Getlini Waste Disposal Site Environmental Assessment:Final … · 2016. 7. 17. · FINAL REPORT...

FINAL REPORT

E-22o-VL. 1-

The World Bank

Getlini Waste Disposal SiteRemediation and UpgradingEnvironmental Assessment:Final Report

February 1997

Environmental Resources Management1915 I Street NW, Suite 500

Washington DCTelephone (202) 785 0329Facsimile (202) 296 1175email [email protected]

ERMC

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

onimL igm

The World Bank

Getlini Waste Disposal SiteRemediation and UpgradingEnvironmental Assessment: FinalReport

February 1997

Reference 3335

For and on behalf of Environmental ResourcesManagement

Approved bby:

IPosition: f'L\C

Date: C uA j

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

I INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 11.2 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I1.3 INTERACTION WITH ENGINEERiNG FEASIBILITY CONSULTANTS 21.4 DATA CoLLECTION IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 21.5 INTER-AGENCY AND PUBLCINGO INVOLVEMENT 31.6 STRUCTURE OF THE ENVIRONAfENTAL ASSESSMENT 4

2 LEGAL AND ADMINISTRA TIVE FRAME WORK 6

2.1 NATIONAL ENIRONMENTAL LEGISLATIoN AND REGULATION 62.2 THE LAW ON STATE ECOLOGICAL EXPERT7SE 72.3 WORLD BANK OPERATIONAL DIRECTIVE 4.01 82.4 ENWRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPROVAL PROCEDURES 8

3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 10

3.1 AVALABLE ALTERNATIVES 103.2 ALTERNATIVE SITES 103.3 ALTERNATIVE TO WASTE DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL 123.4 ALTERNATIVE LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS 12

4 DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ANDCURRENT OPERATIONS 15

4.1 INTRODUCTION 154.2 SITE LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS 154.3 ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL CONTEXT 194.4 EXISTING OPERATIONS 204.5 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSiS AND Socio-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 234.6 CLIMATE 334.7 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 344.8 SURFACE HYDROLOGY 414.9 WATER QUALITY 414.10 SoILs 494.11 ECOLOGY 534.12 AIR QUALITY 56

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT TnE WoRID BANK

4.13 TRAFFIC 574.14 NOISE 58

5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 60

5.1 INTRODUCTION 60

5.2 CONTAINMENT AND CONTROL OF LEACHATE AND LEACHATE PLUME 605.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING 64

6 OUTCOME OF PROJECT CONSULTATIONS 67

6.1 CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 676.2 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION 68

6.3 FUTURE CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE ACTIVITIES 69

7 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 70

7.1 INTRODUCTION 70

7.2 SOCIAL, SOClO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL 707.3 HYDROGEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, AND WATER QUALITY 787.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY 827.5 AIR QUALITY 85

7.6 NOISE 897.7 ECOLOGY 927.8 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC 947.9 VISUAL/LANDSCAPE 967.10 SUMmARY OF KEY IssUEs 98

8 REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTAND MITIGATION0O

8.1 INTRODUCTION 1008.2 OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 1008.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND MONITORING PLAN 1048.4 IMPLEMENTAT7ON OF MITIGATION MEASURES 106

References

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) was commissioned by the World Bankto prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) report of the proposed remediationextended operation of the Getlini waste disposal site, Riga, Latvia. The project hasbeen classified as Category A and a full EA is required in accordance with WorldBank OD 4.01 and applicable Latvian legislation (eg the Law on State EcologicalExpertise). The EA work was carried out in parallel with a technical feasibility study,conducted under a separate Terms of Reference (ToR) by SWECO of Sweden.

The EA project commenced on 26 August 1996, and was carried out over a period ofapproximately four months, with a Final Report in January, 1997.

The Setting

The Getlini waste disposal site is located approximately 12 kilometres south-east of thecentre of Riga City in Stopini Pagast (1). Getlini is situated in the Daugava Riverbasin approximately 1.7 km north of the river on the right bank.

The site is located in a level plain where sandy, glacial sediments form a sandy surfaceaquifer. This unconfined surface aquifer is not locally important for drinking watersupply, because its water quality is affected by a large peat bog and ground-waterpollution from the Getlini disposal site; however, there are a number of shallow wellsin the vicinity used primarily for irrigation purposes. Underlying the surface aquiferare deeper aquifers which represent an important, regional water resource.Contamination has not yet reached the deeper aquifers, but hydrogeologic modellingindicates that it eventually will unless remedial measures are carried out.

Adjacent to the waste disposal site territory are 54 permanent households with aresident population of 117 people of which 14 households are in close proximity to thesite.

The dominant land use in the area has for centuries been agriculture and to a lesserextent forestry. The surrounding landscape consists of a matrix of agricultural fields,pasture, forest, and bogs or other wetlands. The local population consists mainly ofunskilled labourers and pensioners who supplement their income with agriculturalproduce from garden plots. Also there are groupings of small garden plots which areessentially the gardens of Riga residents and are a source of food for many cityhouseholds and additional income for many families.

'1 A Pasast is local mim cipal district

ENViRONMENTAL REsouRcEs MANAGEmENT WORLD BANK

Getlini Bog borders the site to the north and east. There are narrow belts of forestalong the western and southern edges which block the waste pile from view. Largertracts of forest border the eastern and northern edges of Getlini bog and block view ofthe site from these directions.

The Getlini Waste Disposal Site

The Getlini Waste Disposal Site is a Soviet era municipal waste dump serving RigaCity and the surrounding area. The site has been in use since 1973 without benefit ofmodern sanitary landfilling practices. Conditions in the recent past were quite poor,with continual open fires and poorly controlled access. In mid 1995, a new company,Getlini-2, jointly owned by the local municipality and Riga City, took over dailymanagement of the site. Getlini-2 has significantly improved management at the site,reduced some of the minor, negative environmental impacts such as fires anduncontrolled dumping, and instituted a manual materials recovery program at thetipping face. However, contamination of the surface aquifer by leachate from thewaste pile is ongoing and no effective measures have been implemented to abate thisproblem. Moreover, while the landfilling operations are better controlled, they consistsimply of waste tipping on a large waste pile without benefit of daily covering orcompaction. Landfill gas is not collected or managed in any way.

The site is 87 hectares in area of which approximately 36 hectares have been coveredwith deposited waste. The waste pile is approximately 24 metres in height at itshighest point with an estimated total volume of waste of 3.7 million m3 . The sitepresently receives approximately 205,000 tonnes of municipal waste per year and45,000 tonnes of industrial waste for a total of 250,000 tonnes/year. The bulk of theindustrial waste consists of concrete rubble and other inert materials.

Project Description

The project proposes to remediate environmental pollution and modernize the Getlinisite to international good practice standards. The resulting environmental benefitsinclude abatement of ongoing ground and surface water contamination which willresult in improved ground and surface water quality, improved site management andcontrol to assure receipt and handling of appropriate waste only, general improvementin site appearance, and management and control of landfill gas and utilisation forenergy production.

The project will meet these objectives through the following proposed works on theoriginal site area:

* capping or covering of the existing waste pile with a layer of soil material tosignificantly reduce the infiltration of precipitation and therefore leachategeneration;

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT WORLI) BANK

ii

* removing contaminated water by installing wells to capture leachate andcontaminated ground water, and construction of a surface drainage control systemto capture surface runoff;

* construction of water treatment facilities to treat the contaminated waters prior torelease to the River Daugava;

* establishing an efficient management and waste control system at the site in linewith good international practice; and

* construction of gas collection and pumping facilities to control and utilise landfillgas for energy production.

Public Consultation

Consultation was carried out in accordance with World Bank policy and guidelines.Furthermore, stakeholders were identified during the course of a social assessment toidentify in particular those members of the general public whose environmental orsocial situation might be materially affected by the project. Key consultation activitiesincluded:

* meetings with public authorities, key NGOs, current site management and otherinstitutional stakeholders;

* public meetings at which stakeholders were brought together and encouraged todiscuss issues in general session facilitated by a member of the EnvironmentalAssessment team; and

* a series of interviews with randomly selected members of the local community, siteworkers, and informal waste/food pickers (scavengers) at the site.

In addition, information has been made available to the Latvian media throughout thedevelopment of the project and will continue to be disseminated during the constructionand operation phases.

In response to the findings of the consultation, chemical analyses of soil fromsurrounding agricultural lands were carried out to determine if there had been pollutioncaused by previous landfill activity, and operational improvements have beenrecommended for the future management of Getlini-2. Measures to address theremaining minor concerns of stakeholders were also developed and incorporated intothe site Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

Potential Impacts

ERM conducted a preliminary assessment of potential impacts of the proposed projectand the likely significance of the impacts, and recommended measures to manage and

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT WORLD BANK

..

monitor environmental effects. As the project proposes to remedy past environmentaldegradation, the predicted impacts are overwhelmingly positive in terms of the localenviromnent. However, all engineering projects also have the potential for adverseeffects on local and social conditions. The EA indicates the types of impacts expectedand the types of mitigation measures likely to be necessary and presents these in anoutline Environmental Management Plan (EMP). After the detailed engineering designis completed, a revised EMP should be produced containing a timetable and costedproposals for implementation.

Issues/impacts known to occur in landfill development and of most concern tostakeholders were identified during an August-September 1996 scoping exercise andfell into eight areas:

* social, socio-economic and cultural;* hydrogeology, hydrology and water quality;* health and safety;* air quality;* noise;* ecology;* off-site traffic; and* visual/landscape.

Most significant of these were social impacts, including the loss of income for thesemi-formal waste workers and the loss of access to the waste for the informalwaste/food pickers. In both cases the impact is associated with the economicdifficulties of the transition economy, and may dissipate if the Latvian economyimproves. Semi-formal workers are those who benefited from the manual materialsrecovery/recycling program initiated by Getlini-2. Effects on this group may bemitigated by phasing the modernisation of the materials recovery operation such thatthere are continued, if decreasing, collection and recycling opportunities over the nextone to three years.

The informal waste/food pickers' practice of scavenging food from the waste pile poseshealth and safety risks and is clearly undesirable. The only feasible measure to reducethe impact of the opportunity loss is to make sure that the affected people are warnedin advance about the coming management changes and the implications. The exclusionof this group is an inevitable consequence of capping the existing waste pile which is akey component of the ground-water remediation program, and which will have longterm environmental benefits for the locality and region.

Discharge of the treated effluent is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the waterquality of the Daugava and the Gulf of Riga. However, there is some concern thatlocal effluent standards may be inappropriately stringent, as they were intended toapply to domestic wastewater and not landfill leachate. Agreement on appropriatetreatment levels for the landfill effluent, and hence quality standards, must be reachedbetween Latvian environmental authorities, the World Bank, and the project designengineers.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOIURCES MANAGEMENT WORLD BANK

iv

Mitigation and Environmental Management

The benefits of the project will be fully achieved only if the landfill is operatedproperly. The necessary engineering measures and operational practice will be builtinto the design of the project. Additional measures to ensure the findings of the EAare implemented are summarized in the following table.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT WoRLD BANK

V

Outlinie En viron,niie,ttal Maanagemitentt Plait

Measure Responsibility Timing Monitoring Agency

Manage the transition of the materials recovery regime to minimise Project implementation Years 1-3 of the remediation Riga City Councileffccts on the semi-fonral workers engineers programme

Publish information leaflet to advise semi-formal and informal The site management Before the start of the Riga City Councilworkers of the impending changes to working practices company remediation programme

Develop a business plan which includes proposals for building The site management Before the end of construction Riga City Councilinstitutional capacity in enviroinmental management, restoration and company activitiesaftercare, and liaison with neighbouring residents.

Implement a monitoring program to ensure that facilities are operate Project design engineers As part of detailed engineering Riga City Councilas intended and no adverse effects result from the continued designoperation of the site. The program should be developed inconsultation with the Ministry of Environment and includemonitoring of treated leachate, landfill gas, groundwater quality andresponse to any complaints about noise.

Development of an operational management plan which includes Getlini-2 Management in During detailed engineering Riga City Councilenvironmental management, worker health and safety, and consultation with design designemergency response procedures. engineers

Preservation of a belt of forest around the site to provide visual Project implementation During construction and future Riga City Councilscreening engineers operation

I INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) have been commissioned by the WorldBank to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) report of the proposed remediationand extended operation of the Getlini waste disposal site, near Riga, Latvia. Theproject has been classified as Category A and a full EA is required in accordance withWorld Bank OD 4.01. The EA work is being funded by a Japanese PHRD grant.

The EA work is being carried out in tandem with a technical feasibility study,conducted under a separate Terms of Reference (ToR) by SWECO of Sweden. Thefeasibility study has been contracted by the Riga City Council, and is being funded bySida, Sweden. The project will potentially result in the provision of a World Bankloan agreement for provision of infrastructure and equipment.

The EA project commenced on 26 August 1996, and will be carried out over a periodof approximately four months, with a Final Report due on 3 January 1997.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The overall purpose of the EA is to identify the potential environmental impacts whichmay result from the proposed remediation and extension of the existing Getlini landfillsite as described in the SWECO Feasibility Study, assess their significance and identifymitigation, management and monitoring measures. A key issue in the impactassessment will be social impacts.

This assessment will allow planners and project proponents to assess the suitability ofthe project for development, integrate environmental mitigation measures into theproject at an early stage, and meet the necessary legal and administrative requirementsfor project planning.

The remediation of the landfill is intended to make a significant positive impact on thequality of the environment in the area. However, this remediation, and continued useand extension of the site, has the potential to create some adverse environmentalimpacts. The EA will therefore report on the anticipated positive and adverseenvironmental impacts from the proposed development, and to assess their significanceagainst baseline environmental conditions.

The EA will achieve its overall objectives by:

* identifying the baseline environmental conditions in the vicinity of the site;

* discussing and evaluating development alternatives;

ENVIRONMENTAL REsoURCES MANAGEMENT THE WoRLD BANK

1

* presenting and discussing the features of the proposed landfill engineering designand operational plan;

* identifying and evaluating the range of potential environmental impacts from theremediation and extension proposals for the Getlini landfill;

* identifying the measures required to mitigate these impacts, above and beyond thosefeatures already included in the proposed design and operational plan, includingenvironmental management and monitoring requirements.

1.3 INTERACTION WITH ENGiNEERING FEASIBILITY CONSULTANTS

ERM and the engineering feasibility consultants, SWECO, have closely liaisedthroughout the study in the transfer of data and information, and in the development oflandfill design and operation proposals.

SWECO's feasibility study outputs can be summarised into: remediation of existingdisposal site; continued operation under sanitary landfill methods and enhanced landfillgas generation. Site restoration and aftercare, and the feasibility of landfill gasutilisation do not fall within SWECO's Terms of Reference and will need to be carriedout at a later planning stage.

1.4 DATA COLLECTiON IN THE ENVRONMENTAL ASSESSME

Preliminary data collection is being achieved from available maps and reports, sitevisits and site investigations carried out by SWECO. ERM have used data obtainedfrom detailed site investigations being carried out by SWECO in the following areas:

* topographical survey of site and surroundings;* site geology;* local hydrogeology;* existing water quality and contamination from the site;* raw leachate composition;* existing landfill gas quantities and composition; and* utilised and available void capacity.

However, the following additional survey work is being carried out by ERM todetermine baseline environmental conditions in those areas not covered under thefeasibility study:

* identification and consultation with key stakeholders;

* survey of flora and fauna adjacent to the landfill site;

* socio-economic characteristics of the population living in the vicinity of the site;

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WoRLD BANK

2

* opinions of stakeholders in relation to the project;

* socio-economic characteristics of informal waste pickers (commonly termed,scavengers') currently working at the waste disposal site;

* a limited survey of soil contamination;

* traffic flows on local roads; and

* baseline noise survey.

In addition, qualitative judgements are made of the baseline environmental conditionsin respect to ambient air quality.

1.5 INTER-AGENCY AND PUBLICINGO INVOLVEMENT

Two field visits have been conducted during this study both involving extensivediscussions with locally involved/interested organisations and individuals. In addition,ERM attended a public meeting in relation to the project on 26th October 1996, andgave a presentation on the key issues to be addressed in the EA.

A list of organisations/persons consulted during the preparation of this report, and thesubject of discussions is presented in Table 1.5a below. A full discussion of theoutcome of these consultations and the issues raised in the public meeting is presentedin Section 5 of this report.

Table I.Sa Inter-Agency and PubliciNGO Involvement During the Environmental Assessment

Involved Organisation Person Consulted Subject of Consultations

The World Bank Anders Halldin World Bank project requirements, project

proposals, environmental impacts andmitigation measures

SWECO Per Olof Seman Site investigation findings, engineeringMikael Svingby feasibility findings, engineering design,Anders Rydergren proposed operational management methods,Lars Brolin environmental enhancement and mitigation

measures

Ministry of Environment Baiba Gaile Key environmental issues, nationaland Regional Viktors Brenners environmental legislation, procedures forDevelopment Arnolds Luksevics project review.

Ilze DoninaMarite Lipsa

Riga City Council Raitis Arnts Project proposalsMarita Nihnane

Stopini Pagast Officials Ilmars Lusis (mayor) Project proposals, key environmentalissues, views of local residents.


3

Involved Organisation Person Consulted Subject of Consultations

Getlini 2 Management Edgar Sarkans Existing operational management practices.Current plans and recent achievements

Getlini 2 Staff Various

Environmental Protection Arvids Ullme Project proposals. key environmentalClub issues, level of NGO interest/concern

Coalition for the Clean director Project proposals, key environmentalBaltics issues, level of NGO interest/concern

Regional Environment Erika Lagzdina Project proposals, key enviromnentalCentre (REC) issues, level of NGO interest/concern,

other involved parties.

CEE Bankwatch Helga Kukure Project proposals, key environmentalissues, level of NGO interest/concern,other involved parties.

Latvian Solid Waste Ruta Bendare Project proposals, choice of landfill gasAssoc management options.

Local Residents Various (selected sample) Personal details, livelihood, opinion ofexisting landfill, opinion of proposedproject.

On-Site Waste Pickers Various (selected sample) Personal details, family, livelihood,dependence on activity, health, aspirations.

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The content of this EA report has been prepared in full accordance with the guidelinesgiven in the World Bank Operational Directive 4.01. This report is divided into thefollowing eight sections:

* following this introduction, Section 2 discusses the legal and administrativeframework affecting the project. The section focuses on identifying relevantnational legislation and regulations, the administrative structure under which theproject must be approved and monitored, and any existing licensing conditionsunder which the landfill is operated.

* Section 3 discusses the range of potential alternatives to this project. The sectiondiscusses the process through which this remediation and continued operationproject became the preferred planning option, the applicability of differenttechnologies and policy measures to catering for the City's waste arisings, and theproposed site design options being evaluated as part of the parallel feasibility study.

* Section 4 presents a full discussion of the baseline environmental conditions andcurrent operations at the Getlini site.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

4

* Section 5 presents the outcome of project consultations carried-out in the study.This includes a summary of discussions and issues raised in the Public Meeting heldon October 26th 1996 during the pre-appraisal mission for the project.

* Section 6 presents a summary of the key facets of the proposed engineering designand operational management proposals for remediation and continued operation ofthe Getlini site, drawing out key issues of relevance to this environmentalassessment;

* Section 7 discusses and assesses the potential environmental impact of the projectand their significance. The section presents a discussion of both positive andadverse environmental impact of the proposed project.

* Section 8 presents the consultants' recommendations for environmental mitigation,management and monitoring, addressing the key environmental issues associatedwith the project, and recommending procedures for improving environmentalmanagement at the site, above and beyond those currently proposed in thefeasibility study.

ENV1RONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGrEENT THE WORLD BANK

5

2 LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

2.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND REGULATION

The Law on Environmental Protection, 6th August 1991, is the main legal text withinwhich environmental protection issues are regulated and controlled in the Republic ofLatvia. The Law sets out the competence and authority of individual institutionalbodies in environmental protection. The specific institutions mentioned in the Laware:

* The Republic of Latvia Environmental Protection Committee ();

* The Republic of Latvia Council of Ministers;

* State Environmental Protection Authorities; and

* Municipal Government.

In addition to the framework Law on Environmental Protection, 1991, the existinglaws and regulations which have been identified as being relevant to this project are asfollows:

- Law on State Ecological Expertise, 1990;- Law on Specially Protected Nature Areas, 1993;- Law on Hazardous Waste, 1993;* Law on Natural Resource Tax, 1995; and* Regulations for Territorial Planning, 1994.

In addition to the above enacted laws, at the time of this study a Draft Instruction ofthe Environmental Protection Committee on Water Permits was also in circulation.There was no indication, however, given of when this instruction may come into force.

Furthermore, a Water Code specifying ambient and emission standards for waterquality was still in force during the conduct of the study. The standards in thisdocument were developed and in force prior to independence, and indications were thatthey were under revision by the Environmental Protection Depart of the Ministry ofEnvironmental and Regional Development. Although there was no formal timetable forrelease of the new standard, it was anticipated that they could be in force at some pointduring late 1997/early 1998.

There is currently no existing legal text which sets out required standards of municipalwaste disposal, or required operational management procedures at waste disposal sites.A regulation on solid waste management is, however, under development, although

(I) The duties of whidh are passed to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development.


6

there was no indication of the likely content or date of issue of this law at the time ofthis study.

The main law listed above which has direct relevance to the content of thisenvironmental assessment is the Law on State Ecological Expertise, 1990 (discussed inSection 2.2 below).

2.2 THE LAW ON STATE ECOLOGICAL EXPERTISE

The Law on State Ecological Expertise, 9 October 1990, sets out requirements for'ecological expertise' which is similar in scope to the World Bank EA procedures.The Law specifies the chief requirements of the procedure as being:

* to determine whether the level of potential environmental hazard has been correctlyaddressed;

* to provide an assessment of the potential environrmental impact of a plannedactivity;

- to evaluate the acceptability of an economic activity taking into account allenvironmental conditions; and

3 to establish and evaluate the effects of economic facilities impact on the surroundingenvironment.

Ecological Expertise assessments of environmental impacts and discussions ofconditions are carried out by a specially appointed committee. The law placesresponsibility for data gathering and implementation of recommendations on the projectproponent, in this case Riga City. These include:

* the completeness, scientific validity and accuracy of the information used;

* the environmental effects of implementation of the project;

* the organisation, financing and conduct of scientific research and planning;

* full completion of all documentation required in the project;

* discussion of the project concept and potential environmental effects withrepresentatives of social organisations and local residents;

* fulfilment of the recommendations included in the assessment report of thecommittee's Ecological Expert(s).

This project provides Technical Assistance to the project proponent (the Riga CityCouncil) to undertake an EA. The EA report contains all information requested in theLaw on State Ecological Expertise, and provides information which enables them to

ENVoRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAoEMENT THE WORLD BANK

7

meet their obligation regarding environmental protection during construction andoperation of the project.

2.3 WORLD BANK OPERATiONAL DIREcTivE 4.01

According to Terms of Reference of this project and standard World Bank projectplanning procedures, this environmental assessment should be prepared in compliancewith the World Bank Guidelines for EA set out in the World Bank OperationalDirective (OD) 4.01, dated October 1991, and subsequent amendments.

The Guideline stresses that the purpose of an EA is to improve decision making and toensure that project options under consideration are environmentally sound andsustainable. EAs should identify ways of improving projects environmentally, bypreventing, minimising, mitigating or compensating for adverse impacts, and shouldnormally cover:

* existing environmental baseline conditions;* potential environmental impacts;- environmental comparison of project alternatives;- preventive, mitigation or management plan;* environmental management and training; and* environmental monitoring.

Again according to the OD 4.01, the detail of the EA performed should becommensurate with the expected environmental impacts. The classification of eachproposed project depends on the type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the proposedproject, as well as the nature and magnitude of its potential impacts.

This project has been classified as 'Category A', which means that a full EA isrequired including comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts andthe likely social impacts of the project.

Analysis of the social impact involves identification of key stakeholders, categorised as'primary' (ie directly affected members of the public) and 'secondary' (ie institutionsaffected). Following this there is a requirement for consultation with the keystakeholders regarding the potential impact of the project, and specification ofappropriate mitigation measures.

2.4 ENViRONMENTAL ASSESSmENT APPROVAL PROCEDURES

The environmental assessment will be reviewed and approved by:

The Ministry of Environment and Regional Development:* State Ecological Expertise Board;* Riga Rayon Environmental Protection Board;* Environmental Protection Department.


8

* The World Bank.

Representatives of the State Ecological Expertise Board have indicated that they willset up a Commission of Experts for Review of the EIA, the powers for which aregranted in their guideline document Operational Guideline for Environmental ExpertiseWork, Vice Chairman of the Environmental Protection Committee, 1993. TheCommittee will comprise both internal department experts as well as externallycontracted independent experts.

The document will also be reviewed by World Bank Staff and peer reviewers to ensurethat all internal Bank project preparation requirements for a Category A project aresatisfied.


9

3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

3.1 A VAILABLE ALTERNA TIVES

Analysis of project alternatives forms an essential part of an EA, and aims atestablishing, at an early stage, whether there are viable alternatives to a proposeddevelopment which can fulfil the same function with a reduced overall environmentalimpact.

This section discusses the project alternatives under three distinct sub-sections:

* alternative sites;* alternatives to waste disposal by landfill; and* landfill technology alternatives.

3.2 ALTERNATivE SITES

Prior to this project, a Danish Consulting firm, Carl Bro, carried out an extensive sitesearch exercise to identify and select a landfill site to serve Riga City for at least tenyears.

Eight potential sites were initially identified, one of which was the Getlini site. Duringthe site search process Getlini was assessed as being unsuitable for long-term use as alandfill site due to the lack of a proximal source of suitable cover material andcontamination of the underlying aquifers. Studies performed by Baltec Associates in1994 and 1995 concluded that leachate from the Getlini dump had contaminated notonly the Quatemary surface aquifer but also the underlying Plavinas and Amatasaquifers. The Amatas is an important aquifer and overlies the Gauja which is themajor regional aquifer. However, subsequent reviews of the Baltec Associates resultssuggested that the trace contamination detected in the Plavinas and Amatas formationsmay have been an artifact of well installation and that the reported magnitude ofcontamination in the Quaternary aquifer was typical for a municipal waste site and didnot pose a grave risk to human health. Furthermore, the majority of the localpopulace used water from the deeper aquifers or imported water from the Riga Citysystem. Extensive hydrogeological investigations carried out by SWECO during thefeasibility study for remediation and continued operation at Getlini confirmed thatground water contamination by Getlini leachate is restricted to the Quaternary surfaceaquifer and that the underlying Plavinas and Amatas aquifers are notcontaminated. ()

In 1995, at the conclusion of the Carl Bro site search, the preferred site of the eightcandidate sites was located within the former military complex in the Adazi area which

°) Hydrogeologicalmodecling indicated under existing conditions (i.e.. no changes at the Getlini site) that the leachate contaminatedplume in the Quatemary aquifer would reach the Plavinas aquifer in approximately 25 years.


10

is located over 40 km north of Riga City. However, a preliminary feasibility study ofthe Adazi site(s) concluded that costs for road and bridge upgrades to carry waste trucktraffic to the site would be prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, communities alongthe road network were extremely opposed to the plan.

At the conclusion of the site search it was clear that all of the alternative sitesidentified at that time had associated technical and/or environmental constraints orwere liable to induce considerable public opposition to their development.

Following this unsuccessful site search exercise and a new analysis of thehydrogeological studies and water chemistry data provided by Baltec Associates,attention shifted back towards assessing the potential for continued operations at theGetlini site in conjunction with remediation. (1) This shift back to Getlini waswelcomed by the Stopini Pagast officials and by Getlini-2 management and employees.While the search for an alternative site was underway, the landfill, under newmanagement, had become a significant local enterprise, and source of employment forlocal people.

Furthermore, over this period, there was a reduction in pressure from the localvillagers for the site to be closed, as they noticed tangible improvements in thestandard of operational and environmental management at Getlini.

The overall project, as currently defined, has the potential to provide significantbenefits as compared to finding and developing an alternative site, as follows:

* as a significant local employer, the continued operation of the site rather thanclosure will allow those people currently employed to retain their positions andfurther develop their landfill management skills; and there may be limited potentialfor formal workers to transfer to similar posts at any new site;

* developing an alternative site has the potential to lead to significant environmentalimpact, meet public resistance, and/or be more costly to the taxpayer than thecurrent proposals;

* consolidating, into one project, the remediation of the Getlini landfill site withdevelopment of further landfill capacity at the same site, is likely to maximise theuse and availability of skilled waste disposal site managers and operatives; and

* site investigation and analysis by the engineering feasibility consultants, SWECO,have concluded that the Plavinas and Amatas aquifers are not currentlycontaminated. Further, with properly applied remedial engineering measures therisk of future contamination can be reduced substantially and with the propercontainment of further landfill cells additional risks should be negligible.

"I Remediation of the Geslini site had always been a componentof the Riga soLid waste project regardless of the fmnal site selectionoutcome.


11

3.3 ALTERNATIVE TO WASTE DISPOSAL BY LANDFILL

It should be noted that even in countries with the most active and successful wastereduction policies, there is always a requirement for some landfill capacity (eg for thedisposal of ashes from waste incineration facilities, or process rejects from wasteprocessing plants). The extent to which final disposal to landfill is relied upon, andthe required landfill capacity in the country, however, varies from country to country,and can be influenced by introduction of policies, technologies and educationprogrammes.

The range of options available for reducing the quantities of waste requiring disposal tolandfill are identified in the 'waste management hierarchy' introduced in the EUSecond Environmental Action Programme (1977-81). The hierarchy indicated that thehighest priority is to avoid generating waste in the first place; if waste is generated thequantity should be minimised. The next level of priority is to reuse or recycle asmuch as practicable. Waste treatment should then be aimed both at the recovery ofmaterials and energy and at the minimisation of quantities of waste requiring finaldisposal. When all other practical alternatives are exhausted then waste/residuesshould be considered for landfill.

Although the waste management hierarchy has been used widely as a statement ofprinciple, in many cases management of wastes has to be carried out by methods withlower 'desirability' owing to logistical, technical and financial constraints.

Carl Bro, a Danish consulting firm, carried out a forward plan for waste managementin Riga in 1994 (Riga Waste Plan, 2000-2005). The current Getlini project largelyinvalidates the applicability of this study; however, the Ministry of Environment andRegional Development has arranged with the Danida technical assistance programme,for a comprehensive national waste management strategy to be carried out in the nearfuture. The Consultants understand that one of the aims of that study will be toidentify and prepare source separation and waste reduction proposals. SWECO'sfeasibility study aims at providing the necessary technology for improved municipalwaste management including a number of actions and investments for improvedhandling and separation of recyclable materials. However, even in the event that wasteproduction in the future is greatly reduced through various means, the Consultantsconsider there will always be a need for some degree of waste disposal throughlandfilling for the Riga City region.

3.4 ALTERNATIVE LANDFiLL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

3.4.1 Features of a Sanitary Landfill

Over the past 10-20 years in Western Europe and North America, there has been agradual shift towards greater environmental control at municipal waste landfill sitesdue to recognition of their potential impact on the environment. The main focus hasbeen placed on:

ENVIRONMENTAL R£SOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

12

* minimising their impact on ground and surface water quality;

* improving health and safety standards;

* minimising nuisance impacts (noise, odour, dust, litter etc) to local residents:

* restoring landfill sites once completed, and minimising on-going impacts throughafter care measures following closure;

* minimising the risks from landfill gas migration and maximising the energygeneration from this gas.

This project represents an opportunity to make significant improvements toenvironmental management at the Getlini landfill, addressing all of the above issues.SWECO are charged with developing proposals in respect to all of the above (with theexception of restoration and after care).

The main areas where there are technological options are:

* leachate containment engineering for future landfilling areas; and

* landfill gas control systems for future landfilling areas.

SWECO currently propose to utilise compacted clay liners for new areas of the site.The alternative to this proposal is to use synthetic liners which have a lowerpermeability than the clay liner and thus in principle provide a greater degree ofenvironmental control.

There are advantages and disadvantages associated with both types of liner system.Although synthetic liners theoretically provide greater environmental control(permeability typically below 10-" metres/s as opposed to 10- metres/s), they are moresusceptible to damage (and resulting leakage) than clay liners during and afterinstallation. At the same time, construction of clay liners can be more problematic,due to difficulties in achieving a uniform level of compaction and containment as aresult of the natural variability in material properties. The choice between liningsystems therefore needs to be made on the basis of technical and financial feasibility aswell as theoretical environmental performance.

Three main landfill gas control alternatives have been analysed by SWECO:

* Gas extraction from the existing landfill, waste disposal ends at Getlini in 1998.* Gas extraction from existing landfill, operation continues until year 2015.* Gas extraction from existing landfill, continuous disposal is made in 'energy cells'.

The conclusions from SWECO's analysis are that significantly greater volumes of gascan be collected if waste disposal is carried out in energy cells. These energy cellsessentially comprise the construction of a sealed landfill cell; capping to minimise

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANx

13

fugitive emissions; collection, heating and recirculation of leachate and forced injectioninto the waste; and high efficiency gas collection.

In this manner, the generation rate and collection efficiency for landfill gas ismaximised and generation rate is controlled by varying leachate circulation and internalwaste temperature. Through these measures the security of supply (and potential forgas utilisation) is enhanced.

High gas collection efficiencies, however, can also be achieved through constructinglandfill cells and installing gas collection equipment in other ways. The maindifference between SWECO's proposed energy cell and other high efficiency gascollection systems being used internationally, is that collected leachate is heated,recirculated and injected into the landfill to maximise the conditions for landfill gasgeneration. In particular, in a northern European country such as Latvia, whereclimatic conditions can be unfavourable to putrescible waste decomposition, thisheating and recirculation/injection is likely to have an upward affect on the gasgeneration rate, particularly during winter months.

From an environmental perspective enhancing gas collection efficiency and potentialfor utilisation is beneficial. Not only will emissions of methane (an aggressivegreenhouse gas) be minimised, but also the safety implications of poor landfill gascontrol (ie migration of gas to surrounding properties, risk of site fires, and sub-surface stability) can be minimised. The energy cell technology is therefore a usefulmethod of optimising gas control and utilisation, and minimising the potential impacton the local and global environment.

Overall, as long as designated water quality standards are met through construction ofthe liner system to high specifications, and landfill gas systems are managedprofessionally, the use of clay liners and energy cells is considered to be appropriatefrom an environmental perspective. The use of these technologies should not,however, be decided on environmental grounds alone, and must also be justified on thebasis of cost-effectiveness and availability of local technical and management skills toensure their proper construction and management.


14

4 DESCRIPTION OF BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND

CURRENT OPERATIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This section presents available data on existing site operations and baselineenvironmental conditions at the solid waste disposal site at Getlini. The key sitecharacteristics which influence the potential for significant environmental impacts tooccur during both remediation and continued operation of the proposed sanitary landfillare described with respect to the following:

* site location and surrounding land use characteristics;* administrative and political context;* existing operations;* stakeholder analysis and socio-economic characteristics;* climate;* geology and hydrogeology;* hydrology;* water quality;• soils;* ecology (flora and fauna);* air quality;* traffic; and* noise.

4.2 SITE LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS

The Getlini waste disposal site is located approximately 12 kilometres south-east of thecentre of Riga City in Stopini Pagast (') (see Figures 4.2a, 4.2b, and 4.2c). Getliniis situated in the Daugava River basin approximately 1.7 km north of the river on theright bank. The Riga-Daugavpils branch of the Latvian Railway and the Riga-Daugavpils Highway (the A6) lie between site and the river. Access to the site isgained via Krustpils Street, which branches off the Riga-Daugavpils Highway and deadends at landfill entrance road. (A lightly used gravel road continues past the landfill).

The site is located in an area where the dominant land use for centuries has beenagriculture and to a lesser extent forestry. Since 1940 agricultural land in Latvia hasdeclined relative to forest lands due to farm abandonment. This shift in land useoccurred in the Getlini site area which is proximal to Riga City, the primarypopulation centre. During the Soviet era a number of industrial plants and other state

° A Pagast is local municipal distict.

ENVIRoNMENTAL RESOURCES MANAOEMENT THE WORLD BANK

15

Figure 4.2a Riga metropolitan area and Getlini wastedisposal site

\ R1 G A S f KEY NSite Location

JUR A LiCIS

Dune p X

P \V:lzl, __

Zvejniems Ledur a.

- tSi \ 1 9h art ;? VJnagl<-5 ;;jVaIe 14

t tm \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~SAU L K

t 6 \ tJlaS>esmelesezo;2~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 J a \ m ' N uS

1 g27J333td17 O9.096ADWJA

-Figure 4. 2b Getlini Waste Disposal Site Vicinity

KEY N /A

Site Location

7 Riga Region

* ~~ ~1 ISalaspils [T

Stopinu Pag

0 1 2 3 4kin

--- UP-"~~

Mjrjjj~~~~~e ~+ + + + ~ ~ ~ o m ~ a

+ + +ACOA 4

+ + + +~~~~~~~~+

2,4 RUM ri~L+ 4~~. 4~+ 6±,+ +

*,f1)p +t4- +

STCAN07 + + +~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +4* + ~ -i~ t:*1

CIQm I) EALC'~~~f, I~~V,NA ~ A / KUlr t+l 6 i+~sa ~ fI ~t07335IO +OAWJ

Me

2~~~~~~

LEGEND

, Existing monitoring and production wells9 wit predomin0at b houses

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . -e Areas with predominantly brick houses

Areas with predominantly wood houses

Scale 1:20 OO

Figutre 4.2c Getlini ivaste disposal site, immediate vicinity(gp aphiw courtessy of SWECO).

enterprises were constructed in the area. Several of the plants in the area are nolonger operational. and the sites have been largely abandoned.

The portion of Stopini Pagast adjacent to the waste disposal site consists of 54permanent households with a resident population of 117 people. The number ofhouseholds in close proximity to the site is limited to fourteen. These are located inthe vicinity of the site entrance point and west and southwest of the site.

The area is rural and agricultural in character. Land use is approximately 50 %agricultural and 50% abandoned field, forest or wildlands (bog or wetland). The localpopulation generally falls within the low income bracket, and local garden plots are avital component of their subsistence economy.

South of the railway, where the boundaries of Riga City extend along the Daugava,there are a number of summer garden communities. These communities consist ofgroupings of small garden plots with modest "summer houses". These places areessentially the gardens of Riga residents and are an important source of food for manyhouseholds as well as a tie to tradition and family. Surplus crops may also constitutean additional source of income for many families. There are also suimmer gardencommunities southeast of the site in which are located within Stopinu -Pagast.

Getlini Bog, a large raised [ombrotrophicI bog, surrounds the north and east of thesite. The majority of the bog is in Salaspils Pagast.

Due to forest belts which surround the western and southern borders of the wastedisposal site, the waste pile is not readily visible from Krustpils Street or the Riga-Daugavpils highway. Larger tracts of forest border the eastern and northern edges ofGetlini bog as well, shielding the waste pile from view from the north and west.

4.3 ADMiNISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL CONTEXT

The 1994 Law on Local Government established the structure for municipalgovernance in Latvia. There are two levels of local government. The first levelconsists of the rural municipalities or pagasts (of which there are 493) and the townmunicipalities (of which there are 69). The second level of local government consistsof the 26 rayon (district or county) governments and the seven republican cities whichhave rayon status but also perform the municipal functions of the first level localgovernments. First-level local governments are responsible for municipal services,housing, primary health care facilities, and some social assistance. Second-level localgovernments are responsible for public transport, industrial waste management, clinics,tertiary care facilities, old peoples homes, and homeless shelters. Republican citiesperform the functions of both levels.

The Getlini disposal site is located in Stopini Pagast approximately 12 km south-east ofthe centre of Riga City (see Figure 4.2b). Stopini Pagast, with a population ofapproximately 7,000, is one of several first level municipal governments which arecontained within Riga Rayon, a second level municipal government entity which


19

surrounds Riga City. Riga City is the largest republican city in Latvia and the majorpopulation centre. Riga's population is approximately 820,000. Riga Rayon'spopulation is approximately 200,000, hence the combined population for the Rigametropolitan area (Riga City and Riga Rayon combined) is estimated at 1,000,000.

The Getlini disposal site serves as the primary waste disposal site for Riga City. Thesite also receives some portion of the waste from Riga Rayon, although there areanother 22 reported waste dumping sites within the rayon.

The Getlini site was first used as a disposal site for municipal solid waste generated inRiga in 1972. Until 1984, according to a resolution of the Council of Ministers of theSoviet Socialist Republic of Latvia, the Getlini landfill belonged to Riga City. In 1984the Council of Ministers abolished the resolution, but did not adopt an alternativedisposal strategy; and therefore the landfill continued operating but under no legal landtenure.

The Riga City Conveniences Board was running the Getlini landfill from 1984-1991.In 1991, the responsibility for operation was then passed to the private waste collectionfirm operating in the City, Hoetica. In 1993-94, the local government of StopiniPagast requested and were granted permission to take over the management of the site.This request was motivated by the potential threat of industrial waste from Germanybeing imported and disposed at the Getlini site.

On December 12, 1994 a new joint venture company, Getlini-2, Ltd, was registered,with Stopini Pagast as the controlling shareholder (51 %) and Riga City as the minorityshareholder (49%). This joint venture was established despite sharp conflicts betweenthe two shareholders over the usage and management of the landfill. The Getlini-2,Ltd joint venture commenced operations on January 1, 1995.

Since the establishment of Getlini-2, Ltd, there has been a marked improvement in thestandard of operational management control at the Getlini site. These improvementshave been noted by officials from Stopini Pagast and Riga City Council, theEnvironmental Protection Committee of the Republic of Latvia, and by local residents.

4.4 EXISTiNG OPERA TIOS

4.4.1 Recent Improvements

Since the establishment of Getlini-2, Ltd improvements have been made to sitereception facilities, offices, concrete surfacing, general site organisation andmanagement, and gatehouse control procedures. Possible methane generated fires/openburning on the waste pile and disposal of hazardous waste have ceased. In addition,new plant and equipment has been purchased for site operations (weighbridges,bulldozers etc).

The management have placed significant focus on the recovery of materials from wastedeposited at the site through use of formal and informal employees. Recovered

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ThE WORLD BANK

20

materials (paper, cardboard, glass, metals, wood etc), are sold on forreprocessing/reuse at commercial rates. There appears to be a thriving domesticmarket for these recovered materials.

4.4.2 Site Reception Procedures

Strict site reception procedures are maintained at Getlini. The gatehouse is staffedwith National Home Guard officers, who visually check for non-conforming wastes,such as industrial/hazardous waste. A consignment note system is used at the site. andcharges are based on volume of waste delivered. At the time of this EA, Hoetica'swaste collection vehicles had begun to be directed to pass over the weighbridge torecord the tonnage of waste being delivered.

Strict control is maintained over the entry and exit of persons to the site, includingwaste pickers working atop the landfill where the fresh waste is dumped. (Access tothe lower edges of the waste pile is far less controlled). Persons entering the sitethrough the site reception area have to be authorised by the Director or hisrepresentative.

A register of approved waste pickers is held at the gatehouse. Authorised wastepickers are given armbands and circular metal tags to wear round their necks, as ameans of distinguishing them from un-authorised persons. Under no circumstances arethese waste pickers allowed to carry secondary raw materials off the site, and allmaterials collected are purchased by Getlini-2, Ltd for subsequent re-sale. Checks aremade to ensure that waste pickers comply with these rules. Waste pickers are,however, allowed to take food and other miscellaneous items for personal use (egclothes) off the site.

4.4.3 Waste Transport and Placement

Access to the tipping area is via internal site haul-roads, formed on previouslydeposited waste. Construction debris and wood chippings are laid, particularly in wetweather conditions, to provide better grip and a firmer foundation.

Once at the tipping area, refuse collection vehicles unload their contents. Because ofthe high number of vehicles entering the site, up to 6 vehicles can be observedunloading at the tipping face at any one time. The vehicles fan out radially from acentral manoeuvring area at the tipping face. While the vehicles are unloading, wastepickers conglomerate around the vehicles to obtain ready access to the freshlydeposited waste.

One bulldozer typically operates at the landfill face, and several other bulldozers areowned by Getlini, and used in rotation. The bulldozers level out deposited waste onceit has been initially picked over by the waste pickers, which in turn provides furtheropportunities for the waste pickers and provides a level foundation for additional liftsof waste. No cover materials or waste compaction methods are applied to the finallydeposited waste.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WoiRLD BANK

21

4.4.4 Existing Materials Recovery Activities

Materials recovery at the site is carried out jointly by formal employees of Getlini-2,Ltd, whose basic function is operational management and control, and registered wastepickers, who pick the materials out of the waste. The waste pickers are paid inaccordance with the amount and type of materials they have recovered from thedeposited waste.

In total, 220 persons are authorised to pick materials off the site, although sitemanagement stress that the number on site varies according to the season (in particulardue to the availability of other employment), and the personal preference of theindividual waste pickers.

During site visits in the summer and fall of 1996, approximately 150 waste pickerswere working at the landfill. The waste pickers are organised, and organisethemselves, into 'Brigades'. A Brigade can consist of anywhere between 2 and 20people, and are formed on the basis of type of material collected, as well as personalrelationships.

Although the waste pickers do not pay taxes on their income, and are therefore strictly'informal sector' workers, given that they sell all of the materials collected to the sitemanagement and work under constant management supervision, they are in factworking in a semi-formal manner at the landfill site. Throughout this report therefore,this group is referred to as 'semi-formal waste workers'.

In addition to the semi-formal waste workers, Getlini-2, Ltd staff have indicated thatnumbers of non-registered people get onto the landfill from other access points aroundthe perimeter, and roam the site in search of food and residual waste materials. Thereare estimated to be 50-100 of these 'informal waste/food pickers' entering the site,possibly after dark according to some sources. Under the current circumstances it isvirtually impossible to limit the access of these informal waste/food pickers to the site.They are, however, not allowed to enter the tipping face area (where the fresh waste isdeposited), at least during the standard operating day (roughly 0700-2300).

4.4.5 Leachate and Landfill Gas Control

There is little or no systematic control of leachate and landfill gas at Getlini. During1995-1996, a perimeter channel was excavated to in theory capture leachate andcontaminated ground water and to prevent flow towards the residences on the southside of the site. SWECO, however, consider it unlikely that this cut-off drain ishaving any significant mitigating effect on the migration of leachate and may in facthave a negative impact.

There are no surface water drains to prevent infiltration of rain water into thedeposited waste, and there is no collection or treatment of leachate.


22

There are no vents or collection pipes for control of landfill gas. Investigations bySWECO during the feasibility study determined that significant quantities of gas werepresent in the landfill mass despite the lack of cover material.

4.4.6 Health and Safety

Employees at the Getlini waste disposal site are reported by Getlini-2, Ltd to haveextremely low rates of absenteeism due to illness. Site management report that out of21,484 available working days, there have been only 680 days of absenteeism due toillness, representing around 3% of total working days. Furthermore, site managementstress that out of the 680 days of absenteeism, the majority have been taken up by twopersons who had long term illnesses/injuries which were not caused as a result ofworking at the site.

Site management and employees are provided with vaccinations for encephalitis,diphtheria and tetanus. In addition, site management are also reported to have paid formedical inspection and treatment costs incurred by some local residents of GetliniVillage.

There is no documented information on the health status of waste pickers on-site.Interviews with the waste pickers (discussed further in Section 4.5) have, however, notrevealed a high incidence of poor health conditions. Getlini-2 management havestressed that alcoholism is prevalent among these persons.

Waste pickers can be observed taking precautions to avoid injury at the landfill face byonly starting to pick waste when vehicles are fully off loaded, and lining up by the sideof unloading vehicles. However, there is a high risk of injury in cases where theunloading operations are misjudged, of if people stumble or trip in the rush to gainfirst pickings of the waste.

Bird scaring (through firing a flare) is carried out regularly at the landfill site as ameans of preventing interference with day-to-day operations. This practice is alsolikely to reduce the potential for transmission of infectious diseases from the site. Nocompaction or covering of waste is, however, carried out to minimise the build-up ofvermin and pests in the deposited waste.

4.5 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND SocIo-EcoNoMIc CHARACTERISTICS

4.5.1 Identification of Key Stakeholders

Proper consultation as well as assessment of the impacts of the project anddevelopment of effective mitigation measures is dependent on the identification and


23

analysis of key stakeholders. The following key primary and secondarystakeholders ") have been identified in this project.

Primary Stakeholders: Those who are directly affected by the project

1. Getlini 2 Management;2. Getlini 2 Formal Sector Employees;3. Local Residents;4. Registered 'Semi-formal' Waste Workers (2);

5. Non-Registered Waste/Food Pickers; and6. Residents of Riga City.

Secondary Stakeholders: Those who are involved in the implementation of the project

7. Riga City Council;8. Stopini Pagast;9. World Bank/SIDA;10. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development;11. NGO's (CEE Bankwatch, REC, Environmental Protection Club, Latvian Fund

for Nature, Alternative Energy Information Office).

Classification of Key Stakeholders

The relative importance and influence of these stakeholders in relation to this project ismapped out in Figure 4.5. la which allows a clear distinction to be made between thedifferent stakeholders. The following paragraphs summarise the information presentedin the figure.

* High Importance, Low Influence: Those stakeholders which are important to theproject but not influential (in the top left of the figure) are those whose interests arevulnerable and need to be taken into full account during the project planning.

* High Importance, High Influence: Those stakeholders identified in the top righthand box are the variant parties within whom a consensus on the correct projectplan must be secured.

* Low Importance, High Influence: Those stakeholders in the bottom right of thefigure are those with whom the project proponents should consult and/or keepinformed of project developments, in order to maximise the chances of a successfulproject.

0I Stakeholders are persons, groups or institutions with interests in a project programme. Primary stakeholders are those ultimatelyaffected, either positively or negatively. Secondary stakeholders are the intermediaries involved in the project process who influence

primary stakeholders.

"' Serni-formal waste workers are not directly employed by Getlini 2 Ltd. but are registered and authorised to enter the site, managed byformal sitc employees, derive income from sale of recovered materials to Getlini-2 Ltd., and are prohibited from selling recoveredmaterials off-site.


24

* Low Inportance, Low Influence: Those stakeholders indicated in the bottom left ofthe figure are those whose interest and influence in the project is only peripheral.and therefore do not need to have access to the EA report nor be kept closelyinformed of project development.

The stakeholder analysis presented in Figure 4.5.1a reveals two key findings. Firstly,there are three vulnerable primary stakeholder groups characterised by having lowinfluence but high importance to the project. These are the registered semi-formalwaste workers, non-registered waste/food pickers, and the residents of Getlini Village.

Secondly, risks to project success are associated with three secondary stakeholdergroups, classified as having high influence and high importance. These include RigaCity Council, Stopini Pagast and Getlini 2 Management. Special care is being (andwill continue to be) taken to ensure that these groups are in full agreement with theproject objectives and proposals, in order to maximise the chances of project success.

4.5.2 Data Collection

As identified above, there are three primary stakeholder groups who have beenidentified as being of high irmportance and low influence in relation to this project, thelocal residents, semi-formal waste workers and informal waste/food pickers. ERM'sdata collection exercise has concentrated on gaining an understanding of the socio-economic characteristics of these key vulnerable groups. Data collection has beenconducted jointly by a Latvian consulting firm, Baltic Data House, and ERM. BalticData House's report 'Social Impact Appraisal of the Getlini Disposal Site Remediationand Upgrading Project' has been presented in Annex B of this report.

Information was collected via semi-structured interviews with local residents, semi-formal waste workers, and informal waste/food pickers. However, it was not withinthe scope of the EA to conduct lengthy, in depth studies of the latter two groups.Furthermore, the information gathered through the interview process may not betotally accurate for various reasons. Many of these two latter groups were reluctant tobe interviewed, some who were interviewed may have been intoxicated, and certaininformation was widely disparate (ie earnings). Getlini-2 management indicated thatthe semi-formal workers in particular were generally very opposed to beingphotographed by the press or television crews for fear of having family or friendssubsequently recognize them in the newspapers or on television.

The findings of the data collection in relation to the three key stakeholder groups arepresented in the following sub-sections.

4.5.3 Local Residents

Local residents are expected to be one of the major beneficiaries of the project. Theyare likely to benefit from several aspects of landfill site remediation, particularlyimproved water quality.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENr THE WORLD BANK

25

Figure 4.5.1a Stakeholker Classification Matrix

HIGH

A B7. 8.

4.

3. 2

IMPORTANCE II

CD

6.

9.

to.

11.

LOW POWER & INFLUENCE ON THE PROJECT HIGH

STAKEHOLDERS

Primary Secondary

7. Riga City Council;1. Getlini 2 Management; 8. Stopini Pagast;2. Getlini 2 Formal Sector Employees; 9. World Bank/SIDA;3. Residents of area; 10. Ministry of Environment and4. Registered 'Semi-formal' Waste Regional Development;

Workers; 11. NGO's (CEE Bankwatch, REC,5 Non-Registered Waste/Food Environmental Protection Club,

Pickers; and Latvian Fund for Nature,§. Residents of Riga City. Alternative Energy Information

Office);

There are 14 permanent residences (approximately 30 people) in close proximity to thesouthern and southwestern edges of the site, and a total of 54 residences (117 people)in the wider surroundings. The nearest residence to the site is located approximately200 m south of the site reception area, approximately 500 metres south from thelandfill. Other residences are also located around 500 metres south-west of thelandfill, although their lands stretch to within 50-100 metres of the site. Seven localresidents and eight from the surroundings were interviewed by Baltic Data House.The interviews were conducted using the same questionnaire which was designed toidentify the baseline socio-economic and health conditions of the residents, to identifytheir concerns in relation to the existing landfill operations, and to gain their opinionsin relation to the proposed project. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in AnnexB.

The majority of the local residents have been living there for more than 25 years, (andapproximately half of the respondents hade been living at Getlini all of their lives).Almost all of the residents reside in private or family residences.

Three of the seven respondents were pensioners, two were unemployed and two hadjobs in Riga City. One of the respondents (and his spouse) were officially employed atGetlini 2. During interviews with Getlini 2 management, the predominance ofpensioners in the locality was also stressed. In addition, the management confirmedthat they were employing a few local people at the site, and that some of thepensioners worked as semi-formal waste pickers to supplement their income.

Out of the fifteen local residents interviewed, three of the respondents estimated theirfinancial situation as sightly above average compared to Riga residents, five consideredtheir salary to be slightly below average and seven considered their income to besimilar to inhabitants in Riga.

Almost all local residents expressed dissatisfaction with living near the Getlini disposalsite, with the major reason being cited as the stigma attached to living beside a dump.Reflecting this, Getlini 2 Management has received complaints from local residentsabout the use of signboards indicating routes and distances to the site, as it was feltthey unnecessarily publicised the presence of the site.

All residents stressed concerns about the quality of their local environment, particularlyin relation to a perception of soil and vegetable contamination, poor air quality (dust,odour), poor water quality and noise. A further key issue which was raised byresidents is the local water quality and lack of water supply to the area. The publicwater supply issue shouldsoon be resolved according to Stopinu pagast Mayor IlmarsLusis. Stopinu pagast has funded construction of a Riga City water supply line to theGetlini area. At the time of this writing, Mayor Lusis confirmed that the project wascompleted except for the installation of residential water meters. As soon as themeters are installed, the the line will be opened. However, no completion date wasgiven.

Half of the residents interviewed consider that they often suffer from respiratoryillness, such as bronchitis, lung inflammation and bronchial asthma. Some of the

ENVIRONMENTAL REsouRcEs MAN/oEMENT 'ME WORLD BANK

27

residents linked these health problems directly to the close vicinity of the landfill site.None of the respondents considered their health condition to be good or very good.Residents highlighted, however, that the Getlini site management were helpful incovering their medical health expenses.

The majority of residents stressed that the landfill management, and environmentalimpacts from the site, had improved significantly since the establishment of Getlini 2 atthe end of 1994. In particular, residents noted that the open burning of waste on-site,and the resulting dust emissions, were ceased at that time.

'Now when Getlini-2 has appeared, they're doing everything possible to avoidpolluting air and water; but not long ago it was so that due to the smoke and badsmell it was impossible to breathe.' (Local Resident)

The nature of local environmental concerns since that time has shifted away from theoperations on the site, to other associated impacts such as noise and odour frompassing refuse collection vehicles and, in some cases, disruption from passing wastepickers (including noise and theft of vegetables).

Although some respondents experienced disruption from waste pickers going to andfrom the site, others considered it to be beneficial for these persons to be allowed tocollect and sort materials from the deposited waste:

'I think that people should be allowed to work there - let them earn some money forbread if this is the only place; some of them live just near the landfill - in woodenhouses. They don't disturb us.' (Local Resident)

Two respondents see some advantage in living near the landfill, due to the additionalincome which they can receive from picking materials at the site:

You can work there officially and also earn additionally - after work my husbandand I - we continue gathering glass, metals, and we exchange them for money rightthere - at Getlini; it's an extra income to our official wages.' (Local Resident)

Residents have mixed opinions regarding whether the site should be closed or remainopen, although many highlighted that they would prefer not to live so close to a wastedisposal site.

The majority had heard of foreseen changes at the landfill, hoping that theenvironmental situation would improve as a result of the project. Some residents,however, were sceptical of whether actual improvements would be made to the site asa result of the project, with one respondent stressing a concern of additional impacts(noise and dust) from the transport of construction materials to the site,and others highlighted that they did not believe that improvements will be realised inthe short-term.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAEmENT THE WORLD BANK

28

4.5.4 Semi-Fonnal Waste Workers

In the Baltic Data House Report, presented in Annex B, interviews were conductedwith three semi-formal waste workers (defined as informal workers in that report).Following this survey, and during ERM's second field visit to the site, this group wereidentified as being particularly vulnerable in the context of the project proposals, as thewaste pickers will cease to be allowed to work at the landfill face and may not becompletely catered for under alternative materials recovery arrangements. As a result,a further nine interviews were conducted to identify their socio-economiccharacteristics, and in particular their reasons for working at the site, dependence onthe landfill site for income, and future aspirations. As with the Baltic Data Houseinterviews, interviews were semi-structured, and interviewees selected at random.Table 4.5.4a summarises the survey responses. The questions asked are presented inAnnex C.

In addition to the semi-structured interviews, ERM carried out a rapid age and gendersurvey, for a sample group of 20 semi-formal waste pickers. This consisted of visualobservation of the gender and likely age of the selected person. The results of thisadditional survey are presented in Table 4.5.4b below. This is considered to berepresentative of the general characteristics of the semi-formal workers.

Table 4.5.4b Gender and Age Profile of 20 Selected Semi-Formal Waste Workers

20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 60

Male Female Male Female Male Female

2 2 6 1 5 4

The following conclusions can be drawn from the survey responses:

* the semi-formal waste pickers exhibit extremely diverse socio-economiccharacteristics and have a wide range of reasons for working at the waste disposalsite;

* some of the semi-formal workforce were previously in professional jobs, whichthey have lost during the transition economic phase;

* the majority of respondents worked at the site all day and every day;

* the majority of respondents had only worked at the site since independence;

* incomes range from 0.5-5 Lt (US$1-US$20) per day, and averaged at around 2.5 Lt(US$5) per day. They all sell the materials collected to Getlini-2, Ltd;

* all respondents were working at the site either because they had no other form ofincome, or because other sources of income were insufficient for their familyneeds;


29

Table 4.5.4a Survey of Semi-Formal Waste Workers

Question Respondent's Charactersitics

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sex Female Male Female Male Female Male Male Female Female

Age 50 47 28 42 24 60 41 Would not say 66

Family Widow, Married, wife Husband and None Mother Divorced, 4 Married, 3 2 children in Grandmother,daughter in does not know daughter. children children "special' son ill, 2Germany, no his job. 2 Mother school grandchildrenrelations in childrenRiga

Frequency of Every day, all Every day, all Every day, all Every day, all Every day, all Every day, all Every day, all 2 or 3 times Every day, allWork at Getlini day. Worked day. Worked day. Worked day. Working day, every day. Working day. Working per week, all day.

there for 3 there for 5 there for I there for 2 season. there for 16 there for 2 day, wouldn'tyears years year months Working there years years say how long

for 4 years

Income 5 Lt per week 20 Lt per 15 Lt per 5 Lt per week 25 Lt per 14 Lt per 5-8 Lt per 15 Santimes 14 Lt per week($10) week ($40) week ($30) ($10) week ($50) week ($28) week ($10-16) per day ($28)

($0.30)

Other Source of None, too old Son working. Husband also None, Mother on None Wife earns 5 None pension,Income to get other Family needs working at previously on pension. Lt per month daughter-in-

job more income Gellini, similar benefits for 4 law woTks, but

income. years family needsReceives child more incomecare benefit

Question Respondent's Charactersitics

Previous - Publishing and Mechanic, Worked in a Sailor in Mechanic - Teacher

Occupation trading farning kindergartenw merchant

hich was marineclosed.Languageproblemprevents herfrom gettinganother job

Domicile Riga City Riga City Riga City Riga City Riga City Riga City Riga Rayon Riga City Riga City

Stated Health Needs Good Good Good Good Fair, old leg Good Good Average for

Condition operation, has injury age

had no medicaltreatment

Willngness to be Willing Willing Willing Willing Willing Willing Willing Willing Not sure

Employed at (impossible to

Getlini if asked find other job)

Other Notes Ethnically Possible Had other job - Ethnically Ethnically Ethnically Ethnically Ethnically

Russian. alcoholic. opportunity. Russian Russian Russian Russian, takes Latvian, works

Expressed Collects Less/ only food and in glass

gratitude to the metals. insufficient clothes recycling

Director to be salary exclusively,

allowed to do takes clothes

her work or otherinterestingitems

* some respondents were pensioners supplementing their income by working at thesite;

* only one respondent had been offered alternative employment, although in thisinstance the salary offered was less than she could earn at the site, and perceived asinsufficient for her needs;

* all of the respondents lived in Riga City, and commuted to the landfill site by traindaily;

* the majority of respondents expressed their health condition as good, and there wasno immediate evidence of occupational illness;

* all of the respondents expressed a willingness to become formal employees if askedby the management;

* over half of those interviewed were of Russian ethnic origin;

* only one observant showed obvious signs of alcoholism, although it should be notedthat the survey was carried out in the early afternoon;

* there are more semi-formal waste pickers in the 40-60 year age bracket comparedto 20-30, and 3040, although there was a large number of males in the 30-40 yearage bracket.

A further key observation of the Consultants during the survey, was that, in contrast tomany other countries, the waste pickers did not come from a particular social group,and did not have a long heritage of waste picking. The only common link betweenthose interviewed is that they had all been affected negatively by the economictransition since independence.

4.5.5 Informal Waste/Food Pickers

This group consists of those who visit the site solely to search for food, clothing, andpossibly other items of value for their own use and on their own initiative. They arenot registered by Getlini-2 and are in fact considered by Getlini-2 management to betrespassers. They are not allowed on the top of the waste pile where the fresh waste isdumped during working hours. They do not seek or receive payment from Getlini-2for material gathered (though two individuals interviewed stated that they did receivepayment from Getlini-2 for recyclable materials gathered). They gain unauthorisedaccess to the site from surrounding lands since there is no perimeter fence to controlaccess.

This group has been identified as a vulnerable group because under project proposalsall areas of the site (apart from the active tipping cell) will be covered with somematerial to minimise the infiltration of precipitation and perimeter fencing will beconstructed to prevent access from any other point apart from the main site entrance.This will prevent or severely curtail the informal waste/food pickers' ability to gainaccess to the site and to food and materials of value in deposited waste.

ENVIRONMENTAL REsOuRCEs MANAGEmENT THE WORLD BANK

31

Table 4.5.5a Survey of Informal Waste/Food Pickers

Question1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sex female male female female female male male female male male

Age 66 51 53 39 54 45 59 43 48 42

Language Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian

Family none none husband, 4 children husband wife, 3 none husband, 2 none now, wife, son 19children & husband, (handicap- children grown divorced

grown husband ped), son children from wifealso at who hasGetlini daughter

Frequency 4-5 days/wk 5-6 days/wk 5-6 days/wk 7 days/wk 3-4 days/wk 6-7 days/wk 6-7 days/wk 4-5 days/wk 6-7 days/wk 7 days/wkof visits 7-8 hrs/day 8-9 hrs/day 9 hrs/day 8 hrs/day 8-9 brs/day 8 hrs/day 8-9 hrs/day 6-7 hrs/day 8 hrs/day 8-9 hrs/day

to Getlini

For how 6 yrs 4 yrs 3 yrs 5 yrs 3 yrs 7 yrs 15 yrs 3 yrs 3 yrs 2 yrs

long

Income pension of none, none, too none, none, can't none, no none, can't none, none, no none,

source 40 Lats per unwilling to young for Latvian get point in get senseless to point in ineligible formonth try for pension, citizen but allowance seeking allowance apply for trying to get allowance

allowance unwilling to can't get allowance allowance allowance since lefttry for allowance last joballowance 'voluntarily'

Domicile Riga, not Riga, Salaspils, Riga, Riga, Riga, Riga, Salaspils, Riga, Riga,registered registered registered registered registered registered registered registered in registered registered

Riga

Health bad ok ok ill average ok ok ok ok ok

Health care none, can't none, can't none, can't none, can't none. can't none, can't none, can't none, can't none, can't none, can't

afford afford afford afford afford afford afford afford afford afford

Objects clothing, glass, clothing, food, clothing, clothing, food, clothing metals, clothing.collected at food metals sell food clothing food sell glass & clothing glass, food

Getlini to company; metal to plastic toclothinlg & company sell, foodi &food for self clothiog for

self

Question1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Estimated 300 500 300 700 200 500 500 300 500 700

numbers offellowscavengers

Demogra- 40-65 yrs, 45-50, 35-50, 40-55, 40-60, 40-60, 14-60, equal 40 average, 40-60, 40-50, equal

phics of more men mostly Russians equal mostly similar Russians & mostly mostly Russians and

fellow than Russian Russian and Russians, numbers of Latvians, Russians Russians, Latvians

scavengers women, men Latvian lots of men and many lots ofRussians & pensioners women and pensioners pensioners

Latvians RussiansandLatvians

't

Determination of the approximate size of this group is extremely difficult since theirnumbers on any given day are influenced by many factors. Estimates by Getlini-2management personnel range from 100 to 600. Interviews with 10 persons from thisgroup yielded a broad range of estimated numbers, from 50 to 700. Estimates madeon site visits in August and October would put the size of this group much lower, at100 to 150, but no formal counts were carried out. It is expected that the size of thisgroup varies seasonally as well as daily depending on weather. As with the Semi-Formal Waste Workers, semi-structured interviews with randomly selected individualswere carried out with 10 members of this group with the same questions those posed tothe semi-formal workers. The summarized responses are given in Table 4.5.5a.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the survey responses:

* the informal waste/food pickers exhibit socio-economic and demographiccharacteristics similar to the informal waste workers: half male and half female,Russian extraction, predominantly middle aged (39-60 with one 66 year old), andunemployed;

* they visit the site as a last resort, are convinced that they have no prospects foremployment due primarily to age, and that it is pointless to apply to the governmentfor the unemployment benefit (only one interviewee was a pensioner supplementingher income);

* the majority lived in Riga and were registered there (8 out of 10);

* the majority stated their health was not a problem but that they could not affordformal medical care if their health should decline;

* they visit the site five or more days per week for the entire day;

* the majority have been doing this since independence when they lost their jobs instate organizations.

4.6 CLIMATE

Latvia has a northern European, maritime climate. The maritime influence of theBaltic Sea maintains a relatively mild annual temperature regime given the country'snorthern latitude (57 degrees N). The site is located approximately 15 kilometresinland from the Gulf of Riga in the coastal belt where the climatic influence of theBaltic is particularly pronounced. The mean annual temperature for the area is 5.4degrees Celsius.

Mean annual precipitation based on an 80 year record is 627 mm and is distributedthroughout the year. The maximum and minimum annual precipitation for this periodof record are respectively 967 mm in 1928 and 473 mm in 1918. Precipitation tendsto be greatest during the summer months and least during the winter. The highestrecorded monthly precipitation was 290 mm in August, 1978. On average 72% falls


33

as rain, 16% as snow, and 12% is mixed. During the year there is precipitation on150-170 days, with a maximum of 16-18 days per month during November-Januaryand a minimum of 9-12 days per month during March-July. The average monthlyprecipitation for the Riga region is given in Table 4.6a.

Table 4. 6a Average Monthly Precipitation

Month Precipitation (mm/month)

January 33

February 27

March 27

April 42

May 44

June 62

July 85

August -70

September 75

October 61

November 56

December 45

Total 627

The water balance for the Getlini area was estimated by SWECO using standardassumptions and long term averages for precipitation and temperatures. In an averageyear of 627 mm of precipitation, 420 mm will be lost to evaporation, 104 mm tosurface runoff, and 103 mm to infiltration. These are average values since runoff,infiltration, and evaporation vary seasonally. Runoff dominates during the growingseason when the ground is frozen and temperatures are low. Evaporation andinfiltration are dominant during the growing season. SWECO used the average valuesfor all calculations, estimates, and hydrogeological modelling.

The winds are very unstable and highly variable in direction and intensity, but aredominated by westerly winds. During the warm season (April-October) SW windsdominate (20-35%) with NW winds less dominant (10-20%). During the cold seasonSE (20-30%) and SW (10-15%) winds prevail.

4.7 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

The geology and hydrogeology of the Getlini waste disposal site has been the subjectof numerous investigations over the last 15 years due to long standing concern overpossible contamination of ground water. This description of the geological andhydrogeological conditions at the site is based on the following primary sources:


34

* ongoing detailed, site studies performed by Geo-Konsultant Ltd. under theSWECO's engineering feasibility study contract with Riga City Council financed bySIDA (SWECO Progress Reports 1 (September 1996) and 2 (October 1996), andthe SWECO draft final report dated November 29, 1996;

* hydrogeological studies performed by Baltec Associates, Inc. in 1994 and 1995under contract to the World Bank

The analyses performed by GeoKonsultant Ltd. incorporate data from 49 water supplywells and 78 other borings with additional geophysical investigations utilizing georadarsurveys and vertical electrical profiles. The above studies have also relied onnumerous reports by the Latvian Geological Survey and others too numerous to citeherein.

4.7.1 Regional Geology and Geomorphology

Latvia and the other Baltic republics lie within the Baltic Lowlands region of the NorthEuropean Plain (structurally the East European Platform). The surface geology of theBaltic Lowlands region is characterised by post Quaternary landforms derived fromsurficial glacial deposits overlying horizontal, upper Paleozoic (Proterozoic),sedimentary bedrock which in turn overlies Archaen and Middle Paleozoic(Proterozoic) crystalline bedrock at depth.

4.7.2 Site Geology and Geomorphology

The Getlini disposal site is located in the Baltic Ice Lake Plain geomorphic province ofLatvia, a level region with surface formations derived from glacio-lacustrine sedimentswhich overly Quaternary glacial tills. Elevations decrease from 13 metres above sealevel in the north to 8-9 metres to the south in the Daugava River valley. Thestratigraphy consists of Quaternary deposits overlying horizontal, upper Devoniansedimentary bedrock formations to a depth of over 100 metres. Older sedimentaryrocks and crystalline basement rocks underlie the upper Devonian strata. These older,deeper strata were not part of the investigation and are not discussed herein. TheQuaternary and upper Devonian formations are described below.

The Quaternary formation generally consists of the following components instratigraphic sequence:

* bog deposits, thickness up to 4.2 metres;* fine aeolian sand, thickness up to 3 metres;* Baltic Ice Lake deposits (fine to medium grained sands), thickness up to 9 metres;* lacustrine delta sediments (coarse sands w/ gravels), thickness up to 10 metres;* lacustrine lagoon sediments (silts and clays), thickness up to 4.5 metres;* till (loam), thickness up to 3 metres.

The total thickness of the Quaternary deposits is 14-17 metres. A geologic map of thesite vicinity is presented in Figure 4. 7.2a.


35

"'7

VI, bv Bogy d o/k

Saasis omao

a -lvia depsit

v Eolan depsits Pavina fomaio

AreavAthdiscntinous ill aye

Oi7 Boreholes, numbers

Lin ofgelogcalcrss-ecio

Scal 1"2 00

Figi- 4..2 Geloicl mp f te etini ,st

disposalite vicnity (grphic- curtesy o SWECO)

Scale: horizontal 1:20 000sw vertical 1:100 bA

21~~~~~~~~~2

LEGEND

HOLOCENE

Technogenic deposits Boggy deposits Alluvial deposits

UPPER PLEISTOCENE. Latvian formaton

j j lAlluvial deposits Glaciolacustrine deposits

Baltic Ice Lake deposits |IF .I Glacigenous deposits

UPPER DEVONIAN

D Salaspils formation Plavinas formation, 2 th subformation

Plavinas formation, 4 th subformaton Plavinas formahon, 1 # subformation

[| D3p3 |Plavinas formaton, 3 th subformation Amata formation

b -- Stratgraphic of boundaries, reliable (a), supposed (b). 171 Boreholes

..... .--- . Boundaries of lithological units

IZIZ 6 \>Waste Z I Silty and clayey sand ' ' Dolomite ;-/' Clayey dolomite... ~p~~,z/ " \_ 1 1 1 11 1

Peat l Clayey silt, silty clay 1 Dolomitic marl Cavemous dolomite

1 Sand Clay ISandstone|: .*. ,.* j Sand with gravel F7°I|: :;::. .,: and pebbles o Till

Figure 4.7.2b Geological cross-section of the Getliniwaste disposal site area (graphic courtesy of SWECO).

The Upper Devonian formations consist of the following in stratigraphic sequence:

* Salaspils Formation, a marly dolomite with clay lenses, thickness up to 15 metres;

* Plavinas Formation, dolomite, thickness up to 17 metres;

* Amata Formation, sandstone interbedded with siltstone and clays, thickness up to50 metres.

The Gauja Formation, another Devonian sandstone formation underlies the Amata.The Gauja is the major, regional aquifer. A geological cross-section of the site area ispresented in Figure 4.7.2b.

The Quaternary deposits constitute aD unconfined surface aquifer; the three underlyingformations are confined. Leaky confining layers (formerly termed aquitards) ('), ofdifferent geologic origin and composition, separate the Quaternary and Plavinas, thePlavinas and the Amata, and the Amata and the Gauja. These leaky confining layersrestrict hydraulic and hydrologic exchange between the aquifers. The presence ofthese leaky confining layers is significant since the hydraulic head pressures decreasewith depth in the three upper aquifers. The implication is that without the confininglayers, there would be downward flow from the Quaternary aquifer to the loweraquifers which would have resulted in extensive contamination of the lower aquifers.There are gaps or windows in the confining layer between the Quaternary and thePlavinas, however, these are located to the north of the site under the peat bog andupgradient from the point where leachate enters the Quatemary aquifer.

Ground water flow direction in the Quaternary and Plavinas aquifers is to the southeastto the Daugava River. The direction of ground water flow in the Amata formation isto the west towards the Gulf of Riga and the Baltic Sea.

The water table in the Quaternary formation in the Getlini area is generally close to theground surface. Readings from 26 wells indicate that the water table ranges from 1 to2 m below grade in upland sites.

SWECO measured transmissivity a) in the Quaternary and Plavinas formations. Anextremely high transmissivity of 600 m2/day (equates to a permeability of 50 m/day)was measured in the Quaternary formation. Transmissivity in the Plavinas was 40m2/day.

4.7.3 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model of Getlini Waste Disposal Site

The general conceptual hydrogeological model of the Getlini waste disposal site is asfollows. The waste pile contains a mound of leachate in its interior. As precipitation

"A confining layer is a geologic unit having little OT no inuinsic permeability (ability to pass water). A confining layer passes nowater; a leaky confining layer passes small amounts of water at slow rates. Leaky confining layers were formerly termed aquitards.

' The rate at which water of a prevailing density and viscosity is transmitted through a unit width of an aquifer or confining bed under aunit hydraulic gradien¢ It is a function of properties of the liquid, the porous media, and the thickness of the porous media.

ENVIRONMENTAL REsOURCEs MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

38

infiltrates the top of the waste pile, leachate is driven out of the bottom of the pile andinto the underlying surface aquifer by hydraulic pressure. The peat layer underlyingthe waste pile has been compressed by the weight of the waste, and to some extentimpedes leachate flow into the Quaternary aquifer. Hence the greatest flow of leachatefrom the mound in the waste pile occurs at the outer edges of the pile where the peat isless compacted. The leachate is entrained and diluted in the in the flowing groundwater and moves in the direction of flow, which is south/southwest to the DaugavaRiver. At Getlini, the Quaternary is the underlying aquifer and the direction of flow issouthwest to the Daugava River. Some portion of the leachate/contaminated groundwater is also welling up into the deep trenches/ditches which have been excavated forvarious reasons on the western and southern edges of the site. The SWECO resultsindicate that the water quality in these ditches is very similar to the raw leachate.Where these ditches are connected to old agricultural drainage works, leachatecontaminated water may emanate from the site as surface water. However, theprimary pathway for movement of leachate contaminated water is ground water flow inthe Quaternary aquifer.

4.7.4 Leachate Contaminant Plume

Extensive ground-water sampling studies were carried out under the SWECO study todefine the nature and extent of the ground-water contamination. Hydrogeologicalattributes of the contamination are discussed here; water chemistry and water qualityimplications of the plume are discussed in section 4.9 Water Quality.

Key findings are that the contamination is confined to the Quaternary aquifer and hasnot yet reached the Plavinas, Amata, or Gauja aquifers. The latter three aquifers arethe important regional water supply aquifers lying below the surface Quaternaryaquifer. Hydrogeological modelling indicates that if no remedial action is taken, thecontamination will impact the Plavinas aquifer by the year 2020. Assumptions in themodel assume that the existing rate of leachate generation will remain unchanged andthat the plume will grow as it has over the last several decades.

For assessment and mapping purposes, SWECO defined the leachate contaminantplume on the basis of chloride concentrations of 300 mg/l or greater, though maximalchloride concentrations approached 10,000 mg/I. Historical ground-water data indicatethat contaminant concentrations in the centre of the plume were increasing during the1980's but have since stabilized. This suggests that an equilibrium between the flux ofleachate from the disposal site and natural dilution/degradation processes in the core ofthe contaminant plume has been reached. The migration of the plume front since 1983is illustrated in Figure 4.7.4a. The irregular progress and front edge of the plume isdue to lithologic variability in the Quaternary formation (see Section 4.9.1 and Figures4.9. la and 4.9. Ib). The plume is travelling in the direction of the Quaternary aquiferflow, southwest towards the Daugava River, at an estimated rate of 50-60 metres/year.The hydrogeological model predicts the plume will reach the Daugava by the year2020. The current maximal extent of the 300 mg/I of chloride isopleth isapproximately 1.5 km from southern edge of the disposal site. The plume isapproximately 1.5 km2 in area and the ground-water volume is approximately 3 million

ENViRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

39

- I4i V32 \- 4£u 2

8 t e X ' t >- .' ; °-;, , _i i12

¶ 0

ta~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~12.4

MSt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S

IDA

10.7

(EC>150 mS/rn, Cl1>300 mg/i)

<_o-, ...5,O5 .Groundwater level, mn a.m.s.l.

JM Wells where arrival of the plumeA: was conrirmed

Scale 1:20 000 __

Figure 4. 7. 4V Observed progression of the contaminant

plume (graphic courtesy of SWECO).

3 million m3 . Contaminant concentrations are highest towards the bottom of the plumeas infiltration from the surface causes dilution.

4.8 SURFACE HYDROLOGY

In the Getlini vicinity and Latvia in general, precipitation exceeds evaporationthroughout the year. Hence, even though annual precipitation is relatively low, surfacewater is abundant. Average annual precipitation is 627 mm with average, annualevaporation approximately 420 mm. Surface runoff averages 104 mm and infiltration103 mm. The relative magnitudes of runoff, evaporation, and infiltration varyseasonally with runoff greater during the winter months and evaporation andinfiltration greater during the growing season. However, surface runoff is relativelylow compared to many regions of the world due to the climate and the extremelypermeable nature of the surface soils.

The Getlini site is located in the Daugava River basin. The divide between theDaugava River Basin and the Jugla River basin is 1.5 kilometres northeast of theGetlini site. Surface drainage is south to the Daugava river via a series of drainageworks installed during the Soviet period. Gradient in the ditches is low andmaintenance has been poor, yet flows of 3 I/s (260 m3/day) were measured in the maindrainage ditch to the Daugava. However, this flow is minute when compared to theaverage flow in the Daugava of 51.8 million m3/day (600 m3/s). One ditch whichformerly drained part of the west side of the disposal site has been blocked where itonce passed under the Riga-Daugavpils railway berm.

Surface water chemistry is discussed in the Section 4.9 Water Quality.

4.9 WATER QUALITY

Surface and ground water quality investigations conducted by GeoKonsultants underSWECO's auspices indicate that contamination from the waste disposal site is lesssevere than previously thought in terms of types of contaminants and extent of thecontamination. Contamination is restricted to the Quaternary aquifer (the water tableaquifer) and the surface water ditches which drain the site area and flow to theDaugava. In addition, background water quality in the vicinity of the site is heavilyinfluenced by Getlini bog. While the raw leachate and the contaminated ground waterdo not contain detectable toxins or hydrocarbon compounds, levels of ammonia,phosphorous, and COD are very high. Ground and surface water quality and theresults of SWECO's extensive investigations are discussed below.

4.9.1 Ground-water Quality

The background chemistry of ground water in Latvia is characterized by a low contentof salts (dry residue is less than 600 mg/1). The major ions are bi-carbonate andcalcium. Concentration of other ions do not exceed 60 mg/l as a general rule. Levelsof iron are relatively high as is typical in most humid regions. Concentrations of other


41

metals are generally low and in the range of micrograms. In general, the ground-water is good and well suited for drinking purposes.

However, the water chemistry in the vicinity of bogs such as Getlini is quite different.The bio-geochemical processes characteristic of bogs alter water quality with highlevels of organic materials. The organic materials, largely fulvic acids, create highlevels of chemical oxygen demand (COD-Cr) and ammonia (on average 70 mg 0,/1and I mg/l respectively). The fulvic acids also strongly colour the water. As Getlinibog is upgradient of the disposal site, the effects of the bog on ground-water qualitymust be considered when evaluating the extent of the leachate contamination since theleachate also consists of predominantly organic compounds. The chemical profile ofthe bog water is given in Table 4.9. Ia.

The degree of contamination in the Quaternary aquifer varies horizontally andvertically as can be seen in Figures 4.9.la and 4.9.1b. Due to dilution away from thesource, there is a natural continuum of contaminant concentrations in the field.SWECO adopted a logarithmic classification system for defining degrees ofcontamination which is presented in Table 4.9.1b and on the figures. Thiscontamination classification which was referenced in Section 4. 7, is based on chlorideand COD concentrations.

Table 4.9.lb Classification of degrees of water contamination (SWECO 1997)

Water type EC* COD-Cr BOD, Cl N,~, Otherparameters

clean <UBA** <UBA <1.5 <40 <UBA <UBA oronly oneparameterslightlyexceeds UBA

slightly 90-150 UBA-100 1.5-5 100-300 UBA-10 > UBAcontaminated

contaminated 150-400 100-300 5-20 300-1000 10-70 > UBA

strongly 400-1300 300-1000 20-50 1000-3000 70-600 > UBAcontaminated

Very strongly 1300-5000 1000-6000 50-200 3000-10,000 600-10,000 > UBAcontaminated

(leachate)

Uncertain UBA-90 <UBA < UBA 40-100 < UBA < UBA(exceptsodium)

Units: all units are mg/I except for EC (micro Siemens) and COD-Cr and BOD,(mgO 2/1).

* EC = electrical conductivity** UBA = upper background of aquifer

ENVMRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAOEMENT Ti1E WORLD BANK

42

* LEGEND Scale 1;20 000>

Groundwater quality in unconfined Quaternary aquiferCoorWater Lv e CE 'm It COD-Cr,mq 0

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~la to slihtl3 000 -10 000 1 000 -6000

Groundwater qualitv in confi ed Plavinas aquiferColour Water tvve cr,rnah COD-CrtmqO.A

Snightlam inated 100 300 3D-100 lr Conta 300-1000 100-300o* nicntain-ated 1000 300o0 300-1000

f(. x \ N-v t ., 6,0- Groundwater table, m a. m.s. s.\5( / > D I 4tmj ' ^ ~~~~067 Monitoring wellA' / "~~~~~~~~~~ ~ A . Line of hydrogeochemical cross-section

Figure 4.9. Ia Ground-water contamination map

(Agraphic courtesy of SWECO).

Scale: horizontal 1:20 000vertical 1:100

SW NEA B

LEGEND

~-Groundwater level (unconfined Quaternary aquifer)

I1 Groundwater level (confined Plavinas aquifer)

f Monitoring well with filter interval

Geology

m 0 5-30

L . ±Z ' waste L.._..-.. sand L =1clay and marl [ti:: :I sandstone

L2--- ' peat I/ 1/I//IA11 silt and till 1 ]dolomite

Groundwater quality

Colour |Water type Cl-, mg/I COD-Cr, mg 02/I

0 l <40 Less than background

Slightly contamninated 100 -300 <0 I O

Contaminated 300-1000 100-300

_ Strongly contaminated 1 000 - 3 000 300 - 1 000

_ 0 Verystronglycontaminated(leachate) 3000-10000 1000-6000

-30 -3ner0n 0-10 es hn akgon

Figure 4.9. lb Hydrog,eochemical cross-section(Gu rapht lvlurte.dy of SWECO a) f

Maximum concentrations of leachate parameters in raw leachate, ground water. andsurface water are presented in Table 4.9.1c. The raw leachate data for the Getlini site

Table 4.9.lc Maximum concentrations found in leachate, contanminated groundwater, and surface water (SWECO 1997)

Parameters Units Leachate Ground Water Non-flowing Flowing surfacesurface water water (ditches/bodies (pond canals)and ditches)

EC micro Siemens 4830 1560 2920 89

dry residue mg/l 39,000 11,000 24,000 700

Na " 15,000 3900 8900 180

K " 50 24 45 7.8

Ca 220 340 190 110

Mg " 92 140 70 31

Cl " 9700 4400 6400 170

S0 4 " 120 130 110 86

Alkalinity mg HCO3JI 23,000 5800 13,000 430

N/NH4 mg/l 4500 340 950 1.7

N/NO2 0.010 0.040 0.020 0.065

N/NO3 0.10 0.73 0.20 0.60

Nl,, " 9900 1000 2000 24

Si " 23 7 23 5.7

F 1.7 1.1 1.8 0.12

S 1.0 0.48 1.6 0.07

P/P0 4 12 1.4 3.8 0.82

COD-Cr mg 02/1 5500 1300 3000 220

BOD7 mg 02/l 180 75 58 6.9

TOC mg/l . 3600 700 1900 8

Fe " 12 6 9 0.24

Al " 9.0 0.96 6.1 0.03

Zn 0.93 0.40 0.93 0.013

Cr " 7.4 0.95 7.4 0.0002

Pb " <0.1 0.007 <0.05 0.005

Cu " 0.57 0.024 0.47 0.049

Co 0.067 0.036 0.062 0.004

Cd 0.008 0.002 0.008 0.003


45

Parameters Units Leachate Ground Water Non-flowing Flowing surfacesurface waler water (ditches/bodies (pond canals)and ditches)

Hg <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

can be compared to a range of raw leachate data collected from 12, U .S. municipallandfill sites which is presented in Table 4.9.1d.

Table 4.9. Id High/low range of leachate parameters from 12 U.S. municipal landfills (fromChian, E.S.K. and F.P. DeWalle, 1976, Sanitary landfill leachates and theirtreatment, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, Proceedings of thleAmerican Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.102: pp 411431).

Parameters Concentrationsmg/l unless noted high low

EC (electrical conductivity 16,800 978in micro siemens/metre)

Na 1580 44

K 2300 35

Ca 3900 76

Mg 1140 35

Cl 2467 60.2

so, 1558 19.5

Alkalinity 3520 142

N\NH4 1028 1.4

N/NO, 0.06 below detection limit

N/NO, 10.25 0.4

COD 71,680 134

BOD, 57,000 3.9

TOC 27,700 70

Comparison of the raw leachate data in Table 4.9. 1c with those above reveal that ingeneral the Getlini values are medial to low. The exceptions are the very high valuesof sodium (Na), sulfate (SO4), alkalinity, and amnmonia (N/NH4) measured for theGetlini raw leachate. Phosphorous, which was not included as a parameter in Table4.9. Id, was also somewhat high, 12 mg/I, in the Getlini raw leachate.

SWECO also tested for anthropogenic substances such as pesticides andpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and coliform bacteria. No anthropogenic toxins orcarcinogens were detected. Coliform bacteria were detected but levels were quite low.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMEENT THE WORLD BANK

46

In summary, the data indicate that the ground water in the Quaternary aquifer has beenseverely contaminated by the leachate from the Getlini disposal site, and that the extentof the contamination will continue to spread horizontally and vertically unless remedialactions are taken. The predicted downward migration of the plume will eventuallycontaminate the Plavinas aquifer which is a regional aquifer of some importance.

SWECO characterized the raw leachate as follows:

* The nitrogen load is equivalent to untreated waste from 40,000 persons.* The BOD7 load is equivalent to untreated wastewater from 2500 persons.* The pollution load from surface runoff equivalent to runoff from highways and

industrial areas* Chemically the leachate is characterized by high levels of ammonia nitrogen,

phosphorous, organic compounds, chlorides, and iron.

The primary pollutants from the Getlini site are nutrients; no anthropogenic toxinswere detected in the contaminated ground water. While consumption of the rawleachate would be unhealthful, due to dilution the level of contamination in the groundwater does not appear to pose acute health risks to the resident population or to otherusers of the contaminated ground water. While the contamination does make the waterundesirable for human consumption, the water quality of the Quaternary aquifer in thesite vicinity has long been adversely affected by Getlini bog and has never been adesirable source of drinking water (Carl Bro 1993).

4.9.2 Surface Water Quality

No data were collected by SWECO on background surface water quality. Natural,background, surface water quality would reflect the background ground-water quality.Therefore, in the Getlini vicinity, the background surface water quality would beheavily influenced by Getlini bog and would be significantly different from surfacewater unaffected by a bog.

SWECO analyzed surface water quality in the ditches or canals adjacent to the Getlinidisposal site and the ditches which drain the area to the Daugava. The maximalconcentration data are presented above in Table 4.9.1c. The pattern of surface watercontamination in the immediate vicinity of the disposal site is mapped in Figure4.9.2a. The data indicate that the most contaminated surface water is contained in thenon-flowing water bodies, which are adjacent to the waste pile. Surface watercontaminant concentrations decline with distance from the waste site, and the ditchesdraining to the Daugava are only slightly contaminated.

It is inferred from the data that contaminated ground water is upwelling into theditches adjacent to the waste pile. These ditches are sufficiently deep to puncture thecompressed peat layer under the waste pile which functions as a leaky confining layerto some extent.

As noted in the previous section, the leachate from the disposal site has clearlycontaminated the surface water along with the ground water. However, no toxins or

ENVIRoNMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WoRLD BANx

47

Jm __ m ~~~ ~ ' ~ ' t ' 1s- 333 . 34~~'~'

.,~~~1. r \ '''X > ~p~,,r'_

p,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 0''

Sk".~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N

1/ \LEGEND9_______ ,lSurface water quality

ter2 > type mESC CFr COD-Cr, Other__________ - mg I,,. mg .I r onamtedrs

Lestan107 I~~~~clean <40 -~O~O ro~on

contaminated 60S150 100-300 3 10_____Cotamninated 150 400 30-1000 100-300 Higher thani

contM____ated_ 400 1300 11000-3000 300-1000 bcgon

-%~~ ~< r 1300-3000 3000-7000 1000-3000L

-D6 Sampling points Scale 1:20 000

Figure 4.9. 2a Map of surftwe water contamination in thevivinitv of the Getlini waste disposal site('graphic courtesy(?f SWECO).

pathogens which would form an acute threat to human health have been detected, andwhile the concentrations of contaminants measured would make the water unpleasantand undesirable for drinking purposes, limited consumption of the water should notpose an acute health risk. Furthermore, in the immediate vicinity of the site thebackground water quality is already strongly influenced by Getlini Bog and has longbeen considered undesirable for drinking purposes (Carl Bro 1993).

4.9.3 Daugava River Quality

The general water quality of the Daugava River is discussed briefly since contaminatedsurface water from the Getlini site flows to the river via drainage ditches, and the riveris proposed as the receiving water body for treated leachate from the landfill in thefuture. The data cited are 1982 Soviet COMECON data which were extracted from aEuropean Commission report: Water Supply and Sewerage in Latvian Small andMedium Sized Towns, Report 3, Investment Strategy Report, December 1993, preparedby Haecon-Halcrow. In the COMECON system rivers were classified according toprimary water quality parameters and placed in one or more of six different classeswith Class I being least polluted and Class VI being most polluted. The lowerDaugava was classified as a IV/V. The corresponding water chemistry classificationprofile for these two classes is given in Table 4.9.3a.

Table 4.9.3a COMECON Water Quality Classification Parametersfor Classes IV and V in mg/l

Class TSS Dis. 02 BOD5 COD MnO4 N/ N/ N/ P/ Cl SO4 Fe pet. PhenSlds NH4 NO2 NO3 P04 prod ols

IV <100 1000 >4 15 70 30 2 .05 10 1 300 300 5 .3 <.1

V < 200 1200 > 2 25 100 40 5 .1 20 2 500 500 10 1 > 1

COMECON defines Class IV waters as negligibly polluted and Class V waters aspolluted. Comparison of the COMECON data for the Daugava with the maximalconcentrations of contaminants (ie the worst case scenario) found at the Getlini site(Table 4.9.1c) reveal the following:

* BOD is far greater in the raw leachate, the ground water, and in the non-flowingditches than in the Daugava, but lower in the flowing ditches than in theDaugava. (')

* COD is greater in all four categories at the Getlini site than in the river.* Ammonia nitrogen is far greater for all categories at the Getlini site than in the

river except for the flowing ditches.* N/NO2 levels at the Getlini site are comparable with Class IV values but less than

Class V values.* N/NO3 levels are lower at the Getlini site than in the river.

1 Note that COMECON data is given in BOD5 whereas SWECO data in Table 4.9. le is given in BOD7 .


48

* P/P04 levels are far higher in the raw leachate than Class V values, double Class Vvalues in the non-flowing ditches, and comparable to Class IV levels in the groundwater and flowing ditches.

* Chloride (Cl) levels are far higher in the leachate, ground water, and non-flowingditches than Class V but lower in the flowing ditches than the Class IV levels.

* S04 levels are far higher in the river, presumably due to sea water intrusion.

4.10 SOILS

Soils in the vicinity of the Getlini waste disposal site are of three general types: peat,sandy (podzols), and acid loamy soils (podzoluvisols). Neither of these general soiltypes are naturally well suited for agriculture. Peat soils are typically waterlogged andrequire extensive drainage for agricultural usage. Sandy and acid loamy soils arenaturally low in fertility and require application of fertilisers.

Due to some past concern regarding levels of metals in the topsoil in the vicinity of thewaste disposal site, 20 topsoil samples were collected and analyzed for metals as partof the baseline field investigation. The soil samples were analyzed in SWECO'slaboratory using an ICP metal scan which analyzed for aluminum, lead, boron, iron,cadmium, calcium, potassium, cobalt, copper, chromium, magnesium, manganese,molybdenum, sodium, nickel, vanadium, and zinc. This investigation purposefullyreplicated the soil sample locations of the 1994 soil analyses performed by BaltecAssociates (Baltec Associates 1994) to allow comparison of results. The samplinglocations are illustrated in Figure 4. 10a. Baltec Associates analyzed for arsenic, lead,cadmium, copper, chromium, mercury, nickel, and zinc.

Tlhe results of the metal analyses are presented in Table 4. lOa. While the metalconcentrations in a number of the samples are above background levels for Latvia,only two sites exhibited concentrations above the Maximum PermissableConcentrations established by the Latvian Ministry of Health. The two sites, Nos. 5and 13, are approximately 190 metres apart. No. 5 is immediately adjacent toKrustpils Street, and No. 13 is adjacent to the railway at Rumbula station. Therelative location of the two sites would suggest that the probable source is not thewaste disposal site but vehicle exhaust at site No. 5 and possibly the railway at siteNo. 13.

Site No. 5 is the vegetable garden of the residence closest to the waste disposal siteentrance and very close to Krustpils Street (<5 m). Recorded lead, copper, and zinclevels exceed the MPC levels, and this was the only site where cobalt and molybdenumlevels over the detection limit were measured. This site is the closest of the 20 sitessampled to Krustpils Street which suggests that the primary source of metalcontamination is vehicle exhaust. Atmospheric deposition is typically the primarysource for lead in soils and is also a common pathway for copper and zinc, thoughcopper and zinc are also associated with pesticides.

At site No. 13 lead levels were just below the MPC value (31 mg/kg versus the MPCof 32 mg/kg) and zinc levels greatly exceeded the MPC. The probable source of the

ENVIRONMENTAL PRSOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

49

Figure 4.1 Oa Soil Sampling Locations (from Baltec 1994)

,~~~~~~ *-- ____i_____ -/X- -1 -W =

* .~~~~~~~k . G2~~~~~~~Cedini LandMll

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

= .\ / ~~~~~~~~~~~Scale: 1:7,500

N.

::

IN ~ ~ ~

.2.A~~~~~~9

Table 4. 1Oa Results of Metal Analyses of Soil Samuples Collected at Getlini in mg/kg dry weight.

No. Al Pb B Fe Cd Ca K Co Cu Cr Mg Mn Mo Na Ni V Zn

1 2700 11 33 1200 < 1 2700 950 < I 6.3 4.7 730 55 2.1 420 2.7 5.4 38

2 2300 20 32 950 <I 1100 410 <I 4.7 9.9 180 27 1.1 220 1.5 2.4 19

3 2600 16 28 1200 < I 1900 530 < I 8.1 5.7 370 55 1.9 170 2.4 3.6 48

4 3500 31 36 1700 < I 3300 610 < I 11 5.9 700 68 1.5 150 2.9 7.8 60

5 3700 170 41 6200 < I 15000 660 1.8 51 16 1900 360 < 1 310 5.8 16 250

6 2200 15 27 2200 < I 1300 720 < I 4.9 4.5 330 61 1.7 270 2.1 5.3 52

7 2600 12 21 1800 < I 1600 740 < I I1 5.6 300 48 < I 250 3.4 4.8 38

8 2900 <5 24 1800 <1 1500 550 <1 2.8 4.7 420 24 <1 350 3.8 6.1 11

9 3400 <5 20 1200 <1 1200 750 <1 1.9 4 330 21 <1 360 2.0 3.0 16

10 3500 13 10 2800 < l 1400 490 < 1 5.8 5.3 460 240 < 1 140 1.5 5.8 22

11 5100 23 27 2400 < 1 3600 810 < I 10 7.8 740 44 < 1 180 2.7 7.3 39

12 2800 <5 17 1200 <1 1200 390 <1 3.0 2.3 280 23 <1 430 1.2 2.7 13

13 3100 31 13 3700 < 1 6600 770 < 1 13 6.5 990 130 < 1 390 2.9 9.6 230

14 2700 6.3 16 1900 < l 1400 490 < 1 5.8 4.4 220 31 < 1 430 2.6 3.7 17

15 1900 5.7 31 1100 <1 520 510 < 1 2.4 2.8 180 23 <1 220 1.9 2.9 13

16 3200 23 17 1100 < 1 1600 590 < 1 3.6 4.7 360 21 8.5 300 2.7 5.9 42

17 1800 11 19 800 < I 1900 750 < 1 6.7 4.1 480 34 < 1 300 1.5 3.8 28

18 2600 6.4 30 1200 < 1 870 490 < I < 1 2.6 310 20 < 1 230 1.0 4.7 8

19 1900 7.8 28 830 < 1 2500 640 < 1 3.7 4.2 570 24 < 1 320 2.4 3.6 27

20 3200 6.8 26 1500 < 1 14000 720 < 1 3.3 14 7400 45 < 1 200 2.7 6.2 37

Bckg* 5-15 1.5-5 2.5-10 1.2-5 1.5-5

MPC* 32 3.0 40 100 50 150

*

* Background concentration for soils in Latvia (from Baltec Associates 1994)** Maximum Permissahle Concentrationis, Latvian Ministry of Healthi (from Baltec Associates 1994)

Table 4. lOb Results of Baltec Associates mnetals analyses in soil in the vicinlity of t/te Getlini waste disposal site, saimiples collected July

and/or August, 1994 (all data in mng/kg)

No. Date Zn Cd Pb Ni Cu Cr Hg As

1 07.19 21,08 0.18 20.77 1.44 4.04 0.23 0 0

1 08.12 37.02 0.50 14.63 3.57 6.39 1.28 0 0

2 07.19 3020 0.17 25.00 2.68 14.57 1.04 0 0

2 08.12 15.11 0.17 12.43 1.04 3.99 1.58 0 0

3 07.19 115.45 0.45 61.95 3.50 16.60 1.92 0 0

4 07.19 90.55 1.01 30.75 3.88 11.40 4.35 0 0

5 07.19 81.35 0.56 31.11 4.25 11.05 4.58 0 0

5 08.12 46.89 0.83 22.90 4.46 9.31 4.23 0 0

6 07.19 73.85 0.28 23.16 1.59 7.55 1.64 0 0

6 08.12 169.80 0.38 35.50 2.45 12.62 2.42 0 0

7 07.19 43.62 0.26 29.36 1.97 12.57 8.59 0 0

8 07.19 7.41 0.06 6.71 0.94 2.57 1.24 0 0

9 07.19 22.65 0.16 9.95 1.20 10.19 0.63 0 0

10 07.19 18.44 0.25 13.21 2.13 4.11 2.03 0 0

11 * 07.19 16.11 0.17 11.40 1.71 4.34 1.09 0 0

12 07.19 9.85 0.15 10.34 1.20 2.70 0.74 0 0

13 08.12 107.75 0.43 27.00 3.39 12.14 2.10 0 0

14 08.12 15.73 0.20 6.72 1.20 3.31 0.92 0 0

15 08.12 221.17 0.42 12.10 2.45 6.15 2.02 0 0

16 08.12 20.49 0.41 13.46 2.52 2.75 0.96 0 0

17 08.12 74.30 0.34 11.49 1.76 3.94 0.88 0 0

18 08.12 28.52 0.31 14.05 2.09 4.77 0.93 0 0

19 08.12 47.22 0.80 25.40 5.72 8.26 1.67 0 0

20 08.12 26.38 0.33 18.96 2.22 6.96 2.42 0 0

MPC 150 3.0 32 50 40 100 2.0 2.1

Bolded valties exceed Maximum Permitted Concentrations (MPC) established hy Latvian Ministry of Health

metal concentrations at site No. 13 is less clear, but immediate proximity to therailway suggest the railway as a source.

The Baltec topsoil data are presented in Table 4.10b. There are significant differencesbetween the Baltec data and the new data presented in Table 4. 10a. The reasons forthe differences in the results between the two studies is not known, but it seems mostlikely that they are an artifact of different sampling methodologies and possibly a resultof laboratory equipment differences. The new samples were collected using acomposite method wherein five samples were collected from a 25 m2 area, from adepth not exceeding 25 cm, and carefully mixed and then quartered to produce one, 1kg sample. The 1 kg samples were hand carried to an accredited Swedish laboratorywhere metal scans were performed on an ICP (Inducted Coupled Plasma equipment).The exact collection methodology employed in the Baltec Associates study is notknown. The collector has departed from Latvia and could not be reached. However,the markedly different results obtained in the Baltec Associates study for the replicatesamples at sites 1, 2, 5, and 6 suggests that individual samples were collected fromslightly different locations and that there may have been variations in concentrationsacross the site. This is supported by the fact that at the four locations where sampleswere collected on two different occasions (Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6), the results variedsignificantly. The Baltec samples were analyzed in Latvia by the Raziba Laboratory ofthe Ministry of Agriculture. The provenance of the Ministry of Agriculture laboratoryis unknown, but the Swedish laboratory is an accredited, very modern laboratoryutilizing state of-the-art equipment. Hence, there is a great deal of confidence in thenew soil data results.

Despite the differences in methods and results, the Baltec Associates data have onlyfour instances where measured values exceeded Maximum Permissable Concentrations(zinc at Nos. 6 and 15, and lead at Nos. 3 and 6). The distribution of the sites,however, offers no obvious explanation for the higher concentrations.

4.11 ECOLOGY

The description of baseline ecological conditions in the vicinity of the Getlini disposalsite is based on literature and field surveys conducted by field ecologists from theLatvian Fund for Nature (Otars Opermanis, zoologist, and Ivars Kabucis, botanist)during September 1996.

The landfill is within 12 kilometres of the centre of Riga and the southeastern edge ofRiga lies just to the south. Several small municipalities and numerous villages lie tothe north and south. The town of Salaspils, population 15,000, lies 4 km to thesoutheast. Hence, the region surrounding the Getlini site has been subjected toextensive anthropogenic impacts for centuries. Traditionally the dominant land usewas agriculture on arable lands and grazing, forestry, and hunting on the moremarginal areas. During the Soviet period a number of industrial facilities and a majorthermal power plant were constructed in the immediate vicinity, bogs and wetlandswere extensively drained, and a major hydropower dam was constructed on theDaugava River several kilometres to the east of the Getlini disposal site.


53

4.11.1 Habitats

The 87 hectare disposal site territory has little value for flora or fauna due to its highlydisturbed condition. The species observed and recorded on the site are commonspecies characteristic of sites frequently disturbed by human activities or recentlyabandoned.

The surroundings, especially Getlini bog and to a lesser extent the adjacent woodlands,are relatively more valuable in terms of habitat. Getlini bog is a large raised(ombrotrophic) bog; however, bogs and other wetlands are common in Latvia due tothe northern latitude and glacial history. Furthermore, much of Getlini Bog has beendisturbed by extensive peat mining operations. Fifteen distinct habitats/land use-covertypes were identified in the site vicinity (see Figure 4.11. la). All of the plantcommunity types are common in Latvia and none were considered significant in anyway (e.g., age, disturbance history, protected species habitat). None of the habitats orplant communities are considered significant or unusual in terms of Latvianbiodiversity nor deemed worthy of special protection or conservation by the LatvianFund for Nature. The Latvian Fund for Nature is currently inventorying the habitatsof Latvia under the European Unions CORINE Biotopes Project. None of the criticalor significant habitats identified under this program occur in the Getlini waste disposalsite area.

4.11.2 FZora

No protected plant species occur within landfill site. However, one protected plantspecies, Lycopodium annotinum, occurs in the ground layer of the birch forest blockimmediately adjacent to the disposal site (see Figure 4. 11.la). This species is listed inthe 1985 Red Data Book published by the Latvian SSR Academy of Sciences. Thisonce common species has declined in recent decades due to extensive harvesting formedicinal and decorative purposes.

4.11.3 Fauna

One protected species (according to the 1985 Red Data Book), the Rhinoceros beetle(Oryctes nasicornis), has been recorded on the actual disposal site. However, thisrecord consist of a single siting of a single individual and was considered a randomoccurrence and of no great significance in terms of the species. 0)

An additional three protected species, again according to the Red Data Book, havebeen recorded in the vicinity of the site. These include Wood sandpiper (Tringatotanus), Great shrike (Lanius excubitor), and Eagle owl (Bubo bubo).

The Wood sandpiper has been observed in wetland ponds adjacent to Rumbula railwaystation during migration. This species breeds farther to the north and passes throughLatvia during spring and fall.

>" The Red Data Book infonnation is being revised and updated, and a number of the species listed in 1985 version wiDl be deleted as aresult of more recent studies.


54

Maip habitat types in surroundings of Getliniwaste disposal area and record sites of protected species

Legendi Waste disposal area

OM t_Individual farms* Gardening co-operatives

PondsLakes130gsPeat e%cavationWetlandsGrasslands

(V¶ JA Ruderal placesPine forests on peat soilPine forests on sand soilBirch-pine forestsBirch forestsSalix scrub

/ .IRdilroadRo_tds with asphalt coverRoads without asphalt cover

// 'Wide irrigation ditchesN.arrow irrigation ditches

Records of protected species:

y 12 (hy-e.trsi iii. was louu,,d i, th.e p-iphe,V vt1-w-sle di.ps's.l sit, It is imnp-,il,t,' to is e,sljly

s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~55 -jla. cits lUn<:e I3 (1(croid

_ 1 ._ I n,,us, xccgbjis, , (cth s a o bses6ec ,s, the cents t

! AobesI,t,s,. Ge|tI,;: 9wls lessil-oy vt Fgic Owl tiescsi s,.. ' ntlit, 2 5 k,,,d NE hof,. the w-sle dispesol'csss. -t,eefo,e ,s.rle Itse cztcthes,c,t 0i t11 *'lz1'

Scal" I 1((1000

Figure 411. Ia Getini %asie dispo.sasite ittw maop (by

Otarn Opermanis4.

The Great shrike's breeding and wintering habitat are raised bogs such as Getlini Bog.This species is a rare breeder and an uncommon winter resident, but a pair has beenrecorded nesting in Getlini bog in recent years.

A nesting pair of Eagle owls was recorded 2.5 km east of the site from 1989 through1992. Unconfirmed records indicate that there is now an additional breeding pair inthe Getlini area. It is possible the owls feed on the large rodent population at thewaste disposal site, hence their nesting in the vicinity. However, this species has beenincreasing in numbers in recent years.

Detailed listings of flora and fauna species are presented in the field survey report inAnnex D.

4.12 AIR QUAUTY

There are no existing data on air quality (eg dust, odour, SO,, NO,) in the Getliniarea, but qualitative information and the nature of potential impacts indicate that suchdata is unnecessary.

The overall background air quality of the area is perceived to be good, characteristicof a rural-suburban area. However, as in other former Soviet republics a significantportion of industry has ceased operating since independence. Hence, existingconditions may sharply contrast with conditions 5 or more years ago. Thisphenomenon has been particularly pronounced in the area of air quality.

The prevailing wind direction is from the north-west. Under these wind conditionsairborne pollutants from the landfill could impinge upon the residences at the easternextent of the disposal site.

The local sources of air emissions include the following:

e a power station 4 kilometres northwest of Getlini;* dust and fuel combustion emissions from vehicles using local roads;* dust and odour from the waste disposal site;* fuel combustion emissions from the nearby Riga-Daugavpils Railway;*- local peat burning; and* tyre burning in Salaspils Pagast.

The power station burns natural gas and is unlikely to have a significant negativeinfluence on air quality.

Air emissions from the site and access road may impact local residents, particularlyduring dry weather and unfavourable conditions, when dust/particulate emissions canbe generated in large quantities and transported over significant distances. The mainsources of dust emissions from the site are the movement of waste collection vehiclesalong external and internal haul routes, and the deposition and levelling of waste at thetipping area.

ENvmRONMENTAL RESOURCES M"AAEMENT Ths WoRID BANK

56

Many local residents highlighted that they had respiratory problems and complained ofemissions of odour and dust from passing waste collection vehicles. Following thecessation of open-burning of waste at the site, residents have noticed a significanrimprovement in air quality. The ceasing of the waste pile fires was a major factorinfluencing the perception of improved operations at the site among the local residents.It is also possible that any respiratory ailments may have been resulted from formerSoviet times when many of the local industries were operating.

Other source of emissions did not appear during site visits to be significantcontributors to air quality surrounding the Getlini site. Although site managementhighlighted the presence of local peat burning and tyre burning, no visual evidence ofthese practices could be seen. It is possible, however, that emissions from thesesources increase during winter months.

4.13 TRAFFIC

The principal roads that run close to the Getlini site are Krustpils Street, the direct andonly access road to the site, and the A6 (the Riga-Daugavpils Highway), whichKrustpils Street adjoins approximately 4 kilometres west of the site.

Krustpils Street is in a good state of repair, and is predominantly used as an accessroad to the Getlini site. The road is 6-8 metres wide, and is of sufficient width tocomfortably allow two way flow of landfill-related traffic. Krustpils Street alsoprovides the primary egress to the local residences and the northern access to theRumbula rail station and adjacent community.

The A6 is the major south-eastern radial route out of Riga City. Traffic on the A6comprises a mixture of private and commercial vehicles. Traffic counts were carriedout during the field visit on both of the above roads. The results of these trafficcounts are presented in Table 4.13a below.

Table 4.13a Vehicle movement counts per hour by vehicle type at severallocations

Location, time and Waste trucks Light vehicles* Heavy vehicles** Total movementsdate

Intersection of the 84 336 60 480A6 and KrustpilsSt., 13:25, 23 Oct.

Krustpils St., 100 16 0 11613:45, 23 Oct.

Krustpils St., 32 20 0 5215:15, 25 Oct.

Getlini Gate, 56 8 0 6415:00, 25 Oct.' Light vehicles included cars, 4-wheel drive vehicles, vans and microbuses. and small commercial vehicles

Heavy vehicles included trucks and other heavy vehicles but did not include waste trucks travelling to the disposal site


57

Getlini-2, Ltd figures for daily truck volume at the landfill are:

* a peak of 700 (1400 movements);* an average of 500 (1000 movements);* a low of 200 (400 movements).

The field traffic count data for waste trucks presented in Table 4.13a above support theGetlini-2, Ltd data. The peak rate recorded in the field on 23 October was 100 wastetrucks/hour which equates to 1200 waste truck movements per day assuming the rate isconstant over a 12 hour day. The lowest rate recorded in the field was 32 wastetrucks/hour which is 384 movements per day.

4.14 NOISE

A noise survey was carried out by ERM during September 1996. Measurements weremade between 1300 and 1500 hours on Wednesday 23rd September, and a furthermeasurement taken at one key location between 1500 and 1600 hours on Friday 25thSeptember 1996 (see Table 4.14a). Even though the main set of measurements wastaken during typical lunch hours, on that particular day the there was no obviousdifference in traffic flows compared to other times of the day. Indeed the traffic flowsalong the access road, and the number of vehicles entering the site during the secondtime of measurement, was considerably lower than during the previous measuredperiod.

Weather conditions were favourable during the initial measurement period, with norain and only very light winds. On the second day there was a slight rain, althoughnot sufficient to severely affect noise readings.

Noise measurements were taken from four locations as follows:

* Location I - at the tipping face, approximately 5-10 metres from the tippingactivities;

* Location 2 - site reception area, approximately 5-10 metres from the weighbridgeand gatehouse, and 300 metres from the tipping face;

* Location 3 - at the nearest noise sensitive receiver (residence) to the site accessroad (Krustpils Street), approximately 6 metres from the roadside;and

* Location 4 - at the nearest noise sensitive receptor (residence) to the tipping face,approximately 500 metres from the active area, and a similardistance from Krustpils Street.

All measurement locations were in free-field conditions, approximately 1.5 m aboveground level. Locations 1, 2 and 4 had unobstructed views to the tipping face,

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WoRL[ BANK

58

although Location 3 was surrounded by 50 metres thickness of conifer trees,obstructing views to the tipping face and site reception area.

Recordings of various indices of noise level (LAN. period LAIO, LAS-, LA9 and LAMa. tsiowil

were taken with a CEL 393B precision integrating sound level meter. The calibrationof the meter was checked with a pistonphone prior to conducting the survey.

Table 4.14a Baseline Noise Levels (dB)

Location Time L., LA, LA, LAIO LA.. Dominant Noise sources

1 13:25 81 68 75 85 95 Unloading waste collection vehicles,

bulldozer, people

2 13:45 67 51 61 71 86 Waste collection vehicles, gatehousecontrol activities

3 (Weds) 14:00 59 44 49 63 73 Vehicles along road, garden farming

(Friday) 15:15 54 40 45 56 70 Vehicles along road, garden farming

4 14:20 44 35 41 53 80 Farm animals


59

5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The Getlini disposal site has been used as a waste disposal site for Riga city and thesurrounding areas since the early 1970's. The site has been operated as a dumpwithout benefit of modern sanitary landfill practices. Environmental pollutionconsisting primarily of shallow ground-water contamination has occurred. The projectproposes to remediate environmental pollution and modernize the Getlini site tointernational best practice standards. The key elements of the project proposal aredescribed in this chapter. The description of the proposed works is based on thefeasibility study prepared by SWECO (SWECO 1997). The objectives of thefeasibility study were to:

* identify a least cost solution to remediate the existing waste pile at Getlini in orderto ensure that a future contamination of the ground-water aquifers can be avoided;

- verify the actual ground-water quality in the Quatemary, Plavinas, and Amatasaquifers;

* estimate the geotechnical situation and waste composition, and estimate theextractable landfill gas from gas composition information;

* verify the conceptual model concerning leachate flow inside the existing waste pileas elaborated by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology; and

* develop a solution for future operation of the Getlini site based on: (i) normalsanitary landfilling technology; and (ii) utilizing biodegradation of the organic drysolids and sequestering of the methane to replace fossil fuels in nearby boilerhouses.

This chapter describes the engineering works proposed in the feasibility study pursuantto the above objectives which are the basis for the following chapter on PotentialImpacts and their Significance. For more detail regarding the project engineering andrelated issues refer to SWECO's Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design ofRemediation and Continued Operation of the Getlini Disposal Site, Laivia, FinalReport, January 1997.

5.2 CONTAINMENT AND CONTROL OF LEACHATE AND LEACHATE PLUME

SWECO has defined the following conceptual program for remediating the ground-water contamination problem at Getlini. While extensive investigations wereperformed, this was a feasibility study only; additional investigations and engineeringwill be required during the detailed engineering phase to finalize the program.

ENVIRONmENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WoRLD BANK

60

5.2.1 Covering

The existing waste pile is not covered by any material, daily or otherwise. This haspermitted maximum infiltration of precipitation and therefore maximum generation ofleachate. In the project proposal the waste pile will be covered with natural soilmaterials and to a lesser extent composted and inert materials to be derived from theproposed energy cells. SWECO has specified a 0.5 metre thick covering consisting oftwo layers: a base layer of clay and sandy loam 0.3 metres in thickness with apermeability of less than 1.1 x 10 9 metres/second covered by a 0.2 metre layer of sandand gravel and site material. The design objective for the cover is to reduce theestimated infiltration rate from 96 mm/yr or to 60 mm/yr or by 38%, or in terms ofdaily leachate production to reduce production from 94 ml/day to 58 m3/day, also areduction of 38%. This represents a significant reduction in leachate production andshould also cause a reduction in the hydraulic head of the leachate mound within thewaste pile, which in turn should reduce the driving force of the plume. Furthermore,the flow rate in the Quaternary aquifer is estimated at 250 m3/day. Under existingconditions this very large flow dilutes the raw leachate resulting in significantly lowerconcentrations of contaminants in the plume relative to the raw leachate. Thepredicted 38% reduction in leachate loading to the surface aquifer will further enhancethis dilutive effect resulting in reduced contaminant concentrations in the plume.

5.2.2 Leachate Collecton at Edge of Existing Waste Pile

Hydrogeological modelling indicates that the quantity of leachate emanating from thelandfill can be significantly reduced by installing and pumping two low volume wellsat specific locations in the north and south ditches adjacent to the site. The wellswould be installed at a depth below the contaminant plume, approximately 10 metresbelow the surface, and pumped at a rate of 5 litres/second. The pumpage, whichwould consist of leachate mixed with clean ground water, would be piped to the on siteSequenced Batch Reactor leachate treatment facility for treatment prior to discharge tothe Daugava River (see Leachate Treatment and Containment at New Landfill Cells andDischarge of Treated Water to the Daugava below). This provision should have theadded benefit of reducing leachate flow into the ditch network.

This program of capping and extraction of contaminated ground water at the sourceprovides a practical and cost effective means to abate contamination of the Quaternarysurface aquifer and to significantly reduce the potential for future contamination of theunderlying Devonian aquifers (Plavinas and Amata). Given the extent of the plumeand the concentrations of contaminants in the raw leachate and the plume, the positiveimpact of this remediation effort on future ground-water contamination is expected tobe significant. The collection of leachate emanating from the edges of the waste pileshould also have a positive impact on surface water quality in the ditches on thewestern and southern edges of the site.

It is well documented that biodegradation of municipal waste under un-enhancedconditions takes place over 25 to 35 years over which time production of contaminatedleachate gradually ceases. The above program is designed to abate leachate productionand control the movement of the contaminant plume emanating from the existing waste


61

mound for the near future. As leachate production declines the rate of pumping maybe reduced and ultimately cease entirely. Hence, continual monitoring of leachate andground-water chemistry will be an essential component of this remediation program.

5.2.3 Leachate Collection and Treatment at New Landfill Cells

Future waste management at the site will utilize energy cell technology and aSequenced Batch Reactor leachate treatment plant to treat the leachate prior toreleasing the effluent to the Daugava River as follows.

A series of cells will be created at the southeastern portion of the site and ultimatelyadditional cells may be constructed on the surface of the existing waste pile. The cellswill be of sufficient volume to hold approximately six months waste. The bottom ofthe cell will be compacted and sealed with clay or equivalent to sufficient standards toprevent infiltration (specific details are not included in feasibility study, but are to beincluded in detailed engineering studies) and engineered to collect leachate. Anyleachate generated during the filling period will be pumped to the leachate treatmentplant. Once the cell is filled and closed, collected leachate will be continuouslyrecirculated through the cell and when necessary heated to a temperature optimal forbacterial growth. This will serve to partially treat the leachate. At the end of theenergy generation period, the leachate will treated in the SBR and ultimately releasedto the Daugava River. This operation should prevent any discharges of untreatedleachate to the environment and therefore have a significant positive impact.

5.2.4 CoUection and Treatment of Surface Runoff

Under existing conditions surface runoff from the uncovered waste pile, haul roads,and paved areas entrains particulate matter, oil and gas, various waste liquids, and to alesser extent leachate. This runoff is presently uncontrolled. SWECO proposes tocollect runoff through an engineered system of surface drainage ditches which will belined or compacted such that the water cannot infiltrate into the ground and will notmix with more contaminated surface waters or raw leachate. The collection ditcheswill drain to a two stage settling ponds for treatment prior to release to the Daugava.

5.2.5 Discharge of Treated Water to the Daugava

In the feasibility study SWECO discusses the complexity of leachate chemistry,evaluates treatment options, and recommends biological treatment as the preferredoption for treatment of raw leachate and strongly contaminated ground water. Thisrecommendation is based on cost/benefit and operational complexity issues. Thespecific type of biological treatment recommended is a Sequenced Batch Reactor. Atwo stage settling pond system is recommended for surface runoff because contaminantlevels are anticipated to be quite low. The recommended approach is discussed in thecontext of environmental and water quality objectives for the Daugava, Riga Gulf, andthe Baltic Sea. Estimated composition and future, annual pollutant loadings from therehabilitated Getlini landfill were developed and are presented in Table 5.2.5a.SWECO recommends that the treatment program should focus on nutrients and


62

Table 5.2.5a Estimated future pollutant loadings from leachate and surface runoff water (SWECO1997)

Parameter Leachate water Surface runoffmg/l tonnes/yr mg/l tonnes/yr

CODc, 1600 500 150 8

BOD, 200 63

Total nitrogen 600 190 2.5 0.1

Ammonia nitrogen 590 186

Total phosphorous 5 1.6 1 0.05

Suspended solids 500 27

organics, specifically total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, and total phosphorous, given the existingeutrophication problems in the Baltic Sea. SWECO's suggested treatment efficiencies are given in Table5.2.5b. These treatment efficiencies are considered by SWECO to be economically

Table 5.2.5b Suggested treatment effwiencies (SWECO 1997)

Parameter Untreated leachate Treated leachate Reduction (%)mg/I tonnes/yr mg/l tonnes/yr

BOD7 200 60 25 4 88

Total nitrogen 600 190 450 25

Ammonia 590 185 60 19 90nitrogen

Total 5 16 1 0.2 83phosphorous

and technologically feasible and sufficient to achieve water quality objectives for theRiver Daugava, Riga Gulf, and the Baltic Sea. The Daugava is a large river with anaverage flow of 600 m3/second (Carl Bro 1993), however the river is polluted andreduction of nutrient loadings is a major environmental management objective.

SWECO's study is a feasibility study only, and specifics as to the volumes andchemistry of effluent discharge and the assimilative capacity of the Daugava in termsof water quality and hydrology were not carried out. These analyses are to beperformed under the detailed engineering study. Hence, the potential environmentalimpact of the effluent discharge from the Getlini site can not really be determined atthis time. SWECO has endorsed an approach based on total annual loads so that theimpact of the proposed loads from the landfill can be evaluated relative to the totalloads in the river. However, the Latvian regulations for effluent discharge are basedon concentration limits from the former Soviet Union water quality regulations ratherthan annual loadings. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and RegionalDevelopment has stated that the effluent must meet the existing standards. Thesestandards are generally considered unrealistically high in the European Union, and

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WoRto BANK

63

meeting the standards will not necessarily ensure that here will be no impact. TheWorld Bank has traditionally insisted that the local standards be met or exceeded.Given that one of the primary goals of the project is enviromnental enhancement, it isassumed that a realistic compromise between the current Latvian standards andinternational best practice for leachate treatment will be reached such that the landfilleffluent will not have an adverse impact on the water quality of the Daugava, the Gulfof Riga, or the Baltic Sea.

5.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING

SWECO's waste management proposals are described below. SWECO's basicapproach is to consider the waste delivered to the site as a resource both for potentialincome realized from recycling materials of value as well as the production of methanegas and compost from the enforced decomposition of the organic fragment.

5.3.1 Waste Stream

Getlini receives approximately 205,000 tonnes of municipal waste and 45,000 tones ofindustrial waste annually. Presently, the bulk of the industrial waste consists ofconcrete rubble and other inert materials, not hazardous waste. The dry substance ofthe municipal waste is estimated to be 62%. The corresponding organic content isestimated to be 39% of the total waste (or 63% of dry substance). Of the organiccontent, 62% is considered to be biodegradable (or 24% of the total weight). Thesedata are from SWECO (1997).

5.3.2 General Site Management

SWECO's proposals for the site include detailed recommendations for modernizing thesite including:

* controlled site access through fencing the site and controlling access at the gate

* relocation and upgrading of the gate with new weigh bridges

* upgraded waste registration at gate

* construction and/or remodelling of new staff/administration buildings with sanitaryfacilities, etc.

Specific waste management technologies proposed are discussed below.

5.3.3 Waste Separation

Source separation is the most efficient form of waste separation. Source separation hasbeen experimented with in Riga but is not feasible in the near future. Hence, whileSWECO recommends source separation as a future objective, the feasibility studyassumes that separation will take place at Getlini for at least the near term.

ENVIRONMEENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

64

SWECO proposes that incoming waste be examined and divided into three categories:unsorted domestic waste, unsorted industrial waste, and sorted waste/material and thenbe delivered to pre-determined areas of the site.

Domestic waste will then be sorted by a combination of machinery for heavy objectsand a picking belt for the remainder. The picking belt will be approximately I metrewide and 2 metres above ground and move at a velocity of 15 metres/minute.Workers will stand along each side of the belt and be organized into 6 person teamsresponsible for different categories of waste (eg glass, plastic, metals, wood) whichthey will pick and throw into bins or containers underneath the belt.

Industrial waste will be sorted by excavators equipped with gripping devices. Thedrivers will place the sorted material into specific piles or containers. After sorting,the recovered material will be transported to specific areas for treatment and storage.Inert material will be disposed of at the landfill. Other material categories will bedelivered to appropriate disposal sites. SWECO proposes that in general no hazardouswastes mixed with other wastes should be received at Getlini. However, the landfillmust have the capability to temporarily store any hazardous waste inadvertentlyreceived. A hazardous waste landfill is under development in southern Latvia, and anyhazardous waste collected at Getlini would be shipped to the proper facility.

SWECO also plans a recovery area for voluntary public use. In this area privatepersons or small enterprises will be encouraged to sort their waste into a series ofmarked bins. This voluntary sorting may be encouraged through a reduced tipping feesystem.

5.3.4 Landfilling and Gas Production

Landfill gas will be produced from both the old waste pile and from new landfill,energy cells.

A series of gas wells will be installed in the old waste pile to extract gas. These wellswill be pumped and the extracted gas will be piped to a compressor facility which willthen direct the gas to end users. End users may be both internal (the Getlini facility)or external (commercial enterprises, boiler houses for district heating). SWECOestimates that 200 million m3 of gas with a methane content of 50-55 % can beextracted over the next 15 years from the existing waste pile.

Future landfilling and gas production will be accomplished with energy cells. Energycells are essentially conventional, modem landfill cells with compacted bottoms toprevent leachate infiltration. Energy cells differ from conventional landfill cells in thatafter filling and covering, the biodegradation of the waste is accelerated or enforced byrecycling leachate through the cell. The leachate is heated to maintain temperaturesoptimum for bacterial decomposition inside the cell (approximately 37 degreesCentigrade). At Getlini, the cells will be 95 x 180 metres and are sized to containapproximately 6 months of waste based on the existing waste stream. The gasproduction and landfilling process is summarized as follows.


65

After the sorting process described above, the waste will travel by conveyor to ashredder, to maximize surface area of the waste, and then to the energy cell byadditional conveyors. The deposited waste is spread in the energy cell by machinervwhich also serves to sufficiently compact the waste. Depending on managementobjectives, the cell may be filled vertically or horizontally. The cell is covered afterfilling with fine till or other suitable material and then compacted to prevent infiltrationand insulate the cell. After filling and covering, two series of perforated steel pipesare installed from the upper surface: one for leachate injection and one for gasextraction.

In order to reach maximum decomposition rates and gas production, the followingconditions must be met:

* the refuse is shredded* the relationship between available carbon and nitrogen is about 60/1 or less* the refuse moisture is high* pH is about 7* heat is added for control of the cell temperature

SWECO estimates that the fully operational cell system will produce approximately 26million ml of gas per year with a methane content of 50-55 %. These calculations arebased on gas extracting operations for the period 1999 to 2020.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAOEMENT THE WORLD BANK

66

6 OUTCOME OF PROJECT CONSULTATIONS

This section describes the measures taken to inform stakeholders about the project. toreceive their opinions and to build their concerns into project design. It also describeshow the consultation and disclosure process will continue, after the submission of thisreport, throughout the life of the project.

6.1 CONSULTATION ACTIVITiES

Background

As described in Section 4.3, World Bank involvement in developing options forMunicipal Solid Waste Disposal in and around Riga dates back to 1993. At that timeit was determined that consultations about the siting and operation of a new wastedisposal facility in Latvia would be more effective if stakeholders were instructed inthe basic principals of modem sanitary landfill design. In 1995, therefore, the Banksponsored a series of measures aimed at increasing awareness of the nature of sanitarylandfill. Briefing articles were distributed in the national press, a video film wasdubbed into the local language and shown at public meetings, a group was taken on atour of a Swedish landfill site and a number of television discussions and follow-upnewspaper reports ensued. Although the primary stakeholders for this remediationproject are different, many of the secondary (institutional) stakeholders are unchanged,with a result that the understanding of the project and the ability to communicate thisto the general public, is much improved over the situation in 1995.

Identification of Stakeholders

Key stakeholders include:

* all people living or working on, or around the site whose environment or socio-economic situation might be affected as a result of project activities;

* those public sector bodies with responsibilities directly relating to, or affected bythe proposed activities;

* NGOs whose areas of interest or expertise include areas and/or amenities potentiallyaffected by the proposed activities;

* private sector organisations whose commercial activities may be affected by theproposed activities.

A Social Assessment was carried out (fully reported in Section 4.5) to identify keystakeholder groups. Particular attention was paid to identifying those members of thegeneral public whose environment or social situation might be materially affected orwho had well-founded cause (in the light of previous waste disposal practice in Latvia)


67

to worry that this might be the case. Vulnerable stakeholders are defined in. Section4.4 and listed in Figure 4.5a,

Consultation with Stakeholders

The consultation process will continue as the project cycle unfolds, particularly withregard to the implementation of mitigation measures. Each type of stakeholder groupwas approached in the manner deemed to be most effective at imparting the necessaryinformation and receiving background information and comments, as follows:

* The public authorities and the current Getlini 2 management were consulted througha series of meetings with the Bank Task Manager, the EA consultants (ERM) andthe engineers undertaking the feasibility study (SWECO). The inception (scoping)EA report and the draft report were made available for their review and comment.

* NGOs were briefed through a series of meetings conducted by ERM and BalticData House during the summer and fall of 1996 at which the purpose and projectedoutcome of the project were described. They proved to be very knowledgeableregarding new developments due to their continued monitoring of the project andexpressed no significant concerns.

* A random sample of the population living on and around the site was interviewed aspart of the Social Assessment, and as it became apparent that a key impact wouldbe the effect on semi-formal workers and informal waste/food pickers at the site,samples of both groups were interviewed. In addition a series of public meetingswas held (25 May, 26 October, and 14 December 1996) to explain the project,report progress and receive comments. A summary of the outcome of each ofthese, plus notes from meetings with NGOs, is included at Annex E.

6.2 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION

Waste disposal in Latvia has until now been at surface dumps which have been poorlyregulated and operated. As the largest waste disposal site in the country, Getlini inparticular became associated with readily apparent environmental problems such aslitter, vermin, odours, and smoke from chronic fires, along with the suspectedpollution of surface and sub-surface waters.

The operational improvements instituted by Getlini-2 management have been changingthis perception, even as project preparation proceeds. In addition projectcommunications have been successful at imparting the environmental remediationaspects of the proposed activities. In general, therefore, stakeholders accept that theproposals do not threaten physical damage to the environment, but rather will bringfurther improvements, and key environmental NGOs have declared that they have noconcerns (see Annexes B and E). The substantive concerns that remain may besummarised as follows:


68

* The Ministries of Finance and Environment have been concerned about theownership arrangements of the landfill. The issue is that the institution which holdsthe controlling ownership must be viable and capable of assuming responsibility fortaking and servicing the World Bank loan.

* The semi-formal workers around the site wish to maintain their source of income.

* The informal waste/food pickers fear loss of even this poor means of sustenance.

* Residents around the site are concerned that semi-formal workers and informalwaste/food pickers seeking access to the site are liable to trespass on their propertyand may cause damage or commit theft.

* Residents sharing access roads with the waste trucks wonder if there may beincreased traffic volume leading to congestion.

* Owners of land around the site have speculated that run-off from the site may in thepast have contaminated soil, leading to the pollution of their market garden producealong with miscellaneous general fears of adverse environmental effects of the wastedisposal site.

All these issues are fully addressed in Section 7 along with the remainder of potentialimpacts.

6.3 FUTURE CONSULTATION AND DiSCLOSURE ACTIVITIES

To ensure that stakeholders continue to be fully informed about and have theopportunity to comment on aspects of implementation that affect them the followingfuture activities will be carried out as part of the Bank's project preparation orincluded in the Environmental Management Plan to be carried out by the engineeringcontractors responsible for project implementation (see Chapter 8).

* full disclosure of the EA report, ie announcement in a newspaper that the report isavailable and its being made available for public review and comment;

* press releases to local newspapers before the start of engineering works andactivities likely to cause temporary nuisance;

* consultation with affected groups and their representatives on the implementation ofmitigation measures;

* establishment of a facility for dealing with queries/complaints during engineeringworks.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEmENT THE WORLD BANK

69

7 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This section provides preliminary assessment of the potential positive and adverseimpacts resulting from the remediation and continued operation of the Getlini wastedisposal site, the adequacy of the proposals included in the feasibility study, thepotential significance of the impacts of the project, and recommended mitigationmeasures. Since the project proposes to remedy past environmental degradation manyof the predicted impacts are positive in terms of the local environment.

It should be noted that the basis of this report is the feasibility study (SWECO 1997); adetailed engineering design has not been initiated. Therefore potential issues/impactscan not be quantified at this time. This report seeks to indicate the types of impactsexpected and the types of mitigation measures likely to be necessary. This informationwill guide the detailed engineering design at which time impacts should be reassessedto determine whether additional mitigation is necessary. After the detailed engineeringdesign is completed, a revised environmental management plan should be producedcontaining a timetable, quantities, and practical proposals for implementation.

A summary of mitigation measures along with additional recommended environmentalmanagement and monitoring measures are presented in Section 8.

Key issues/impacts were identified in consultation with stakeholders during a scopingexercise from August to September 1996. The results were published in an InceptionReport dated September 1996. The issues/impacts which will be addressed in thissection have been divided into eight areas:

* social, socio-economic and cultural;* hydrogeology, hydrology and water quality;v health and safety;* air quality;* noise;* ecology;*. off-site traffic; and* visual/landscape.

7.2 SOCIAL, SOcIo-EcoNoMic AND CULTURAL

This subsection discuses the potential impacts associated with the remediation andcontinued operation of the Getlini landfill, their significance, and proposed orrecommended mitigation measures. Social, socio-economic and cultural impacts mayresult from the effect the project has on land ownership, employment opportunities,income levels and access to recreational facilities or cultural sites. As this projectinvolves the remediation and modernization of an existing waste disposal site, impacts

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT TIE WORlD BANK

70

associated with new landfill development were not necessarily applicable. However.the following categories of potential impacts were identified on the basis of typicalimpacts associated with landfill development, the scope of the proposed projectactivities, the findings of the Social Assessment (Section 4.5), and the consultations(Chapter 6):

* resettlement of population directly displaced by the landfill;* loss or disruption of land in productive use;* creation of formal employment opportunities;* loss of semi-formal waste worker employment opportunities;* loss of waste/food picking opportunities;* effect on local recreational and cultural activities.

7.2.1 Resettlement of Population Directly Displaced by the Landfill

Impact

There are no houses or permanent dwellings located within the proposed site boundary,nor are there any inhabitants in informal dwellings on-site. The proposed project doesnot involve an expansion of the footprint of the site into surrounding areas, only moreeffective utilisation of the available land. Nor will new access roads or off-sitefacilities be required. As a consequence there will be no displacement of population asa result of the project.

Mitigation.

No mitigation measures are required.

7.2.2 Loss or Disruption of Land in Productive Use

Impact

The only areas of the existing site in productive use are those needed for landfilling ofwaste and associated materials recovery activities. Productive land uses in the vicinityof the site include peat harvesting and vegetable gardening. As there will be noextension of the site footprint as a result of the proposed development, ie no expansiononto surrounding lands, there will be no disruption to these productive land uses as aresult of the project proposals.

Mitigation


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT TRE WORLD BANK

71

7.2.3 Formal Employment

Impact

The local economy of Getlini village and surroundings is rural/suburban in characterand there are few employment opportunities. Interviews with residents revealed thatmany non-pensioner residents comnmute into Riga for their employment.

Hence, the Getlini disposal site represents a significant centre of employment andincome with approximately 90 formal employees and an additional 150 or so semi-formal workers per day on average. The majority of these employment opportunitieshave been created over the last two years as a result of Getlini-2 Ltd revenuegeneration initiatives, in particular the recovery and sale of recyclable components ofthe waste stream.

Recycling is central to all of the existing operations, and it is useful to think of theGetlini site as a thriving and competitive materials recovery and recycling enterprise aswell as a disposal site for residual wastes. The proposals for remediation andcontinued operation of the facility are intended to provide additional potential forrevenue generation (from landfill gas utilisation), increased efficiency (from moresystematised operations), and enviromnental benefits (through site remediation andimproved environmental management). An overall change in numbers of formal (long-term) employees is not, however, anticipated according to the feasibility study(SWECO 1997).

The remediation and continued operation of the Getlini landfill site will, however,require extensive civil and structural works, which will be contracted to localenterprises. The investment is therefore likely to create employment opportunities inthat sector of the economy, in particular during the initial period of the project.

Additional jobs created are likely to be both highly skilled and low/semi skilled, butgiven the small number of working age residents, the potential benefit to the localcommunity is somewhat limited.

Mitigation


7.2.4 Loss of Semi-Fonnal Waste Worker Employment Opportunities

Impact

Getlini-2, Ltd has registered a total of 220 semi-formal waste workers, however not allare present each day. Individuals work according to their need as determined byaccess to alternative work, personal preference and availability of other family income.On each of two site visits in summer and fall, approximately 150 semi-formal wasteworkers were observed to be working at the Getlini landfill tipping face.


72

Semi-structured interviews with waste pickers (summarised in Section 4.5) revealedthat, in the case of the interviewees, working at Getlini was their paid employment andprovided an essential source of family income. Although they are not formallyemployed by Getlini-2, Ltd, we have designated this group as 'semi-formal' workersbecause they are:

* registered and authorised to enter the site;* managed by the formal workforce;* derive income from sale of recovered materials to Getlini-2, Ltd management;* prohibited from selling recovered materials off-site.

The presence of the semi-formal waste workers is accepted by the site managementbecause they are a critical component of the current material recovery operation andare paid on a quantity basis only.

The proposals for remediation and continued operation of the Getlini site, require theprevention of waste picking at the landfill tipping face. Instead it is proposed toconstruct a conveyor/picking belt, commonly termed a materials recovery facility(MRF), in the waste processing area of the site. Refuse collection vehicles wouldenter the site and deposit their waste onto a pre-prepared area. The waste would thenbe fed onto the picking belt, picked over manually with the recovered waste set aside,and the residual material fed into a shredder.

This proposal requires formalisation of the existing materials recovery activitieswhereby waste pickers would be formally employed within the facility. This changecould have a number of environmental and social consequences as summarised inTable 7.2.4a.

Table 7.2.4a Impact of Formalising Materials Recovery System

Aspect Potential Impact of the Project Proposals

Environmental The efficiency of material extraction from the waste will be greater with a MRFthan with manual separation at the tipping face. However, as the input feedstockis mixed municipal waste (and not pre-sorted waste), the efficiency would not beas high as in some other MRF schemes in Europe. (I)

Socio-Economic The formalisation is likely to result in many of the semi-formal waste workerslosing their means of gaining income. Getlini-2, Ltd have expressed a reluctanceto employ the semi-formal waste workers due to a perception that they are anirregular and unreliable workforce accustomed to open working hours andpractices and incapable of conforming to Getlini-2, Ltd standards. Further, thefeasibility proposals estimate that fewer waste-picking workers would be requiredwith the MRF than under the current scheme. However, an MRF would provide

secure employment opportunities for some.

(1 Pre-soring of waste involves separation of reclyclablcs or other materials of value at the source through provision of separate bins formaterials orothersortimg/collectionschemes. Pre-sortingis typicallydependentoncitizen educationandvohlntaryorfinancially

incentivized cooperation.

ENVIRONMENTAL RP3OURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

73

Aspect Potential Impact of the Project Proposals

Health and Safety The MRF would significantly iinprove health and safety for materials recoveryworkers at Getlini. Although no effects on the health status of the semii-formalwaste workers are apparent, it is generally considered unsafe to allow workers orscavengers to pick materials in close proximity to unloading waste collectionvehicles and bulldozers.

Economic The operating costs of the MRF would be relatively high. Increases in themarginal costs of materials recovery could potentially affect the competitivenessof the Getlini-2, Ltd recycling business in the medium-long term.

The official unemployment rate in Latvia is 7%. however the true number may be farhigher. Social groups most affected are pre-pension age people (ie women over 50and men over 55) and unskilled workers of all ages. The state makes a provision forpeople registered as unemployed, and the municipalities are responsible for carryingout the program. However, many of the respondents indicated that they had notapplied for this benefit due to a perception that they would be unsuccessful.

A brief investigation into the "social safety net" system in Latvia by Baltic DataHouse, ERM's local social assessment consultant, revealed that this perception of theinaccessibility of the unemployment benefit program is widespread. In addition, theprogram only provides benefits (currently 90% of minimum wage or 34.20 Lats/monthor approximately US$ 68.40) for a limited period (6 months in 1996 to be extended to9 months in 1997), and an additional eligibility requirement is certified ability to speakLatvian. Hence, it may not be a coincidence that the majority of semi-formal workerswere Russian and unable to speak Latvian.

It is clear that proposals to formalise employment in recycling could deprive at leastsome of these people of an important source of income. On the other hand, therewould be clear health and safety benefits and the employment lost is not a traditionaloccupation but an opportunistic response to rapid economic transition. The workrepresents a temporary window of opportunity which arose only in the past few years,when effective site management allowed informal recycling to become profitable forthe operators. The semi-formal workers travel by train to the site, reside off-site inpermanent accommodation and are in apparent good health (see Section 4.5).Although the loss of income at the landfill may cause temporary distress, most shareother family income and none exhibit the level of destitution seen in such occupationalgroups in other developing countries.

Mitigation

Discussions with SWECO, the feasibility study consultants, indicate that it would becost-effective to delay the construction of the materials recovery facility and allowsemi-formal waste picking to be phased out over a three year (or more) transitionperiod. Waste picking at the landfill tipping cell could be immediately halted, with thewaste being picked over prior to shredding instead. Simultaneously, a set of key

ENVIRONMENTAL REsouRcEs MANAGEMENT ThE WORLD BANK

74

changes in the management of the semi-formal waste picking activities could beimplemented to improve health and safety as follows:

* prepare two or three bays located radially around the shredder, and manageoperations so that waste pickers are only allowed into bays when unloading/loadingactivities have been completed and all mechanical vehicle movements have halted.Whilst a bay is being picked over by the waste pickers, loading/unloadingoperations can be carried out in the alternative bay(s) to maximise efficiency.

* request that waste pickers wear suitable protective clothing, in particular hardwearing gloves and potentially light face masks, at all times; and

* provide vaccinations for infectious diseases which may be acquired at the site.

While it is recognised that the SWECO MRF proposal is likely to be more efficient inremoving materials from the waste stream, and also allow a better control over healthand safety, there are several advantages of building a transition period into the projectas described above:

* the transition period will allow the semi-formal waste pickers to gradually adjust tothe implications of the formalised materials recovery system, allowing time forsemi-formal workers to find other employment and/or adjust to more controlled anddemanding working practices;

* the transition period will allow site management to gradually adjust to the newlandfill management system and to focus their energies in the short term onproperly constructing and operating the energy cells and building their experienceas suppliers to the energy market;

X the transition period will allow Riga City Council, in association with the Ministryof Environmental Protection and Regional Development and other authorities, todevelop an integrated waste reduction strategy prior to making final investmentdecisions about the need, potential and most favoured location of a materialsrecovery facility;

* the transition period will allow the project to proceed in a fashion which is fullysensitive to the local socio-economic considerations, maximising environmentalbenefits, and minimising negative impacts from the facility.

7.2.5 Loss of Informal Waste/Food Picking Opportunities

Impact

The informal waste/food pickers share many of the same social characteristics with thesemi-formal workers, differing primarily in having no source of income (according tothose interviewed). The proposals to cover the existing waste pile and limit access tothe waste tipping area to employees will deprive this group of a seemingly importantsource of survival. However, the profile of these waste/food pickers at Getlini is

ENvIRoNMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

75

atypical of waste site "scavengers" in other areas of the developing world. All ofthose interviewed reported having a permanent residence, such as a flat, offsite (80%in Riga), and they commute to the site. Furthermore, in Latvia the practice is a recentphenomenon linked to the economic transition, not a traditional occupation associatedwith a particular caste or class of society as in India. It is also a practice which poseshealth and safety risks to the practitioners and which is strongly opposed by the healthand environment ministries, the local government, and the disposal site managementcompany Getlini-2. The practitioners are largely the unemployed who are or perceivethemselves to be too "old" to adapt to the changing economy yet are too young forpension eligibility. The majority of the practitioners interviewed (90%) wereregistered which makes them eligible for an unemployment allowance. However, therespondents all indicated that they had chosen not to apply for this benefit due to theirconviction that they would be unsuccessful.

As discussed in Section 7.2.4, this perception of the inaccessibility of theunemployment benefit program is widespread. The unemployment benefit is theresponsibility of the municipal governments, not the national government, and it isadministered differently in each municipality making overall assessment and/oroversight of the program difficult. All of the randomly selected waste/food pickersinterviewed were discovered to be of Russian origin.

One of the main features of the project proposals is to cover the existing waste pile atthe Getlini site with soil material, so that the infiltration of rain water into the site, theresulting quantities of leachate being generated from the site, and levels ofcontamination of water resources are significantly reduced. This water qualitymitigation measure is clearly going to remove access of informal waste/food pickers tothe existing waste pile.

Further, fresh waste arriving at the site will be shredded before placement in thelandfill 'energy cells' and increased management control will be placed on preventingunauthorised persons from gaining access to the site. Management will particularlyfocus on ensuring that persons do not gain access to the energy cells, where therewould be a risk of injuries and damage to equipment. It will therefore be necessary toreinforce the restrictions on informal waste/food pickers and make sure there is noaccess to the freshly deposited waste during the day or night.

Clearly there will be an effect on the activities of waste/food pickers. These peoplewill be forced to look elsewhere for income and food and during the transition periodwill experience extra hardship. Given the illicit nature of this activity, and thedifficulties in isolating affected individuals, there is little potential for minimising theimpacts other than providing education and assistance regarding accessingunemployment and related benefits.

The significance of this potential impact is difficult to gauge. The alternative of notcovering the existing site would be unacceptable in the context of the need to minimiseinfiltration and subsequent leachate emissions in order to reduce ground-watercontamination from the site. Allowing continued access to the tipping area (or energycell) would not be acceptable in terms of health and safety and risk of damage to on-


76

site equipment. As the informal waste/food pickers gain only marginal benefit fromentering the site, the effect on their well being will be marginal and temporary.

Prevention of unauthorised access is seen as an important advantage by the localpopulation because it will remove the motivation to trespass on surrounding properties.Also the prevention of waste/food picking will remove a health and safety risk.

Mitigation

The complexity of this issue cannot be fully resolved within the scope of this study. Afundamental question posed by this situation is the seeming reluctance on the part ofthe waste/food pickers to apply for unemployment benefits, and on a larger scale theadequacy of existing social programs to cope with unemployment and poverty in adifficult period of economic transition. The requirement of certification of ability tospeak Latvian as a pre-requisite for eligibility may be a major obstacle for ethnicRussians, particularly those that are destitute. The only feasible mitigation is to makesure that the affected people are warned in advance about the coming managementchanges and their implications. This can accomplished by the production anddistribution of an information leaflet in Russian and Latvian.

7.2.6 Effect on Local Recreational and Cultural Amenity

Impact

There is no indication that the current site activities are affecting recreational andreligious amenity in the Getlini village and surroundings. As no additional land is tobe taken up by the remediation and continued operation of the Getlini site, there willbe no adverse effect on recreational or cultural amenity. There is, however, potentialfor a positive effect if the site is properly restored at the end of the project.

Mitigation

It is not within the engineering feasibility consultants Terms of Reference to presentproposals for restoration of the landfill site after final closure at some future date.However, the EIA consultants strongly advise that restoration and aftercare proposalsbe developed and included within the project, in line with standard practiceinternationally.

If properly restored, the site may be available for certain types of economic activity,and in particular may provide improved facilities for the local population. Theseopportunities will arise progressively as the site is filled. Acceptable uses for therestored site will be agricultural, horticultural and amenity uses. Buildings and majorstructures will not be suitable for development on the site due to extreme risks ofsubsidence, structural collapse, damage to the landfill cap, accumulation of methanegas in confined spaces.


77

7.2.7 Increase in Local Property Values

Impact

Solid waste disposal in Latvia has a poor reputation, due to the low level ofenvironmental pollution control applied at the existing landfill sites. In many cases thedevelopment of a landfill can affect, to a significant extent, the value of propertiessurrounding a site. In the case of Getlini, residents have complained about having tolive near the site, in particular highlighting the stigma attached with the area as a causeof discomfort. The majority of residents in the area have, however, lived in the areafor a significant period of time and have not recently moved to the area, indicating thatthe property market in the area is extremely low.

Since the commencement of Getlini-2, Ltd operations,however, there has been a wideagreement within stakeholders associated with the site that the environmentalmanagement conditions have significantly improved. These improvements, however,do not appear to have been noticed by the media at large, and therefore it is likely thatthe overriding perceptive of Getlini is that it is operated to poor environmentalstandards.

Mitigation

If this project was to go ahead it is likely that there would be increased media attentionon the existing and possible future enviromnental performance of site operations. Thiscoverage would be likely to improve the public image of the site, and also potentiallyreduce the stigma that is currently associated with living next to the landfill. Thelandfill management can enhance this effect by paying attention to public relations andissuing press releases, etc, as the project progresses.

Tangible environmental benefits, as well as an improved public image of the Getlinilandfill only be realized over some period of time. These benefits are thereforeunlikely to significantly affect the saleability of houses in the area, at least in theforeseeable future. The overall positive impact of the project on property values istherefore estimated to be of minimal significance even thought the improvementsshould arrest further decline in property values.

7.3 HYDROGEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, AND WATER QUALITY

This section describes the range of potential hydrogeological, hydrological, and waterquality impacts associated with the remediation and continued operation of the Getlinilandfill, their potential significance, and proposed or recommended mitigationmeasures. For the most part the project proposals in this area are remedial effortsdesigned to abate an existing ground-water contamination problem and to preventfuture environmental pollution from the modernized landfill. Hence, this componentof the project constitutes enhancement of existing conditions and mitigation isunnecessary. The only exception is the proposal to release treated leachatecontaminated water to the River Daugava.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEM.ENT THE WORLD BANK

78

7.3.1 Containment and Control of Leachate and Leachate Plume

Impact

Leachate is produced directly from liquid waste and refuse moisture content andindirectly from precipitation falling on and percolating through the waste pile. Rawmunicipal waste leachate is a concentrated municipal wastewater and typically containshigh levels of chlorides, nutrients, ammonium, and organic compounds which createvery high biological oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand. Leachate may alsocontain metals and various inorganic compounds and in some cases toxins dependingon the types of wastes disposed.

Investigations over many years have reported the contamination of the shallow surfaceQuaternary aquifer and tracked the migration of a leachate contaminant plume from theGetlini waste disposal site towards the Daugava River. Recent investigationsperformed under SWECO's auspices by Geo-Konsultant, Ltd., the most comprehensiveand extensive to date, have defined the extent of the ground water contamination andcollected extensive water chemistry data, some of which are presented earlier in thisreport (Section 4.7). Hydrogeological modelling results performed under this studyindicate that if no remedial actions are taken, the contaminant plume will increase bothhorizontally and vertically and potentially impact the deeper Plavinas aquifer as well asthe further contaminate the Quaternary aquifer.

Mitigation

A major positive impact of the proposed project will be the program for remediatingthe ground-water contamination problem at Getlini and for preventing futurecontamination by arresting leachate formation, and collecting and treating leachate (asdescribed in Section 5.2).

7.3.2 Effect of Taking Soil for Covering the Waste Pile

Impact

The existing waste pile which is approximately 35 hectares in area will be coveredwith a 0.5 metre thick soil layer. SWECO has specified two layers: a 0.3 metre baselayer of clay and sandy loam with a permeability of less than 1.1 x 10-9 metres/secondand a 0.2 metre upper layer of sand and gravel. This constitutes approximately175,000 m3 of material. Acquisition of such a large quantity of soil material willrequire one or more borrow areas. The potential impact(s) will be associated with theborrow area(s).

SWECO does not designate a specific borrow area in the feasibility study, hence theexact potential impacts could not be assessed. However, the impacts typicallyassociated with borrow sites are expected to apply. These are:

change in land use at the borrow site (eg forest clearance, loss of agricultural land);


79

* impacts associated with land use change (loss of agricultural land, habitat loss,visual/aesthetic impacts):

* creation of a pit or depression;

* noise associated with excavators, sorting machinery, and hauling vehicles;

Mitigation

Mitigation measures recommended to manage and minimise potential environmentaland social impacts associated with the borrow site(s) are:

* conduct ecological surveys of site(s) to determine if any protected species orsignificant habitats may exist;

* compensate land owner where appropriate;

* implement a program of site management (eg dust control) to minimise operationalimpacts to the environment and/or residents of the area; and

- develop a program of appropriate aftercare measures in consultation with localauthorities.

7.3.3 CoUection and Treatment of Surface Runoff

Inpact

Analysis of the containment and drainage ditches adjacent to the site indicates highlevels of contamination by leachate. Although the primary source is polluted, shallowground water welling up into the ditches, a limited, secondary pathway is surfacerunoff from the site. Under existing conditions surface runoff from the waste pile,haul roads, and paved operational areas is uncontrolled. This runoff, which containssmall quantities of leachate as well as sediment and residuals from the waste, is asource of surface water pollution.

Mitigation

Surface runoff from the waste pile and future operational areas such as waste deliveryareas, paved sorting areas, roads, and parking areas will be directed to a series ofsurface ditches which will be engineered to raise the invert of the ditches above thewater table and to make the bottoms and sides of the ditches impervious. The runoffwater will be discharged to a two stage series of settling ponds for treatment prior todischarge to the Daugava via existing drainage canals.


80

7.3.4 Discharge of Treated Water to the Daugava

Impact

The discharge of treated, landfill leachate effluent to the Daugava has the potential toadversely impact water quality in the Daugava. As previously described the Daugavais already polluted by municipal wastewater and agricultural runoff. Potential nutrientloads from the Getlini landfill could constitute an additional loading of nutrients.

Mitigation

The quality of the effluent released will be designed to minimise adverse impacts. Iffuture monitoring of the impacts of landfill effluent discharge should reveal that thereis significant adverse impact, then the appropriate mitigation measure would be toredesign the treatment plant at the landfill to further improve the water quality of theleachate. Technologies to purify the effluent are available. However, the issue ofwhat level of treatment is appropriate is an environmental management problem. Thedecision should be based on existing and predicted future conditions, managementobjectives in the river basin and the Baltic Sea, and cost/benefit analyses.

The following actions are recommended for the determination of an acceptable effluenttreatment level for the project and for prevention of future adverse impacts:

* conduct a study of water quality, pollutant loadings, and hydrodynamics in thereach of the Daugava where the effluent would be discharged;

* determine the proposed rate of discharge from the landfill treatment plant;

* assess the potential for adverse impacts under several different treatment levelscenarios reflecting realistic options;

* select a treatment level in keeping with Latvian and international environmentalmanagement goals for the Daugava and the Baltic Sea, World Bank standards,project economics, and the technical and management capacities of the landfilloperations company or other management organization;

* institute or participate in an existing water quality monitoring program in the lowerDaugava to monitor effects of landfill leachate effluent, the results of whichprogram should be used to evaluate and manage the treatment program.

7.3.5 Residential Water Supply Issues in the Getlini Vicinity

Impact

The majority of the residences in the vicinity of the Getlini site have shallow wells inthe Quaternary aquifer. The water quality of these wells has traditionally been affectedby Getlini Bog, and most of the residents have obtained drinking water from theseveral deep wells in the area or imported water. The shallow wells have been used


81

primarily for irrigation purposes. However, there is considerable public concern overthe water quality of the shallow wells and potential adverse impacts from use of thewater contaminated by the leachate.

Mitigation

The remediation works described above should reduce contamination in the Quaternaryaquifer and improve the aquifers's water quality, but the influence of Getlini Bog onthe background water quality will be unchanged. Further, there are two parallelprograms which will reduce any potential adverse impacts resulting from publicconsumption of the contaminated water in the near future and which should alleviatepublic concern. Stopinu Pagast has financed the construction of a public water supplyline for the area from the Riga public water supply system. This system's operationawaits only the installation of household meters at the time of preparation of thisreport. This program is unrelated to the landfill project and is not formally evaluatedin this report but will clearly have a positive impact in terms of providing convenient,clean water to each household.

The second program is an outgrowth of the landfill project. Due to public concernover ground-water quality in the Getlini area, the World Bank has decided tocommission a water quality testing program for residential wells in the area. Thisinvestigation will be carried out in 1997. This program is designed to determine ifwater quality problems exist, if they are related to the leachate, and to educate thepublic in terms of any associated risks.

7.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY

The sub-sections below discuss the range of potential health and safety impactsassociated with the remediation and continued operation of the Getlini landfill, theirpotential significance, and any proposed or recommended mitigation measures.

7.4.1 Improved Health and Safety at dhe Site

Impact

Site records indicate an extremely low incidence of absenteeism due to illness or injurywithin the formal landfill workforce. This indicates that existing health and safetypractices are of a satisfactory standard in relation to the formal workforce.

The nature of the semi-formal waste picking activities, however, exposes this group togreater health and safety concerns. Only one of the nine semi-formal waste pickersinterviewed expressed any concerns about health. It is possible, however, that some ofthese people may be carrying some health affects as a result of their work which theyare not aware of, due to a lack of desire to have, or inability to pay for, medicalchecks or treatment.


82

Particular health concerns arise from allowing populations of vermin and insects tobuild-up within the waste pile. As there is no compaction or use of daily cover at thesite, existing operations show a lack of attention to this issue, and represent asignificant potential health concern.

There are safety concerns associated with workers roaming around the tipping face of alandfill. The movement of mechanical vehicles and off loading of refuse collectionvehicles next to the waste pickers has significant potential to cause injury.International practice is to limit or prevent standing persons within a designateddistance of the tipping face for this reason.

Mitigation

Under the project proposals the semi-formal waste pickers will be excluded from thetipping face area, and materials recovery activities will be carried out in a separate partof the site. New materials recovery arrangements are proposed to be organised andmanaged to ensure that health and safety risks from these activities are greatly reduced.The existing waste pile is to be covered eliminating a major portion of the wastesupporting vermin and insects. In the future the area of raw waste exposed to theatmosphere will be substantially reduced, consisting only of a single active energy cell.The material in the energy cells will be sorted and shredded prior to dumping in thecells and compacted or covered daily.

7.4.2 Avoidance of Risk of Disease Transmission to the Local Community

Impact

Under current waste disposal practices, and in particular due to the lack of coveringand/or compaction of waste being carried out at the site, there are some risks oftransmission of disease from the site to the local community. The proposals forremediation and continued operation of the site includes measures designed specificallyto minimise these risks.

Diseases can be transferred from the landfill site to the local community through threemedia:

* animal vectors;* water; and* air.

Mitigation

Vectors which may transfer pathogens from the landfill site to local communitiesinclude vermin, insects, birds and humans. Timely compaction of waste and/or theapplication of daily cover is critical for the control of vermin and insects andconsequently for minimising the potential for spread of vector borne diseases.


83

Birds can be controlled in a number of ways. These include, inter alia, the use offlares (as at present). pre-recorded bird distress calls, use of 'scarecrows'. or the useof trained birds of prey. The continuation of the use of flares to scare birds off thesite is recommended, and other measures are recommended be applied whereconsidered appropriate.

Routine health checks for the workers are an essential means of detecting the existenceof contagious diseases at the site prior to any potential spread of disease from thelandfill site. Vaccinations are currently provided to site staff. It is recommended thatthe programme of health checks and vaccinations be extended to the semi-formal wasteworkers, possibly in collaboration with the local health authority.

The potential for water borne diseases is likely to be small at Getlini. Any potentialcan be minimised by ensuring that stagnant pools of water are not formed on-site, andthrough designing the perimeter drainage system to avoid build-up of stagnant wateron-site or nearby. Sufficient attention has been placed to surface water drainage in theconceptual design, and this consideration should be carried through to the detaileddesign stage.

The potential for airborne health impact has been significantly reduced under Getlini-2management through improved controls of waste tipping and cessation of open fires inand on the waste pile. Residents have noted this important change in site management,and under no circumstances should open burning of waste be resumed. Under currentconditions the potential for airborne health impacts is considered quite low, and thepotential should further decline under the design recommendations in the feasibilitystudy. The amount of waste exposed to the atmosphere at any one time will besignificantly less (the entire waste pile is currently 35.5 hectares versus the proposedenergy cells with a total area of 1.7 hectares of which only a small portion will beexposed to the atmosphere at any one time).

Other air emissions from the landfill activities, including landfill gas, odour andvehicle emissions, are unlikely presently to be giving rise to health impacts.Remediation and controlled operation of the site, with implementation of adequateenvironmental control measures, is not considered likely to give rise to such impacts.

7.4.3 Improved Control over Landfill Gas

Impact

Landfill gas is a product of the degradation of wastes under anaerobic conditions.With a high content of methane, toxic and inflammable gases, the generation of landfillgas poses significant risks to human health and life (due to risk of exposure to andexplosion of the gas). The risk is greatest where gas is allowed to build-up in confinedspaces, such as within buildings adjacent to or on a site or in collapsed void spaceswithin the deposited waste.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAOEMENT THE WORLD BANK

84

Mitigation

In order to minimise the risks to human health from landfill gas a highly efficientactive extraction system is being proposed. At the existing site, collection wells willbe sunk into the landfill to collect the available quantities of gas. In the new energycells a high efficiency leachate production and collection system will be installed. Inaddition, waste arriving at the site will be shredded prior to deposition in the cell, tomaximise the speed and homogeneity of decomposition in the cell.

Overall, the project provides an important opportunity to stabilise the existing landfillsite, and continue landfilling under controlled conditions. This is likely to reduce thehealth and safety risks associated with improper control of landfill gas.

7.5 AIR QUALITY

The sub-sections below discuss the range of potential air quality impacts associatedwith the remediation and continued operation of the Getlini landfill, their potentialsignificance, and any proposed or recommended mitigation measures.

7.5.1 Odour Impacts from Site Activities

Impact

Odours at landfill sites are generated from movement, placement and decomposition ofwaste. The main method of reducing the generation of odours from the site is toensure good on-site management practices, in particular ensuring that there are no openfires on-site, and to fill the landfill site in small well-defined cells using cover materialas and when necessary to prevent prolonged exposure of decomposing wastes to theatmosphere.

The emission of odours is also dependent to a certain degree on the efficiency of thewaste collection and transport system. Waste which is left for significant period beforecollection will be at a more mature state of degradation when arriving at the landfill,and therefore emit more odours. The Latvian climate does not, however, lend itself torapid decomposition of waste prior to collection and transit, and therefore the odouremissions are likely to be low in comparison with landfills in warmer climates.

Prior to the commencement of Getlini-2, Ltd operations in 1995, local residentscomplained of significant odour impact. This was probably due to the poormanagement practices at that time and the open fires which were reported to becommon. Since 1995, however, the level of odour emissions from the site were nothighlighted as being a particular concern. This condition was confirmed by field visitsin August during the course of the investigation. The general lack of odour problemsis also attributable to the large distance between the tipping areas and nearest sensitivereceivers.


85

Mitigation

The proposed remediation measures will include the covering of the existing site withinert materials, the landfilling of wastes on a cellular basis, and capping of the cellfollowing completion to provide optimum conditions for the control of landfill gas.All of these measures are likely to reduce the potential for odour emissions at the site,and the degree of impact experienced at sensitive receivers.

However, there will still be some potential for significant odour emission at the site.These are:

* processing and shredding of waste;

* transfer of shredded waste to the energy cell via conveyor; and

* excavation of the energy cell prior to completion, and re-deposition on the existing(and capped) landfill.

Detailed design of the site will need to consider the potential for odour emissions fromthese three stages of the on-site waste management process.

The main method of controlling odour emissions from waste processing, shredding andtransfer is to ensure that these activities are carried out efficiently, ie that waste is notleft to stand for long periods of time prior to shredding and transfer to the energy cell.Materials recovery should therefore be carried out within a relatively short period oftime (maximum of half a day) and the shredder and conveyor system should bedesigned with sufficient capacity for peak waste inputs. Furthermore, full contingencymeasures should be put in place to ensure that in the event of any mechanical failure(or during period of routine maintenance) of the shredder or conveyor system there isan efficient alternative method of transferring waste to the energy cell.

With respect to excavation of the energy cell, care should be taken to only excavate thecell when in situ waste decomposition is completed. Even under this full-decomposition scenario, given the heterogeneous nature of waste, it is likely that therewill be some areas of the energy cell where waste has not undergone fulldecomposition. In this event, non-fully decomposed waste should be transported toanother cell or left in situ rather than excavated for further use. This requirementshould be fully reflected in the operational/environmental management plan for thesite.

Overall, it is considered that the positive effect of remediating the site and operating iton a cellular basis will outweigh the potential negative effect intensified wasteprocessing of waste and excavation. However, given that the baseline level of odourimpact to sensitive receivers is minimal (due to their distance from the site), thepositive odour impact of the design proposals is also likely to be of minimalsignificance.

ENVmoNMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WoRiL BANK

86

7.5.2 Dust Impacts from Site Activities

Impact

As with odour, significant quantities of dust are typically generated from landfilloperations. Major sources of dust include vehicle movements on unpaved or dirtyroad surfaces, waste off loading, processing and handling and bulldozing/compactionactivities, placement of cover material, and construction of the final cap. Impacts arelikely to be more acute in dry conditions.

As with odour impacts, dust emissions can be minimised by filling the landfill in smallwell-defined cells and ensuring the efficient processing and handling of waste at thesite. The use of conveyors rather than vehicles for on-site movement of wastes undernormal operating conditions, as proposed in the feasibility study, will have the effectof considerably reducing the potential for emission of dust as well as noise. Site roadswill, however still be required for movement of construction vehicles, and to be usedas haul roads to the energy cells in the event of mechanical failure/maintenance of theshredder and conveyor system.

Mitigation

In order to further minimise dust emissions, and maximise the positive impactexperienced from the site remediation and continued operation, roads should bemaintained in a good condition and dust control exercised by regular sweeping and, ifappropriate, spraying and damping-down of all site roads.

Furthermore, it is recommended that a wheel wash facility be provided within the sitereception area and used by all vehicles. This will minimise the transference of mudand debris onto external roads from the site, and therefore control dust impacts to thelocal community.

However, the enhanced use of cover materials and enhanced processing of waste on-site will contribute to the residual levels of dust at the site. In particular, care shouldbe taken to ensure that dust emissions from the shredder are controlled at source. Thiscontrol will benefit not only local sensitive receivers, but also, and perhaps morecritically, be a valuable method of ensuring good working conditions. An integratedsprinkler system for dry days would achieve this goal.

Overall, the proposal to use a conveyor belt for internal movement of wastes ratherthan vehicles is likely to have a marked positive effect on dust emissions from the site.This positive impact is likely to outweigh any negative impacts which may result fromintensified waste processing, and enhanced use of cover materials at the site.

However, given that sensitive receivers are distant from the landfill operations, and theexisting negative dust impacts are considered to be of moderate significance, theoverall positive impact is assessed as being of moderate positive significance. If wheelwashes were to be included as part of the design proposals the scale of positive impactwould be further enhanced.


87

7.5.3 Vehicle Exhaust Emissions

Inpact

It is estimated that a maximum of around 840 vehicles (1,680 vehicle movements) perday and a possible maximum of 170 vehicles (340 vehicle movements) in a peak hour(assuming 20% of total flow in a peak hour) will be using the Getlini landfill siteduring its projected lifetime.

Although there is no data available on the baseline air quality in the area, theConsultants' qualitative impression was that local air quality was not poor in the area,and traffic count data collected do not suggest that there is a significant currentproblem with impacts of vehicle emissions.

Given that the predicted worst case additional flow of vehicles to the site is only 20%more than the baseline traffic flows, it is highly unlikely that any significant impactwill result from these additional vehicle emissions. The overall level of impact istherefore anticipated to be negligible.

Mitigation


7.5.4 On-Site Construction Activities

Impact

This section relates specifically to air quality impacts from on-site constructionactivities. Air quality impact from the transport of materials to the site during theconstruction phase are addressed under Section 7.8.2. The specific activities whichwill be required for remediation of the site are as follows:

* placing cover material over the existing deposited waste;

* relocating/constructing new administrative facilities;

* installing landfill gas and leachate control systems; and

* constructing new landfill, energy, cells.

Dust emissions from the placement of cover materials over the existing waste pile islikely to be the major source of potential air quality impact during the initialremediation phase.

Mitigation

These initial construction activities are likely to be carried out over a relatively shortperiod of time, around I year, and given that the nearest sensitive receiver to the filled

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ITE WORLD BANK

88

areas of the site is over 500 metres away, impacts from these activities are likely to beminimal. Best management practices for the control of dust on construction sitesshould be employed to minimise the potential problem. This would include coveringof any stockpiles of earth and sprinkling of haul roads to reduce dust.

7.5.5 Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impact

Methane gas is a major green house gas and a product of the decomposition ofmunicipal waste under anaerobic conditions. Therefore any measures whichsignificantly reduce methane emissions to the atmosphere are considered positive. Theproject proposes to extract and utilize landfill gas from the existing waste pile as wellas from the new energy cells.

Gas pump testing on the existing site have identified that there are significant quantitiesof landfill gas available. Furthermore, the feasibility study consultants predict that thequantities of landfill gas will be sufficient enough to make utilisation of the gastechnically feasible. There is an existing market for the gas (either directly as gas orfor generation of electricity), so a further, additional positive impact will utilization ofthis landfill gas in place of fossil fuels.

The impact of the project on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the Getlini siteshould be significant. The corresponding impact of this reduction in regional termswill be less dramatic, since there are many other unmanaged dumps and otherunchecked sources of methane in the region. The project would, however, represent asignificant advance on the control of greenhouse gas emissions from waste disposalsites. On balance, the significance of the impact is considered to be moderatelypositive.

Mitigation

No mitigation required.

7.6 NOISE

The sub-sections below discuss the range of potential noise impacts associated with theGetlini waste disposal site, and their potential significance. Detailed baseline noisesurvey and noise modelling exercises were not justified on the basis of the very smallnumbers of noise sensitive receivers near the site and the expected magnitude of noiseimpacts. A noise survey was completed, however, as reported in Section 4.11.

The receiver most likely to be affected by noise from the site operations is the isolateddwelling near the access road. Apart from this dwelling the nearest receiver to the siteis about 500 m away and as such should not be significantly impacted by noisegenerated within the site. The potential increase in the noise generated by vehicles onthe access road is therefore the most likely source of noise impact during both the

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK89

construction and operational phases. Impacts from noise on the access road arediscussed in Section 7.8 that addresses Off-Site Traffic.

7.6.1 Construction Noisefrom Remnediation Activities

Impact

Construction activities associated with the remediation and extension of the landfill arelisted in Section 7.5.4 above.

Noise impacts from sanitary landfill construction activities is primarily dependent onthe specific plant deployment and the proximity of construction activities to noisesensitive receivers. The most significant period of construction noise generation islikely to be during the initial phase in which the old landfill area will be capped offwith soil. During this phase up to 50 trucks per day are estimated to be required tobring cover material to the site via the access road, and bulldozers will spread the fillto cover the old landfilled area.

Reference to British Standard 5228 (1) indicates a total sound power level for twobulldozers and one truck operating on the old landfill area of about 112 dB(A),assuming each plant is operating at full load for about 50 % of the time. At a distanceof 500 m the highest possible noise level would be about LAeq pcnod 50 dB. Withambient noise levels at the remote receiver to the south west (survey location 4) ofabout 44 dB(A) it is likely that construction noise will be audible when the plant isoperating at the higher levels on top of the landfill area and there is no screening ofnoise emissions from it. However, this is not a disturbing level of noise and isunlikely to result in significant noise impacts.

Mitigation

It is recommended that noise from the site be monitored and a noise action plan beprepared in order to respond to any complaints that may arise. No significant noiseimpacts are expected however, and no further mitigation is required.

7.6.2 Operational Noise

Impact

Sources of operational noise from the landfill site will include:

* movement of vehicles around the site reception area;* movement of waste on the conveyor system;* placement of waste and daily cover material;* deposition, levelling and compaction of waste;* excavation of energy cells in the future; and

" British Standard 'Noise control on construction and open sites', Part I code of Practice for basic information and procedures onnoise control, BS5228: 1984


90

* audible bird scaring devises.

As part of the feasibility study proposals, the site reception area will be relocated. Thesite reception areas will be relocated to within 100 metres of the nearest sensitivereceiver. Even with this relocation, however, the dominant noise source at thatparticular sensitive receiver will be the site access road, rather than the site receptionarea, and the additional affect of the relocation on the noise experienced at thatdwelling is likely to be minimal.

There is no reason to expect the new conveyor system to be a significant noise sourcesince it will be a modern free flowing design. The new conveyor system will reducethe number of truck-movements on the site, and whilst the changes to the operations inthe site reception will alter the main noise sources the overall number of plant andtheir noise emissions will not increase significantly under the proposed mode ofoperation.

The planned expansion of the site will move the landfilling area away from the nearestreceiver (to the south west of the site) and the old filled area will tend to screen noiseemissions so that noise levels at this receivetare likely to reduce.

At a future stage when the new landfill energy cells have stabilised they will beexcavated as part of the energy cell technology proposed for the new landfill area.This activity will produce noise levels similar to those during the capping processdescribed above under construction noise and remediation activities.

If audible bird scarers in the form of flare guns are currently in use. These willcontinue to be audible at the two receivers although as the active filling area movesaway from the receivers noise levels will reduce. If necessary their use will berestricted, and if they are found to disturb local residents the approach would be to usequieter scarers, potentially trained birds of prey.

Overall, on the balance of the design proposals it would appear that the operationalnoise impacts to sensitive receivers from on-site vehicle movements are likely toreduce rather than increase. The use of a conveyor system for transfer of wastematerials up to the tipping face rather than vehicles, and the conduct of fillingoperations in a distant part of the site will have the effect of reducing noiseexperienced at the sensitive receivers. This positive impact is likely to outweigh thesmall negative effect of relocating the site reception area.

However, given that the existing operational noise impacts are considered to beminimal, due to the relative isolation of the site, and few numbers of sensitivereceivers, the positive impact is only likely to be of minimal significance.

Mitigation

It is recommended that noise from the site be monitored and a noise action plan beprepared in order to respond to any complaints that may arise. No significant noiseimpacts are expected however, and no further mitigation is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL RPSOURCES MANAOGEENT THE WoRLD BANK

91

7.7 ECOLOGY

This sub-section provides a discussion of the range of potential ecological impactsassociated with the Getlini project and comments on their significance. No significantecological impacts are anticipated for two primary reasons: there are no significantflora, fauna, or habitats found on the Getlini site territory; and the project proposaldoes not involve any expansion of the Getlini disposal site territory.

7.7.1 Loss of Flora and Fauna Habitats

Impact

The project does not propose to expand the landfill outside of the original siteboundaries. Hence, there will be no significant grading, clearing, or constructionoccurring in the adjacent lands. The only impact to existing natural habitats willconsist of the eventual clearance of approximately 6 hectares of woodland in thesoutheast corner of the landfill property. This wooded area is comprised of a mixtureof birch forests, pine forests on peat soil, and birch and pine forests. These areas havebeen disturbed frequently during the past 25 years of landfill operation, and at somepoint in the past were ditched for drainage purposes. These wooded areas common inthe vicinity of the site and do not constitute significant or important habitat.

Mitigation


7.7.2 Severance of Wildlife Corridors

Impact

As the site has been in use for almost 25 years, it is likely that the resident wildlifepopulations have adapted to the existing situation. The proposed works at the Getlinisite will not significantly alter physical conditions or create any new obstructions towildlife movement in the vicinity of the site or isolate habitats.

The re-development of the site will affect the larger mammalian predators of the areawhich are presumed to utilize the resident rodent population at the disposal site as animportant food resource. In the short term the proposed perimeter fence will impedeegress to the site for this group of mammals which may include foxes and possiblywolves. This effect is unlikely to be absolute since these animals will find some meansof access if the food supply is indeed a significant resource. But, in the long term themodern landfill management techniques to be employed will reduce and possiblyeliminate the rodent population. Capping of the existing waste pile and daily coveringof the fresh waste in the future cells will reduce access to the waste. The residentrodent population should decline significantly and thereby decimate this food resource.

The perimeter fence should not effect avian predators such as the eagle owl (Bubobubo) nor smaller species of terrestrial predators; however, in the long term the

ENVJRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

92

reduction in the rodent population will remove a food resource for all predatoryspecies.

Hence, the proposed works may adversely impact the local population of predatoryanimals reliant on the disposal site's rodent population as a food resource.

Mitigation


7.7.3 Protected Species

Impact

Four protected species have been recorded in the vicinity of the Getlini disposal siteand one species was found on the disposal site. The four species found in the vicinityinclude one plant, Lycopodium annotinum, and three birds: the Wood sandpiper(Tringa totanus), the Great shrike (Lanius excubitor), and the Eagle owl (Bubo bubo).The fifth species, the Rhinocerous beetle (Oryctes nasicornis) was collected on thedisposal site property on a single occasion several years ago. It should be noted thatthe listing of protected species is currently under revision and it appears that the listwill be considerably reduced as the populations of some species such as the Eagle owlare on the increase.

Lycopodium annotinum, a once common species which has been over harvested forherbal medicine and Christmas decorative purposes, occurs in a birch woodlandimmediately south of the site. The proposed works should have no adverse impact onthis population.

The Wood sandpiper has been observed during migration in wetland ponds adjacent toRumbula railway station. The proposed works should not adversely affect this areaand therefore should not have any adverse impact on this species.

The Great shrike and the Eagle owl are both avian predators which may utilize therodent population of the Getlini site as a possible food resource, hence the proposedworks may decrease the food supply for these species. It is extremely unlikely thatthese species are entirely dependent on this single food supply. In general, however,the proposed works should not adversely affect this species.

The Rhinocerous beetle was collected on the disposal site several years ago. This isconsidered a random occurrence and no great significance is attached to the beetle'spresence at the site on that occasion. Hence, the proposed works are not considered topose any adverse impact to this species.

Mitigation



93

7.8 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC

This sub-section discusses the range of potential off-site traffic impacts associated withthe Getlini landfill, and their potential significance.

7.8.1 Increased Traffic Loading and Congestion

Impact

The remediation and continued operation of the Getlini landfill has been calculated bythe feasibility study consultants to allow the landfill to continue to accept waste fromcentral Riga for a minimum of 22 years, and potentially up to 50 years, withoutenlarging its basic footprint. The maximum flows of waste vehicles in and out of thesite are difficult to assess due to the following key factors:

* the population in Riga City, and birth rates are falling but may stabilise in thefuture;

* the waste arisings per capita are likely to increase in the future with increasingaffluence and linkage with the western consumption-led economy;

* waste collection vehicles with larger capacity are currently being phased in; and

* the site may accept waste from the outer Riga districts in the future.

Based on the above considerations, the feasibility study consultants forecast that thenumber of vehicles arriving at the site will increase by a worst case factor of 20%.This means that forecasted Getlini-2, Ltd figures for daily truck volumes at the landfillare:

* a peak of 840 (1,680 movements) per day;* an average of 600 (1,200 movements) per day; and- a low of 240 (480 movements) per day.

The field traffic counts recorded on 23 and 25 October showed a peak of 100 wastetrucks/hour and a minimum of 32 waste trucks/hour on Krustpils Street. This street isthe only access to the site and also provides the primary egress to the local residencesand the northern access to the Rumbula rail station and adjacent community. KrustpilsStreet is in a good state of repair, is 6-8 metres wide, and is of sufficient width tocomfortably allow two way flow of landfill-related traffic. Traffic flow on KrustpilsStreet comprises a mixture of personal and commercial vehicles and is currently verylight. Krustpils Street adjoins the Riga-Daugavpils Highway approximately 4kilometres west of the site.

As traffic is extremely light on Krustpils Street, the most probable area for potentialcongestion resulting from waste hauling traffic would be at the intersection of KrustpilsStreet and the Riga-Daugavpils Highway, which is a major traffic artery. However,no congestion or queuing was observed at this intersection during the traffic surveys


94

even at the peak observed flow of waste truck traffic on 23 October. Backgroundtraffic on the Riga-Daugavpils Highway was at a flow of 396 vehicles per hour (at thetime of the survey). It is therefore anticipated that Krustpils Street and the KrustpilsStreet/ Riga-Daugavpils Highway junction have adequate capacity to cope with the 20% increase in traffic flow that has been forecast from the extended landfill operationswithout any significant congestion being generated.

Similarly, the 50 or so vehicles per day anticipated during the construction phase forcapping of the old fill area would only give rise to a further increase in traffic flow ofabout 5%, and hence are not expected to result in traffic congestion, even incombination with concurrent waste deliveries.

Mitigation

No significant impact is predicted, therefore no mitigation is required.

7.8.2 Air Quality Impacts from Vehicle Emissions

Impact

The air quality impacts from waste haulage vehicles are dependent upon the baselinelevels of pollutants (SO2, NO, particulates, lead etc) along the haulage routes, theexisting traffic levels and patterns, and the number of additional vehicle movementscaused by the remediation and expansion of the site. Given the absence of data in thefirst two categories it is not possible to quantify the significance of these impacts atthis stage.

However, the Getlini-2, Ltd traffic flow forecasts show that traffic generated by thelandfill will increase flows on Krustpils Street by about 20-25%. This increase inemissions may be off-set by the modernisation of the waste vehicle fleet since newervehicles will tend to meet better emission standards. Also this vehicle flow is notsubstantial and is unlikely to lead to poor air quality in the open area around KrustpilsStreet.

The additional landfill traffic will represent a minor component of total traffic flowalong the Riga-Daugavpils Highway and the wider road network, and hence anyresulting impacts are anticipated to be minimal. In order to quantify the significanceof these impacts it would be necessary to carry out an extensive programme of ambientair quality sampling and testing.

Mitigation

Although no significant impacts have been predicted it is desirable to take anyopportunity to reduce air quality impacts if possible. Two simple measures arerecommended. Firstly, a wheel wash should be provided to ensure that waste vehiclesleaving the site do not transfer mud onto Krustpils Street that could produceunnecessary dust once dried. Secondly, the vehicles should be properly maintained soas to minimise emissions; the engines should be tuned regularly.


95

It is anticipated that the ongoing upgrading of the truck fleet will result in a. significantpositive impact. The new trucks have more efficient, cleaner burning engines and areequipped with compactors which increase capacity and thereby reduce trip numbers.Fleet upgrading in the near future may offset any increase in the area served by theGetlini facility.

7.8.3 Traffic Noise

The traffic flow estimates predict that traffic generated by the landfill will increaseflows on Krustpils Street by about 20-25% The noise emissions from the new wastevehicles may be different than those of the existing waste fleet. They will be largervehicles, but they will be newer. On balance it is unlikely that individual vehicles willhave significantly different noise emission levels. Hence vehicle pass-by noise levelsshould not change significantly.

The 20-25% increase in flow is unlikely to raise period averaged noise levels by morethan a few decibels (1.0 dB according to standard traffic noise theory). LA, peInI noiselevels at the nearest receiver are currently about LA,, pe 55 dB. This is not a highlevel of traffic noise and whilst any increase is undesirable a slight increase would notlead to unacceptable levels.

Mitigation

Significant noise impacts are not expected and,therefore, no mitigation measures arerequired.

7.8.4 Littering

Imrpact

Littering is not currently a problem on the access road. The addition of new wastevehicles will tend to reduce the use of open waste carrying vehicles and thuspotentially further reduce the potential for littering outside the site.

Mitigation

Significant impacts are not expected and, therefore, no mitigation measures arerequired.

7.9 VISUAL/LANDSCAPE

This sub-section discusses the range of potential visual/landscape impacts associatedwith the remediation and re-development of the Getlini disposal site. The generalsetting and topographic features of the site have been described previously in sections4.2, 4.7, and 4.10, but will be summarized briefly here prior to discussion of potentialimpacts.


96

The Getlini disposal site is located in an area of very little topographic relief, theseaside plain formed by the Baltic Ice Lake during the Quaternary. The land use tothe northwest, west, and south is predominantly rural/agricultural with scattered farmresidences and outbuildings, fields and pastures interspersed with secondary blocks offorest or fallow lands. Hence, despite the relatively flat landscape, vistas aresomewhat limited by forest stands. Rumbula rail station, on the Riga-Daugavpils lineof the Latvian Railway, lies approximately 400 metres to the southwest. The A6, theRiga-Daugavpils Highway lies approximately 700 metres to the southwest. A numberof industrial facilities, largely abandoned and no longer operational, lie one kilometreor more to the west of the site. Getlini bog, a large raised bog (approximately 500hectares in area), abuts the site to the northeast and east. With the exception of Getlinivillage, approximately 1.5 kilometres to the east, there are no residences or places ofbusiness to the east within one kilometre of the site.

Inmpact

The site region is not an area of significant natural beauty or recreational interest. Norare there any significant vistas of national or local interest in the area.

The Getlini disposal site is 87 hectares in size of which some 35.5 hectares consists ofaccumulated waste. In its present configuration, the waste pile rises to a maximumheight of approximately 37 metres above sea level or approximately 24 metres abovethe local ground surface. The site lies within the Daugava River Valley, and theground surface elevation ranges from 15 metres above sea level near the site to 7metres above sea level to the south in near the Daugava River.

Under existing conditions of land cover and waste pile height, the waste pile is wellscreened from the northwest, west, south, and east by existing forest belts of 50 to 100to 200 metres width. These are the three directions where people work and residewith visual proximity to the site. Due to the existing forest screen, the only view ofthe waste pile is from an unimproved, sand road off Krustpils Street which providesaccess to several farms located immediately west of the site. This view of the wastepile is the result of a gap in the forest belt adjacent to the landfill.

The proposed remediation works will consist primarily of rehabilitating existing ditchesand pumping of wells and will not significantly affect local visual characteristics.

In general, the visual characteristics of existing waste pile will be considerablyenhanced by the proposed project. The waste pile now consists of raw waste with nocovering. The sides are unstable and raw waste is regularly dozed over the side slopeswhere it tumbles down into adjacent wetlands and drainage ditches. Under theproposed project, the waste pile will with regraded to stable side slopes, covered withsoil, and then grassed. Ultimately the side slopes will be planted with trees. Rawwaste will no longer be visible at the surface.

The maximum elevation of the waste pile will be determined during the detailedengineering study, but is projected by SWECO to be approximately 50 metres. Thusthe waste pile will be extended vertically some 12 metres over the existing conditions,


97

with the result that the mound will extend above the screening belt of trees.. Thevertical extension will consist of earthen, sanitary landfill cells with vegetated sideslopes, beginning with grass and ending with trees. Waste filling will take place in thecells. Hence, raw waste and operating vehicles and other equipment will be largelyscreened from view. The resultant visual impacts should be minimal.

The proposed site re-engineering works and operational improvements will not expandbeyond the site territory but eventually operations may extend into some currentlyunused portions of the site territory. Much of the unused areas support woodlandswhich constitute a significant portion of the forest belt which screens the site fromview. This could constitute a potential adverse impact at the western and southernedges of the site which front inhabited areas. This potential impact would be realizedonly if the existing forest were cleared.

Mitigation

Significant impacts are not expected. If a 20 to 30 metre belt of forest is preserved atthe outer edge of the site territory, the net impact of the project will be positive whencompared to existing conditions and, therefore, this should be considered duringdetailed design. Otherwise no mitigation measures are required.

7.10 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES

In summary the proposed project should have an overwhelmingly positive impact. Thekey positive benefits are listed below:

* leachate production and resultant contamination of the Quaternary aquifer should bearrested;

* the extension of the contaminant plume should be halted, and the concentrations ofcontaminants in the plume should decline over time through degradation anddilution;

* there are no significant anticipated impacts relative to baseline conditions in theareas of ecology, air quality, traffic, noise, or visual/landscape.

The only significant, potential adverse impacts are possible social impacts. These arethe potential loss of income for the semi-formal waste workers and the potential loss ofaccess to the waste for the informal waste/food pickers. In both cases the relativeimportance of these impacts is a function of the economic difficulties resulting fromthe transition economy, and the potential impact may be reduced as the Latvianeconomy begins to improve. The dependency of even a small sector of the society onwaste picking poses health and safety risks and is clearly undesirable. As discussed inthe report the impacts to the semi-formal workers may be mitigated to some extent byphasing the modernisation of the materials recovery operation such that there arecontinued if decreasing collection and recycling opportunities for the informal workersover the next one to three years.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WoR.LD BANK

98

Discharge of the treated effluent should not constitute a significant impact. There area number of established technologies to treat landfill leachate to virtually any limits.The issue is what level of treatment is appropriate in terms of water qualitymanagement objectives and cost/benefit. This issue will be resolved during thedetailed engineering study for the project. Existing World Bank policy requires thatlocal effluent standards be applied unless it can be demonstrated that proposedalternative standards are justifiable and will have no significant adverse impact. lt isassumed herein that an agreement on treatment levels will be reached between thevarious parties involved which will not have a significant adverse impact on the waterquality of the Daugava and the Gulf of Riga.


99

8 REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The construction, operation, restoration and aftercare of a sanitary landfill is a largecivil engineering project, which should be conducted to appropriate standards ofmanagement and site operational procedures. Poor standards of site operation and/orinadequate site management have the potential to cause unacceptable environmentalnuisance to, or significant environmental impacts on, residential, commercial andindustrial developments in the immediate vicinity of the site, irrespective of thestandards of site engineering and construction undertaken.

This Chapter proposes a number of significant changes to the operational andmanagement practices currently in force at Getlini, aimed at achieving higher standardsof environmental control and protection of local amenity and compliance with WorldBank standards and international good practice. It also outlines the EnviromnentalManagement Plan which should be adopted to ensure that the mitigation measures andmonitoring regime recommended as a resuft of the EA are implemented effectively andin a timely manner.

8.2 OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The present study specifies engineering measures and changes in operational practicethat will permit the remediation and/or upgrading of the existing disposal site tosanitary landfill status. This section provides a summary of the recommendations forsafe and environmentally sound operational procedures for dealing with all aspects ofthe receipt, processing, transfer and deposition of MSW on the site.

8.2.1 Site Management

In order to attain the high standards of environmental performance associated withsanitary landfill it is essential that the landfill constructed and operated as designed.The site manager must be fully conversant with all operations of the landfill facilityand know and understand the potential hazards associated with the activities of the site.The manager must therefore be experienced in sanitary landfill operation or mustundergo training.

The site must follow a safe system of work and before operation starts documentationshould be developed describing how management intends to deal with the followingkey issues.

* a working plan with principles and procedures for dealing with the key health andsafety and environmental issues identified in the EA report;


100

* allocation of adequate resources to environmental training, pollution controlequipment and maintenance;

* adequate environmental awareness training of all site operatives;

* monitoring and enforcement of operating and quality assurance procedures;

* compliance with all relevant health and safety regulations and procedures; and

* procedures to ensure the conformance of site activities with prevailingenvironmental legislation.

Effective site management must incorporate adequate measures regarding the followingissues:

* records of all staff and operational matters;* staff recruitment and training;* visitors' access; and* signs and directions.

8.2.2 Health and Safety

Hazards are a common attribute of landfill sites, deriving from the presence of:

- steep and potentially unstable slopes;- bodies of standing water;- pests carrying and spreading pathogens and communicable diseases;* contaminated, putrescible, toxic and/or infective material; and- noxious, flammable, toxic and/or hazardous landfill gas.

At the Getlini landfill, site management should implement a Health and Safety policy,drafted by a competent person, which complies, as a minimum, with the requirementsof occupational health and safety laws in Latvia. The principles and details of theHealth and Safety policy should be communicated in full to all site operatives, non-staff contractors and other visitors to the site. Adopted safety procedures must beobserved at all times.

Site management should focus on the following key areas:

Emergency Response

* to maintain clear unobstructed access to the site and site activities for emergencyservices at all times;

* to establish a detailed Working Plan for emergency procedures in case of fires,accidents, injuries, and unacceptable waste;


101

Medical Screening

* to train staff to recognize the symptoms of key illnesses;* to carry out periodic medical examinations of health screening for site staff: and* to provide regular health screening for wasteworkers.

8.2.3 Waste Reception Procedure

Only waste which has been cleared from the reception area as suitable for disposaland/or processing should be permitted further into the site.

All waste loads which require special handling and disposal arrangements, should besubject to a pre-booking system to facilitate the use of efficient and safe check-in anddisposal procedures.

Waste measurement

The arrangement of waste reception facilities proposed for the site has been designedto facilitate measurement of wastes arriving at the site. All waste delivery vehiclesentering the site will be required to weigh in and out over a weighbridge. Twoweighbridges are available, the "in" weighbridge and "out" weighbridge respectively,to accommodate the volume of vehicle traffic at maximum levels of site operation.

Waste inspection and clearance

It is the responsibility of site management to satisfy themselves that waste delivered tothe site is acceptable and safe for disposal and/or processing. The types of wastewhich may be accepted on a site are normally stipulated by the licensing authority. Nowaste should be permitted access to the tipping face or the topsoil plant unless it isdeemed to comply with the conditions of the site license. All site operatives should befully conversant with the site license and specified waste control procedures. Sitereception staff should inspect waste loads visually as a matter of routine and shouldundertake sampling and testing of waste loads, on both a random and regular basis.Waste requiring detailed inspection should be refused entry to the tipping area andshould, instead, be directed to the designated waste inspection area.

Unacceptable or non-conforming waste

Any waste considered by site management unacceptable for disposal should be isolatedand segregated from all other waste and stored in a designated, secure quarantine areawhere the waste can be held safely. Waste delivered to the site on fire should be takento the waste inspection area, discharged and extinguished using water or suitableextinguishers.

8.2.4 Waste Clearance and Transport

Upon clearance at the weighbridge or the waste inspection area, traffic should bedirected to the waste processing/shredding area, commercial/industrial waste area,

ENVIRONMENTAL RSoURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

102

compost area and/or other areas of the site, where they should unload in accordancewith the instructions of site operatives.

Where appropriate, one-way traffic systems should be used to avoid unnecessary trafficconflicts. Drivers of loads of special/difficult wastes should be directed to designated,pre-prepared, areas for tipping.

8.2.5 Shredding and Waste Conveying

Shredding and waste conveying to the landfill cell should be conducted in accordancewith strict health and safety procedures. Care should be taken to ensure that dustemissions are not excessive. In order to ensure that waste is not left for significantperiods of time in the waste processing/pre-shredding area in periods of mechanicalfailure or routine maintenance of the shredder/conveyor, a Contingency Plan should bedeveloped providing instructions on alternative arrangements for transferring waste tothe energy cell.

8.2.6 Waste Discharge and Emplacement

Waste should be deposited at the tipping face in accordance with the design objectivesof the site and with the minimum of risk to site personnel, the environmentsurrounding the site and local amenity. The landfilling process should be carried outto specified and agreed standards of operation, site management and site safety. Alldisposal operatives should be adequately trained and be fully conversant with thespecified operating procedures.

8.2.7 Excavation of Energy Cells

No partially decomposed material should be excavated from the energy cell and placedin other areas of the site. This control measure is designed to control odour fromexcavation and to ensure that decomposing wastes are not placed in uncontained areasof the site.

8.2.8 Communications on Site

It is imperative that efficient, unambiguous and effective systems of communicationsare employed at each site and that all employees, contractors and visitors to the site arefully conversant in the systems and procedures adopted. Effective on-sitecommunications are vital to ensure:

* efficient and safe transfer of wastes through the site;* implementation of designated inspection and checking procedures;* discharge of wastes in the appropriate areas;* adoption of appropriate procedures for dealing with special wastes;* resourcing and application of appropriate staff and plant; and* maintenance of links to emergency services and other parties.


103

8.2.9 Protection of Local Amenities

Appropriate operational procedures, should be implemented if needed to minimizeaddress potential nuisance of site activities upon surrounding developments, if indicatedby monitoring programmes, site inspections and/or following receipt of publiccomplaints.

8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND MONITORING PLAN

8.3.1 Requirement for Monitoring

Site operations should comply, at all times, with relevant National, EnvironmentalLegislation and with emissions limits which protect neighbours from potential nuisanceand are indicative of good management. The EA found that there are unlikely to besignificantly polluting emissions resulting from the proposed landfill site, goodpractice, however, requires that some environmental monitoring be undertaken on aregular basis during all phases of site development, site restoration and uponcompletion of site activities. Environmental monitoring provides the mechanism for:

* assessing the overall environmental impacts of site development;* identify, at an early stage, pollution emanating from the site;* identifying any deviations from acceptable standards of site operation; and* formulating proposals for site remediation measures, as necessary.

The purpose of environmental monitoring is therefore not just to meet standards, but toprovide information to allow improved environmental management at the sites.

8.3.2 Emission Standards and Monitoring Requirements

Required Standards

There are no relevant Latvian controls applicable to landfill operation, nor any WorldBank standards specific to this kind of development. There are generic World Bankstandards applicable to industrial facilities however, and many European countries haverelevant industry standards.

Emission standards are recommended to be applied in the following key areas:

* water quality;* landfill gas explosive limit and occupational exposure limits;* noise.

Water Quality

The landfill site has been designed to minimize emissions of leachate from the existingwaste mass as far as possible, and to provide a high level of containment of leachates,with a rate of emission (ie liner permeability) of no greater than I x 10-9 beingspecified. Trigger levels for contaminants should be established during the detailed

ENvIRoNMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT THE WORLD BANK

104

engineering study in consultation with the Ministry of Environmental Protection andRegional Development. The contaminant levels used by SWECO to delineate thecontaminant plume and to classify the various gradations of pollution could serve as abasis for selecting future trigger levels.

Leachate should be monitored throughout the lifetime of the site, and furtherremediation actions taken in event of a continuing significant release into theenvironment. The parameters which should be monitored, and the frequency ofmonitoring recommended are given in Table 8.3a below.

Table 8.3a Leachate Monitoring Parameters and Frequency

Parameter' Frequency of Monitoring

Leachate levels in on-site monitoring wells Weekly

pH Weekly

Chloride Weekly

Conductivity Weekly

COD Bi-annually

BOD Bi-annually

Total organic carbon Bi-annually

Full range of compositional characteristics Annually(organic, salts and heavy metal compounds)

Notes 1. Unless otherwise indicated, monitoring should be carried out from both on-site and off-sitemonitoring wells for all parameters.

SWECO and GeoKonsultant Ltd have proposed a 25 well monitoring network for theQuaternary aquifer. Eighteen of the wells are existing, and 7 new wells would beinstalled. Five of the new wells are to be installed at the edge of the plume to a depthof 10 metres. One of the five would be screened in the whole aquifer section and theother four screened for only one metre at the base. The long screened well is foranalysis of contaminant stratification. The other two new wells would be installedalong the axis of the plume between existing wells Nos. 15 and 58. These wells wouldbe used to monitor the relationship between contaminant concentration and distancefrom the site.

SWECO have not finalized recommendations for monitoring the Plavinas aquifer dueto some contradictions in the existing information. However, the preliminaryrecommendation is for 3-4 wells drilled to a depth of 30 metres. Specific locations aregiven in the SWECO feasibility study report.

Landfill Gas Monitoring

The most significant risks associated with landfill gas derive from the potential forflammable gases, such as methane and hydrogen, to form flammable mixtures in air


105

when these gases are present within certain concentrations. The critical concentrationlimits are known commonly as the "Lower Explosive Limit" (LEL) and the "UpperExplosive Limit" (UEL). The flammable ranges are:

* 5% to 15% by volume for methane; and* 4% to 74% by volume for hydrogen.

In the open air, for example at the boundary of the landfill, such relatively high levelsof gas should not occur because of the effects of dilution and dispersion. Gasconcentration should be monitored however to control gas migration from the site.Two levels of gas concentration should be established that will trigger different coursesof action.

* A threshold level will indicate a potential landfill gas problem and will initiate morefrequent gas monitoring;

* a higher trigger level (action level) will initiate appropriate remedial action tocontrol gas migration.

The concentrations proposed for these levels are:

D threshold level - 5% of LEL; and* action level - 20% of LEL.

Noise

Noise levels at nearest sensitive receivers should be monitored on a yearly basis, andin particular during the construction phase, to confirm whether impacts are withinacceptable limits.

World Bank Environmental Guidelines (1988) suggest that a noise limit of LAeq 1 hour 70dB would be acceptable for the unpopulated area around the Getlini site. If noiseimpacts are reported by the surrounding population, however, the landfill operatorshould respond in accordance with a pre-determined and agreed Noise Action Plan.The actions required might include repeating monitoring, identifying the source ofnoise causing the impact, and taking actions to silence the particular source.

8.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES

To ensure that mitigation and environmental enhancement measures identified in theEA Report are implemented as specified, a plan should be drawn up along with thedetailed designed specifications which will indicate:

* the measure proposed and its purpose;* who is responsible for taking the required action;* how much the action is expected to cost;* a schedule for carrying out the proposed action;* who is responsible for monitoring to see that the action is effective.

ENRONMRENTrAL REsOURCES MANAOEMENT THE WoRLD BANK

106

An outline of this plan with as much detail as can at present be supplied is given inTable 8.4a. This table should serve as a model for completion by the design engineersand approval by the consenting authority (ie the Ministry of the Environment) beforeconstruction activities commence.

ENvIRoNMENTAL REsouRcEs MANAGEBENT THE WoRLD BANK

107

Table 8.4a Outline Environmental Management Plan

Measure Responsibility Cost Timing Monitoring

Agency

Manage the transition of the materials recovery regirne to Project implementation None Years 1-3 of the Riga City Councilminimise effects on the semi-formal workers (Section 7.2.4) engineers remediation programme

Publish infornation leaflet to advise semi-formal workers and Getlini-2 Management $500 Before the start of the Riga City Councilscavengers of the impending changes to working practices remediation programme

(Section 7.2.6)

Develop restoration and aftercare proposals (Section 7.2.6) Getlini-2 Management $3,000, if Before the end of the Riga City Councilinternational remediation programmeconsultants'help Isrequired

Allocate responsibility for public relations to a manager and Getlini-2 Management None Immediately Getlini-2make sure that the press and local population are aware of the Managementimprovement programme and progress (Section 7.2.7).

Mitigating the effects of taking soil for daily cover (Section Getlini-2 Management To be Before commencement of Riga City Council7.3.2) determined the remediation programme

Engineering ditches and settlement ponds to collect surface Project implementation To be During the remediation Riga City Councilrunoff water from the landfill site (Section 7.3.3). engineers determined construction works

Studying effect of treated leachate on the Dauguva and Project design To be As part of detailed Riga City Counciladjusting treatment level to ensure no adverse impacts engineers determined engineering design

(Section 7.3.4).

Testing groundwater quality in the general area of the project World Bank office in To be During detailed engineering Riga City Council(Section 7.3.5). Riga determined design

Development and enforcement of a safer materials recovery Getlini-2 Management None Before commencement of Riga City Council

system (Section 7.4.1). in consultation with the remediation programmeproject design engineers

Routine health checks and vaccinations for all those employed Getlini-2 Management To be Yearly throughout the Riga City Councilat the site (Section 7.4.2). in consultation with determined operational period of the

local health authority site

Sinking of landfill gas test wells and routine monitoring of Project implementation To be During the remediation Riga City Councillandfill gas quantity and composition (Section 7.4.3). enginieers and Getlini-2 determined construction works

Management

Measure Responsibility Cost Timing MonitoringAgency

Procedures to lirnit odour and dust suppression measures Getlini-2 Management To be During detailed engineering Riga City Council

included as part of the operational management plan (Sections in consultation with determined design

7.5.1 to 7.5.4). design engineers

Regular monitoring of noise and preparation of a noise Getlini-2 Management To be During detailed engineering Riga City Council

management plan (Section 7,6.) and 7.6.2). in consultation with determined design and monitoringdesign engineers throughout construction and

operation of the landfill

Regular maintenance of the waste truck fleet and continued Getlini-2 Management To be Throughout the operational Riga City Council

upgrading of the fleet (Section 7.83). determined period of the landfill

Preservation of a belt of forest around the site to provide Project implementation None During construction Riga City Council

visual screening (Section 7.9). engineers activities

_ . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REFERENCES

Baltec Associates (1994) Hydrogeological and Environmental Investigations,Getlini Municipal Waste Disposal Site, Riga, Latvia. The World Bank.

Carl Bro a/s (1993) Evaluation of the Environmental Conditions of GetliniLandfill. Riga City Council, Latvia and Danish National Agency forEnvironmental Protection.

Haecon-Halcrow (1993) Water Supply and Sewerage in Latvian Small andMedium Sized Towns, Report 3, Investment Strategy Report. EuropeanCommission.

SWECO (1997) Feasibility Study and Preliminary Design of Remediation andContinued Operation of the Getlini Disposal Site, Latvia. Riga City Council,Latvia and Sida.

Date post:	02-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Getlini Waste Disposal Site Environmental Assessment:Final … · 2016. 7. 17. · FINAL REPORT...

Documents