrogen dioxide 0.0389 2.501 0.05666

Vehicles (SW delivery) Vehicle engine 95 exhaust 1 2 0.5 0.05 1.02 0.002 70 1019 977 ------hydrocarbons С12-С19 0.00102 510.000 0.02836 - - pipe sulfur dioxide 0.00049 245.000 0.01311 carbon oxide 0.00573 2865.000 0.15746 soot 0.00026 130.000 0.00649 nitrogen dioxide 0.00278 1390.000 0.08028

Vehicles (outward carriage of Vehicle engine 21 exhaust 1 3 0.5 0.05 1.02 0.002 70 1072 942 ------hydrocarbons С12-С19 0.00027 135.000 0.00982 - - recyclables and alternative fuel) pipe sulfur dioxide 0.00014 70.000 0.00427 carbon oxide 0.00184 920.000 0.06356 soot 0.00007 35.000 0.00215 nitrogen dioxide 0.00078 390.000 0.02874

Vehicles (removal of inert materials) Vehicle engine 16 exhaust 1 4 0.5 0.05 1.02 0.002 70 1080 964 ------hydrocarbons С12-С19 0.00026 130.000 0.00725 - - pipe sulfur dioxide 0.00010 50.000 0.00279 carbon oxide 0.00163 815.000 0.04558 soot 0.00006 30.000 0.00147 nitrogen dioxide 0.00072 360.000 0.02105

Vehicles (delivery of materials) Vehicle engine 1 exhaust 1 5 0.5 0.05 1.02 0.002 70 1050 946 ------hydrocarbons С12-С19 0.00217 1085.000 0.00145 - - pipe sulfur dioxide 0.00037 185.000 0.00032 carbon oxide 0.01129 5645.000 0.00775 soot 0.00031 155.000 0.00021 nitrogen dioxide 0.00280 1400.000 0.00226 Vehicles Vehicle engine 5 exhaust 1 6 0.2 0.055 0.84 0.002 210 1014 933 catalytic converter hydrocarbons С12-С19, 100 50 50 0.01051 5255.000 0.00667 - - hydrocarbons С -С (travel of diesel lift trucks within the pipe carbon oxide 12 19 0.00526 2630.000 0.00334 territory of the enterprise) sulfur dioxide 0.00164 820.000 0.00124 0.05465 27325.000 0.03577 carbon oxide 0.02733 13665.000 0.01789 soot 0.00142 710.000 0.00087 nitrogen dioxide 0.01290 6450.000 0.00930 Auxiliary service unit (lift truck Batteries - ventilating fan 1 7 7.5 0.315 7.66 0.597 20 1037 940 ------sulfuric acid 0.00003 0.05025 0.00011 1000 - recharging sector)

Auxiliary service unit (vehicle Vehicle engine 1 ventilating 1 8 7.5 0.125 9.05 0.111 20 1039 945 ------hydrocarbons С12-С19 0.00005 0.450 0.00011 - - maintenance & repair section) fan серы диоксид 0.000016 0.144 0.00005 углерода оксид 0.00033 2.973 0.00069 сажа 0.000004 0.036 0.000016 азота диоксид 0.00009 0.811 0.00033

Auxiliary service unit (vehicle Vehicle engine 1 ventilating 1 9 7.5 0.100 3.57 0.028 20 1027 949 ------hydrocarbons С12-С19 0.00001 0.357 0.00003 - - maintenance & repair section) fan sulfur dioxide 0.000004 0.143 0.00001 carbon oxide 0.00008 2.857 0.00017 soot 0.000001 0.036 0.000004 nitrogen dioxide 0.00002 0.714 0.00008

Auxiliary service unit (fitting & Machine unit ТШ-2 1 deflector 1 10 7.5 0.500 0.85 0.167 20 1034 932 - - dust-collecting unit inorganic dust SiO2 <70% 100 99.3 99.3 0.06800 407.186 0.58752 2400 - machine section) 370П16х0,5 inorganic dust SiO2 <70% screw-cutting lathe CU–325 1 0.00048 2.874 0.00411  upright drilling machine МР-0,25 1 emulsol 0.0000015 0.009 0.000014

Auxiliary service unit (welding Cutoff band-saw machine UE-100S 1 deflector 1 11 7.5 0.250 1.02 0.05 20 1039 930 - - dust-collecting unit inorganic dust SiO2 <70% 100 99.3 99.3 0.20300 4060.000 0.18489 253 - inorganic dust SiO2 <70% sector) 370П16х0,5 0.00142 28.400 0.00129  welding bench СС-1200 1 gas-cleaning unit manganese dioxide, 100 96 96 0.00035 7.000 0.00076 632.5 manganese dioxide ferrous oxide 0.00001 0.200 0.00003 0.00268 53.600 0.00578 ferrous oxide 0.00011 2.200 0.00023 Auxiliary service unit (section for Multiplaz-2500 1 deflector 1 12 7.5 0.400 0.72 0.090 20 1027 933 ------cuprous oxide 0.000001 0.011 0.000001 253 - repair of electric equipment) zinc oxide 0.000089 0.989 0.000081

Boiler Plant Boiler ТЭМ 100 1 stack 1 13 16.0 0.23 0.99 0.041 120 987 1001 ------sulfur dioxide 0.0129 314.634 0.01963 7086 - carbon oxide 0.09198 2243.415 0.55904 benzpyrene 0.00000011 0.003 0.00000065 nitrogen oxide 0.00186 45.366 0.00557 nitrogen dioxide 0.01145 279.268 0.03429 solid particles 0.06372 1554.146 0.27396 Boiler Plant Boiler ТЭМ 100 1 stack 1 14 16.0 0.23 0.99 0.041 120 986 1004 ------sulfur dioxide 0.0129 314.634 0.01963 7086 - carbon oxide 0.09198 2243.415 0.55904 benzpyrene 0.00000011 0.003 0.00000065 nitrogen oxide 0.00186 45.366 0.00557 nitrogen dioxide 0.01145 279.268 0.03429 solid particles 0.06372 1554.146 0.27396 Boiler Plant Boiler ТЭМ 100 1 stack 1 15 16.0 0.23 0.99 0.041 120 985 1007 ------sulfur dioxide 0.0129 314.634 0.01963 7086 - carbon oxide 0.09198 2243.415 0.55904 benzpyrene 0.00000011 0.003 0.00000065 nitrogen oxide 0.00186 45.366 0.00557 nitrogen dioxide 0.01145 279.268 0.03429 solid particles 0.06372 1554.146 0.27396

4.1.2. Assessment of impact in terms of ground level concentrations. Area of influence

To estimate contribution of the proposed facility in air pollution, dispersion of pollutant emissions has been calculated using the «Ecolog» software (Version 3.00). Calculation has been performed based on the background concentrations (Attachment A) for a site sized 2 km х 2 km, the step of computation grid being 100m х 100m in the coordinate system with axis OY oriented to the North, in the regime of automated rundown of wind directions and with the average outdoor temperature of the coldest month. Calculation appropriateness criterion has been set at 0.01.

The description of additives and summation groups (based on Hygienic Norms 2.1.6.12-46- 2005 “Maximum allowable concentrations and indicative safe levels of the impact of air pollutants in residential areas”) addressed in the estimation of dispersion is given in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Description of admixtures and summation groups Maximum allowable Code Pollutant concentration Hazard class (MAC), mg/m3 0123 Iron oxide 0,200 3 0124 Iron oxide (suspended) 0,300 3 0143 Manganese dioxide 0,010 2 0144 Manganese dioxide (suspended) 0,300 2 0146 Copper oxide 0,020 2 0147 Copper oxide (suspended) 0,300 2 0207 Zinc oxide 0,250 3 0208 Zinc oxide (suspended) 0,300 3 0301 Nitrogen dioxide 0,250 2 0303 Ammonia 0,200 4 0304 Nitrogen oxide 0,400 3 0322 Sulfuric acid 0,300 2 0328 Soot 0,150 3 0329 Soot (suspended) 0,300 3 0330 Sulfur dioxide 0,500 3 0333 Hydrogen sulfide 0,008 2 0337 Carbon oxide 5,000 4 0349 Chlorine 0,100 2 0703 Benz(a)pyren 5х10-6 1 1042 Butyl alcohol 0,100 3 1317 Acetaldehyde 0,010 3 1534 Butyric acid 0,015 3 1715 Methylmerkaptane 0,000009 2

2754 Saturated hydrocarbons С12-С19 1,000 4 2868 Emulsol aerosol 0,050 - 2869 Emulsol aerosol (suspended) 0,300 - 2902 Particulate pollutants 0,300 3 2908 Non-organic dust SiO2 2070% 0,300 3 6001: Summation group -0303 (ammonia + hydrogen sulfide) 0,200 - -0333 0,008 6040: Summation group -0301 (nitrogen dioxide + ammonia + sulfur dioxide) 0,250 - -0303 0,200 -0330 0,500 6041: Summation group -0330 (sulfur dioxide + sulfuric acid) 0,500 - -0322 0,300 6325: Summation group 0,300 - -0124 (iron oxide +manganese dioxide +copper oxide -0144 +zinc oxide +soot +emulsol aerosol +particulate

-0147 pollutants + non-organic dust SiO2 2070%) -0208 -0329 -2869 -2902 -2908

The impact has been estimated using the maximum values of the ground level concentrations of pollutants expected at the border of the standard sanitary protection zone and in the residential area (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Maximum ground level concentrations of pollutants Maximum concentration as MAC shares at the border of the in the residential area Pollutant sanitary protection zone with a without a with a without a background* background background* background Iron oxide Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable Manganese dioxide Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable Copper oxide Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable Zinc oxide Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable Nitrogen dioxide 0,45 0,02 0,46 0,03 Ammonia 0,50 0,01 0,50 0,01 Nitrogen oxide 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Sulfuric acid Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable Soot 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 Sulfur dioxide 0,02 0,01 0,02 0,01 Hydrogen sulfide Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable Carbon dioxide 0,48 0,00 0,48 0,00 Chlorine Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable Benz(a)pyren Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable Butyl alcohol Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable

Acetaldehyde Estimation is Estimation is Butyric acid 0,05unreasonable 0,05 0,05unreasonable 0,05 Methylmerkaptane 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,02

Saturated hydrocarbons С12-С19 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Emulsol aerosol Estimation is Estimation is unreasonable unreasonable Particulate pollutants 0,94 0,04 0,95 0,05

Non-organic dust SiO2 2070% 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 Summation group 0,50 0,01 0,50 0,01 (ammonia + hydrogen sulfide) Summation group 0,96 0,02 0,98 0,04 (nitrogen dioxide + ammonia + sulfur dioxide) Summation group 0,02 0,01 0,02 0,01 (sulfur dioxide + sulfuric acid) Summation group (iron oxide +manganese dioxide +copper oxide +zinc oxide +soot +emulsol aerosol +particulate pollutants 0,94 0,04 0,96 0,06

+ non-organic dust SiO2 2070%)

* - maximum ground concentration of a pollutant derived by summing the background concentration (in accordance with Attachment А) and the concentration produced by emissions from the facility.

As seen from Table 4.3, air pollution caused by emissions from the proposed facility is considerably lower than the maximum allowable one-time concentration.

The maximum one-time concentrations are responsible for non-occurrence of reflex reactions i.e. for ecological «comfort» while observance of the average annual concentrations within the established norms shall ensure prevention of resorptive reactions of a human body i.e. avoidance of harmful health effects and, therefore, is more significant.

In accordance with the recommendations [26], the average annual ground level concentration has been calculated with the formula: ．． CмР Cc.г  ; mg/m3, 125 3 where: См is the maximum one-time concentration, mg/m ; Р is the frequency of wind recurrence from the facility toward the calculation point.

Estimation of the average annual concentrations is presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Estimation of the average annual concentrations Average annual Daily concentration Сс.г. average См., Р, Pollutant 3 Shares of MAC, mg/m % 3 mg/m3 mg/m daily average

MAC

1 Iron oxide 0,100 - - - - 2 Manganese oxide 0,005 - - - - 3 Copper oxide 0,008 - - - - 4 Zinc oxide 0,150 - - - - 5 Nitrogen dioxide 0,100 0,115 6 0,006 0,060 6 Ammonia 0,200 0,100 6 0,005 0,025 7 Nitrogen oxide 0,240 0,000 27 0,000 0,000 8 Sulfuric acid 0,100 - - - - 9 Soot 0,050 0,002 27 0,0004 0,008 10 Sulfur dioxide 0,200 0,010 20 0,002 0,010 11 Hydrogen sulfide 0,008 - - - - 12 Carbon oxide 3,000 2,400 27 0,518 0,173

13 Chlorine 0,030 - - - - -6 14 Benz(a)pyren 5х10 - - - - 15 Butyl alcohol 0,100 - - - - 16 Acetaldehyde 0,010 - - - - 17 Butyric acid 0,010 0,001 27 0,0002 0,020 -6 -7 -7 18 Methylmerkaptane 9×10 1,8×10 27 0,4×10 0,004 19 0,400 0,000 27 Saturated hydrocarbons С12-С19 0,000 0,000 20 Emulsol aerosol 0,050 - - - - 21 Particulate pollutants 0,150 0,285 27 0,062 0,413 22 0,100 0,000 26 Non-organic dust SiO2 2070% 0,000 0,000

Estimation of the average annual concentrations suggests that air pollution around the facility site is insignificant. Given that the referred average annual concentrations have been calculated taking into account the background concentration (in accordance with Annex A), it can be concluded that contribution of the proposed facility in air pollution is negligible.

In accordance with [23], the area of influence of the emission source and the facility shall be estimated for each pollutant (combination of substances with the summing adverse impact) based on the estimation of the dispersion of air emissions. The area of influence is limited by the territory where the maximum ground level concentration of emissions (without a background) is above 0.05 MAC.

Estimation of the dispersion of emissions has suggested that the isoline of the concentration equaling 0.05 MAC for butyric acid is at maximum distance from the territory of the proposed facility. Thus, the border of the area of influence (the isoline of the concentration equaling 0.05 MAC for butyric acid) almost coincides with the border of the standard sanitary protection zone of the facility the size of which is 500m.

4.1.3. Gross emissions

Estimation of pollutant emissions from the proposed facility has been performed based on the existing guidelines and is presented in the Section “Protection of ambient air from pollution”

Based on the estimation of dispersion, the values presented in Table 4.5 can be proposed as maximum allowable emissions.

Table 4.5: Maximum allowable emissions Pollutant Maximum allowable emissions, t/year total stationary mobile Iron oxide 0,00023 0,00023 – Manganese oxide 0,00003 0,00003 – Copper oxide 0,000001 0,000001 – Zinc oxide 0,000081 0,000081 – Nitrogen dioxide 0,30157 0,15994 0,14163 Ammonia 0,24407 0,24407 – Nitrogen oxide 0,01671 0,01671 Sulfuric acid 0,00011 0,00011 – Soot 0,01132 0,00013 0,01119 Sulfur dioxide 0,09027 0,06854 0,021730 Hydrogen sulfide 0,0025 0,0025 – Carbon oxide 2,02405 1,73181 0,29224 Chlorine 0,00089 0,00089 – Benz(a)pyren 0,00000195 0,00000195 – Butyl alcohol 0,11661 0,11661 – Acetaldehyde 0,00672 0,00672 – Butyric acid 0,53819 0,53819 – Methylmerkaptane 0,0001 0,0001 – Saturated hydrocarbons С12-С19 0,06058 0,01036 0,050220 Emulsol aerosol 0,000014 0,000014 – Particulate pollutants 1,009111 1,009111 – Non-organic dust SiO2 2070% 0,0054 0,0054 – Total: 4,42855895 3,91154895 0,51701

The estimation of gross emissions can help make a judgment on the environmental impact of the proposed facility. In 2006 emissions from stationary sources in Grodno totaled 12.0 thousand tons. Therefore, contribution of the proposed facility in the gross emissions in the city will make up 0.04% which is very insignificant.

4.2. Assessment of Impact on Surface and Ground Waters

4.2.1. Description of surface and ground water pollution sources

The main sources of surface and ground water pollution at the facility operation stage are industrial, utility and rain wastewaters. Utility (9.80 m3/day) and industrial (1.75 m3/day) wastewaters are discharged into the designed intrasite domestic sewerage system and go to the hermetic collector and, upon

41 accumulation, are delivered to the municipal facilities for complete biotreatment of wastewaters. Prior to discharge into the intrasite system, floor and machinery washing wastewaters are pre-treated in the planned industrial wastewater treatment plant consisting of a settling basin and two filtration levels. The qualitative indices of the floor and machinery washing water delivered for treatment is: suspended matter: 100 mg/L, petrochemicals: 10 mg/L. Treatment efficiency for suspended matter and petrochemicals is:  in the settling basin – 90%;  on the 1st filtration level – 60%;  on the 2nd filtration level – 60%. After the 2nd treatment level, the pollutant concentrations are the following:  suspended matter – 1.60 mg/L  petrochemicals – 0.16 mg/L The treatment plant sediment is loaded by hand onto a dump truck and then it is removed into an MSW landfill. The annual amount of sediment with 95% humidity and bulk density of 1.5 t/m3 captured in the settling basin is 1.53 t/year. Petrochemicals (0.018 t/year) captured in the treatment process are gathered in the oil collector into portable containers and then they are delivered to a petroleum depot for regeneration.

4.2.2. Analysis of impact

Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that the design of the facility ensures maximum protection of surface and ground waters from contamination both by wastewaters and products captured during wastewater treatment.

4.3. Assessment of Impact on Soils, Vegetation and Wildlife

Industrial air pollutants penetrating into soils with rain and fog produce a considerable adverse effect on the composition of soil and development of natural soil processes including transformation and migration of organic matter [4-7]. The stock of nutrients in soils decreases; its biological activity, physical, chemical and agro-chemical properties change.

In addition to impact of emissions of industrial pollutants into the atmosphere, soils are negatively affected by mechanical disturbance of topsoil, removal of fertile layer, clearance of the territory from vegetation which, in turn, frustrates ecological balance of the soil system.

Adverse effects are also caused by rain and melt waters contaminated by petrochemicals as well as by failures to observe industrial waste collection and disposal regulations.

Based on the analysis of the main design options, the following conclusions can be made:

1) the proposed facility is expected to make a negligible contribution in ambient air pollution. Besides, given that the facility is located at the existing MSW landfill site where there are no arable lands, the impact of air emissions on soils around the facility will be insignificant

2) given that the project provides for measures intended to preserve fertile soil layer, no major disturbance of soil cover is anticipated; site rehabilitation and greenery works will be performed at the site after completion of construction

Therefore, an impact on soils around the site of the proposed facility will remain almost at the same level.

Industrial emissions produce similar adverse impacts on vegetation. Allowable nitrogen and sulfur dioxides concentrations in the air for selected plants are summarized in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Allowable nitrogen and sulfur dioxides concentrations in the air for selected plants Average concentration during plant Average 30 minutes concentration Plant growth period under one-time impact, mg/m3 susceptibility (7 months), mg/m3 NO2 SO2 NO2 SO2 Very susceptible - 0,25 - 0,05 Susceptible 6,0 0,40 0,35 0,08 Resistant - 0,60 - 0,12

Currently there are no statutory norms of the impact of anthropogenic emissions on crops and forests. However, “Temporary norms of maximum allowable concentration of air pollutants for wood species of “Yasnaya Polyana” Museum Estate” were elaborated in 1984 for forests around the Lev Tolstoy Museum Estate (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7: Temporary norms of maximum allowable concentration of air pollutants for wood species of “Yasanya Polyana” Museum Estate One-time One-time Pollutant MAC, MAC, mg/m3 mg/m3 1 Nitrogen dioxide 0,040 0,020 2 Ammonia 0,100 0,040 3 Benzol 0,100 0,050 4 Suspended substances 0,200 0,050 5 Methanol 0,200 0,100 6 Carbon oxide 3,000 1,000 7 Sulfuric acid 0,100 0,030 8 Sulfur dioxide 0,300 0,015 9 Hydrogen sulfide 0,080 0,008 10 Fluoric compounds 0,020 0,003 11 Formaldehyde 0,020 0,003 12 Chlorine 0,025 0,015 13 Cyclohexane 0,200 0,200

Direct impact of emissions from the proposed facility on plants can be assessed by comparing the estimated ground level concentrations generated by the sources of the proposed facility with the concentrations for which reactions of plants have been identified through tests. Considering the above said, it can be noted that concentrations generated by emissions from the proposed facility will be lower than the values assumed as allowable even for very

43 susceptible plants and will not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations which have been elaborated to preserve unique trees. It can be therefore concluded that the proposed facility is not expected to produce a direct damaging impact on vegetation.

The impact of contamination associated with operation of the proposed facility on fauna can be estimated on the basis of applicability of MAC for residential areas. The criterion of environmental safety of animals shall be compliance with the requirement stipulating that the average annual concentration of pollutants released into the atmosphere should not exceed average daily MAC.

As for the proposed facility, since the average annual concentrations are below average daily MAC, the level of contamination is safe for the fauna of the surveyed area.

4.4. Assessment of Physical Factors’ Impact

Among physical factors of potential impact of the proposed facility on the environmental media and human beings, the following ones should be highlighted:

 noise  electromagnetic radiation

Sources of noise include technological equipment, including ventilators,. According to the technical specifications, technological equipment to be operated meets the sanitary requirements for noise level. Ventilators are vibroinsulated and connected to air ducts via elastic inserts. Exhaust ducts and air-supply equipment have sound attenuators. Technological equipment will be accommodated in soundproof premises.

Therefore, noise associated with operation of the equipment which can be regarded as a nuisance factor for people and animals decreases to the acceptable level within the first hundred meters away from the site. This is evidenced by a similar facility operated in Radenberg since 1998 which is located at a distance of 150 meters from the residential area.

Current-carrying parts of electrical installations of the facility are placed inside metal cases and are insulated from metalware. Metal cases of complete devices are earthed and serve as natural stationary screens of electromagnetic fields.

Given the above findings, environmental impact of physical factors can be estimated as insignificant.

4.5. Assessment of Impact on Socioeconomic Situation in the District

Livelihoods of people, their health, rest and social comfort are largely determined by the quality of the environment. Analysis of the general morbidity of the country’s population suggests that 15-20% of it is attributed to adverse environmental impacts.

Correlation of health status and environmental factors requires further studies but certain causal connections between the level of air pollution and morbidity have already been identified.

In case of a short-term impact it is possible to identify concentration of each pollutant in the air which does not cause any adverse reactions of a human body. Since toxicity of pollutants is largely different, the referred concentrations are also different for each pollutant. A human body reacts to excessive concentration in the form of resistance and adaptation processes trying to eliminate an impact of a damaging substance and to adapt livelihoods to the changed environment. With further increase of the pollution concentration to characteristic values, ability of a human body to adapt and to eliminate an impact of a toxic substance is lost.

Reactions to atmospheric pollution may take acute or chronic forms; an impact may be local or general. Impacts are subdivided into toxic, irritating or cumulative.

Local impact of toxic substances can become apparent at the point of contact or intake (the upper respiratory tract, mucous membrane of nose, throat and bronchus tissues, digestive tract, skin and mucous membrane of eyes).

The process of pollutant’s impact on a human body after intake depends primarily on the nature of a pollutant. It can be accumulated in a human body or in blood and, consequently, can be carried over to various organs affecting biological processes and causing further damage.

Description of toxicity of pollutants contained in the emissions from the proposed facility is presented in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Description of toxicity of pollutants content of emissions from the proposed facility Pollutant Toxicity class Description of harmful health impacts Carbon oxide 4 A substance with sharp directional effect requiring automated monitoring of its concentration in the air; a narcotic drug which irritates the upper respiratory tract and causes skin necrosis Particulate 3 Substances which may cause allergic disorders of the pollutants upper respiratory tract Hydrogen sulfide 2 A substance with sharp directional effect requiring automated monitoring of its concentration in the air; a nervous poison causing dizziness, sickness, chest pain; it is dangerous in case of intake via skin Butyric acid 3 Irritates the upper respiratory tract Ammonia 4 Affects central nervous system, causes skin disorders and burns Butyl alcohol 3 Irritates mucous membrane of eyes and the upper respiratory tract, disturbs blood circulation, causes hyperemia and bleeding Methylmerkaptane 2 Irritates mucous membrane of eyes and the upper respiratory tract, disturbs functioning of liver and kidneys, blood formulation and conditioned reflex activity Acetaldehyde 3 A narcotic drug irritating mucous membrane of eyes and the upper respiratory tract Nitrogen dioxide 2 A substance with sharp directional effect requiring automated monitoring of its concentration in the air; it is a blood poison affecting central nervous system Hydrocarbons 4 Hard narcotic drugs irritating respiratory tract

Sulfur dioxide 3 Irritates the upper respiratory tract and eyes; large concentrations cause dyspnea, loss of consciousness and pulmonary edema Soot 3 Carcinogen producing primarily fibrogene impact Sulfuric acid 2 Irritates and burns mucous membrane of the upper respiratory tract, affects lungs Chlorine 2 Exhibits oncogenic and mutagenic properties. Irritates the upper respiratory tract and eyes. Inhalation of chlorine in medium and low concentrations causes chest obstruction and pain, dry cough, tachypnea, irritation of eyes, lacrimation, increased concentration of leucocytes in blood and high temperature. Bronchial pneumonia, toxic pulmonary edema, depression and spasms are possible. Delayed manifestations include catarrh of the upper respiratory tract, recurrent bronchitis, pneumosclerosis. Activation of pulmonary tuberculosis is possible. Iron oxide 3 Aerosol producing primarily fibrogene impact; causes nasopharynx disorders and leucocytosis Manganese dioxide 2 Causes chronic inflammatory diseases of the upper respiratory tract Non-organic dust 3 Causes silicosis

SiO2 2070% Copper oxide 2 Causes delayed poisoning manifested in general tiredness, intestinal diseases, loss of weight; may cause the so-called “copper fever” characterized by metallic sweetish taste in mouth, burning mucous membrane and dryness of throat; causes lungs diseases Zinc oxide 3 Causes the so-called “foundry fever”, irritation of mucous membrane of eyes and the upper respiratory tract; may cause colitis and gastritis; it is poisonous Emulsol aerosol - Specific local skin effect, irritates mucous membrane of the upper respiratory tract and eyes; produces a general resorptive impact on a human body.

Pollutants affect organisms of individuals and populations causing many biological reactions. There are five biological stages of the strength of biological reactions:

 impact of a pollutant on tissues which does not cause any other biological changes  physiological or metabolic changes the significance of which is insufficiently identified  physiological or metabolic changes undermining resistance to a disease  incidence of diseases  mortality

Hygienic assessment of the degree of hazard of air pollution when a number of pollutants are simultaneously present is performed based on the aggregate indicator of pollution «Р» taking into account MAC excess multiplication factor, toxicity class of a pollutant and amount of pollutants which are simultaneously present in the atmosphere. This indicator takes into account a nature of combined impact of pollutants by the type of incomplete summation and is conditional because in case of longitudinal intake of atmospheric pollutants by a human body, the nature of their combined impact is still mostly unknown and its quantitative expression is maximum close to a potential biological impact.

The aggregate indicator has been estimated with the formula [25]: n 2 Pi  Ki ; i1

where Кi is MAC-based norm of concentration of pollutants of Toxicity Class 1,2 and 4 «adjusted» to that of biologically equivalent Toxicity Class 3 using iso- efficiency coefficients.

Estimation of the aggregate indicator is presented in Tables 4.9.

Table 4.9: Estimation of the aggregate pollution indicator Average daily MAC Average multiplication factor Toxicity daily Сс.г. Pollutant adjusted to Р Class MAC mg/m3 actual Toxicity mg/m3 Class 3 1 Iron oxide 3 0,100 - - - 2 Manganese dioxide 2 0,005 - - - 3 Copper oxide 2 0,008 - - - 4 Zinc oxide 3 0,150 - - - 5 Nitrogen dioxide 2 0,100 0,006 0,060 0,090 6 Ammonia 4 0,200 0,005 0,025 0,020 7 Nitrogen oxide 3 0,240 0,000 0,000 0,000 8 Sulfuric acid 2 0,100 - - - 9 Soot 3 0,050 0,0004 0,008 0,008 10 Sulfur dioxide 3 0,200 0,002 0,010 0,010 11 Hydrogen sulfide 2 0,008 - - - 12 Carbon oxide 4 3,000 0,518 0,173 0,138 0,422

13 Chlorine 2 0,030 - - - -6 14 Benz(a)pyren 1 5х10 - - - 15 Butyl alcohol 3 0,100 - - - 16 Acetaldehyde 3 0,010 - - - 17 Butyric acid 3 0,010 0,0002 0,020 0,020 -6 -7 18 Methylmerkaptane 2 9×10 0,4×10 0,004 0,006 Saturated hydrocarbons 19 4 0,400 0,000 0,000 0,000 С12-С19 20 Emulsol aerosol - 0,050 - - - 21 Particulate pollutants 3 0,150 0,062 0,413 0,413 Non-organic dust S O 22 i 2 3 0,100 0,000 0,000 0,000 2070%

The value of the aggregate pollution indicator for mechanical separation corresponds to the 1st (allowable) degree of ambient air contamination. It should be also noted that the expected atmospheric contamination associated with operation of the facility is lower than the average daily MAC and will not produce health effects because the concept of the average daily MAC is based on the principle of safety for human health.

The proposed facility will not produce an adverse impact on water bodies, soils and vegetation. On the contrary, it is intended to prevent environmental contamination by municipal solid waste and its associated impacts.

It should be noted that in addition to ecological factors, a whole range of social and medical factors make a certain influence on morbidity patterns. Therefore, in order to prevent increased incidence of diseases, in addition to efforts aimed at reducing environmental contamination, it is needed to mobilize funding to finance social programs focusing on health protection and improvement of living standards.

On the other hand, operation of the facility will apparently generate economic benefits from reusing recycled materials, reducing MSW landfill maintenance costs and etc. This, in turn, will allow to save financial resources and to increase investments in socioeconomic development of the district.

4.6. Assessment of Potential Emergencies

Given the specifics of technological processes associated with the proposed facility, it can be concluded that no air emissions and emergency wastewater discharges are anticipated. To prevent fires, the design options provide for the respective measures specified in the regulations.

5. ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

5.1. “No Project”

Under “No project” option i.e. no interventions for addressing the current problem of MSW disposal, harmful environmental impacts would include:

 rapid filling of the existing municipal landfill with non-separated MSW would require further expansion of the landfill and, consequently, acquisition of additional land areas thus resulting in expansion of the area of environmental impact produced by the landfill

5.2. Alternative Technologies

Currently there are over 20 available methods of recycling, disposal and utilization of municipal solid waste. MSW disposal and recycling methods are subdivided into decontamination (sanitary and hygienic) and utilization (resource-saving) techniques. The methods and techniques are divided by the technological principle into sanitary/biological, thermal, chemical, mechanical and mixed. The following methods of household waste management are widely employed in developed economies and CIS countries: disposal in landfills (sanitary/biological), incineration (thermal) and composting (separation/bio-mechanical). A source separated (selective) collection of municipal solid waste has been employed in developed economies in the recent decades. It allows to:  maximize utilization (up to 20-25%) of the materials of value (waste paper, glass, scrap metals, textiles, plastics)  avoid accumulation of heavy metals in wastes already at the stage of waste selection at the household level From the environmental protection standpoint, this method allows to partially decontaminate the waste stream already at the first stage of waste management, i.e. to avoid accumulation of heavy metal salts in the organic fraction. In terms of cost-efficiency, recovery of up to 20% of secondary materials from 1 ton of municipal solid waste increases profits of a utility company by USD 7.5. However, source separated collection of waste has certain limitations. The two major ones are the following. Firstly, moral and psychological preparedness and awareness of individuals (from a school student to a pensioner) about the need to protect the environment on the one hand, and economic benefits from reuse of recovered materials, on the other. Secondly, creation of an extensive and fairly expensive fleet of multipurpose refuse containers requires considerable investments even if considered at the level of an individual city or region. Thermal MSW decomposition (incineration) in special plants, with or without utilization of exhaust gases, is widely used throughout the world. The methods of thermal decomposition include incineration on grids, incineration in a “boiling layer”, on a fluidized bed, in melted slag as well as multi-temperature pyrolysis. Incineration has become the first technical option widely used in the world. Countries with relatively small land area and high population density were the first ones which started to introduce MSW incineration facilities. The many years of experience allow to clearly articulate strengths and weaknesses of waste incineration. The strengths are:  manifold reduction of the volume of waste (approximately by 10 times)  reduction of waste transportation costs  heat recuperation (incineration of 5 tons of MSW is equivalent to 1 ton of fuel equivalent)  reduction of the risk of soil and water contamination (relative sterilization of material is ensured at 10000C) Weaknesses are also obvious:

 high relative capital intensity of construction (7-15 times higher than with the biomechanical treatment)  irreversible loss (destruction) of valuable recyclable materials  low efficiency of ferrous metals recovery from sludge  high output of ashes from sludge (over 30% by mass)  air contamination with multiple pollutants Surveys conducted in Germany have demonstrated that incineration of one ton of municipal solid waste produces of 330 kg of sludge, over 30 kg of pulverized ash and about 6 thousand m3 of furnace gases. The latter contain:: hydrogen chloride – 780 mg/m3; hydrogen fluoride - 8 mg/m3; sulfur dioxide - 660 mg/m3; nitrogen oxides – 260 mg/m3; carbon monoxide - 400 mg/m3; hydrocarbons – 300 mg/m3 (including toxic aromatic hydrocarbons: dibenzodioxine and dibenzofuran). Heavy metals settling mostly on particles of pulverized ash include: copper – 0.185 mg/m3; chrome – 0.044 mg/m3; mercury – 0.001 mg/m3; zinc – 3.08 mg/m3; lead – 1.76 mg/m3; cadmium – 0.071 mg/m3; tin – 0.167 mg/m3. The most toxic heavy metals are mercury and cadmium. During MSW incineration about 90% of cadmium is transformed into furnace gases. In case of MSW incineration, emissions of heavy metals, chlorinated organic compounds, hydrogen chloride and fluoride with smoke and dust, require complicated and expensive response. Environmental contamination by dioxin causing pathologies in newborns as well as various tumors represents a particular hazard. Since MSW incineration is associated with hazardous emissions, the countries where this technique has long been practiced make considerable efforts aimed at neutralization and capture of pollutants, as well as establishment of environmental monitoring systems. Along with the use of electric and fabric dust filters, scrubbing of exhaust gases from nitrogen and sulfur oxides and hydrogen chloride, as well as catalytic gas conversion are widely used. Scrubbing is rather effective, though the problem of contaminated wastewater treatment requiring sophisticated and expensive equipment remains. Due to weaknesses of MSW incineration i.e. without preliminary separation and treatment, this technique has been increasingly rejected in the last two decades. The construction of incineration plants in the USA, Germany and other western countries have slowed down. Until recently, MSW disposal in landfills has been the prevailing method of addressing the problem of waste in Belarus and CIS countries. This method has its strengths and weaknesses. Establishment of MSW landfills requires acquisition of significant land plots, expenditures on ground water protection measures (arrangement of expensive hydro- protective foundation layers, etc.) and high operation and transportation costs. The method is not environmentally sound. Landfills are a source of odors, they are potentially fire and infection hazardous, they entail a risk of ground water contamination with poisonous filtrate, since even the regulated landfills are not adequately maintained. Landfill gas utilization should also be addressed. At the same time, however, MSW disposal in landfills is technologically simple and remains the main method of addressing waste disposal problems both in rural area and small residential settlements (up to 10 thousand residents). Biological treatment of MSW following separation and mechanical treatment is the most progressive method and allows to minimize the amount of waste being disposed in the existing landfills because the residual of biomechanical treatment is an inert material which

50 does not contain biologically active substances and can be disposed in landfills; to reuse considerable amount of materials of value (metals, plastic, glass, waste paper, textiles and etc.); to decrease the number of vehicles required for transportation of secondary materials to the point of use due to prior compressing of source separated materials; to get organic waste fraction which can be then used as nonconventional (alternative) fuel; to produce heat and electric energy from combusting a biogas which is a product of anaerobic digestion of MSW; to get concentrated solution of ammonium sulphate which is used as a fertilizer in the agricultural sector.

5.3. Alternative Project Site Locations

An alternative to locating the facility at the MSW landfill site is to locate it in the industrial estate. This option addresses engineering infrastructure issues (water supply, sanitation, heating, power supply and etc.) in a more cost-efficient manner and, also, opens a possibility, in case biological treatment of waste, of the efficient use of energy produced from a biogas at the neighboring enterprises. At the same time, however, there are limitations in terms of the size of the facility’s site given its expansion in the future; additional expenditures on transportation of residual material that remains after mechanical separation of waste; additional movement of MSW in case of sudden shutdown of a waste processing plant; nuisance factors (visual, noise and etc.) due to small distance from the place of residence and work of households.

In terms of impacts on air, water resources, soils, vegetation and wildlife, an alternative location of MSW separation facility in the industrial estate in Grodno is identical to a basic option of its location at the MSW landfill site.

5.4. Conclusions of the Analysis of Alternatives

Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that waste disposal and utilization options proposed in the Feasibility Study are the most appropriate for the region from environmental and economic considerations. Location options are identical from environmental viewpoint on condition all environmental protection measures specified in the Feasibility Study are implemented.

6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

To minimize the negative impact of the proposed facility on the environment, the design provides for the following measures:

 arrangement of gas scrubbing systems: dust-collecting filter for treatment of ventilation missions from the production building, dust collectors 370П16х0,5 and gas scrubbing units in the welding and mechanical sections  arrangement of hermetic collector for wastewaters collection  construction of industrial wastewater treatment plant  construction of rain waters treatment plant  removal of topsoil prior to construction works and its further use for arrangement of

lawns  site improvement and greening

Environmental Mitigation Plan at construction and operation stages and relevant Monitoring Plan are presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Table 6.1: Environmental Mitigation Plan Risk mitigation Costs Institutional responsibility Stage Potential impacts Comments measures Commissioning Operation Commissioning Operation Design Air pollution Achieve 98% air XXX?? Design institute (particulate matter, purification by air sulfur dioxide) stripping process Construction Permanent or Selection of optimal BYR 475.619 BYR 475.619 Local utility Local utility - temporary location of building thousand (in 2006 thousand (in 2006 companies and companies and withdrawal of land structures, access prices) prices) local authorities local authorities sites roads and engineering facilities Injury to contractor’s Safe working * * Contractor Contractor - workers and other procedures to be persons during followed construction works Working areas to be * * Contractor and Contractor and temporarily out of local utility local utility bounds to non-works companies companies personnel

Injury to contractor’s Construction waste to BYR 15.000 BYR 15.000 thousand Contractor Contractor - workers and others be stored in a secure, thousand (in 2006 (in 2006 prices) from unsafe storage designated area prior prices) of waste to transportation for recycling and utilization Pollution (visual and Construction and other BYR 57.525 BYR 57.525 thousand Contractor Contractor - other) caused by waste to be promptly thousand (in 2006 (in 2006 prices) improper disposal of transported to prices) waste materials designated facilities for recycling and utilization Construction Loss of topsoil Separation of topsoil BYR 54.500 BYR 54.500 Contractor Contractor - leading to increased prior to construction thousand (in thousand (in 2006 soil erosion works, storage in 2006 prices) prices) 53

temporary piles and replacement of topsoil after construction works are completed Soil pollution at the Daily checks of * * Contractor Contractor - construction site by machinery for petrochemicals leaking oil. No washing of machinery at construction site Air pollution (dust, Minimize dust and BYR 2.459.778 BYR 2.459.778 Contractor Contractor - welding aerosol) traffic emissions by thousand (in thousand (in 2006 from construction good operation 2006 prices) prices) works and management and site increased traffic supervision. Apply (nitrogen dioxide, dust suppression sulfur dioxide, measures (water carbon oxide, soot, sprinkling), hydrocarbons) especially during long dry periods Construction Noise Works performed - - Contractor Contractor - strictly during normal weekday working hours Archaeological If any archaeological - - Contractor Contractor - “chance finds” artefacts are found, work must stop immediately and the respective local authorities and experts informed Operation Insufficient Proper oversight, * * Respective Respective - industrial prompt replacement departments of departments of 54

wastewater of filters at the proposed the proposed treatment and, as a wastewater treatment facility, local facility, local result, increased plants and removal utility companies utility companies pressure on of sludge and and municipal environmental environmental wastewater protection protection treatment facilities authorities authorities and discharge of treated wastewaters containing pollutants above MAC Operation Soil contamination Trucks at the project Site Supervisor site will be washed at the truck existing washing facility; roads within the landfill site will be wetted down; waste piles will be sprayed on regular basis Operation Air pollution by Exhaust ventilation * * Respective Respective - ventilation operation control, departments of departments of emissions from proper temperature the proposed the proposed production building and humidity regime facility, local facility, local of biofilter loading utility companies utility companies to maximize and and treatment of environmental environmental ventilation protection protection emissions, regular authorities authorities checks of biogas withdrawal system for leaking Operation Possible accidents Worker safety Contractor Contractor 55

during manual measures separation of glass and other hazardous materials * - salary of a responsible person (based on personnel arrangements).

Table 6.2 Environmental Monitoring Plan

Type of Costs (BYR) Responsibility Potential Place of Monitoring Reason for Stage monitoring impacts monitoring frequency monitoring Commissioni Commissioni (equipment) Operation Operation ng ng Construction Dust from Along the Analytical Random Prevention of air 140000 210000 Analytical Analytical earth works, perimeter of measurements pollution around laboratory of laboratory of traffic and construction site during the facility site the Oblast the Oblast machinery construction Sanitary Sanitary works (on Center Center average, four measurements per year) Noise level Along the Noise meter Random Prevention of 280000 420000 Analytical Analytical

perimeter and measurements environmental laboratory of laboratory of inside during discomfort the Oblast the Oblast construction site construction Sanitary Sanitary works (on Center Center average, four measurements per year). Ad hoc measurements if any complaints received Operation Soil pollution Overall facility Visual; good site Monthly Prevention of Grodno Site site management reports intake of Oblast; inspector, practices pollutants by facility Grodno soil; efficiency oblast; of operation facility environment al specialist Operation Temperature, At the outlet of Analytical On a daily Prevention of 500000 1500000 Wastewater Wastewater BOD5, COD, the industrial basis during poorly treated treatment treatment suspended wastewater the first wastewaters plant plant matter, treatment plant month, three discharge into operator operator petrochemicals times a month the municipal N, P, sulfates, at a later stage sewage pH Quarterly collector At no At no * * charge charge

Operation Particulate At the outlet of Analytical On a daily Prevention of 700000 2000000 Environmen Environme pollutants, treated gases basis during air pollution tal specialist ntal ammonia, from biofilter the first around the of the specialist hydrogen month, three facility by facility of the sulfide, times a month ventilation facility butyric acid, at a later stage emissions from butyl alcohol, production methyl building mercaptan, Quarterly At no At no * * acetaldehyde, charge charge chlorine, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, soot, nitrogen dioxide Carbon Orifice of the Analytical 4 times a Prevention of 100000 400000 Environmen Environme monoxide, smoke stack of month air pollution tal specialist ntal nitrogen the gas-engine around the of the specialist oxide, unit facility by facility of the benz(a)pyren, products of facility nitrogen Quarterly biogas At no At no * * dioxide, combustion charge charge sulfur dioxide, particulate pollutants *The Grodno Committee of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, the Grodno Municipal Inspection of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.

7. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Two rounds of public consultations were held in the city of Grodno. The announcements of public consultations and the information on the proposed solid waste separation were published in the local printed and electronic media. The 1st round of public consultations on the draft EIA TOR took place on June 19, 2009 at the Grodno Municipality with about 8 people in attendance. The participants were interested in the choice of waste separation facility location and technology, the estimated length and cost of construction, the investment payback period, the potential use of biogas, and expressed concern about the low level of consultations attendance.

The 2nd round of public consultations to discuss the EIA report, announced in the Grodno newspaper and on the web-site of Grodno municipality took place on August 19, 2009 and was attended by 124 people. Representatives of the local community and mass media and residents of the city took part in consultations. Among the questions asked were: (i) why the city does not have enough containers for source separation, (ii) could the grass factory provide guarantees of accepting source separated scrap glass, and (ii) does the country has adequate capacity for recycling of source separated waste.

Public consultation materials including Minutes are presented in Annex E.

8. SUMMARY OF EIA CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment, we can conclude that:

1. The proposed method of municipal solid waste disposal is the most appropriate for the region from environmental and economic considerations. Atmospheric emissions from the proposed facility are expected to total 4.43 t/year (including 3.91 t/year from stationary sources and 0.52 t/year from mobile sources); contribution of the facility in the gross emissions in the city will be 0.04%.

2. Maximum and average annual ground level concentrations of pollutants in the residential area, at the border of the standard sanitary protection zone and outside the zone are much lower than the maximum allowable concentration (MAC). Area of influence of the proposed facility is within the radius of 500 meters limited by an isoline of the concentration equaling 0.05 MAC for butyric acid).

3. Given that wastewater treatment facilities are envisaged in the design, the qualitative composition of industrial wastewaters meets the requirements applicable to wastewater discharges.

4. Environmental impact of physical factors is not expected to exceed the permissible level.

5. No air emissions and emergency wastewater discharges are anticipated.

6. The proposed facility is expected to produce a negligible impact on surface and ground waters, soils, vegetation, wildlife and human health.

Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that operation of the proposed facility will not disturb natural-anthropogenic balance and, therefore, construction of the facility is feasible and desirable. 59

9. REFERENCES

1. Vazhenin I.G., Amitsulin L.V. (1977) Methodology of field testing of soils for control of contamination by heavy metals. Moscow. 2. Tikhomirov F.A., Rozanov B.G. (1983) Topical issues of soil protection from contamination. University reports. Biological sciences, №5. 3. Methodology of estimating MAC of harmful gases for vegetation (1988). The Moscow Forestry Engineering Institute. 4. Gutieva N.M.(1978) Impact of industrial enterprise emissions via the atmosphere on the concentration and composition of humus of sod-podzol soil. Chemistry of Soil. Moscow. 5. Il’in V.B., Stepanova M.D. (1979) Soil Studies, №1. 6. M.P. Fedorschak (1979) Soil Studies, № 11 7. Shilina A.I. et al. (1979) Soil contamination by carcinogenic hydrocarbons in the vicinity of industrial sites. Carcinogenic substances in the environment. Moscow. 8. Dobrovolski G.V. et al. (1985) Soil Studies, №12. 9. Bilai V.I., Koval E.Z. (1980) Fungi growth at oil hydrocarbons. Navukova Dumka. Kiev. 10. Grogorian K.V. (1982) Impact of ions of heavy metals on activity of soil ferments. Biological Journal of Armenia, Volume 35, №8. 11. Dolgova L.G. (1978) Soil Studies, №13. 12. Galstian A.S., Simonian B.N.(1980) Trends of biochemical processes in eroded soils. Biological Journal of Armenia, Volume 33, №3. 13. Pavliukova N.F. Accumulation of different forms of nitrogen in soil under impact of ammonia and its mixture with nitrogen dioxide. VINITI Journal, 1 July 1985, №4683. 14. Impact of harmful emissions of the Mozyr Oil Refinery on microbiological properties of soil (1989). BSSR Academy of Sciences. Minsk. 15. Rozanov B.G. (1984) Basics of environment studies. The Moscow State University. 16. Report on forest-pathological survey of forests of the Mozyr Forestry Enterprise of the Gomel Forestry Engineering Association (1992). The Belarusian State Forest Management Amalgamation. Minsk. 17. Konoreva I.A. (1984) Change of certain parameters of humus condition of sod-podzol soils under air pollution. Research papers of IV Conference of Young Scientists. The Moscow State University. 18. Kabirov R.R., Minibaev R.G. (1982) Soil Studies, №1. 19. Protection of the atmosphere from industrial pollution. Reference book. Peer Reviewers: Kalverta S. and Inglunda G.M.. Part.1. Moscow. Metallurgy-1988. 20. Vaichms M.V, Dunas V.M., Slavenina L.V. (1988) Soil Studies, №11. 21. Temporary norms of maximum allowable concentration of air pollutants affecting forest plantations around the “Yasnaya Polyana” Museum Estate (1984). Moscow. 22. Instruction on the procedure of environmental impact assessment of intended economic and other activity in the Republic of Belarus endorsed by the Resolution of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus dated 17 June 2005, №30. 23. Methodology of estimating air concentrations of pollutants contained in enterprise emissions (1987). State Hydrometeorology Committee. Leningrad. 24. Guidelines on environmental and economic assessment of location of the sites of economic and other activity in the Republic of Belarus (1999) The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus. Minsk. 25. Methodological recommendations on hygienic assessment of ambient air quality and ecological-epidemiological assessment of public health risks (1998). The Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus. Minsk 60

26. Construction Norms and Rules СНиП 1.02.01-85 Reference Manual on drafting the section “Protection of Natural Environment” (1990). Gosstroi of USSR. 27. Ecological Bulletin-2004. Condition of Natural Environment in Belarus. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus. Misnktipproject, Minsk, 2005. 28. Reference and statistical materials on the condition of environment and environmental protection in the Republic of Belarus (2005). The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus. The Belarusian Research Center “Ecology”.

ANNEX A

BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS AND ESTIMATED METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS AS OF 21 JANUARY 2008

Table: Calculated background air pollution concentrations in the vicinity of Tumashi Air quality standards, μg/m3 Concentration Values, μg /m3 At Wind At Wind Speed of 2 – U* Mean Pollutant One-time Maximum Mean Daily Mean Year Speed of m/s and Direction Value Concentration Concentration Concentration 0 – 2 m/s N E S W Solid Particles 300 150 100 270 270 270 270 270 270 Sulfur Dioxide 500 200 50 5 6 6 4 5 5 Carbon Oxide 5000 3000 500 2390 2060 2060 2040 2120 2130 Nitrogen 250 100 40 97 93 108 77 75 90 Dioxide Ammonia 200 - - 82 66 99 68 63 76 Formaldehyde 30 12 3 24 15 19 20 24 20

Table: Meteorological characteristics and coefficients determining conditions for atmospheric dispersion of pollutants Characteristic Value

Atmospheric Stratification-Dependent Coefficient, A 160

Terrain Coefficient 1

Mean Peak Outside Air Temperature for the Hottest Month of the Year, T, ° C +23.5

Mean Outside Air Temperature for the Coldest Month of the Year (for Boiler Plants -5.1 Operating to Heating Schedule), T, ° C

Annual Average Wind Diagram, %

N NE E SE S SW W NW Zero Wind 5 3 7 16 18 18 25 8 10 Januar y 14 6 5 6 10 12 27 20 18 July 10 6 9 12 15 13 23 12 9 Annual

Wind Speed U* (after mean multiannual data), with Exceedance Frequency of 5%, m/s 9

ANNEX B SITUATIONAL PLAN (1:5000)

Landfill Entrance and Weighbridge

Future Processing Area

Current Active Area

Stage 1

Stage 2

Expansion Area

GRODNO LANDFILL MASTER PLAN

T U O Y A L

T N E M P I U Q E

D N A

N O I T A R U G I F N O C

Y T I L I C Equipment Configuration From Linde A Proposal Evaluated in the Original F Feasibility Study

ANNEX C

Management of Collection (Procurement and Processing of Municipal

Solid Waste and Recyclables

Legislative Authorities Executive Authorities Judicial Authorities NGOs

Waste management authorities

Statutory legal acts on Regulatory documents Enforcement of statutory Shaping of public waste management legal acts opinion

Manageme nt functions

Accounting Payment for Budget Economic Waste management Waste Databank Public and control of resources expenditures incentives program management control waste standards management Manageme nt facilities

Recycling Source waste Residual waste

Resource extraction Output of products Consumption and recovery process and services

ANNEX D

SITUATIONAL PLAN OF ALTERNATIVE SITE (1:5000)

ANNEX E

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

1ST ROUND

“Vecherny Grodno” N 65, 4 June 2009

Let’s Discuss The Grodno Municipal Executive Committee is pleased to announce public consultations to discuss construction of the waste separation facility in Grodno. Public consultations will be held from 17.00 to 19.00 on 19 June 2009 in the conference hall of the Grodno Municipal Executive Committee (2/1 Lenin str., Grodno). For further information about the design of the proposed facility and the procedure of public consultations please contact the Grodno City Public Utility Company at 32 Kirov str., Office 17 on weekdays from 9.00 to 10.00.

MINUTES of the meeting of the officials of the Grodno Municipal Executive Committee with local community representatives and residents of the city for discussion of construction of the waste separation facility in Grodno

19 June 2009, Grodno Authorities present: A.V. Tsybulnikov, First Deputy Chairman of the Grodno Municipal Executive Committee N.A. Rusakevich, Head of Housing and Utilities Department of the Grodno Municipal Executive Committee N.N. Petrovich, General Manager of the Grodno City Public Utility Company I.M. Alekhina, Head of the Grodno Municipal Inspection of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection I.A. Kasperchik, Head of Unit of the Grodno Zonal Center of Hygiene and Epidemiology.

A.V. Tsybulnikov informed about a construction design for the waste separation facility, its location and organization of source separated collection of waste. The following questions were answered:

1. Irina Trubach (BELTA News Agency): There are no containers for source separated collection of waste in the Lidskaya street. Are there private companies dealing with MSW collection and transportation in the city? - In Grodno there are no private companies dealing with MSW collection and transportation, though such practice exists in some other cities of the country. The grounds for containers in the multi-storey housing area are arranged by the district public utility companies. Such grounds will be also arranged in the Lidskaya street.

2. Inga Ostrovtseva (“Vecherny Grodno” Newspaper): Is Belvtorpolymer ready to take and torecycle increased amount of secondary materials? Why a glass factory does not take waste glass? - Belvtorpolymer has sufficient capacity for recycling secondary materials which are supplied from residential settlements both within and outside the Oblast. A glass factory takes waste

67 glass but separation is the problem. Supplied inputs should be separated in accordance with the respective requirements.

3. J.G. Koleda: Will construction of the facility facilitate tariff policy adjustments? - Yes.

4. Inga Ostrovtseva (“Vecherny Grodno” Newspaper): Are there waste treatment facilities in Belarus? - Yes, in Brest, Mogilev and Gomel.

5. Irina Trubach (BELTA News Agency): What are the IBRD lending terms? - It is a loan repayable in 15 years including a 5 year grace period.

6. Irina Trubach (BELTA News Agency): How biogas can be used? For what purposes? - Biogas incineration would allow to generate heat and electric energy which will be used by the facility for its own needs.

7. Inga Ostrovtseva (“Vecherny Grodno” Newspaper): What is the rate of return on construction? - It will depend on capital investments, tariffs on municipal waste and recycled materials.

8. J.G. Koleda: Repeated public consultations should be organized because of low activity. Which mass media will inform about the repeated public consultations? - The Municipal Executive Committee is ready to hold repeated public consultations but by no means can influence the activity of local community and households. The information about repeated public consultations will be posted on the website of the Municipal Executive Committee and in print media.

The Minutes were kept by N.A. Rusakevich, Head of Housing and Utilities Department

Participants of the 1st round of public consultations

1. Liudmila I. Petrakova, a representative of the Belarusian Union of Women (residence address: 66 Sotsialisticheskaya street, apartment 11, Grodno; tel.: 77 13 94). 2. Julia G. Koleda, local community representative, (residence address: 33 Mostovaya street, apartment 11, Grodno; mobile: 8 029 783 08 45) 3. Valentina I. Putro, a representative of the Oblast Committee of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (office address: 23 Sovetskaya street, Grodno; office phone: 72 07 16). 4. Tatiana V. Vasiliuk, a representative of the Belarusian Republican Youth Union (address: 4/15 Tyzengauz square, office tel.: 74 31 66). 5. Irina M Alekhina, a representative of the Grodno Municipal Inspection of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (office address: 23 Sovetskaya street, Grodno; office tel.: 77 05 39) 6. Irina A. Kasperchik, a representative of the Grodno Zonal Center of Hygiene and Epidemiology (office address: 54A Kosmonavtov avenue, Grodno; office tel.: 74 40 28). 7. Irina I. Trubach, a representative of BELTA News Agency (office address: 1 Uritskogo street, Grodno; tel: 74 00 02)

8. Inga Ostrovtseva, a representative of the “Vecherny Grodno” Editorial Board (office address: 32 Sotsialisticheskaya street, Grodno; tel.: 77 00 89).

2ND ROUND

The newspaper “Grodnenskaya Pravda” Date: August 5, 2009

FOR INFORMATION OF THE RESIDENTS OF GRODNO The Grodno City Executive Committee announces public discussions of a solid waste processing facility construction for Grodno. The discussion will take place from 17.00 to 19.00 on August 19, 2009 in the assembly hall of the Grodno City Executive Committee, located at Lenina Sqr. 2/1, Grodno. Information on the project and organizational procedure of holding the public discussions of building the solid waste processing facility is available for public acquaintance from 9.00 to 10.00 on working days at the “Grodno City Housing and Utility Company”, located at Kirova Str. 32, Office 17.

Grodno City Executive Committee

19 August 2009, Grodno Authorities present: A.V. Tsybulnikov, First Deputy Chairman of the Grodno Municipal Executive Committee N.A. Rusakevich, Head of Housing and Utilities Department of the Grodno Municipal Executive Committee I.M. Alekhina, Head of the Grodno Municipal Inspection of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection

A.V. Tsybulnikov and N.A. Rusakevich informed about a construction design for the Municipal Solid Waste Processing Facility, its location and organization of source separated collection of waste. The following questions were answered:

1. Y.S. Kochetkov: Which sites for construction of the Facility are considered and which technologies will be used? - Two sites have been originally considered for the proposed Facility: the territory adjacent to the Belvtorpolymer Polymer Recycling Plant and the existing landfill site near the Rogochi village. As for the technology, given that the first phase would involve waste separation followed by landfill disposal and the second stage would involve production of biogas, the preferred option is to locate the Facility at the landfill site.

2. L.M. Senko: Polyethylene accounts for a considerable share in the composition of solid

69 municipal waste. Is Belvtorpoolymer prepared to receive and recycle increased volume of secondary materials? Are there any other recycling facilities in the Oblast and in the Republic? - Belvtorpolymer has sufficient capacity for recycling secondary materials which are supplied from residential settlements both within and outside the Oblast. Other recycling facilities include “Itera PET”, “Uniplast” and Ukrainian, Russian and Chinese enterprises. Glass recycling plants include the Grodno Glass Factory, the Elizovo Glass Factor, the Belevrotara Joint Venture; paper and cardboard recycling plants include the Slonim Paper and Cardboard Plant, the Dobrush Paper Factory, the Krovlia OJSC. Scrap metal is recycled by the Vtorchermet oblast enterprises.

3. Oksana Sivavedova: The glass factory is reluctant to take glass, is there a guarantee that the factory will take it? - The glass factory does not take glass in the form it is offered by suppliers. Glass should be separated by colour and other components as required by the technology.

4. I.S. Funt: What is the land plot for construction of the Facility? What is the estimated period of construction? - The facility will be built at the existing landfill site arranged at the former sandpit.

5. L.A. Milevich: Why is this particular site proposed? - As mentioned before, two sites have been originally considered. In any case, sizeable share of waste will still be subject to landfill disposal. Construction of the Facility at the existing landfill site will reduce transport costs. Secondly, there will be no need to change routes for special vehicles which are oriented towards the landfill site. Thirdly, if the Facility is to be built near the Belvtorpolymer Polymer Recycling Plant, land acquisition will be required.

6. E.V. Dubina: How is it intended to use biogas generated during the second phase of the project? - Combustion of biogas will enable to generate heat and electric energy which will be used by the Facility for its own needs.

7. S.A. Ostrovtsov: What is the cost of the Facility construction and payback period? - The tentative cost of construction, based on the Belcommunproject estimates, is US$ 41.1 million. The payback period will depend on investments, tariffs on municipal waste and recycled materials.

8. I.A. Novitskaia: How the facility will look like? - A conveyer line onto which municipal solid waste transported by special vehicles will be supplied and from which secondary materials suitable for recycling will be separated manually and mechanically, stockpiled, compressed and sent in packed form to recycling plants.

9. P.A. Zhuravleva: What is the purpose of these public consultations? - The public consultations are intended to inform the public; in future any project will be discussed with the community. Secondly, this is a requirement of the World Bank which will provide a loan to finance construction.

The Minutes were kept by N.A. Rusakevich, Head of Housing and Utilities Department

Endorsed B.N.Kozelkov Chairman of the Grodno Municipal Executive Committee

Participants of the 2nd round of public consultations 19 August 2009 Organization Tel/Fax Name “The Grodno Azot” OJSC Tel: 79 46 50 Mikhail V. Kravchenko Fax: 210 80 55 “The Grodno Khimvolokno” OJSC Tel: 56 12 64 Sergei M. Klepcha Fax: 54 33 80 “The Belcard” OJSC Fax: 52 41 01 Yuri A. Bekish “The Radiovolna” Republican Unitary Production Vitali N. Shagun Tel: 43 32 21 Enterprise “The Grodno KSM” OJSC Tel: 43 34 06, Elena S. Kubitskaia 79 97 01 D.E. Omelchenko “The Grodno Meat Factory” OJSC Tel: 43 01 60 Oleg V. Krivenya Fax: 48 08 46 “The Grodno Glass Factory” OJSC Tel: 52 20 91 Tatiana M. Grinkevich “The Niemen Tobacco Factory” OJSC Tel: 52 51 61 Evgeny I. Matles Fax: 56 53 34 The Grodno Energo Tel: 79 23 59 Boris I. Esenkov Fax: 79 24 31 V.M. Krupski CHP-2 Tel: 75 54 48 Viktor V. Boreiko “The BelTAPAZ” RUE Tel: 43 99 23 Lilia V. Rubacheva Fax: 43 90 82 E.N. Kolosha “The Tsvetlit” Private Unitary Production Enterprise Tel: 76 86 25 Oksana S. Koronkevich Fax: 43 44 19 I.Y. Vasilieva “The Gronitex” RUE Tel: 43 00 12 Galina b. Beliaeva “The Elod” Clothing and Trading Company Tel: 74 56 23 Anna I. Krivitskaia Fax: 72 30 30 “The Grodno Textile” RUE Tel/Fax: 43 99 64, Sergei V. Lapysh 48 17 96 N.A. Sivirchukov “The Leather Amalgamation” RUE Tel: 8029 289 22 02 Svetlana M. Chernitskaia “The Grodno Baking Industry” RUE Tel/Fax: 48 23 74 Marina N. Orlova “The Grodno Mechanical Plant” OISC Tel: 77 02 00 Piotr A. Vlasov “The Accent” Gloves Manufacturing Factory Tel: 72 21 50 Marina A. Bekish “The Grodnopromstroi” OJSC Tel: 74 41 08 Igor V. Zaitchenko Fax: 73 05 86 “The Grodnozhilstroi” OJSC Tel: 52 02 45 Aleksander V. Grigoriev Fax: 53 18 09 “The Grodnogorstroi” Unitary Municipal Enterprise Tel/Fax: 74 58 64 Kazimir I. Getsevich “The Soyuzprommontazh” OJSC Tel/Fax: 72 17 33 Sergei M. Goncharuk Road Construction Company N 6 Fax: 210 84 14 Igor V. Sirota “The Grodnoselstroi” Oblast Unitary Production Tel/Fax: 75 00 70 Viktor A. Antonchik Enterprise “The Mechanical Column N 82” Affiliate of “The Tel/Fax: 41 57 51 Piotr S. Kulikovski Zapadelectrosviaz” OJSC The Lenin District Public Utility Company Tel: 43 72 96 T.V. Ambrozheichik T.V. Shershen

The Oktiabrsky District Public Utility Company Fax: 55 63 86 Leonid L. Abrazhevich “The Grodno Vodokanal” Municipal Unitary Enterprise Tel/Fax: 70 28 99 Alksander G. Frolov “The Grodno Lift” Unitary Enterprise Tel/Fax: 43 44 47 Ivan I. Ganusko “The Spetsavtokhoziastvo” Municipal Unitary Tel/Fax: 41 62 68 Evgeny A. Chuikov Enterprise The Trolleybus Department Tel/Fax: 75 50 80 Aleksander A. Nider “GAP-2” Unitary Enterprise Tel/Fax: 52 42 20 Nikolai I. Minchuk “The Prodservice” OJSC Tel/Fax: 72 02 08 Lidia I. Makarova “The Plodovoschservice” Municipal Unitary Enterprise Tel/Fax: 56 81 16 Irina G. Dubrovkina “The Belarus Oil Grodno Oblast Oil Product” Tel: 41 22 43 Viktor M. Volchkevich Fax: 41 24 81 The BelarusBank Branch Office N 400 Tel/Fax: 73 73 80 Ivan K. Sukhodola The Grodno Branch of “The Belarus Post” RUE Fax: 72 31 23 Svetlana V. Miakish The Grodno Branch of “Beltelecom” RUE Tel/Fax: 72 02 07 A.K. Prigodsky “The Grodnooblavtotrans” Unitary Transport Enterprise Tel/Fax: 72 19 84 Aleksnader A. Karpovich The Grodno Municipal Polyclinic Tel/Fax: 52 11 91 Yanina A. Dzitko The Grodno State University named after Yanka Kupala Tel/Fax: 73 19 10 Svetlana V. Agievets A.K. Getsevich Y.N. Durilo F.K. Fridel The Grodno State Medical University Tel: 43 26 61 Vitaly V. Vorobiev Fax: 43 53 41 The Grodno State Agrarian University Tel/Fax: 72 13 65 Fedor N. Leonov Children’s Art School Tel: 72 30 62 E.V. Kolendo Secondary School N 32 Tel: 41 31 94 R.A. Gerasimovich High School N 5 - L.V. Volkova High School N 6 Tel: 8029 8826362 Larisa M. Onisko Primary School N 1 - I.V. Arobenko A.S. Chechet Lyceum N 1 - O.V. Khomchuk Secondary School N 7 - V.F. Apolaiko Secondary School N 22 - L.Y. Volkova Secondary School N 23 - S.V. Rudova School for Disabled Children N 4 Tel: 72 23 27 Galina V. Polianskaia Music School N 2 - I.G. Gladilina Music School of Arts Tel: 74 59 23 Lativ Sh. Khalimov The Grodno Specialized Boarding School for Children Tel: 8029 8891241 Galina M. Surus with Eye Disorders The Grodno Oblast Environmental Protection Tel: 72 07 16 Elena m. Zaitseva Committee The Municipal Environmental Protection Inspectorate Tel: 72 25 08 Irina I. Alekhina Irina F. Chub Svetlana V. Ziaziulia Housing and Utilities Department of the Grodno Tel: 72 04 68 Nikolai A. Rusakevich Municipal Executive Committee The Oktiabrsky District Administration Tel: 52 30 09 V.F. Lesnoi

The Grodno Municipal Public Utility Company Tel: 74 53 99 Sergei N. Semashko The Grodno Branch of the Belarusian Republican Youth Tel: 72 33 88 Svetlana N. Omelchenko Union V.I. Rusin T.V. Bilida N.N. Kovalchuk

The Grodno Department of the Belarusian Tel.: 75 27 30 B.I. Ermashkevich Entrepreneurs Union Housing Management Company -1 Tel.: 72 12 37 Tereza S. Fediuk Svetlana I. Goloburda Housing Management Company -2 Tel.: 43 36 30 N.V. kiselev Housing Management Company -4 Tel.: 50 24 19 G.I. Budrik N.A. Pavliuchuk Housing Management Company- 5 Tel.: 74 54 02 V.P. Baranova P.A. Mikloshevich 72 12 58 Zh.N. Yanulevich S.N. Mikhalevich Housing Management Company- 6 Tel.: 75 12 69 G.A. Nasonova A.M. Kozhenevskaia Housing Management Company- 7 Tel.: 8029 8878378 Galina N. Molchanova Emma L. Drobinina P. Bezruchenko Housing Management Company- 8 Tel.: 41 63 13 Irina Y. Novik A.A. Kvit Housing Management Company- 9 Tel.: 8029 6828348 Andrei n. Kovshik 43 34 54 S.V. Stepanenko G.N. Yushko V.I. Brazhnikov Housing Management Company-11 Tel.: 8029 647108 Igor S. Funt 8029 3100089 Maria Z. Zanevskaia Housing Management Company-13 Tel.: 74 27 52 Svetlana E. Kulipa Housing Management Company- 14 Tel.: 56 68 23 L.V. Koniushevskaia I.A. Novitskaia Housing Management Company- 15 Tel.: 55 33 06 Y.S. Kochetkov Housing Management Company- 17 Tel.: 51 42 02 Olga A. Alisievich Housing Management Company- 19 Tel.: 76 77 63 Liudmila M. Senko “The Khimremont” Branch of the Construction and Tel.: 8029 6236863 N.A. Zapolski Maintenance Department-1 Scholl for the Deaf Tel.: 43 21 97 A.V. Zagnetova GIAP - I.A. Scheko The Municipal House of Culture Tel.: 8029 7814406 A.A. Pokhodenko The Council of Veterans of the Deviatovka District Tel.: 41 27 48, L.I. Rybalchenko 74 27 52 O.I. Kiselev The Council of Veterans (based in Housing Tel.: 43 92 45 V.V. Khomenko Management Company- 11) The Council of Veterans (based in Housing Tel.: 74 87 91 L.A. Milevich Management Company- 21) The Council of Veterans of the Lenin District Tel.: 43 50 30 E.A. Ivanova N.F. Baser Representatives of KTOS Tel.: 8029 8828316 Liudmila V. Pavlichenko 8029 5897235 Tamara V. Krasnovit Local community representative Tel.: 77 30 87 P.A. Zhuravleva Local community representative Tel.: 80172 108301 Sergei A. Ostrovtsev Local community representative Tel.: 41 49 20 E.V. Dubina A student Tel.: 76 54 83 T.P. Rusina Housing Construction Cooperative N 58 (a chairman) Tel.: 56 24 08 P.G. Russkikh Housing Construction Cooperative N 608 (a chairman) Tel.: 55 64 29 V.N. Sidorchuk