I- AIL .R FIN E 1003! 1 - | ~~~~~~~~~EPORT ON

ENVIRONMENTAL BIPACT ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED ENGINEERED SANITARY LANDFILL

- SOLE WASTE ECOLGICAL E NCENT PROJEC (SSWEEP)*i - . , s ~~SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION,

REPUBLIC OF THEr PIHIPP[NES

1- a- ~I -/

fL'~~~~ !'- ' I

L,.d~~~~~~~~~~~I

Prepared for.

The City Of San Fernando, La Union

+] . .The Government OfT'he Philippines ( DENR)The Vorld Bank

Gr-wber, 1999

IL MFILE,::;Ir -' .~~

7 _.......'~-~~~ ;Z FILE COPY*-I

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

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

I ~~DRAFTFINALI ~~~~~REPORT ON

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTil

PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL

ANDEVELOPMENT,

_. ~~~~~~SNERAD, LA UNIO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPOIES

SOL ID WASTE ECOLOGICALENHANCEMENT PRIJECT (SWEEP)

P1KOP0NENT: CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN FERNANjO

CONTACT PERSON: HONOURABLE MARY JANE ORTEGA

1 ~~~~~CITY MAYOR

OCTOBER 1999

PREPARED BY:

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.1796 COURTWOOD CRESCENT

OTT WA, ONTARIO

E~~~ !- op - ID I

44.! if,IK2C2B56 i ' .DISTRIBLTION:'

I 't2CpiitS -,.....DepartliTent ofEBnvironment and Natural Resourcesj, j ^!i 2 cop es - Cityof San Femnando, LiUnion, !

3 copies- The World Banlck

-; l~~ copV CIDAlInc.- ,

1 ; l c opy i - Golder Associates, Philippines,4 03 copje,.- GolderAssociatesiLtd.,Canada-

j ..I

, -II

rOlder Associates Ud.-Cur:r, Ciacor_ .l;ld r.ZCOv. OnI3a. C^enao-K2C 285 A

O , (613) 224.5864 47 Assc es(161 3) 224-9928

ctober 26, 1999 981-2730B

( - I. . .

ECityofSanFemanadoan Ferntndo, La Unione Philippines

,ttention: Hon. Mayor Mary Jane Ortega

AE- SUBMISSI6N FOR EIARC SUBSTANTIVE EVALUATION A1IDWORLD BANK REVIEWDRAFT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

I ( - PROPOSED ENGrNEEkED SANITARY LANIFILL DEVELOPMENT_ ' I SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION, THE PHILIPPINES

SOLID WASTE ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (SWEEP)

Dear Mayor Ortega:

r A$ the Preparers of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed sanitary landfill on behalfofthe Proponent, thei City of San Fernando, Golder Associates is pleased to submit this Draft Final

I-;Ps5 El report, which has been prepared under Component 3 of SWEEP. As requested by DENR and the,World Bank, we are forwarding the number of copies required for review.

IL- Thi EIA report is presented in two volumes. Thislvolume contains the actual EIA report, while the', acornpanying document provides the technical analysis and supporting documentation in the formn ofApperndices.

As;iagreed withltheDEN-EMB, the preparation of the EIA for SWEEP does not requirec r it f the preparers. Golder Associates has prepared this document together with a number

r of etained Filipino subconsultants, and affix our signatures below as to our accountability for-. L preparation of this docunent for the purpose of formal review under the EIS process of the DENR andg sub suent stages of approvals.

GoLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

S. S4 ianMuganantha, QEP, P.Eng.'U Ass*iate and Senior Environmental Engineer

San tenando Study Leader

P.A. Smolkin, P.Eng.;Principal and Senior Wqste Management EngineerTeanA Leader

A SSM:PAS:dc* I Rpt' C Dc S

|| . | ~~~OFFICES IN AUSTI?ALIA, CANIADA, GER~MANY. HLINGARY, ITALY, SWVEDEN. UNITED KINGDOM. UNITED STATES

r ' ~ . .

*ACCOUNTAJBIL1T`XSTATEMENT OF THE PROJECT PROPONENT

This is to certify that all the information in the enclosed Initial Environmental Examination

(IEE), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are true, accurate, and complete. -Should we learn of

, } , any iii,formation which would make the enclosed IEE/EIS inaccurate, we spall bring said information

(~. . ;to thed attention of the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) or the Environmental Management

& PrXtected Areas Sector (EMPAS) of the appropriate DENR Regional Office.

We hereby bind ounrselvesjai,itl and solidarily with the preparers for any penalties that may

be imposed arising from any misrepresentations or failure to state material information in the enclosed

* ~~~~~~IEE/E-IS.

In witness. whereof, we hereby set our hands this day of

-4 ~~~~~~~~~at__ _

L. q { | ; Project Proponent

L I I Title/Designation

r q _ __-

! SUBSCRIBED AND SW,ORN to before me this day of , affiant

exhibitipig o me his/her Tax Identification Number (TIN) and Community Tax Certificate No.

issued dn. at__ _ __ _L- l.

t Notary Public

31. Doc. NPage Ndr Book N4. _Series of 199 *

I -

t I

tJll ,.. .

r * i 't Ofttciber 1999 -i- 981-2730B-XS . |; i I SWYEEP, San Fernando La Union'Sanhtary Landflll EIA

I | iEXECUTIVEI SUMMARY

L It .[ -- ' E 1 INTRODUCTION

-1 'E.1 TheSWEEP6emonstrationSub-Project

In qrder to address the severely deficient solid waste management (SWM) situation in the country, theGoVertiment of the P.hilippines (GOP) has sought assistance from the World Bank (the Bank) for t#eimO!ementation of a comprehensive SWM.' project, referred to as the Solid Waste Ecological, tEnlyncemeni Project'(SWEEP): SWEEP takes a nation-wide approach that will raise the awarenessof key decision makers about the conditions and the needs for immediate actions, and improve

- I teclinical and administrative'capacities of the Government SWEEP is;lthe first major nation-wideff endfvour to improve this sector which has direct impact on environment and quality of life in urban

*S I area1;.

The IS WEEP. comprises four components, of which Component 3 iicludes the provision of engineeredsanikaryj landfills to a selected number of Local Government Units (LGUs) as Demonstration Sub-Procjcts. In 'order to aaisfy' ihe requirements of the World Bank and be eligible to apply for the

*- ; fundng. to'implement the Demonstration Projects, the GOP/LGU's were required to prepare anr investment report (IR) for each facility.

The najor components of the IR are the Environmental Impact Assessment (LIA), Feasibility Study-' ' (FS)| a; plan for Closure and Rehabilitation of Existing Dumpsites and a Terms of Reference for

impcmentation. These are hereafter collectively referred to as 'EIA/FS' in this document. TheW..'-, * Depan'neni orEnvirownent and Natural Resources (DENR) is assisting the LGU's in the study process

in a ficilih3tion role. ;- -. | '- -.

Golddr Associates was retained by the GOP and the Bank in April, 1998i to cany oujt the ETA/FS in:accordance %vith the above noted ToR for the City of San Femando, one of the LGUs participating in theDem stration Sub-Projects. The funding for the EIA/FS was provided by the Canadian InternationalDevelppnent Agency IndUstrial Cooperation Program (CIDA-INC).

E.1.2 K iCey Objectives of the ProposedProject

The overall objective of the proposed project (i.e. the construction/operation of an engineeredsanita4' landfill) is the development of an Integrated waste management facility for the service of thepopuladon of San Fernando, La-Union which provides for the preferred, environmentally responsible,socially acceptabld, cost eWfective and affordable alternative(s) for a 1o to 20 yeal planning period andq qualifies for implementation fundingfrom the World Bank.

The ke objcthes of the proposed project are:

i to determine the waste disposal requirements of the study area for the selected planning period;* to qary out a defensible and rational landfill siting process;* to rrepare a preliminary design for the facility, assess potential impacts qn the natural and socio-

economic environment and develop necessary mitigation measures; -to jre!are a restoration plan, including preliminary design and estimates of associated costs, forclo'ing andi rehanititatiag existing dump sites within the participating LGU's;

bI SJ IGolder Associates

4, ''

Crctober 1999 A- - 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

r toprepare cost estimate for capital works antd facility operations and maintenance to serve as a basis

for applying for Bank funding;* to document the study methodology, findings and recommendations;

* to undertake a public consultation process and incorporate public input into the decision making

l -wl = , process and the oYerall study; and

prepare an Investment Report incorporating the results of the EIA/FS.

E+.3 Project Proponent and Project Preparer

Thl proponent of the proposed engineered sanitary landfill prbject is the City of San Fernando, La

5Uion and the project preparer is a team of professionals lead by Golder Associates of Canada.

Ei PROJECT APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES

El.l Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

The EJA for the proposed San Fernando landfill, including the EIA Scoping, was prepared in

acc,rdance with the requireiments of the DENR EIA Procedural Manual and thosd presented in the

Wo'ld Bank guidelines for conducting EIAs. In addition, the EIA addresses the pertinent

.1r] . requirements of CIDA-INC (i.e. the Canadian Environniental Assessment requirements).

E.2.2 . Scope of,the EIA

The scope of the EIA is based on the ToR and the respective guidelines of the Bank and the GOP. In

sum nary, it comprised the,following;

i (a) Task 1- Project Description

(b) Task 2 - Project Alternatives(c) Task 3 - Existing Environment and Baseline Conditions Data Coilection [physical, biological .

(d) li'and human (socio-economic) environment]

(d) Task 4 - Deternpination of the Potential Impacts

t (e) !,Task 5 - Analysis and Evaluation of Risks

: (f) jTask 6 - Formulation of Environmental Management Plan

(g) Task '7 - Resettlement/Rehabilitation Action Plan

,tV S The riesults of the above tasks are to be presented in a report.

E.24 ;Key Issues Relpted to Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework

L 2 A numnber'of key issues have arisen from a review of the existing legal and administrative framework

pertaining to solid waste management in the Philippines. In brief, with respect to the disposal of

MSWZ the principal issues are:

tliere is no single entity at present responsible for implementing and/or enforcing existing

Ilgislation relating to the management of solid wastes;

s ; t. 1 * although directives are now in place (DAO 9849 and DAO 98-50), there are no specific guiding

- 0 - documents available for the overall construction, operation and management of solid waste

, ~ disp;c:d facilities oi the perforimance standards to which the disposal facilities should be

c nstructed and managed;

Golder Associates

r -J [ ~~ '. ' '; ?2-7..>.!~~~~~~~~~~~~~

gX E{fi~~~~~~~~~~~~. ..

r

Eqetober 1999 Hi - 981-2730B

'C SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EI

*V !while there are specibib provisions regarding the discharge of treated effluent or plannediemissions of certain pollutants to air, there are no provisions which regulate the standards towhich solid waste disposal sites should be designed and operated;q,_,; * | there are no specific provisiors to regulate the quality of emissions to ground or to air, whether2planned or otherwise, that are typically generated by the disposal and decomposition of MSW;and

: following receipt of an Environment Clearance Certificate (ECC), there is no formal regulatoryiprocedure (monitoring, enforcement) to ensure thit the detailed design, construction and on-goingoperation of a solid waste disposal facility confor's with the performance standards envisaged at'the time of project preparation.

I 'ne of the purposes of SWEEP is to address the above issues through the development of appropriateL ntechanisms to improve the present Solid Waste Management practices and regulations in the

,.Ptilipputes.

1 SocialAcccptal?llity

The social acceptability of this project is high in the population of the LGU as a whole, and relativelyhiloh in the local affected population. The LGU has undertaken a considerable process of social

IL. t ' peparation, and public consultations have been held with various stakeholder groups throughout thel cc,minunity. A national NGO, the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), was hired by

the {DENR to design and implement a thorough stakeholder consultation process to ensure the,q . plnicipalion of!all social groups in the consultations on this project. In addition, the Mayor of San

F{nando La UInion, 'ith the assistance of the DENR Regional Office, has been actively engaged inraising local awareness'about garbage, health and sanitation issues, and is developing plans for

.. A- P omoting source recycling and micro-enterprise opportunities from garbage and recycling.

P 'F[ier support of this positive view of the social acceptance of this project is provided in this report,j (_ 2 1 b, the documentation of various activities and agreements: q

l. . . ;;, Scoping Peport signed by the key parties; -'* Public consultation process and fndings in the PRRM report;

e LGU support as evidenced by the council resolution endorsing the project;* Support letter from local NOOs/POs;

e * Rsults of the irn-depth:housihold surveys of directly affected local residents, as presented in theResettlement Action Plan;

rl - * ! . Results ofthe perception survey of households in the general vicinity of the project site; and* Letter of inttent from affected landowners to sell the required land to the city.

In the perceptioA survey there was support from a majority of local residents, both those directly andirdirertly affected by the proposed project, as shown in the table below:

r Q 1~~~~r

aGolder Associates

I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 -iv- 981-2730B

2x1er 1999 SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfAIEL4 .

iSecondary Impact Zone Respondent's Approval of the Project

K..; YFcondiry |mp ct n=115 Respondents

. Apjr,oves project implemeptation 85 73.9

Disa pproges project implementation 17 14.8

Uns am 13 11.3

Cir; i'Total 115 i 100.0

j '-- ii t Hous4o1ds within the ,econdary impact zone generally approve the implementation of the project

(73.9yo) while only 14.8% disapprove of its implementation because of perceived negative impacts.

Inlyl 1.3% have not decided yet. When asked fli, r'-; a; .- li agree to implem,ent the project upon

abatelnent of adverse effects, 85.2% of the respondents said yes.

Duritg the in depth interviews and the Focus Group Discussions, land owners and occupants

indicated that they believe that the project will be good for the city and that they agree to its

iA ; ' imple mentation provided that their losses will be properly compensated. Waste pickers also agree to

s... zrthe e::pansion of the landfill provided that they will still be allowed to pick waste. They say that the

expar sion would mean that there would be more garbage'to pick and therefore an increase in income

';~~ ~ ' '" -so;3 :o respond to familly needs.;

' : 1 Tln ;.i_:acceptability is high for the project, and is further advanced by the provision of specific

measures to address the concerns of .i.Jtl.l c.ffected populations. These include:

' ' ] * o PnFegiew, :,v, ~of a Rehabilitation Action Plan (RAP) for those directly affected by the project

iIplenientation and land acquisition;l; 1 * ' 4ct r!1-, of an environmental management program and an environmental monitoring plan to

'- :-w lrecss pe iconcerns of residents;- *, g * I ro3ectplanning to minimize disruption td the livelihood activities associated with the current

r nfill, and development of a training program profile for affected families.

i E.2.' :OtherProjectApprovl1.r....;;-

. .,.lie.irig the issue of an Enviroriinental Clearance Certificate (ECC) br the DENR, the detaileddesi! of the proposed development woujld require a *ii.]i.gd- d.-ipAil-e permit from the LGU

(incl ding consultation with the Local Air Transport Office, as necessary). In addition, all industries,

or facilities which have need to Le I e effluent or wastewater or emit

; .ri1, nI s ; air must, obtain a Permit to Operate (P/O) from the U.-I ER upon completion of each such

'5' ''- tAl-a - rnnl h. -I E

_ :

,,~~~~~~9 L .'..:.- j,

October 1999 - v.- 981-2730BI SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

_- -, , The CRity of San Femando currently collects about 40 tonnes/day of residential and commercial wastefrom the urban barangays and operates a disposal site on an approximately 4 hectare parcel of landthat c Inmenced operations in 1997. In 1999 it has implemented operational practices that are movingthe site :from an open dumpsite towards a Controlled Landfill as described in DAO 98-49. There is

I t organ,zed recovery of recyclables from the disposal site by waste pickers.'

Tech4ical studies undertaken as part of this EIA demonstrate that tl1e existing disposal site is creatingunacc,eptable impacts on groundwater quality and surface water runoff.

Y J n Even pith enhancements to the waste diversion programs, in terms of both recovery of recyclablesclnd'c4ntralized composting of organics from the market, as well as public education initiatives, it is

-. tevidet, that there will still .be a significant quantity of residual solid waste requiring disposal in thefuture l The current disposal! site does not have adequate land area for a reasonable planning period

l-4 *(mhri0.numn 10 years), and as noted above engineered controls would be required at the disposal site toimpro4e erivironmental p6rforn,ance during operationsland after closure.

_Disposal by means of landfilling is the only viable approach for the City to consider. The DAO 98-49legislation requires disposal facilities in San Femando to be upgraded to a Controlled Dump by 2003(e,semnia)lN already achieVed by the City) and to an engineered Sanitary Landfill by 2008. With theimplerientation of the preferred waste management. system being proposea under SWEEP as

UJ presented in this EtA report, the City can be expected to meet these requirements wvell in advance ofthe stipulated time frame.

A site election process was undertaken to identify the preferred location for a sanitary landfill for theU) -<iplannisig period. The preferred site includes the combination of the existing disposal site in Barangay

l5# Mameltac and an adjoining parcel of land in Barangay Dalangayan Oeste.. This represents the Study* ' Area fqr the EIA.

As par of the site selectibn process,lan extensive background (secondary) information review wasl t carried out to 'assist the City of San Fernando to identify Candidate Areas and subsequently potential

Candidate Sites. The results of this process was reported to the DENR as part of the docutnentation ofthe site selection process, including: a summary of the background information; projected rates of|11'nk'icl!,'31 solid waste generation; an estimate of required landfill site area; potential areasrecomn iended for further consideration;. potential sites within the preferred area; and

tr ! recornn eendations regarding the techtnically preferred site for the landfill in accordance with the|ri L cree,nig criteria. iThe majority of the background information was proyided by the DENRand the City. In addition, information obtained from the various government,agencies in the

5 Phi iipfip-l,I and the observations made during the site visits were used, where appropriate.

* The tectinical recommendations from this site selection process were originally provided to the DENRand :he C-i in.draft for their consideration, in order that ilvvy or.t.d confirmfidentify,potential siteswithin t4ierecorimended areas. Subsequently, the potential sites proposed by the City were assessed

L I and a rlcommendation regarding the ranking of those sites was provided'! so that the City couldproceed to select the preferred site and complete the necessary contractual documentation with ther| landowdier(s) for subsequent purchase of the property, if required.

I ' Golder Associates I

I ' . I

; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. 'i' ', -

L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-4 I' 'I

,- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ir '1

Oct be r1999, -vi- 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union San kary LandfIlEL4t

_ I; Sgi ,Xte 'City ~~made a preliminarv decision on their preferred site based on the draft technical

rec mendations and the results of the initial public consultations and secured pirchase agreements

witthe owners of the propefties located withun the preferred site. Subsequently, the City presented

to S . f:the lite selection process to the public for comments In October, 1998 and February, 1999. A final

uk ;a , deci ion regarding.the feasibility of the preferred site was made based oh the outcome of this public

T , condultittion. In view of the' favourable' public/stakeholder response to the site-selection process, the

Pity proceeded with tl4e'purchase of the properties that comprise the preferred site and commenced

.- 9 ' < the l,chnical and ftnancial feasibility study and environmental impact assessnent in February, 1999.

'E. i.PROPOSEDPROJECT

A slmmaiy of the proposed engineered sanitary landfill consltuc,tion, operations and closure lis

F., - 'pro ided below:

elements of modern sanitary landfills as set out in DAO 98-49 have been evaluated in the

r " Pontext of their applicability to the specific setting and circumstances of the San Fernando site,

Ld a site-specific facility design proposed that, when properly operated, will achieve an

' eeptable level of environmental performance;

:. lte San Fernando project site comprises a total land area of 5.8 hectares, consisting of the 3.5

r res- ffi . ctare existing disposal,site (the North Parcel) and the adjoining 2.3 hectares to the south (South

arcel). This, will .accommodate the' disposal cells, leachate treatment and stormnwater

l anagement facilities and ecological waste management area;

.:. 'he site will be developed progressively in three Phases of engineered landfill cells, the

|le'velopment of wb,ich will r, y -i the rehabilitation of the existing dumnpsite by relocating the

nxisting mlxedwaste and soil onto a designated area of the site. The active life of the landfill is

Iu itianle.l to be about lb years, d sr.|i. on'the actual waste generation rate and the percentage

r,. fwaste dlversion that can be acl;i:; e 1;

:h* rite is lnrc'ed en slr.pir. topography and is underlain by about 4.5 to 6.5 metres of weathered

F;ay s'.it travnuiionir.g Into shale bedrock. The subsurface conditions are considered favourable

f3orluAdfl1 developmtent;f. 'he s;ite design must ensure the stability of the foundations of Napo9or tower #21 on the South .'

L M , parcel- for final design purposes it will be necessary to confirm the tower foundation details and

l :~~ ': .: ; , cr.nflrm the r;. n.ired iebq ;

T* Tlie prooe d facilir',' design-..itilizes a compacted clay liner and granular le,chate .ie-,ion

itern to control potetitial *, i ;. rr. Cr.e ., is on groundwater and surface water:A A clay soil final

ccker '-iili vegetation' is i 1 .sed f; r the waste disposal cells. On-site leachate treatment and

;;i e l.-u i'till gasventipg are proposedto contr,ol environmental impactsfrom the a,po. ceils;

1-t * . mprovements to the site management and operational procedures are proposed in order that the

.' '. 'A,nite nsi,n and its performance is monitored efficiently and effectively.in accordance with *

.> . < unri-1r !-rdfill practices;iQiine e wi! hi- a re uirement for the City to operate and/or maintain the leachate collection and

' , t- ^ * i' ~~,; Ii, aer., 'Cr-l'S,th.os5tormwater management facilities and the final vegetated cover surface for at

'east several tens of years after the site stops receiving waste; and

'* .heestinated capital cost of the project, including the works ano, implementation of the RAP, isI|,.-Ijs 2-7:SUS,,02 (P108,721,000). The annual operating costs ar e t e $ at SS '145,000

t.P5 -3%il(V)). It is estimnated that the annual post-closure costs could be in the range of

5 P2,Iir)(i to 4,000,000 (US$50,000 to 100,000), and could be required until the landfill leachate

-nd gas generation is stabilized (for a period of several tens of years)., l

*' I 'S '

.A:. CA. ' ' ' i' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 *' 1..

.

I .. -..- ~, - " .I .,., I ,

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r 'l.ll

c , S ber 1999 -vii- 981-2730BV , _ - . t SWEEP, San Fernando Lta tnio* Sanitary Landfill EIA

, E S THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE

L> . . -. # lie lescription of the existing environment is based on the results of a comprehensive baseline dataclebon program. The data colliection covered the proposed site and its imniediate vicinity. Wherec ap ropriate, some ofP the baseline data was collected beyond this locale. In particular,. the dataco ection focused onthe physical, biological and human (social) environmental characteristics as they' in ience or are influenced by the proposed landfill development. A summary description of thevJ ex st-nlingsiteenviromnent is 'presented below. l

.* ! Th c4aracteristics of the area in the vicinity of the Project Site are illustrated on Figure E. I, following15 _ - | the executive summary text.

, . .i I.. - i E.5 I Topography

Th existing dump site slopes towards the northeast at an approximate grade of 5%. The adjacentr .';: pro lerty slopes towards the south at an approximate grade of 8%. The highe,t point is at theI x: l0sou hwest corner of the existing dump site, which is the same as the northwest corner of the adjacent

Epro,

LA. . E.5. Operatiois

* . ~ Theu presently iein' used to dispose garbage by the City. The predomnianit site operations- comnrise e,arth moving, garbage placement and daily (temporary) cover placement. In addition, about

5 teplkers collect recyclable materials from the freshly disposed garbage; the collected materialon site and subsequently sold to outside recycling businesses.

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .y

San City,is cllaracterized by a Type I climate of the Modified Coronas system of climateclass cation, with two pronounced seasons, being generally 'dry' from December to May and 'wet'*from une to November.. The strongly seasonal nature of the climate is dictated by the NE and SWL , mon's 6ns. The mean annual rainfall recorded in the San Fernando City area is 2,430 mm and themont Iyievaporatio'n rate ranges from 140 mm to 217 mm (annual average rate is 1,906 mm). Thenrzje ! .;reA is affected by the north wind from October to May, the south wind flow from June tor Sen:ber, and the trade winds in 1etween monsoons. The annual prevaoing wind direction in the3 ; S area i nri t Other E jnrmi'- systems or hazards 21--cd1. the temporal and spatial distribution ofrainfai ih these areas and in the country as a whole include thunderstorms, cold front, intertropical

; _ convegence :.zone (ITCZ), easterlyi wave, tornado (BuhaWi), and the northeast (Amihan) andU m southdes (Habagat) monsoorqs.

IThe i~eti1oA setting of the San Fernando area is dominated by the presence of upland bedrock--ldomin,ted terrsn, with alluvial sediments in the lowlands along the coast and in major river valleys.; The rezis of a subsurface investigation indicate that the natural subsurface profile cn the,study site

| > 4 appear td be fairly uniform, and consists essentially of a weathered bedrock sequence, with the upperportion beng completely weathered to soil and the degree of weathering decreasing with depth untilintact t :k bedrock is encountered. On the existing dumpsite there has been waste placed over muchr i of the p+operty, by dl winpi M spreading it and/or in excavated holes and trenches.

-J

C l Golder Assoc:latesL I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[ ~~,

Lx' Ociober1999 - viii -981-2730B

SIIt'EEP,FSan Fernando La Union Sanitary Landf7UIlL4i

i " I,5 jl' ~Soil | '''

i. t 0 ,There ;re seVen (7) types of soil found in the area. These are Bauang Clay, the Barcelona Clay, the

;,Bolnao Clay, the.SnManuel Silt Loam, Annam Clay Loam, Hydrosol and San Manuel Sand. The

E dep?sits likely compripenweatlhered bedrock materials. The soil type at the site is considered to6e

Burig Clay. -I5. Land Use

The land use within thel study area is'predominantly agricultural. The areas along the roads are

pred rninantly resider*tia,l.

rirface.'%Vat(rDrainageSurf ce' water drainage in the study area is influenced by the terraces of the farm lands in the area.

Ther, are no distinct draiiage'courses located within the area, even though temporary channels appear

to foa ' during major storm events. Any significant runoff from the Study Area (e.g. during major

i stornsreek flows voefland through the terraces and temporary and/or intermittent ditches/swales

towa e' I to,the south and Creek 2-to the north, and eyentually drains ihto San Femando Bay

via C latan Lagoon. Surface water drainage at the existing site flows mainly as overland (sheet) flow.

; r - Dunnl g significant rainfall (storm) events intermittent streams develop at the site in some of the gullies

1 11l ' and a ong the existing pathways and roads. The North Parcel drains predominantly in a northeast

directon to-the lower northeast comer of the property where it flows offsite as overland flow onto the

adjaa nt,agricultural fields. The South Parcel drains mainly southWard and continues to flows offsite

as overland flow onto the adjacent agricultural fields.

__ * E.5.8 Surface Water Quaiity

As the are no pnier .ial L ITdce water courses present within the study area, it was not possible to

* . * assess th'e sirface water quality within-the study area during the baseline data collection program.

t i ~~Howe er as noted above, thq -drainage from the study area eVeIrttially enters Carlatan Lagoon;

v therefare, water quality in this lagoon was analyzed as' part of the baseline data collection to provide

* ^ ' an indi.ation of receiving water quality conditions.

E.5.9 9roundwater Usie

In the mmediate vicinity' of the site, water for 'both domestic (potable) purposes and irrigation is

obtainoe from dug or dule. wells that are typically completed at depths of about 10 to 20 metres

below4 round;surface: A number of these wells are located within both the agricultural and housing

; 7 t w areas th et surround the existing and proposed landfill-site properties.,

E.5.10 Groundwater Flow

L-; There nray be a groundwater divide present that is somewhat to-the north of the,topographic divide

that'exitss,approximately along the boundary between the North and South Parcels. Existing water

' ' supply 4 dells located to the north, south and east of the existing and proposed landfill site Parcels are'

Ii considedto be potentially downgradient from the landfill cells in terms of groundwater flow. Wells

L to the w st'of the South Parcel are not indicated to be directly downgradient, but rather cross-gradient

I_ in terrns bfgroundwater flow.

Golder Assoclates

1'l ~~~~~ '4

- I

r. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .. . ..... . .. 'L

2 X 0- 'Oliober 1999 - ix- 981-2730Bi J I . -iSWEEP, S&n Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EJ4

i ffi ^ 5.11 'Groundwater Quafity

i v * g' T e groundwater monitoring results demonstrate that the groundwater has already been altered byw ste disposal beneath the disposal area and also for a distance of greater than 20 metres off-site onto

l x , -- I . th agricultural lands to the north. These results demonstrate the need for the implementation of anen ,ieered bottom lirer and leachate collection system to prevent ongoing pontamination of the off-sit groundwater, There is no potential for the current or proposed landfill activities to affect the main.we ler supplies of the urban area of San Fernando.

-E.n. ! Ecology

Th s tudy area includes the inmediate vicinity of the existing dumpsite and the South Parcel land,'7 - I Thr X will be no impact to aquatic resources, as there are no waterbodies within the study area. The

' * ' ' . . ' maR ority of the vegetation present within the project area is introduced and are non-endemic species oflittl eiatural heritage value. Altogether, 77 species of plants were identified in the existing landfill site,the expansion area afna the surrounding vicinity. However, only 8 species were common to all these.t e sites. No threatenedl endangered or rare species of plants or animals were identified within thepro ect site and in the surrounding vicinity.

r- :. sE.513 Noise

AltflIough during sampling-times there were activities at the existing dump site, still the observed noiselev,1Is throughout the sampling day were very much lower than the DENR standard.

L.y 5 14 Air

The survey of air quality was carried out for the concentrations of the following parameters: MethaneiGas (CE4),Total Suspended Pw,o.iIX: aa(TSP), and Sulphur DioXide (SO2 ). The results indicated thatth easured concentrations were either below the respective detection level or the applicable DENR *

stan dard.

i . 'E~~~~~~.5JI 5 Traflie

I,, ~~~ ' Catego-rize counts of vehicular and. pedestrian traffic movements were rconducted manually at twvot:locatiohs'along Dalangayan Oeste Road leading to the project site. Traffic was light; the only trafficentehng the dumpsite comprises pedestrians, dumnp trucks and private vehicles, the latter twocateomies arc responsible for the delivery ofMSW to the site.

_ E.5l Socio-economlr

For te hpurpose of identfing impacts, the study area has been classified into a Primary Impact Zone,r. , a Se,.ondary lu,t Zone, an .jialln;l Secondary Impact Zone, and General Area (City of Sanil'Fermdo, La Union), based on the likely degree of socio-economic impact of the project proposals.The, lata collection included a baseline survey, RAP survey and a Socio-economic and PericeptiorlSurvty of Waste Pickers, Land Owners/Occupants Households' and Other Households within theImpaat Zone and Focused Group Discussions and public consultations. A i1umber of key observationshave 'been noted as a consequence of the collection k.lie data of the environrnent surroundingthe project site. In brief, the pricipal observations are considered as follows: i) Residentialsettletnents occur in the periphery ofthe existing dumpsite and within the site proposed for expansion;t and i,) .'.^sid'ntiLi structures are located in all 4 ofthe barangays surrounding the site, and e Ipr;nl,oa' tdi-, primary haulage route. These cornmunities are considered likely to be affected, directly andindirectly, by 7.le project proposals. Most of the population in the area could be considered to fall

'r Golder Associat6s

.1 I:.-. .

Otlober 1999 -x- 98l-273ABStUiEP, Sat Ferfando La lC;I.o, Sanitar., Luiidfill IA

utnder the low-income group'and some households rely in whole or in part on waste picking activities

!j -anti in lilling the land.

E. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Po ential positive/negative impacts were generally evaluated as to their potential significance in a

qu ,1tatlve,manner,bosed on quantitative analyses where possible, using the following descriptors:

Hi h, Moderate,41 ,Mirimal and None. The analysis also considered the shoot-term/long-teirn and

re ersiblef irreversibld nature of the impacts.

r m '. 1 ; Im iicts of potential significance are identified as key issues to be addressed through monitoring and

micigation measures. The following environmental aspects/factors were considered: l

r -.J J I ' v q rPhysical Environment: Air quality, groundwater quality, surface water drainage and quality,

L ;v tJ j | ~~~triaffic gpnditions and noise. " l

* Biatogica! Environment: Biological environment is a potential issue only in the South Parcel that

fqrms about forty percent of the proposed site, as the landfill (i.e. open dump) already exists on

-he rem inctrr. Of this forty percent, about half has been cleared and is used for housing and

farming purposes.l , * Hwrman (Socio-economic) Environment

It i important to note that the proposed engineered landfill incorporates most of the proposed

mit gation measures in its design and ,-pe.eiiuo.; in order to minimize most, if not all,.of the potential!enviromnental impacts. , ie impact analysis indicates that the provision of these measures is positive

ear.d v ill reduce the sig6ificance of those environmental impacts from the present high levels (due to

. the l resence of the,dumpsite) to minimal/insignificant levels.

In riying out this impact assessment, the potential impacts have been identified by comparing the

r currSn! baseline conditions (the existing dumpsite in operation on the North Parcel and

iund veloped/developed land on the South Parcel) to the Conceptual engineered landfill design and

1 , iperni'zns. Potential impacts were generally evaluated as to their potential significance in a

qual tative lann&; based on quantit,tive analyses where possible.

A su rnary of the potential significance of the potential negative and positive impacts associated withthe roposed engineere sanitary la!ndfill project, together with an indication of the impact duration

(sho br lng-term) and iti reversibility, is presented below:

. L L ,> ! < ~~i . , 1 - ! * . ;- ,

-. I. ** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ zicrstle. -FIgnifle a'e

1' .prayed FlPnnifl' a.d Lo'i W:-,i

Infirstrcture for City

lmp4ct1 on livelihood for Positive Short-term - Moderate

-wast picker as a result of

I r ; chan ges in site .pe,alir-.

Loss1 of L>nd and Negative Long-term lrreversible High

_ _ _ Imprbvements i

Go!der Asso:lates

r Ij,

''L . U ~Q7

1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'8-70

j l ! S tjOctber 1°99. -'i- xIi-ivri 981-273O)BSISEEP, Sai, Fertaiandu La U'nion S.V,iidry LainfihIl El 4

i t4sx, w,*5<$4- ; b ,t,i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rvesil e 'Sgi c-r^eIincel/;.

r*ig -. Loss or liielihood/st3nding Negalive l.ong-lerm Irre!ersible llighcr ps and trees for tenants inth4 site earrnarked for 'ac uisition. '

a.lge Iin access route to Negative Positive Dong-tern Irreversible Minimalrdents on east side 'bf .

. . ~~~~~~pr iposed feicility,Tn-nmigration lo the project Positive Long-term Moderatesiti & surrounding area!L hmyact on Lor al Property Positive Short-term - MinimalV1;lues .Repuction of Impacts from Positive . Long-term Highthl Exsting Dump Sitei i Cr4:ation z of Local Positive Short-term - Minimal toCE Opportunities , Moderate

i - (LQ wv,r/Semi-Skilled a,andSk lldd) . . ._ _ _,.,Witder Eoonomic and Positive Long-term. Minimal/Empioyment Benefits . I.lodersue

-cc Moder:jit-~~~- t..~

. u Rection of tvctors and Posifiie Long-lerm . t10derawpolontial vransmhisioll of n-. IIiiJI$ . ~~~~dis aie..Co tjl of surface. and Positive Long-term , Moderate

;~ gr41ait , . an'd vater contamination .t6 High -tRe uction in dust and air Positive Long-term , Moderatecqr axnination - to High

'ectdon of workers and Positive Shortvterm Moderatei ' .1' ] . wite,pickers through proper to High I

!cliing and equipment ._-_'_.__ _

Co trol of heavy Positive Short-term , Moderateeq4pimientlhumana interaction _ _ to HighOv rail impacis on healih Po.iiie Long-le rm ,- I. ;and safetv) itL:h

_ ! _ . * A . _ _ - ~ .V.. _'~ . .

R jS.,p, ,t$ t: -i<-. '.j; .' {.!. j. :; '.........; .-, ..- . . . . . . ... , , , .

VW\ IW E fects ,;from Sire Nqepaice Slsrjrt-kerm Re%ersib.le l;11JlCco irution Viialt Effect from Site Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

l : Op'e railons' '________ _ __op6.

.Chahge in Landscape Positive Long-term . ModerateCharacter from Site (discontinuation ofD c kipmD nt * Controlled Dumping)

____________________ Negative Long-term I J Irreversible *viinimnJr SGolderff | Golder ~~~~~~~~Associetes

RI~~ I

Octe6r 1999 J981

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary La-lln,fiLAI98

- lF. . ; ;.f> ,P;l.tol,enha I.mpac! it-eNgPShoi ih :ve ,b 1 ente.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ *C. -w .-ir tJ, ~ f 'G_ ;j,,,,iii i,,: __;it_¢_; ' =

. , ,; GeuI; ,calI G'eot ,enira,' ' ' -. ..- F *

|roiion Asiociaikd vTiih I Ir e - n 'III I. ,.Iinini

| l i Construction Activities

S; and Foundation ,legative Short-term R versible Minimal

InS bility from Site

Ope tgons_. Envi aomental Effects of Negative Short-term .eversible Minimal

L Sour es of Imported . r 'r. .!:

d rials id ' nd I se:

I ' | I . Change in Land Use Negati, e LJonp-ierm Ir4 'Nlirimml = .

,os- L F Productive L3nd' I Lega;1 e Lcne .1-.. 'I . iIiI h! rsliniiiM.

i Remial of Topsoil" Negative Short-term ,Rc.. ;. | iirn d

-. tReins atement of Soil Profile South Parcel- None Long-term T reversible Mini, nal

and Ptoductive Land Use to Negative;North Parcel-

r i.- Positive Long-term __ oderate

Ls . kt <f@;W-'S 1Rc.r,-,-F,; ,,. F* , .-.- .r

Wasie maieriai wvaslout onto Neg.:Li e Shcn-tervm P r :ir- t liniimal

adjacent (e.g. ogriculimiralj

Jands d rAng operation .

Leachae seeps impac;ing Negative Short-tern Reversible Minimal

surfa ce water runoff from

J iF site o to adjacentk'tandsduring -. ration ._.

-r Waste tnaterial washout Negative Short-term Reversible. li-iiii l

L. Z Wn&'or nieachate ' iitpacted

; F surface iunoff impacting

.

adjacep Iland&. during

. relocati n of wastes at the

L % existing ump site ._ _

.Waste .. material washout Negative Short-term Reversible . . rlI to

and'or leIachate impacted . , lone

I; j 4surface runoff impactingadjacen, (e.g, agricultural)

lands uring post-closureperiod 1'_, ._I

ReductioWkliinination of Positive Long-term - High

leachate $mpacts on quality

of surface runoff onto

adjacent lands during

operation due to cessation o

open dumpiIng _ _

Golder Associates

0 tober 1999 xiii- 981-2730B

ISWREEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfA U!EL4

:POIetIhaI:J ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ P~ ,rsible/%. 'oenir,.t . , $ .:' 'zj4 .*-.. ' w1B. F r P i dr- ,,R , b ie / ,. __F i_ _r

F~educiione lininalion of Pvsiti%e Long-term _ _lii-h

v aAte mateiial washout ontoa ljacent lands duringWoeration due to cespation ofo'pen dumping. _ ' .

.;educticoiIelimination of the Positive Long-term High

pplnLiai for clean surfaceritnoff to come into contact

waste material and. hchate during operation :.

d post-closure '11

L hate Contamination of Negative Long-Term Reve, ible Minimal.roundJ 'er Resources

'[1" . R >dltiction/eliminatioh in Positive Long-term ._ Highhate Contamination of

. & odndiwa:er Resources' .______ .____.

C ntamination of Water Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

R sources by Potential Fuel! ; ilage__ ___

. sk of Flooding in Vicinity Negative Short-termn Reversibe Minimal

M dification lof Water Positive/ None

P1Str3e Cap:cit N ati:e ._ _

tt. ~~ .; --. W---CR.~~~

0Eqological effecs onb Short-termt Re%ersibi .. . -

veZ etation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ological effects on wildlife Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

C' tion of riew habitats Positive Long-term t Moderate

(dvring aid post operation) _

-3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

Inprea:e in odo'jr tevels l gilf ie Short-term Re ersibl; r-lininmal Kc.

arihing from project .vloderate

prSpos.ali ____

lr`reue in dust emissions Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal to

from siide onstructin and ModerateL- 't ! op rations _

, n6rejse in- vehicle exhaust Negative Short-terrn Reversible Minimal

emlisions from use of *.

rn,mobile equipment andcotlAsiructioll traffic

il CU ge in landfill gas Negative Long-term Reversible None

(meihane) eimission,rTEi'tnination of smoke from Positive Long-term _ Minimal

ce. FA2ion of ctrrcni dumping

L. I ' | Golder Associates

F~"

i r

F.Q ____ 4

October 1999 xiv- 981-2730O

I - SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitaiy Landfll EL4

.eot oentag amp -.rreyerlbie , ;,S.4rafe ;

Reiuciinn in odour from Pm,iliie Lonrg-lerrn ; loder3i.icessation of current dumpingoperationsReduction in dust emissions 'Positive Short-term ,. Minimal.

L ' . from cessation of current .dumping operations ._._._._:_____, -_:_;_E___

! ,- Reduction in exhaust Neutral Noneemissions from cessation of . Io l

| ! Li vu i.urrenlt dumping operations _ . :

Noizt e rs xi ng from Negative Shnri-lerm Reversible Nloderaleconstruction of the ,engineered landfill . , .Noise arising from' site Negative Short-term Reversible Moderate

. operations

11 i ,+i.1,;,M,< ,%: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lt X ..Ircreased iraffic loading and Negative Short-term Re%ersible Nonetraffic congestion

!1 < tAir quality impacts from Negative Short-term- Reversibe Minimal. tvehicle emissions . . None +

Traffic noise Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal'"tu1 l . None .Littering and Cleanliness Positive Short-term - Minimal

| . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dur g Waste Transit '_____._i

j ! a. The potential negative impacts identified in this assessment are addressed through monitoring and lmitigation measures. I

|; 3 | 1 As the impact assessment has assumed that these engineered measures will b,e implemented uU. < designed, appropriate monitoring of the construction and operation of the proposed landfill, including

- * . a contingency plan, is essential for its environmental acceptability. This aspect is discussed in the| | ' ] Environmental Management Plan.| I .^ tE.7 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES . . * |

The proposed landfill development will significantly improve the envilronmental cqnditions at the site

I I q n and its vicinity over and above the present conditions (i.e; dumpsite). Also, the engineered landfill

l; ia || would at the same time rehabilitate the existing dump and provide a planned, environmentally safeI 4 r 1 facility. Therefore, as oppksed to typical infrastructure projects,, most of the project

componentstmeasures in 'this case are designed to reduce/ minimize the potential impacts and will.upgrade the existing Controlled Dump to an Engineered Sanitary Landfill. In addition to the projectl

|Li !components/measures, mitigation measures have been proposed as additional measures to furtherli - 8 reduce the significance of the potential residual environmental impacts, or where the potential impacts

L I"! fi may not be adequately addressed by the project components/measures. ||l * H .Golder Associates

O ctLr 1'i399 . -xv - 981-2730B- ! SJIS EEP, San erna,,do La Unlion Sa ttirar Luitdfill EL-i

_ Thi! s j n presents a surmary f the proposed mitigation measures, together with measuresincorp t 1 in the design or the F oposed landfill,,t6iddliess the poidiial environmental impactsase iam. I with landrilling or nnun 'ipal solid *wasles. The physical, biological and human (socio-eco orin ) environments1 were con ;idered in the formulation of the mitigation measures. A summaryof t - 'componenLs (der -n features) and mitigation measures is presented below:

____ 'P6 ciii '~ ghrv~ii~~~a-' li jgp:je&j: '- I t1 6e?'. J.Residual nai

1. a 00 -7 __ -I. _. ?1 -i

Los or Land nd . Implemenation of NininialImpFovements . R:AP

1mpsovefliefls lrecommendations

Los , of , livelihood/s:anding _-- .Implementation of MinimalL - cr c,s and trees for teiants In . RAP'the site earmnar]ned for recomimendafionsacq isition.Ch zge in access route to Provision of a Minimalresi eits on es t lide of better qualitypro) psed facility (constructed)

r. - , alternate accessroad, as part of theproposed landfill

__________ ______________I____; __ developm ent _

U _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ::,~ ~ ~ ______ . .. . ,, .. ,., 4-:t ;,i x!,, ,. .| s.J>-'i

VisuIl EffecLs !rom Sihe Pro% i ion of duily Provision of The %%orking face oftons truction and Operations cover, vegetative cover measures to the landfill may beand Change in Landscape on closed portions of' minimize the visible from offsite

b, - rhar icter the landfill, vegetative degative effects of points duringscreen' (e.g. trees) the ,change in landfilling in certain

_ | aroutd some parts of landscape areas of the site;the landfill site, character,. !j. however, this

..* : engineered site including: exposure is notfacilities such as service Afteruse such as expected to last for

roads, ditches/swales, parkland, . imore than a dayL I !' i | - l t ponds and wetlands and agricultural land, because of . theI... ._ .I e a designated procedure etc. This will placement of daily

for waste picking assist in making cover. No omverallq w ! . X , ! the landscape residual impacts arel, . , more acceptable anticipated.

to the residents in

rthe area, thusreducing the

__ 5significance of the

residual impact

L i.G ...s.a.I-. I Golder Aslsociates

r !

I r |ct0ber 1999 -xvi - 981 -273(B

I iSIIEEP, i. t Ferinandu La f'inio, SaFtitarr LundfIl EL-1 I

I.*k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L .. 4

r~~~~a id-R.ifErc Associated il n The tse of solid Use of tenporn . sidal m ci

r - ; C~~~~~~~~on. i ton Activities - ~perimeter fencing; the isflt fencing andf a~re not considered

| l ' - 8 ! :. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~consruction of the ditching. to be significantn _i 't. a,. stormwater

.management andIt .~ . ! . .treatment systern at the .. , > I ., , ~~~~~~~~~start of construction,.1 , . ~~~~~~~~~~~~and; the vegetation of

r I ,; | _ -~~~~~~~~~~~final cover slopes,.i Slope and Foi a .:.n These aspectso hav e N one ' p Residual impacts

. do. In$tility from, SAte been considered in the are not considered

. construt gns deeign cofcept, and to be significantr stor.mwill be studied- ine!

m ] X . . . . additional detail during ofthe final design phase

Sl viropmeanda Fci.Ces '.on These required None ! Residual impacts

1So1rnesaoflmporteoMaterials materials would t come are not considered

0 e s d nfrom currently lice nsed to be significant

,I will. or future licensedI. En th. ' l sources, whose

L ~ . | ' !1 .Ipotential environmentaleffects will be taken

) . into iaccount by theconditions of issuanceof their permit to

,_____,_______: oper1e b:, the DENR

rre gica i'Land U5. j; ' .

Cha nge in L r, l Use NIone The- chanee in land The posilke

use on the South environmental I

Parcel from benefits associated

residential/agricult with the provision

ural wilt I! be of an engineered

imitigated by the landfill are seen to

requirements of the far outweigh any

' I.. .i : . , i iRAP potentially negative

* > t: : i , i . issues associatedi .j , . . . .with changes -inI,; !23 ; , .. I . . land or soil usage.

'U w . . No residual impactsare anticipated

Li Golder AssociatQs

, , ! 2.

1ctnber 1999 x ii I - 18SWEEP,, Va.t Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EM.;~ btentlai .. h J14

_ '~~~~,. J. z - .S*--, .. - __a

:' o! OS5 OrProducOivwe Land, Or eomplerian of the In addirion lo i e The pO,i. ' einoval of Topsoil and wa ite placement in the design features, envirornentallelnstatement of ,oil Profile dis -osal cell areas, the these impacts will benefits associated

d Productive Land Use -i sd waste areas will be mitigated by the with the provisionbe .vegetated and the requirements of the of an engineeredlant can be returned to RAP. landfill are seen toI I T apf opriate uses such far outweigh anyas ,,assive recreation or potentially negativelo v intensity issues associatedaf riculture with changes in soil

profile/ productivei _ . I land use. No

residual irrpacts are_______________I .___,______________ anticipated

H drololvie3ll udfld,Rv g e.;-i-; q __

V1. ae iaerizil wvashout .nij k- is.:in cif ailN co%er tlone l ,e -(e.g.' agricultural) material; measures will

I during operation, Minimize areas of sr,ifi inII;inmluding waste reloc tion exposed waste material; improve the

t .and existing , runoffProvision of surface cllizdl with regard

I |1 , water drainage control to waste materialmeasures washout. Nq

__ I |: -(ditches/swales and resideal impacts are_ _ I i ponds) anticipated

L. Leichate seeps ilnpacting Provision of finrl cover None No rcsidual impactssutace water runoff from site material to minimize' are anticipatedontp adjacent lands during leachate generation;op on Collection and

Lt.atlo. treatment of leachate tominimize leachatemounding/seeps; andr . i Provision: of surfacewater drainage controlmeasures to minimize

_____________________ _ .off-site im pactWas-e material washout and/or Provision of final cover None No residual impactsleac,iate impacted surface mateial to minimize are anticipatedrunorf impacting adjacent (e.g. leachate generation;

- 1ll agridultural) lands during post- Collection: andS - I clos4re period treatment of leachate to'

minimize leachateU I l ! mounding/seeps; and

Provision of surfacewater drainage control

i ] j measures To minimizer _ _ _ _ _ off-site impact _

LI lGolder Associates

r

j r a Octoberl1999 iii 981-2730B

'SfEP, San fEernando Le7 (ntiott Sanirt LandjUl M4

-J~ ~ ~~J,

Leacha e Contamination of Provision of final co%er Implement3tion of The propo:e.1

Ground ater Resources material to minimize contingencN me.wures lill

leachate gene ration; measures (e.g. Si Jrifi LnulCM

Collection and provision' of improve the

- n - !i l zi [, treatment of leachate to altemate water existing3 i a ' t;. it,:minimize leachate supply for potable groundwater

leakage through the use) in the quality with regard

| bottom of the landfill; unexpected event ito leachate

Provisionand of off-site water constituents. No

,: , ,Provision - of tight well contamination residual impacts are

I (compacted clay) by the landfill. anticipated

bottom liner to

t I l : minimize leakage of

l.. , leachate into thesubsurface environment

: (groundwater) ._.

Contamiatilon. of Water If on-site fuel storage is None Any residual fuel

Resourcds bli, Potential Fuel required, appropriate spill impacts from

Spillage secondary containment proposed works are

will be provided. not considered to

_ __ ' !. :;:'" t1';,. ,,be significant

Risk of I lo6ding in Vicinity of Provision of stormwater None 1 Potential exists for

l Sjte , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~management structures off-site discharge of 1 I!* :ji;, ..... (ditches/swales, ponds, stormwater during j j

''!sl; i1;.. ' lvegetative cover) to major storm events, . l i

, " , j,, t | i lminimize the potential but the extent of

~~~. . . ~~~o fodiAany downstreamflooding due to thiswill be less severe

t--. .- ! ; ; .-.. than that isr- . * . .: ; . . . presently

encountered (i.e.

. , l .. , t ! pre-development i conditions). No

.i ! ; s .tsin^i ._ l :: ' residual impacts areanticipated

lr .. G Ass .. o1aeI .

s 7 j ~~~~~~~~~Golder Associates

. I

ir l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

Octo' er19 -gxix - 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EIA

Loss of vegelafion and %ildlidfe Provide vevelatiVe Prolec Ilarge trees No residu31 inp.a¢c!_ habit lts I cover on landfilIed as far as possible; are anticipated

l N . areas at closure. Transplantsmaller trees,where possible;Provideindigenous5 .| vegetation alongsite boundaries,swales/ wetlandsand any available

____________________________________ _ . .open areas

Increae in odour le%els ari5ig Pro%isic n . r dill None N.l all oJsur,from p rject proposals I cover; generated can be

Minimize the presence controlled, but mostof exposed waste odour impacts

I material; and would be for shortProvision of perimeter time durations,fencing/ trees. varying with wind

conditions.I: lResidual impacts

are not considered;__________________ _ .to be significant

Increas in dust emissions from Keep exposed None. Not all dustssite 'cons(niction and excavated areas wetted; generated can be

_ operatidns Minimize the presence controlled, but mostof uncompacted soil dust impacts wouldand exposed waste be for short time

: ~~~~~material; and durations, varying_ ; Provislion of perimeter withi windfencing/ trees. conditions.

Residual impactsare not considered

l': . to be significant

G .

|~~~~~ Golder Associates

October 1999 Vi - "'81- "fl

SHEEP. Sat. Fern.pt/h La Union SUln, i Landfill El.-I

* P , ,tiIal,egattv,empact-' - . Project:i . '>-Proposed -'.t:- Residual Iripact:

~~~~~. , i -_, t*v *; .-;;- -. "w !-;. . ;..

Noise' arising from install noise fencing at Use mddern, Well-

r* const ctlon of the engiqeered critical/sensitive site maintained mobile Not all operational

landf.il and site operations boundaries, particularly equipment fitted noise can be

I ., g . . | . along the periphery; with noise mitigated; noise

suppressors from site operations

I (mufflers); will be lower thanAvoid night-time during site

, . ; S 1 . . work as far as construction and

, t .1* _ . . possible; and will be for limited

gI , ! ^ \ * ! s Use mobile noise * durations onlybarriers as within anynecessary at particular area of

per4phery of site the landfillI t ,: . . : - . ! . where activities are footprint. Overall,on going. fesidual noise

Impacts from site, operations are not

. .* cnnsidered tn be

IkImparedk IC)

r Increaseii traffic loading and None Assign avr., ffie Residual natfi.

L . I traffl gestion enforcer I,, direci impa.'r; frnm

I I, irdific at tile propobed wurks are

I (_ :: .. H . ' , . entrance to the not considered to be

I7- I ; .. project site, significant

particularlyduring heavy

-r ; -- l ; traffic peribds

In additioit to the above noted mitigation measures, a number of short term measures have been

recommen'ded for immediate implementation in order to minimize further environmental degradation

dne to the ointinued operation of the existing dumpsite.

Appropri;3w 1oniLoring of the construction and operation of the proposed landfill, including the

conLingenc%; pl3n. i.hich is essential for its environmental acceptability, is discussed in the

w Environm n Management Plan.. . ~~~~nvirom :a

., ~I

G older Associates

.'' I I T ..

Oct4 ber 1999-~~~~ - :,AI - 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' I -273013

SIl FEP, Sain F.r.i,nieifI La (IFliin Sa,,i, Ltuid/ill EL I

- S E.8 ENVIRONRIENTALr1IANAGERI(ENTPLAN(ENIP)

An qnvironmental hl\an:iement Pl3n (ENIPi "is5 prepared in ace.rdanc. "ilh the requienrnnris ct'the__ DENR; Procedurail Nlan3al for EIS. The ENIP v'as ba;ed on tile idcnritieJ imnpacts and

miti buionbenhancenricni measures and addresses project impacts and corresponding mitigationmeastes, cost estimates, the institutional mechanisms for implementation and associated

a agrqe nintslguarantees. The mitigation measures and the implTmentation plan were combined to form; ean el 'Trbnmental management program, which includes a Monitoring Plan. Due to the environmentall

- sgnif cance of landfill developments and the potential implications of failure to properly implement,. 3 any o the proposed mitigation measures and implementation plan components as designed/planned,

S the EFIP al-o included a Contingency Plan. This Plan sets out a sequence d6 actions tobe taken in theevenl that ongoing monritoring and observations indicate that the site is not performing as designed orL7 fl expec ed. Also, recommendations regarding the establishment of an Environmental Monitoring andGCuara tee Fund has beenlincorporated in the EMP.

[7 ^E.8.1 Social Development P'ogram

The E MP includes a Social Development Program (SDP), which discusses the programs orrcopo ents of the proposed project which are related to 'social development and addresses themitigatoi of potential nqgative impacts, especially those associated with resettlement, relocation, '[7 incom lossI etc. The SDP focuses on two main populations that are most directly impacted by the

d project the waste pickers and the landowners or tenants of the additional land required for ther7 |expansn of the current site [i.e. the Project Affected People (PAPs)]. Extensive detail on the SDP(i.e. comnpensaion measures) is provided in the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). In summary, theRAP is;de5igned to ensure that the population directly affected by the project are provided with themeans, pnd the procedures, to ensure that their quality of life after the project's implementation, is asgood as,or better thtan previously. The plan is to be implemented by the City, ('ihe project proponent),

L; and defines and describes the monitoring program to be followed, as well as grievance procedures forthe afte ted parties should ihey wish to contest the implementation."

E.8.2 Environmental Monitoring

Moniton n Requirements and Monitoring Plan

The bas principles to assist in the design of an environmental monitoring system are clearobjectivei, appropriateness, institutional support, quality control, flexibility and sustainability. It isanticipated that two fundamental types of inspection and monitoring will be undertaken on-site:

* Moni ting of compliance of site development to any specified conditions, including adherence ofsite o eerations and management to the principles incorporated in project design; and

* Envir nmental monitoring to assess the impacts arising from on-going site development and0opera1ion.

The site operations should comply, at all times, with relevant National and Local Regulations.Enviromn+ntal clearance will be required annually froti the DENR for operating the facility. Landfillconstructiqn and operations will be monitored by the DENR, independently of any inspectipn andsupervisioi of the service contract performed by the LGU, in order to ensure compliance withprevailing lnvironmental legislation. The implementation of the mitigation and monitoring plan willbe the respnisibility of both the LOU and the DENR.

Golder Associates

r I.r

i~ ~ ~ ~~~~~O Dbe 199 XX X

C .E a Oc tober 1999 ' -xxii - ' ' 981-2730B

., ! SWEEP, San Fernando La Unlon Sanitary Landi/I E.A

.A M4ulti-Partite Monitoring ream (MMT) will oversee the monitoring of the project, including RAP,

anc wilt be composed bf representatives from the project proponent (LGU), affected communities and

. wo en, relevant local;governmeni units (barangay), and PENRO and/or CENRO in the project area.

Th funcujons ofthe MMT will incLude- monitoring the project for compliance, gathering information

if d lmage occurs or public qomplaints are raised, priparing and disseminating monitoring reports and

sub nitting recommendations to the DENR, and conducting relevant community information and

edu -ation campaigns. The DENR Regional office and the EMB will provide support to the MMT in

tecl nical aspects or evaluation and policy monitoring.

En nmental monitoring provides data to help confirm predictions of the environmental impactassqssrnents, identify any environmental pollution due to site operation, identify'any deviations from

acceptaible standards of site bperation, and formnulate proposals for site remediation or contingency[ m e a ures, as necessary. The Site Operator will be responsible for carrying out the routine monitoripigL with the documented results forwarded to the LGU and the MlT on a monthly basis forinsp ecton and review.

* The appropriate Philippines (DENR) environmental standards which are currently prescribed with

resp ct to surface water quality, groundwater levels and quality, air quality and noise levels will be

use to assess the mo4itoring results. It is also suggested that, where applicable, available World

: F a . Bank'and World Health Organization (WHO) standards'should be used, for purposes of comparison.

The jproposed monitoring program Includes monitpring locations, frequency and parameters and'. 0 ~~~~~wou drequire ithat the monitoring results are presented in an annual report. The monitoring program

i will avereewill h to be continued into the post-closurTe period, with appropriate modifications based on theresul 'of the monitoring during the operational period. The duration of the post-closure periodmonitdring should be determined based on these results and through discussions among the

r t stakeholders.L.t -The annual cost of the implementation of the proposed environmental monitoring program is a

1-6 a anticipated to be approximately P 1,000,000, excluding the cost of RAP related monitoring which ip 'rJ inclu ied in the cost of RAP implementation. It should be noted, based on the results of the first year

mon4oring. it may be possible to reduce the extent of monitoring which in tum would reduce theaainn lmonitoring cost.

E.8.3 Contingency Plan

A derailed contingency plan!would be prepared as part of the detailed design in order to address the

ir-~ potential environmental impacts in the event of possible inadequate performance or failure of a landfillcomp nent(s). The potential iifipacts that would be considered are leachate impacts on downgradient

grounrwater, impacts on air quality, and surface water impacts on downstream lands. The Contingency

Plan Iould specify trigger mechanisms to activate the appropriate components of a conli., Cnlc remedial

*i I measqre(s). In order to address the uncertainties associated with the existing environmental conditionsqi and tl ie project proposals, it is proposed that the contingency implementation plan should comprise a

phase approach, tied to the trigger mechanism.

r The r ,i:ger Mechanism is based upon a three-tier process, with each tier establishing a trigger for the

L initiati on of further action. The Trigger Mechanism is based initially upon the results of the-'igrounwater quality monitoring program because of the significanci of potential groundwater impactsI11 in the lrea over the potential impacts on other environments (e.g. surface water, air). The Mechanismr lJ anaduidnele a number of trigger parameters, typically indicative of leachate impact on groundwater,and trigger concentrations.

Golder Associates

r ..r . '_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

iO-itoler 1999 _xxiii- 981-2730B

12u' I '' -. SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

iE 1.4 Site Closure tnd Restoration

1... Tb pro~posed Ernironnmental Management Plan should consider long range planning to mitigate both the

_ !h -term and long-term impacts of the project. As the landfill site will not be suitable for

res dential/commercial use, It could be used for passive recreation or low intensity agriculture once it

isa As such, carabao grass may be the suitable surface cover to prevent soil erosion and dtst

res spension.

i E.8 5: Proposal For An Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF)

tTh DENR EIS Procedural Manual (1998) requires that an Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF) should

b be t tup as part oftheWproject and outlines the protocol and requirements for setting up an EGF. The

EG~ Lhotld bhe set up by the project proponents to cover the cost to implement damage prevention

mea uies, environmental education, scientific or research studies, IEC, and training including socialr equity programs in the event such a damage occurs. The need and requirements of the EGF should be

discjFssed between the City of San Fernando and the DENR prior to the implementation of the

proposed landfill project in order to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the EGF.

E.9 1' INSTITUTIONALARRANGEMENTS

E.9. ; Current Institutional Arrangements

t f Under SWEEP, it has been recommended that a Waste Management Authority (WMA) be

set u within an appropriate agency with the task of assisting all local authorities in carrying out cost

effedive and efficient waste management The proposed role and functiorgs of the WMA reside with

the I roject Management Office of the PTFWM. It acts as the central controlling unit for SWM-

related activities of the LGUs.

Loca I tinder the current set up in the City of San Fernando, SWM is the responsibility of the City t

Engi eer's office. A SWEEP-PMO was formed in San Femando to assist the City in the

-impi metation of the SWEEP activities. This SWEEP-PMO is comprised of the representatives of

the ty (Mayor's office, Planning Officer and City Engineer), DENR (Regional Director, CENRO,

PE 0) and a number of other stakeholders.

E.9.2 1 Contractual ArTangemenIs

U 111 Aller aivs Arrangements: The nature of the relationship between the regulatory'authority and the

proje developer is influenced by the contractual arrangements under which the project is

imple ented. In this regard, although a large number of possibilities exist, three scenarios are

consi red to be most suitable: i) the LGU would act both as Project Proponept and as the Project'

Devel per; ii) the LGU would be the Project Proponent but the design, construction, operations,

mainte nce, restoration and after-care, would be let out under contract to one or more Private Sector

j t.^ l ~~~~~Contr ctors (PSC); or iii) an appropriate combination of the above two (e.g. design and construction

and operation for a number of years by a PSC and subsequent operation and aftercare by the LGU).

On the!basis of the proposed project details, the third scenario is considered the most rejlihiic solutionif the Frdject is to be implemented successfully given the present level of experience and expertise

within the LGU with re pe et l'o the design, construction and operation of engineered sanitary landfills

and thd long-term cost implication of the involvement of a PSC. The PSC would be selected by the

LGU nn the basis of a competitive tender to provide the requisite services to execute the project

! t < proposls.

Golder Associates

i, 2 ''I~~~-

L.,,' '

iOc ober 1999 xxiv 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfiliEL4

Re iulzaio of the ContractinjPartfes: On the basis of a service contract as suggested above, the LGU

wo Id be the owner of the landfill facility, while the PSC would be the occupier of the site. In this

sit ution there are two possibilities for regulation of the contracting parties: the regulatory authority

lice sps the Site Occupier to undertake specified works and operations at the site according to any

conditions attached to the license; or the regulatory authority licenses or permits the Site Owner to

und rfake specified works and operations-at the site! -the Site Owner is obliged to ensure that the Site

jOccupier complies with the conditions of the permit or license granted to the Site Owner. The latter

_,_ ;i I ' opti )n1is seen to be a more effective solution as it places greater responsibility on the Site Owner.i~I ' I ; -41 -ProposedOrganizational Structure

r l . Asl YcA oject Proponent, it is proposed that the current organizational set-up in the City be expanded to

acco odate the various activities related to the implementation of the engineered' landfill

development. It is anticipated that a Solid Waste Management Office, either as a separate department

or w,der the City's Engineering or Planning Departments, would be established and be responsible for

all adti"ities associated with solid waste management.

As ubted above, a Multipartite Monitoring Team (MMIT) will be created to oversee the public liaison

__ , tand pnitoring activities.

l 9 E.9.4 Technical Assistance

11*1 Therc is growing awareness in the Philippines, including the City of San' Fernando, of the pressing

problems of solid waste management. However, the Project Proponent (the LGU) and the regulatory

L. , authoity (the DENR) have very limited expertise and experience with respect to the design an

l operamin of engineered 'anitary landfills. It would be important to have experienced and qualified

X 1 -| perso nel in key positions both within the LGU and in the responsible section of the DENR in order

,lfor thproposed project to succeed. In view of this, it is recommended that appropriate technical

l ' - assist nce be sought, at least during the initial stages of the project implementation. ;

- ' The a bsence of experience in engineered landfills in the Philippines places considerable emphasis

upon ie need to train all concerned parties on all aspects of the construction and operation of an

. enginiered sanitary landfill. In this regard and in response to the requirements of CIDA INC, a

- .Training'and Human Resources Development Program has been prepared. Therefore, some form of

r *technial assistance is a pre-requisite for successful implementation of the project.

! ' 0 ! l A,The urit appointed by the LGU to undertake project and construction management should encompass

' appro iite technical expertise in the design and operation of modern landfills. This expertise is

presemly a nilable only from i'temational sources, from either individual consultants or consulting

enginers. Thiis is indicated by the inclusion of an Independent Third Party Consultant in the

propos¶d organizational structure.

. L 'd- 'I .~~~~I *

Golder Associates

IL I . I

.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~x V

-~~~~~~~~~~~V I K

RNK,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

_ - Las a r2rIgE-1.dwg

STUDY AREA VICINITY MAP -

PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL F--GURE E.1-- .-- -SAN-FERNANQDp, 7LUNION -

LEGEND

_6 r3 & / :-.4 css x

| .| a ,= s ,Twf1~m.. ( 1 0 a 100 200 300 400 S00

Dote W.CIQE& -t Drawn ..T.HQ....roject .9Date 1.C~.OiB .. l.9.99 Golder Associctes hkd .4.t t-Project .9.al..... 2.7N J.Q. .. Chk

' ctblber 1999

_v . ........... | ................. _ !SWEEP, San Fernlua- '. La UntionI.SInitanm LandJ711 El.-I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

- A' C verLetter

A countability Statement of the Project Proponent

B ecutive Summary

' fl Tu bles,sofContents A , , xxv

3Al iaTons PAGE

. 'Sl CTION,.!11-AGtw t ' 1. N RO U TI N ................... lNT...............................N.....I......l-

1.1 ProjectBackground ................................................ 1-l1.1.1 l1he Solid Waste Ecological Enhancement Project (SWEEP) ................ 1-11. 1.2 Management of Municipal Solid Wastes .1-2

L w . . 1.1.3 National Strategy to Improve Solid Waste Management ..1-31.1.4 The Demonstration Sub-Projectin San Fernando City .1-3

.. 1.2 Project Objectives ; .141.2.1 Overall Objective . 1-41.2.2 Key Objectives .1-4

1 1.3 EIA Approach and Methodology .............................,,,,,,...!,,,.,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.1-51.3.1 The EIA and The Project Planning Cycle-.---..... 1-5

,1.3.2 Approach and Scope of the EIA ................................. 1-7S l,: ~~~~~~~~~1.3.3 M t o l gy..................................... .................................... 1-8

1.3.4 The StudyArea.1-13................................. 1-13r :' 1:3.5 1n:lra3ion ofn t he ETIA and the Feasibility Study .1-1311.3.6 EIA Sc!edule . !. . . . 1-14

iN^ 1.4 EIA Scoping.. 1-14i.4.,1 Introduction .. .. 1-14A1.4.2 NationalLevelScoping ..................... 1-14

! S !' 1.4.4 Soping Meeting with EIARC and DENR .. .. 1-151.4.4 Scoping Meeting with Stakeholders ...................................... . . . 1-161.4.5 Principal Berneficiaries of the Proposed Project .1 -17

1.5 Structure of the Report ............... 1-18

2.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK . ........................... 2-12.1 Introduction ...... 212.2 Legal Framework ................. ,..,... ... ,..

, 2.2.1 The Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System .2-1;, - ; 2.2.2 The Sectoral Environmental Protection Regulations ................................... 2-2

' I *l 2.3 Administrative FrameYvork.......................................... 2-62.3.1 Department of Environment and National Resources (DENR) .. 2-6

I2.3:2 Department of Health (DOH) .......................... 2-72.3.3 Dep3rtniLt of Trade and Industiy (DTI1) .................................. 2-82.3.4 National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) .2-82.3.5 Depaitinent of the Interior and Local Government (DIL) .2-9

I I 2.3.6 Depar1mtntofPublicWorksandHighways(DPYW ........................... 2-11

2.3.7 Private Sector and Non-Govemment Organizations .........! . ....................... 2-11LI l i.4 World Bank Operationat Guidelines 4.01 ............................ 2-12

ij' r Golder Associates

,K. q .'. t3 1 '~~~I

S ! Octo~~~ber 1999 - ,Ni ;, I fl-2736BSll EEP, S.in f enrwinJo LIZ ULnion, Snihiarjy Lau,iytil EL4

2.5. CIDA INC G9.idelines ...................... . 2-132.6 Project Approval Requirements ...................... . . . 2-14

- l ! 2.6.1 Project Proponent and Project Preparer ................................. 2-142.6.2 Project Approval Requirements. 2-14

i~.I 26 Summaes y of Key Issues..2-16

3! EVALUAfION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................... 3-13.1 Intioduction .................... 3-1

3.1.1 City of San Femando : .... 3-13.1.2 Alternative Development Strategies for Management of MSW 3-1

3.2 Solid Waste Management in San Fernando City ................................. 3-2j_,_' 3.2.1 Institutional Arrangements ...................... 3-2-......----.-.......-.- ................. 3-2

3.2.2 Current Service Area ...................... 3-23.2.3 Waste Composition ...................... 3-3

,.,1< , 3.2.4 Waste Generation ...................... 3-33.2.5 Waste Collection and Transport ...................... 3-3

i = , 3.2.6 Waste Disposal., : 3-43.2.7 Resoupces .3-43.2.8 Waste Diversion . 3-43.2.9 Information, Education and Communiication (IEC) .3-5

3.3 Waste Generation Predictions ............................ 3-5:3.4 Alternative Waste Management Systems .. .......................... 3-7

3.4.1 Introduction .. 3-73.4.2 The "Do Nothing" Alternative . 3-83.4.3 Waste Diversion . 3-103.4.4 Waste Disposal Alternatives . 3-143.4.5 Preferred Waste Managemen't System .3-16

.3.5 Alternative Sites For The Engineered Sanitary Landfill . ......................................... 3-183.5.1 Introduction .--- ----..... 3-183.5.2 Public Consultation . 3-193.5,3 Required Area .. , 3-20

L .3.5.4 Sitte.Identification and Selection ....................... 3-213 I35.5 omparative 'Assessment of Sites ....................... 3-22ThePreferred Site.3-23

3.6 Summary ...... . . .. . 3-23

4.0 CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ....... 4-14.1 Introduction . . . 41i!4.2 Stakeholdpr Analysis. 4-1

L q , 14.3 Key Stakeholders . . .4-2I4.4 Stakleholder Consultations . . . 4-6

4.4.1 Public Consultations .. 4-64.4.2 Consultation with Stakeholder Groups . .4-74.4.3 Focused Group Discussion With Land Owners, Land

Occupants and Tenants ............................. .4-84A.4 Opinions of Key Persons and Key Leaders . . ........................... 4-10

L ^, 4.5 Consultations on The Project Proposals ................................... 4-104.6 Summary of Key Issues. . . 4-11

ws ,.r Ir -4 * Goider Associates

- J~~~~~I~ober 1999 -x'' Is 1-2 3''1WE'EP, San, rerne,a,tde La 'nip,, Sain hare' Laiadfil ELI

* ~~~~~~5.4. THE PROPOSED PRODJECT ................................... ............ 5-I5. Introduction ..................................... 11................ .... 5-15.1.1 The SWEEP Demonsnracion Sub-prcoject............................5-1

5.1.2- General Description of froposed Project............................5-2'5.2 Projected Demand for Snund W~aste Nian3gement Services.....................5-3

5.3 Key Desi'gn Considerations.............................................5-45.3.1 Introduction .................................................. 5-4-J ~~~~~~~~5.3.2 E,.cisting Site Coniditions and Constraints............................5-45.3.3 Facility Acctss ................................................ 5-65.3.4 Subsurface Conditions .......................................... 5-65.3.5 Design Capacity and Ser. ice Li fe..................................5-9F. ~~~~~~~~~5.3.6 CQntainnmenr Engineering ...................... ............. 5-105.3.7, C6ntrol of Contaminants ....................................... 5-12fl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5.3.7 Nlanaeenient of Surtace \k'atr . ................................ 5-125.3.6 Site Infrastructur ............................................. 5-13

____ ~~~~~~5.4 Overview or Pro'posed Facility Development..:............................5-13i5.-4.1 Proposed Engineered landfill....................................5-14L ~~~~~~~~~- ~~~~ 5.4.2 ,.Rehabilitation of the Existing Disposal Area....I....................5-205.4.3 EcologicaliFacilities ........................... 5-215.4.4 Site Infrastructure............................................5-22'5.4.5 Site Development Phasing......................................5-23

5.4.6 Ma~czial Quantities............................................5-24

'5.5,1. Introduction .................................................. 5-255:5.2 Site Ma...mnt5-25

. ~~~~~~~~5.~.3 Site.Sa6 ................................................ 5-26N ~~~~~~~~~~5,5.4 Health and Safety.5..-275.5.5 Emergency Response..........................................5-285.56Ove asiew R pception And.......Management..................................5-25

557 Waste Depo-sit ion in the Landfill5215.5.8 Equipment ....... I..........................................5-30I 5.5.9 Operational Practices..........................................5-31

6 Implemenktation Plan ................................................. 5-327 Estimated Costs of Proposed Project ..... ............................... 5-338. Summary of Key Issuesz.......................................I....... 535

.6.1.1 Key Site Characteristics.........................................6-1

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~612 CletoioBslnData andlInformation ........................ 6-326 The Project Site ......... ............................................ 6-6.9.1 Regional Setting................I................................6-31 ~~~~~~~~6.2.2 Topograph I and Landscape.6-4.....................V ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~62.3 Site Reconnaissance ............................................

'62. St Topography and Land Use ................................... 6-66.2.4 Sit .~~~~~~~~~~~~6-6U ~~~~~~ ~~6.2.5 Site InfFastructure/Struictures.........................I..........Y ~~~~~~6.2.ii Inrasrcture/Structures AdjcntoheSe6-

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.16.2.7 Site Operations .6-7..........................................:6.2.8 Visibility .. 6.............................................

F . . ~~~~~~~~~GoNder Associates

2E4er 1999- 7i' z-70Octiober ° 999 -f ~.v."ii SJEEP, Sw, Fer,,idudo La =lidioi Sa,itiar La,ntill ELA|

_t , - 1 1 1 '~~~~~~~~6.3 hiletcearology aidJ liniail ...... . ................ ........... ..................6.3.1 NIeihodolog) ......... ........ ., -6.3.2 Regional Climaix Sel ing ................. ,. ...-6.3.3 Rninfall ... ....... . : .. r! .6.3.4 r'emporxuire ........... . 1. 6.6.3.5 Pre a fiing \%'ind ................... .................. ..... .... ........ . . . . . - l.6.3.6 EBapor.iion ........... . .. .- 116.3.7 Oilier Nfeleorologicl Paraniet'ers ....................... *.# . .. @. @ , .- I I

rl~ 6.3.8 M.ereorolo-ical Hazards ............... ...... 6-1 2i___n 6.4 Geology ... ........................ .-. 1

6.4.1 Nleihokflolav .......................... 6. 6.4.2 Regional Geological Setting ........................ 6-146.4.3. Geology of the Project Site ........................ 6-15

AM , '6.4.4 Seismicity ............. 6-16....................... 6-161.6-5 iPedlogy and Land Use 6-17

.l 6.5.1 Method?logy ................... . 6-176.5.2 Soil Types .6-176.5.3 Present Land Use in San Fernando City ........................... 6-186.5.4 Land Use within the Study Area .6-196.5.5 Proposed Land Development ................... 6-194! . 6.6 Surface Water (Hydrology) ........................ . , . .6-206.6.1 'Methodology . 6-206.6.2 Regional Hydrology ............................. 6-21r 6.6.3 Surface Water Drainage in the Study Area ....... 6...... 6-21K . ' 6.6.4 Surf ace Water Drainage at the Project Site . 6-226.6.5 Surface Water Quality .. . ... 6-226.6.6 Uses of Surface Water in the Study Area .. ; ,. 6-23

6.,7 Groundwater (Hydrogeology) . . ................... ,.. 6-236.7.1 Methodology .. 6-236.7.2 Grqundwater Occurrence and Use at the Site and Immediate Vicinity . 6-24

_ 1t ' b 6.7.3 Groun4water Quality at the Site and Immediate Vicinity .6-26Ecology 6-296.8.1 Introduction . . ...... . 6-296.8.2 Methodology . , 6-306.8.3 Vegetation ....... ... . 6-316.8.4 Wildlife .6-36

ii 6.8.5 Ecologically Significant Species ....................... , . . 6-395.9 Noise ....... 6-39

6.9.1 Methodology .......................... ; 6-396.9.2 Measurement Locations .6-396.9.3 Noise Survey Results ..... 6-40

6.10 Air Quality ........ I....,.,.,.. 6-41U . . ........................ j 6.10.1 Methodology : .6-416.10.2 Measurement Locations . . . ......................... 6-426.10.3 Survey Results .............................. 6-42i r 6.11 Traffic .. 6-426.11.1 Methodology .......................... . ... 6-426.11.2 Existing:Traffic Flows. 6-43

G .oa

F A~~~~~ Golder Associates

.. '" . - . J ', a

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ocibber 1999 X-i - 9,I1-71,

SitEEP, Swa, Fernia,ido La t',,ion SallilaryJ L aiidfill EL-I

6.12 Socio-Cultural, lconomic and Political Environment ....................... 6-49

6.12.1 Potential Impact Zones.........................................6-4911 6.12.2 Mlethodology..................................................6-50

6.12.3 population and Demographic Characteristics ......................... 6-53

1 6.12.4 Housing Information................ ........................ 6-56

6.12.5 Education....................I................................6-576.12.6 'Employmnent..................................................6-606.12.7 Gender Analysis..............................................6-626.12.8 Health.................................... ........... 6-63

AJI 6.12.9 Utilities and Services ......................... . ................ 6-65

6.12.10 Land Use ................................................... 6-67

65.12.1 1 D~signated Envirornmentally Sensitive Areas ........................ 6-68

K 6.12.12 Inidigenous Peoples/Ethnic Identity ............................... 6-68

6.12.13 Development Plans............................................6-686.12.14 Cuffent,Environmental Issues 4nd Concemns........................6-69

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~6.12.15 Summary of Key Observation~ .................. :..............6-70

§.13 Summary of Key Observations..........................................6-70

am 7.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..:...............7-1

WU 7.1 Introduction .7-..........................1..................7.1.1 Methodology of Impact Assessment ............................... 7-1

7.2 potential Soclo-Economic and Cultural Impacts..............................7-5

~7.2.1 General.......................................................7-672.22 Impacts on the City of San Fernando ............................... 7-7

72.3 Impacfs on Livelihood from the Existing Dumpsite ................... 7-7

7.2.4 Loss of L-and and Improvements .................................. 7-7

7.2.5 Loss of Liv'elihood from the Land Earmarked for Acquisition ........... 7-8

7.2.6 Attraction of New Settlement to the Surrounding Area.................7-8

K. I ~~7.2.7 Impacts on Local Property Values.................................7-9

7.2.8 Redu6tion of Impacts from the Existing Dumnp Site...................7-9

7.2.9 Creation~ of Local Employment Opportunities.......................7-10

* ~~~~~~~~~~~712.10 Wider Economic and Employmecnt Benefits ........................ 7-11

7.2.11 Summary of Potential Socio-Economic and Cultural Impacts...........7-11

7.3 Health and Safety Impacts............................................7-17.3.1 Health Impacts...............................................7-127.3.2 Safety Impacts................................................7-137.3.3 sumimazy of Potential Health and Safety Impacts....................7-13

7 4 Potential Aesthetic Impacts ............................................ 7-14

EM ~~~7.4.1 Vis.ual Effects from Site Construction- ............................ 7-14

7.4.2 Visual Effects from Site OPerations.........I............. ..... 7-151

7 4. Chage n Landscape Character from Site Dvlpet71

7.4.4 Summary of Impacts .......................................... 7-17

i- 7 .5 Potential Geological and Geotechnical impacts ............................ . 7-17

7.5.1 Erosion Associated With Construction Activities.....................7-17

7.5.2 Slope and Foundation Instability ................................. 7-19

7.5.3 Environmental Effects from Sources bf Imported Materials ........... 7-20

* 7.5.4- Summary of Impacts .7........................................ -21

Golder Associates

* Oct ber 1999 in xid- 981-27306SW'EEP, Surt Fernand,, La t'nia,, Saniiary Lanldfill EL-4

7.6 Potential PeJolotial and Land ULse Impacts ....................... 7-217.6.1 Cliange in Lund .. . 7-21

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7.6.2 Loss of Proiductive Laiid ........... -2..1................. ....... 727.6.3 RIemoal o"oipsoil ... 7-227.6.4 Reinstwenhcnt of Soil Plrofile and Producike Land ic .7-22

j l. | 7.6.5 Summary of Inipaes .7-237.7 Potential H)drolo.:ical an.d H;dr.gweologial Impact . .7-23

2* 7 .7.1 Prediced Leachni, Generation Races .................................... 7-23i j ; 7.7.2 E',pecitd Leachate Qu314i) .................................... 7-26

7.7.3 Leachare Coiitianiinazion of Oroindwaler Resources . 7-27I .......7.7.4 Leachwae ContarniFlatiOn of Surrace \'ater Resources .7-30IL I l7.7.5 Contamination of W'ater Resojroes b, Potential Ftidl Spillae .7-32

7.7.6 Risk of Flooding in the Site Vicinity .7-327 .7.7 lodihication of Water Sinrage Capacit .7-3,

7.8 Pogential Eeological lmpncts ........................ .... 7-337.8.1 Eeological Effecst on \ egetaLion ............................ 7-33

*Lt ̂ ' .......................... 7.8.2 Ecological Effects on Wildlife . 7-357.9 Potential Air Quality Impact .7-35

7.9.1 Increase in Odour Levels Arising from Site Activities .............................. 7-35j } . ' | | 7.9.2 Increq5e in Dust Emissions from Site Construction and Operations .......... 7-38

7:93 Increase in Vehicle Exhaust Emissions from Use of MobilePlant and Equipment atid Construction Traffic . 7-39

,_. 7.9.4 Change in Methane Emissions . 7-407.9.5 Elimination of Smoke from Cessation of Current

Dumping Operations . 7-41,. .1i 7.9.6 R¢du6tion in Odour from Cessation of Current |r ¢ . ' . ~~~~~~~~~~~~Dumpig Operations ........................... 7-41JL. l , : 7.9.7 Reduction in Dust Emissions from Cessation of Current

Dumping Operations. 7-427.9.8 Reduction in Vehicle Exhaust Emissions from Cessation of

Current Dumping Operations .............................. 7-27.9.9 Summary of Impacts ............................ 7-43

7.10 Potential Noise Impacts .. 7-43i 7.10.1 Noise Arising from Construction ............................. , . , .. 7-43

I ' , -,, i 7.10.2 Noise Arising from Site Operations .7-47____; 1' .................. 7.10.3 Summary of Tmpacts . 7-48

7.11 Potential OffjSite Traffic Impacts. I 7111.1 Traffic Loading and Traffic Congestion ................................ 7-487.11.2 Air Quality Impacts from Vehicle Emissions ................................ 7-50.7.11.3 TrafficNoise . 7-507.11.4 Littering and Cleanliness during Waste Transit .7-50r i 1'' ': l ' !. 7.11.5 Summaryoflmpacts .7-51

7.12 SummarM of Potential Environmental Impacts .7-51

8.0 'ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES .. .. .. 8-1,8.1 Introduction ................................................. 8-l18.2 Short-Term Improvements to San Fernando Disposal Operations ............................ 8-48.3 Potential Socio-Economic Mitigation Measures ................................................. 8 6r a I 8.3.1 Resettleme nt Action Plan ................................................. . 8-6

:L@ ............................................ . { 8.3.2 Resettlement Action Plan: Principal Measures . 8-7;8.4 Potential Aesthetic (Visual) Impacts ... 8-8,8.5 Potential Geological and Geotechnical Impacts .- 9.8.6 Potential Pedological and Land Use Impacts . 8-9

Golder Associates

Li , ~~~~~~~~.1

; Otober'1999 -xIitx 981-2730B

I ~~~SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandflflqEI

8.7 Potential Impacts on Water Resources . ........................ .8-108.7.1 Groundwater Resources ......................... 8-108.7.2 Surface Water Resources.................. ....... 8-11

8.8 Potential Ecological Impacts . ........................ ... 8-128.9 Potential Air Quality Impacts .... . 8-128.10 Potential Noise Impacts .......................... . . . .8-13

( ; .......................... 8.11 Potential Off-Site Traffic Impacts :... . . 8-14: 8.12 Summary of Enviromnental Mitigation Measures .. , . .8-14

9. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................ 9-1

ti ', ~~~~~~9.i ,Introduction I......................................................... 9-19.2 Social Development Program ........ .............. 9-2

1 . ............... 9.2.1 Social Development Measures for Waste Pickers . 9-2

9.2.2 Social Development Measures for Families Affectedby Land Acquisition ................................ 9-3

'193 Monitorikig Requirements and Monitoring Plan . ............................... 9-4

9.3.1,. Introduction ................................ 9-4

9.3.2 Minimum Monitoring Provisions ................................ 9-59.3.3 Multi-Partite Monitoring Team (MIT) ................................. 9-59.3.4 Monitoring RAP Implementation .............................. 9-6

9.4 Environmental Monitoring ......... 9-8

9.4.1 Introduction .9-89.4.2 Applki-able Environmental Standards .............................. 9-9

9.4.3 Environmental Monitoring Programs .......................................... .... 9-10

9.4.4 Estimated Cost of the Environmental Monitoring Program ....................... 9-18

!9.5 Continge'ncy Plan .......... 9-19

r 1 9.5.1 Contingency Measures ........................................... , 9-20'9.5:2' Trigger Mechanism .......................................... 9-21

9.5.3 Trigger Paramnetrs an] Concentrations . 9-24 -'

*9.6 Site Closure anxd Restoration ....................... 9-25

* I , L^ ! .9.7 Proposal For an Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF) ......................................... 9-26

9 8 S 9.8 Summary ......... , 9-27

10.( INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ................................ - 10-1

*- , 10.1 Current InstitutionalArrangements .. 10-I10,1.1 National ............................ 10-1

10.1.2 Local . ! 10-1

,10.2 Contractual Arrangements .......................................... 10-1

t 10.2.1 Alternative Arrangements ................................... : 10-

10.2.2 Regulation of the Contracting Parties ................................... 10-3

10.3 Proposed Organizational Structure .. ......................... 10-4

_ , 10.3.1 Proposed LGU Set-Up ............................... 10-410.3.2 Public Liaisoh and Monitoring .10-5

10.4 Technical Assistance ................. 10-510.5 Summary. 10-7

-W,,

It I.

Golder Associates

Ir , _ __:

A ; 1 October 1999- xxxii -I ~ IIEP, ex,,F~ritx,I 981-273OFBIj. ISl 'EEP, -an Ferria La tti;on Saniwarj LoiidJill EL4I

L ST OF TABLESN, (e|1t Tables are located immediately fuil.i ing their respective Section of Text

T. BLE 2.1 -. Summary of National Solid Waste Management Legislatibn

T, BLE 2.2 - Key Characteristics of Principal Stages/Types of Landfill

. T. BLE 3.1 - Municipal Waste Composition Estimates

T BLE 3.2 - Summary of Preliminary Identification and Screening, Candidate Sites

TABLE 5.1 - Summary of Capital Costs

X . ..BLE 6.1 - Climatalogical Normals

.. T. BLE 6.2 - Climatatogical Extremes

E U T .BLE 6.3 - Summary of Frequency of Number of Days/Year with RainfallI 6.4 Exceeding a Specified Magnitude

- 3 TXTBLE 6.4 Evaporation Data

L F|' T BLE 6.5 - Results of Water Analysis

Ti BLE 6.6 - Groundwater Elevations '

l iT BLE 6.7 - Groundwater Chemistry Summary

T LE 6.8 - References for Biological Baseline Surveys

T BLE 6.9 - Vgetation Survey (Existing Landfill Site)

r BLE 6.10 - Vegetation Survey (Landfill Extension Area)

T} BLE 6.11 - Results of Vegetation Survey/Ec onomic Importance of Plants7 -lWithin Proppsed Landfill Site

T BLE 6.12 - Repults of Vegetatidn Survey/Economic Importance of Plantsl jR i. ! Outside Proposed Landfill Site

,- , TA.BLE 6.13 - Listing of Birds Sighted

t., TA BLE 6.14 - Partial List of Primary Species of Philippine Wild Birds, Mammalsand Reptiles

, - 2; T I BLE 6.15 - Partial List of Rare, Endemic and Endangered Plants bf the. A~BLE 6.16 Philippines

: wTA BIF, 6.16 - Results of Noise Survey

m TA 'LE 6.17 - Environmental Quality Standards for Noise in General Areasr~~~~~~~~~~~~' 1i ! CGaader Associates

L ..... . . , ...._ q -- _~~~~~~~~~~~~

I"i

U^, | Octc ber 1999 -xxxiii- 981-2730B

.. I SWEEP,SanFernandoiLa UnionSahitaryLandfilIEIA

m ' 4 LISTlOF TABLES (continued)Note ,Tables are located Iimmediately following their respective Section of Text

, ~" {2 TABLE 6.18 - Results ofl Total Suspended Particulate Sampling

TAB F, 6.19 - Results of Sulphur Dioxide Sampling

TAB E 6.20to 6.29 - Summary of Traffic Flows

U,, 2 TABLE 7.1 - Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate Quality

TAB] .E8.1 - Summary of Key Potential Negative Socio-Economic Impacts and'

Proposed Mitigation Measures

TABIIE 8.2 - Compensation Matrix

, d ~~~~~~~~.

'I

1 ' Golder Associatesr

K .

OFlober 1999 xxxiv- 981-273OBSll'EEP, Sa,, Fer,,ando LaUnion Saury LandfihIEL4

L ST OF FIGURESN )t: .Figures are located immediately following the Tables in their respective Section

of the Text

Fl GURE 1.1 - Location Plan, City of San Fernando

Fl 5GURE 1.2 - EIA Schedule

Fl IJkE 2.1 - EIA Approval Procedure

F URE 3.1 - San Fernando and Vicinity

.FI IE 3.2 - ST Fernando Study Area

rI V PRE5.1 -SitePlan

Fl URE 5.2 - Landfill Site Development Plan

Fl URE 5.3 - Proposed Landfill Cells Top Contour Plan

Fl(URE 5.4 - Proposed Landfill Cells Bottom Contour Plan

FIGiURE 5.5 - Cross-sections

FIURE 5.6 -'Typical Surface Water Management Cross-sections

FI URE 5.7 - Typical Surface Water Management Cross-sections

FIlURE 5.8 - Typical Bottom Liner Sections

F IAGRE 5.9 - Typical Leachate Sump and Pump Setup

_ FIC ,URE 5.10 - Cross-section Through Proposed Leachate Treatment System

FIC URE 5.11 - Final Cover System and Gas Vent Detail:

FI URE 5.12 - Schematic Section Through North Cell (Phase 3)

FI URE 5.13 - Proposed Site Development Phasing

'FIC URE 6.1 - Study Area Vicinity Map

FIC URE 6.2 - Modifild Coronas System of Climate Classification

m 1 FIG URE 6.3 - Baseline Data Collection Sampling Stations

FIG JRE 6A - Generalized Groundwater Flow Pattern

FIG RE 6.5 - Survey of Existing Vegetation

FIG RE 9.1 - Site Monitoring Programs

FIGVRE 10.1 - Proposed Organizational Structure

Golder Associates

i .i

71 i- - Iber1999 .x>, '61-273i0BV L SWtEEP, Sai Femrantl, o La It,lon Sanitarq Landfill E14

- -~ OFAPPENDICESNt: Appendices are provided in, separate accompan3ing documeni

A "PENDIX A.I - Terms ot Reerqi-ce

l @XA PENDIX A.2 - City nfSjn Fernjqdn Rkeekli-rn

A 'PENDIX B - Scoping Repon

A . PENDIX C - Site Sele -iin Report

_ -. : : A 'PENDIX D.1 - DENR AdminiSLr3i''e Order i. 98-5(1

..- , (Site Screening Crileri3a

AlPENDIX D.' - World Bank Operauinal DirectivesOP4.1rjI(iP4.il and BP14.0l

A PENDIX E - PRRM Report on Multi-Sectoral Consultations:

° | 1- |. iSan Fernando City

A ' PENDIX F - bolder Associates Record of Boreholes, GeoAnalytics,

I Logs of Boreholes and Geotechnical Laboratory Analyses

A.PPENDI X G - Prediction of Leachate Generation and

, " '; . ' Conceptual Design of Leachate Treatment System

.. AX P PNDIXH.1 - Windrose Diagrams I

* : AP NEDIX H.2 - Thunderstorm Hazard Maps

L , 3 , . i- .Tropical Cyclone Passage Maps

L_; I ! lfrequency of Tropical Cyclone Passage

AP 'ENDIX H.3 - Regional Seismotectonic Map of Westem Luzonr I f ? I .Tectonic Map of Luzon.. . .2 Earthquake Map of Luzon Island

Seismicity at San Femando and Vicinity (data sheets)

AP ENIDIX I - Chemical Ahalysis Reports

\API E1DIX J !7 Metro La Union Water District Reportr AP.I ENDIX K - Photographs - Sampling and Baseline Data Collection

Photographs - Site Reconnaissance and Scoping Session

-. _ ;iAPi SNDX L - Sample of Categorized Traffic Count Data

APP DIX M - Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)

APP IX N - Perceptiop, Survey Results

- u .| Golder Associates

r .1

I __________

_-; OcI aber 1999 -xxxvi - 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll EL

LR T OF APPENDICES (continued)No e: Appendices are provided in separate accompanying document

AP ENDIX O - Gender Equality Analysis

AP 'ENDIX P - Training Needs for Waste Pickers, Further Skills Enhancement

APjEDX Q - Methane Emission Estimation and Dispersion Modelling Methodology

IX R - Environmnental StandardsM , AP1rENDIX S -' Bibliography

-w: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I.

.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , .

-. Z~~I

I E Golder Associates

$ .q |,

l~~~~~. ~ ,I'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

j iC ctbber 1999 - xxxvii- 981-2730B

lB- ' j Asianl.' .. 5 ,ABBREVIATIONS

| g . B Asian Development BankAA A Administrative Order

I ' B~G s Bureau of Local Govemment Supervision

B._D - Biological Oxygen DemandCAPS - Center for Advanced Plilippine Studies

,CBR . ,alifornia Bearing RatioCtNRO - ommunity Environment and Natural Resources Office

. .L , C1~f0 - CityHealth'Offipem CIPDA Ii l i - 'Canadian International Development AgencyC DO - City Planning and DevelopmTent OfficeD - DENR Administrati'e OrderD NR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources. PthB; D - District Health Office

r D] ,G - Departnent of Interior and Local Govemment_i u ; D I - ; Dissolved Oxygen

D5 FI - . Department of FinanceDC Hi - Depattment of HealthDP WH - Department of Public Works and Highways

ii DDT, - Department of Trade and Industry_ El - Environmental Impact Assessment

EC4t - Environmentally Critical AreasEC> - Environmental Compliance Certificate

4 I iEmflli ECt . - Epvironmentally Critical ProjectsEH1, - Environmenital HealthEIARC - Envibionmental Impact Assessment Review Committee

EI - Environmental Impact Statement

E E - Environmental Management Bureau

. ' , EM - Environmental Management PlanEM hiS - Enviromnental Management and Protected Areas Sector

r I EOE - Erecutive Order

I. ES - Environmental Sanitation DivisionB EW -1 ! Ecological Waste Management, FA PO - Foreign Assisted and Special Projects Office

* zFSI , F - Feasibility Stfidya GO i - Government of the Philippines^i GS - - General Services Office

!HD El - High Density Polyethylene-ICC - Investment Co-ordination CommitteeIEC - Information, Education and Communication

IEE - Initial Environmental Examnination

r 7NS F - lntegrated National Solid Waste Management System Framework

L.. t9 LEL . i | - . . Lower Explosive LimitLG ' - Local Government Unit4 LM - Land Management Unit

I r .F LFG - Landfill GasLPG - Liquid Petroleum GasLW1 A - Local Water Utilities Administration

Golder AssociatesL q1 '.

I~~~~ rtbrl~

i .| -itober 19°9 ..ii; 981-2730B* A )brefiations (continued)

. .a' N91 LUN\'D - hleto La tfn;c'n 'waer DistuictNi IB - Nlines and Geosoiencei Bureau

l ~~~M VlT - M.ulti-Parlite Niloniinring Team !_ M'IV - Nluilicipa; Solid WasteN4AQG - National Anibient Air (ualiv- GuidelinesN4NRJA - National M1appinig atii Reso'urce Information AgencyJ ,1 N4POCCO - Naiional Po%ser Corporalion

.1 INCR National Capital RegionNEDA - Natiqnal Economic and Development Authority;w1 NC A ; , - Non-Govermnent Agencies'NC . Non-Gpvernment OrganizationN OJ '- Non-Methane Organic CompoundsNS - National Statistics OfficeNS Noise Sensitive ReceiverNWRB National Water Resources BoardL ffi . ;PM+!, -PrIoject Approving AgencyPACASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services

Administrationt3 ' X -Project Affected Families

PAE . ' - Project Affected Personni , 'PD ! - Presidential Decree

PEi R0 - Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office5 PM( ) - Project Management OfficeL PNS DW Philippine National Standards for Drinking WatersP/O - Permit to OperatePP Project ProponentPR.R I. Philippine Rural Reconstruction MovementPSC . - Private Sector Contractor9 PTF -JM l Presidential Task Force on Waste Management

' PVC ' - Polyvinyl Chloridef RA Republic Act, ! RAiP i,. Rerettlement Action PlanRED - Regional Executive DirectorRMP Rec'ycling Movement of the Philippines Foundation, Inc., SLF, , - Sanitary LaridfillsSWE 'Solid Waste Ecological Enhancement ProjectS Solid Waste ManagementTDS Total Dissolved SolidsU TSP Total Suspended ParticulatesTSS Total Suspended Solids

EL " - .UEL Upper Explosive LiniitI ¶ UNE 1 : , -.. United Nations!Environment Programme-~ WRD ' : -Water Resources DivisionWB World Bank

*| WHO I - World Health OrganizationL - WRA - Waste Reception Area

_ - I .

;, ~~~~~~Golder Associates ...

_ ______ , -' -'-' 1_

.r ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ' 'i. .-**'1-

*J E l Oct c er1 999 1 -1 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EM

i. iz 1TRiDbUCTION

1.1 Projecl Background

I 1.1.1 -The Solid Waste Ecological Enhancement Project (SWEEP)

The olid Waste Managemnent (SWM) sector in the Philippines is in a critical condition. Deficient

S severely constraints urban productivity in the Philippines. Urban areas l ... face increased

press reito improve SWM, as urban populations have grown rapidly, especially in many secondary i

cities nthe Philippines. Projections for the next 15 years indicate -that an additiohal 12 million people

in citi will generate solid waste, which will further worsen the situation.

L t3 In ord r to address the above SWM situation, the Government of the Philippines (GOP) has sought

assis ce from the World Bank (the Bank) for the implementation of a comprehensive SWM project,

Cra referre to as the Solid Waste Ecological Enhancemenit Project (SWEEP).. SWEEP takes a nation-

- w ;ide a proach that will raise the awareness of key decision-makers about the conditions and the needs

for imn iate actions, and improve technical and administrative capacities of the Government.

' I SWErE' is the first mrajor:nation-wide endeavor to improve this sector, which has direct impact on

enviro ment and quality of life in urban areas. Through continuous discussions between the Bank

r jand of acis of the GOP, the scope of SWEEP was identified in'1997.

The ob ectives of SWEEP have been defined as follows:

* As 115 panicip3iing Local Govemment Units (LGUs) to undertake pilot projects that are based on

slrjiegki plaruning of integrated SWM.systems and have demonstration impacts; and

Es bfish national and local support mechanisms in the sector in order to safeguard the

env ronment and encourage private sector involvement.

Inorder to achieve the above objectives, SWEEP is comprised of the following components:

. CON PONENT 1. NATIONAL POLICY FORMULATION: This compgnent will assist the GOP in

forr ulat ing and implementing a national policy framework for solid waste,management;

r Golder Associates

K;, , I

t- .I ' I:

-~~~~~ ~~Octi)ber 1999 1 -2 981-2730B

* |K SWEEP, San.Fernando La Unton Sanitary Landfill EL9

* OMPONENT 2. INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING: This component will institutionalize SWM

fumction at the national level and strengthen the capacity of the Philippines Department of

nEivironment and Natural Resources (DENR) to provide technical assistance to LCGUs.

* OMPONENT 3. DEMoNSTRATION SUB-PROJECTS IN LGUs: This component will support the

apitai investment and institutional capacity building in participating cities.

o OMPoNENT 4. SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM: This cqmponent will provide

rt for social rehabilitation of waste pickers, microenterprises, city-specific activities to

I romote recycling/composting and strengthening national and local JEC programs.

r X A nurnber of consultants have been retained by the GOP and/or the Bank to assist the (GOP to develop

the project components to be considered for Bank support.

'L1.2 j Management o° Munlcipa Solid Wastes

The Local Government Code (Republic Act 7160 of '1991) places overall responsibility for solid

wast management (SWM)vryith the LOUs. These,responsibilities include collection, storage and

dispo al of the municipal solid waste (MSW). The LGUs are responsible for the environmentally

sount management of the solid waste collected within their jurisdiction under the Sanitation Code

(PD 5q of 1975) ar,d the Pollution Control Act (PD 984 of 1978).

The ost prevalent method of disposal of MSW currently used in the Philippines is open dumping.

Open UmpS, however, impact the environment by generating leachate, landfill gas and contaminated

L | runo and as a result have the potential to affect public health and the safety of the population. Someof the signiffcantenvironmental impacts from open dumps are as follows:

* ai quality degradation due to smoke, dust and foul odours

* d gradation of sanitation apd aesthetic conditions due to the presence of insects and vermin, and

p tential vectors that may spread diseases

l* de ,radation of surface water and groundwater quality

W. I

U~~~ Oolder Associates .

1:

I < ', ' ..~~~~~~~~

I r .

Octo )er 1999 1-3 981-2730B

|SW'W, Son Fernando La Union Sanitaty landflll El

1.1.3 Nalld2nal Strategy to Improve Solid Waste Management

In re ognition of the problems besetting SWM in the Philippines, Uinder Presidential Administrative

| ~; Orda No. 90 (signed October 1993), an integrated National Solid Waste Management Systems

From aork (INSWMSF) was adopted under the auspices of the Project Management Office (PMOI

of th Presidential Task Force on Waste Management (PTFWi.

One i n4cipal objective of the INSWMSF is the secure disposal of solid waste, at the highest level of

prote4 ion to public health and safety and to the environment as a whole, commensurate with what is

| afforc Ole. b A medium-ternn goal of this aspect of the INS WMSF is the phased closure of all Open

dump sites and their replacement by more environmentally secure methods of waste disposal.

1.1.4 The Demonstration Sub-Project in San Fernando City

| l . As a art of Component 3 of SWEEP, i.e. the Demonstration Sub-Project, the World Bank has

propo ed to loan the Government of the Philippines (GOP) the funds required to implement modern

5 t t solid zya1ste management facilities (landfills) for selected LGU's within the seven regions of the,

- countrb. In order to satisfy the requirements of the World Bank and be eligible to apply for the

e- '~ i .fundinl, the GOPILGU's were required to catty out demonstration suLiLprojects and prepare an

|'investnent report (IR) for each facility.

I i, l ! iThue n yor comnponents of the IR are the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Feasibility Study

I(I5.S), t sure and Rehabilitation of Existing Dumpsites and a Terms of Reference for implementation.

These ehereafwr collectively referred to as 'EIAIFS' in this docuinent. The DENR is assisting the

II LU' i the study process in a facilitation role. The GOP's and Bank's Terms of Reference (ToR) for

the E IF5 is included as Appendix A. 1

{ The D:I) R conducted a detailed process to select suitable candidate LGUs to participate in the SWEEP

detn on project. At the initial stages of the SWEEP activities (I.e. late 1997), 4 LGUs were

Iidentified da suitable (i.e. willing and able) participants. These LGUs, with the assistance of the GOP,

|retaine I consultant to prepare the EIAWFS for the proposed landfill development. Substquetly, in

Ierly l 98, two additional , LGUs, including San Fernando, La Union (refer to Figure 1.1 for location),

were idtnhfied to participate in the demonstration projects.

U i. | l |Golder Associates

} Im

acc be'rlS999 1-4 981-2730B

x1L999v' I' SI;EEP San Fernando La Unhio Sadtar:yLandfillEL4

The try of San Femando passed a resolution in May, 1999 indicating their willingness to participate in

-thel demonsiraiion project (refer to Appendix A.2).

Guld r Ascociates was retained by the GOP and the Bank in April, 1998 to carry out the EIA/FS in

_ ,acco price with the above noted ToR for the City of San Fernando.

12 v Project Objectives

-1.2. Overall Objective

The overal I objective of this project (i.e. the construction/operation of an engineered sanitary landfill)

. ifhF'development ofan integrated waste management facility for the service ofthe population of San

L :' Femado, La Union which provides for the preferred, environmentally responsible, socially

;: acceptble, cost effective and affordable alternative(s) for a 10 to 20 year planning period and

q qal itres fot implementation funding from the World Bank.

T,he uitiiliate goal of this project is to implement an engineered sanitary landfill facility that meets the

I aboveloljecIi e.

I:i.2. ;Key Objectives

lie . yobjecitesoftheElAIFSare:

.*. to deiermine the waste disposal requirements of the study area for the selected planning period;

toIcarry OUL a defensible and rational i4ndfill siting process;

- .Prepare a preliminary design for the facility, assess potential impacts on the natural and socio-

ecnomic eniiroriment and develop necessary mitigation measures;

D.% to |prepare a restoration plan, including preliminary design and estimates of associated costs, for

'ci ing and rehabilitating existing dump sites within the participating LGU's;

A 't~ - repare cost estimates for capital works and facility operations and maintenance to serve as a basis

-fol applying for Bank funding;

ument the study methodology, findings and recommendations;

.. ,4o i denike a public consultation process and incorporate public input into the decision making

pro ess a,nd the overalJ study; and

i * r mare an Investment Report incorporating the results of the EIA/FS.

Golder Associates

! IH

I A _ -

tber 1999 1- 1 F* >S IEP, Sarl Fer nai do L a I nioN Saita Li adfill EL 4

it Odekcribed in the ToR in Appendi.; A.1, the follAtving represents the n1iior TaJ:s that ha.ie btein

,' Uid rtaken in the EIA/FS:

j Nl Coinsi. '!,,ir .. 'I. I Pa'j t.iroi; ,i - ihii .ask ;I I surpp. nr the feas ibiIir I i Lu i ud k II n:nd E I'

1fgio1171 ClWL,erhirn 010 11:ure ,';ie:nor - thi- -,i: jI suipporz the site seleii.r. iTaJl. I and

.asibiliy stiudy (Task V') ta5s.

\,.__ tasibilk..* .- te Sdle.enon - this siep will resilt in the ju!6ficJtiun snd identificafioii cf ihe preferred shtc I.r

i faciIiry. This tra:k %% ill supportle Iah i L It%lv s Tssl: ' VI

AN )nv-ironme'ntel Inl.rVLI .4isessern -r the EIA iiicluded Sub-tasks I It. 7 :.idJ Reprtning. a.

* ribed underTaslk V of the TcR..

. '- *.2sbilin' SttUdy - the FS included Sub-tasks I to i 1, as described under Task VI of the ToR. This

* 4 7 'k.1 includes the preliminary design and the financial/economic analysis.

oi ,los:hre and Restoration of Existing Sites - As per the ToR; the location, size and description of

* % ebsen edAkno,: n environmental impacts associated with existing disposal sites were compiled as part

t r his task to document the present situation. Site investigations were carried out, where

1 appropriate, and an assessment of environmental impacts were made. Closure and restorative

r 4Iasures %ere prepared to address any identified impacts.

'tT.e;sulrs of the FS, which have been reported separately, have been incorporated in the EIA, as

a t app(rorriate. The site selection process and results were also reported separately. This report presents

tlfre Fa and the relevant portions ofthe other Tasks/components.

EIA Approach and Methodology! ,, ,

r1j. 1 The EIA and The Project Planning Cycle

Thepr posed project activities are still at the initial stages of planning. Prior to actual project

inipjnrilentation, four principal stages in the project planning cycle miy be identified, of which the FS

aftd d omprise the first and second, stages:

Golder Associates

. ,' U.s:'

rIntSt

Oclober 1999 1I- -I- 6t-iB£'; EP. Sitn Fcnrand. La Union Sa lJt,r1 und/igIF

Stag) I - Feasibility Study (FS), including preliminary design, of project proposals;

e Stage 2 - Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of project proposals;

IiStage 3 - Detailed design of approved project elements; and

ti ; *, ~Srage 4 - Tendering of construction and development of project elements'

`16rir lo proceeding to Soage 3 in the project planning cycle (i.e. detailed design) the DENR, on behalf

lr die (overnnient of the Philippines (GOP), and the World Bank, the funding agency, require that

i projeci development proposals obtain all necessary enviromnental clearance via formal approval

IL;*X?i;w o f he EIA.

L, ^ The FS (Stage 1) has identified a number of project elements for development, for which preliminary

d!signs (Conceptual Design) have been prepared, particularly for the works required to upgrade the

e isting controlled dump to an engineered landfill., Accordingly, the initial concept for the design of* * p Dject activities, including the approach proposed to engineer the site and address the key design and

o; erational aspects, has been used as the basis of the EIA (Stage 2).

It hould be note.i lhat the EIA is based on a concept design and a number, of site development and

Si engineering issues/details. Some of these issues/details will only be finalized at the detailed

d ign stage (Stage 3). Therefore, the level, of information provided in the EIA report is compatible

r "1 , l w h the extent of details covered/available at the concept design level.

:~ :- ' Irignificancerofall.potential impacts identified in the EIA has been assessed against the minimum

* i pe formance standards to be applied to site development, as stipulated in the concept design, on the

ba is that tie minimum performance standards are complied with throughout, the lifetime of the site

de elopment. The performance standards considered apprbpriate to project' development are

l Z st . dis ~~~~~~~~~~ussed in Section 5. ! l

|, Th~ contrctor's and dperator's specific responsibilities and liabilities for project development will be

'i Eset DUt ifull in the Cortract Documents (Stage 4) prepared for project development. In brief, the

Co tract Documents will stipulate the minimum performance standards to be met at all stages in the

!proect implementation cycle: in site design, construction, operation, maintenance and aflercare. The

l .S s 3 and 4 nty bel combined if project proposals go forward on the basis of Design, Build and Operate(DB1)3 whereby the 'Appointed Contractor is responsible for progressing the detailed design of the site followingAwa rd of Contract.

! mM Golder Associates

S

Oclober 1999 1- 7 9 1 7 jl

.I 'EEP, San Ferilattilo La U'nionI Sani/tar Lun,dftil -I

n inimum perrormr3nce standards, as sipulated in ilhe Coracepnrul Design 3n.l in an! condhioir,;

a tached to the receipt of ervironmrenial de3ance. v ill be binding contractiual obligations pLaced up-c;n

I lAje project developer.

1!3.2 Approach ana Scope of the EtA '

F Ilowing acceptance of the preferred site for the 'facility by the DENR, the City and the public, an

E A,of the preferred site was undertaken. As the basis of the EIA, and the FS, all site investigations at

t prererred site (i.e. baselinie data collection) and preliminary site design activities were completed

as the initiat step of the EIA/FS.

- T e scope of the BIA is based on the ToR and the respective guidelines of the Bank and the GOP. In

su mnar), it comprisedl the following:

-. (a '; ! Task 1- Project Description: a description of the scope and -physical characteristics of the

(b !. Task, 2 - Project Attermatives: a systematic comparison of alternatives (sites, routes,

r: technologies, ec) including the, alternative of not constructing the project, in order to

demonstrate environmental conditions without it;

. (C). Task 3 - Existing Environment and Baseline Conditions Data Collection: define the study

area tak ng into account the probable regions of influence of major project related

i 7 Z ' enviromnental impacts ahd collect data on relevant physical, biological and socio-economic

conditions, drawing upon existing, available informnation from government agencies and

lresearch oranisations and third parties, supplemented as necessary by a field monitoring

eprograrr.The'data i'ncluded, but was not limited to, the folowing:

terrain - topep. ph , soils, soil erosion, climate and meteorology (including storms and

' 3% , l ~~~~~~~. , l phoor,is,|, an ,bient aLir qdalit) (miai nly particulates);fr . , ., - Ii ' ~~~~~~~~~ *' . ' I .-

hydrology and water qualitv - geology, drainage, water extraction and usage, surface water,

hydrology, groundwater, hydrogeology, existing water quality status (critical parameters);

~ iGolder Associates

. \.u .

Ocober 1999 1-8 981-2730Br SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfll EL4

biolorical - an ir. '.ihiory of flora and fauna, sensitive habitats and endangered species, and

.I ,, i | forest lands;

l _ socio-ecdnomic conditions - Human factors: population, community structure, employment,

distribution of income, goods and services, 'recreation, public health, presence of tribal

groups, iheir customs, aspirations and attitudes. Land features: land ownership, landuse and

zoning. pronimzty -of site to residential and economic locations and archaeological and

historical properties, planned development activities, transport access and availability of

utilities and services.

(d) Task 4 - Determination of the Potential Impacts: identify positive and negative impacts

j likely to result fron, the proposed project, interpreting "environmental" throughout the EIA

study to include socio-economic irmpacts as well as impacts on the natural environment.

(e) Task S'- Anal1 sis and Evaluatiori of Risks: identify the impacts that can translate to potential

risks in the construction, operation and closure phases, if appropriate.

Ct) ; ;Task 6 - Formulation of Environmental Management Plan:

!~~I . . ..i..1si

.?'. MitigainPlan. For each significant negative Impact orl najor risk, recommend and

_P. describe, a measure to avoid or mitigate (reduce to acceptable levels) or when

- !~ S unavoidable, to compensate for the damage.X. ~ ~ ~ ~ X ., .i,J'' i..'I. :

'(ii) Monitoring Plan4: Specify the types 'of monitoring needed for measuring potential

1 -* | : environmental and social impacts during construction, operation and post-closure

' ! ~~phases. I

(1) `iiTask 7 - ResattlementlRehabilitation Action Plan: prepare a detailed Resettlement and

Rehah.lilafion Aclion Plan (RAP) as per World Bank OD 4.3.

Re rt: The EIA Report should be concise and limited to significant environmental issues and should

be prepared according to the format of DENR and World Bank. The report should have

chapter headings reflecting the above tasks.

Golder Associates

. . . . .= -

r>,~~~~Itober 1999 1-9 981*2730B

SII EEP, San Ferntatndo La (lion Sanitary Lapi,dfil EL!

1. 3. I Methodology ,

Si e Tneistigaiic.n and Preliminary Site Design

. ! - In order to cany out this task at the feasibility level, specific technical studies were conducted on the

pr fefrred landfill site. These essentially comprise Tasks I to 6 described in the World-Bank ToR under

fie n V Feasibiliiy Siud). These technical taskststiidies provided the 'informiation on existingen ironmental/baseline condiiors needed to prepare the preliminary design and subsequently perform

lhi mpact assessment, and included:

^ V *| Obtain available topographic mapping and carry out a topographic survey on the site to prepare a

.abe plan of the site.

l * . tqarry out detailed site reconnaissance.

. The drilling of 5detailed boreholes with groundwater monitor installations to determine the nature

of the subsurface conditions (soil and groundwater) and hydrogeology (depth to water, horizontal

and vertical gradients, groundwater flow direction and flow rates) on the site. A number of existing

test pits was .,examined to better'visually observe and exatnine the upper 4 metres of the subsurface

conditions. Geotechnical laboratory testing was carried out tor characterize the physical properties'of

dtie soils. A limited number of groundwater and surface water samnple~,1 were recovered and analyzed

for general chemical characteristics. The nature of groundwater usage in the area of the site was also

detemiintd frol ei.i inf,)iiration and discussions with residents ofthe study area.

. As! essmeni of the hydrological (suirface water/dr,inage) conditions on and in the vicinity of the site.

Meteordlogical datg available for the nearest GOP meteorological station was obtained for this

assessmenl.

,* ssessinent of biological conditions on the site,' in terts of terrestrial and aquatic features, habitat

arid life. Local biologists, familiar with the natural epvironment were retained to assist in this

component.

i .. Technical assessment of site design and operational requirements, i.e. site layout and geometry

(footprint size and jocation, depth, height, slopes and ancillary facility sizing and layout); need for

engineered containmerit requirements (liners) to supplement the natural subsurface conditions;

Golder Associates

I n..- .-

_ __' ' 1i''

Oct lber 1999 I -10 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll EIA

eachate collection and treatment requirements; landfill gas management; stormwater management

. .I ssues; site development and operations in cells/phases; availability of cover materials; monitoring

1u Mibn dnd contingency measures; approach to site closure; pite layout plan and cross-sectional views;

. site capacity.

Ati t con pleiion of this. sub-task, a conceptual design of the facility was completed. This design

lnctd "plan view- awings of the- site' on available topographic base mapping, geologic and

hydrogec lgi.:al plans, surface drainage requirements, cross-sectional views of the site development,

typi aldetails for landfill linpr and 1eachate collection systems, landfill. gas system components, etc.

The s draw provide adequate detail to proceed to the subsequent final design stage. In addition, as

p3rt of Lhe ovemll waste management system plan, the need for a transfer station(s) in the LGU was

as ,s3ed; as well, identfication and condition assessment/need for upgrading of transportation routes

from|the populationr area, in the LGU's to the disposal site was provided.

At t e appropriate points of the above activities, public information/consultation activities to obtain

r iminfo ation and feedback on the preliminary facility design 'and Waste management system plan wascardd out.

Soci hEconomic Assessment

The sciCoe onomic assessrnent of the: preferred wvaste management site was 'comprised of the

;* i folk l n

a. ublic consultations prior to and during the assessment process

*. ynventory and analysis of socio-economic conditions using available data sources

X * deptification of likely socio-economic impacts by location,'severity, and duration

i ;dnAtification of'public perceptions' of the proposed project by conducting a' household level

'urvey of local residents 'l

,* p ro vision of mitigation recommendations

. preparation of a Resettlement and Rehabilitation Action Plan, a Gender Equality Assessment and

|Traiwing'Needs Assessment

D Basejine data on the study area were obtained from the following sources:

Golder Associates

_ fI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-i

i t ' i~~~~~

.' - nt -

October 1999 1- i 981-2730B

SIFF .', San .ernuvido La (lI,io,, !utnitary LaniaJll El-l

_ Secondary docurnentis c i b c aground data from various offices, namely:

Ofc* Oie *f the Cii) P' iisnii .g and Development Coordinator

. QiieoftheC: -..sscIOfflee sf.the Cily , :cult 'ist

Offic.i .f the: .r - -or.

%, iIh kiv si' :;,olde s and community leaders, including:

T* he Ci0 Nl, orE Tue City Plannin, n.i Development Coordinator

* The Barangay Chs rr-. of the Mameltac, Dalangayan Oeste, Dalangayan Este and Saoay

'The City Assessor'> Office Personnel

! .Si * " ,, Onsite Junkshop O1 - rator

An in-depth Lausine survey of P6 families relying on and/or living in the Primary Impact Zone of the

4, t 4 I 2 rproposed Project was carried out to aid in preparation of a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). The

! - i ; RA1 `Survey included 100% coverage of households engaged in waste picking and/or junkshop

ope lion inside the dumpsite as . as households living on or utilizing the land affected by the

comuisory acquisiiion of land by thie City Government. '

The RAP sunrey v'a conducted on 17-24 March and 24 April 1999, and covered 12 households of

w; . pickers, I junkshop operator, 4 landowners, 2 land and structire owners, 6 structure owners and

;A :Iecon-..miand Perception Survey of 1 5 households located within! 1.0 km of the boundary of

the Jirojeet tite and haulage route was completed. The perception survey covered barangays

M1ameltac, D.l1ngayan Este, Dalangayan Oeste and Saoay. A random sampling procedure was

* . empl ?ed in selecing hlie households for the survey. This covered 15.5% of those households within

the i Iniedi ldi vicinity and along the main road leading to, the location of the proposed sanitary

land1Ill.,

I3 . - ., Golder Associates.

Ut

! i:i _________________', ">.t .

K2 ' " X L- '

4~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ .!. T MS~ t - . -

Oc4 3berI9 1999 981-2730B

-I X Oc SWEEP, San Fernando La Union San1ta yLandfill E9A

Cos estimaels for the monitoring programs and compensation, both in terms of capital costs and

ong ing coits, were provided as part of the economic feasibility analysis.

As part of the above activities, public information activities Were conducted to obtain information and

W _reed4ck on the technical and socio-economic and natural' environment impact assessment,

, . monitoring and compensation proposals.

EIA Reportl,

K The EIA report was prepared;in a form that is suitable for submission to the Philippine agencies for

r M app al and to the World Bank for financing approval. It includes a project description, projectaltern tives (i.e., sites, routes, technologies) and associated analysis and decision making processes

and p o'vides a summary of the significant environmental issues and proposed. mitigative measures,

[ U ' ; o inclu ng a discussion of.the way in which public participation had been accounted for in the decision

* maki j rocess. The more detailed specific component investigations and studies that formed the

basis or the EIA are provided in the form of appendices in an accompanying volume, with a

sumr of relevant findings provided in the EIA report.

;13.4 The Study Area

The p Posed engineered landfill is to service the City of San Fernando (refer to Figure 1.1,' for

* oat ioCi) and therefore its benefits will encompass the entire City. However, for the purposes of the

ElA, t e tstudy area is specifically that which would be directly affected by the proposed landfill

constr eion and operation activities. This area is considered to include the proposed site and its

: immed e vicinity, ipcluding the'access roads (refer to Scoping Report in Appendix B). Where

appropriate, envirofunental and social issues associated with the proposed development were

L Q iaddresjd in this EIA if they are considered to be a direct result of this development.

It shoul be noted that, as part of the site selection process discussed below (refer lo Section 3.5),

altern areas within the City were initially evaluated to come up with a preferred area for further

gr^ .' conside tion. This eva4uation was carried out as a screening level assessment of potential

rt1 environ bentai impacts, using a 'number of screening criteria and a compatible baseline data collection

exercise i

Golder Associates

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

II ~~ I

S"WEEP, San Fernando LatUnion Sanitary Landfill ELA

1.3. Integration of the EIM and the Feasibility Study

_ ' ; The redominant components of a engineered sanitary landfill-are essentially engineered measures to

avoi or minimize;potential environmental impacts, unlike most typical infirastructure development

proji cts such as a road development. Therefore, the technical studies associated with the FS, such as

.. , the h tainment design, have to be closely integrated with the ETA. In view of this, the concept

desi of ihe landfill and the associated field investigation and public consultation activities for the FS

iL - ,- wer conducted in conjunction with the baseline data collection, public consultation and impact

as sment, mitigation anrd monitoring plan development activities.

S L ", i; ; g~~~~~~~~~~~,

- - 1.3.i EA Schedule

F " The E[A for the proposed landfill was commenced in February, 1999, as soon as the site selection

Ppro7c *ss was completed and a site was selected with the acceptance of the public and the DENR. Asrnote i in Figure 1.2, the first activity of the EIA was Scoping and subsequently the baseline data

coll 1 ction, impact assessment and mitigation/ monitoring plan development were completed.

It s Ifould be noted that, as in similar landfill development projects, this EIA was based on the

sche:u Where appropriate, recommendations have been provided fot additional data collection,

imp t,assessment and mitigation measures during the detailed design and/or implementation phases.

L "1.4 , EIAScoping

r 1.4.1 Introduction

MThe EJA for the proposed San Fernando landfill, including the EIA Scoping, was prepared in

'acco dance with the requirements of the DENR EIA Procedural Manual and those presented in ther uWan d Bank guidelines for conducting ElAs. In addition, the EIA addresses the pertinent

requ riements of CIDA-INC (i.e. the Canadian Environmentgl Assessment requirements). The details

of tl e ~IA Scoping are presented in a Scoping Report, dated.March, 1999 (refer to Appendix B).

: The CIDA-INC requirements specifically include assessments of Gender Equality and Training

Nee s,' These CIDA-INC assessments are not requirements of the World Bank or the Philippines EIS

proc ss, but have been included here as they contribute to the thoroughness and strength of the overall

imp ct'assessment.

L ;Golder Associates

L;,. . ff..I

October 1999 1-15 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ElA

1.4.2 National Level Scoping

As nvied above, the subject landfill project is a demonstration component of SWEEP, a nationwide

so id 0%aste management program. In order to meet the demonstration aspect of the project objective,

a natinal level scoping meeting was held in January, 1998, prior to the involvement of Golder

Asso iates in SWEEP, between the DENR representatives (EMB and PTFWM), EIARC members

and 'e preparers of thel ETA for four of the original six LGU demonstration landfill projects. The

detail 3 df this meeting were presented in the EIA report for the proposed Iloilo landfill.

M j . At the national level scoping meeting, DENR introduced the Scoping Guidelines as part of the

DENRk's Procedural Manual for ElAs in the Philippines.

The f llowing major environmental issues arising from the proposed demonstration sub-projects were

identi led during the national level scoping meeting:

. Tle potential impacts on surface water and groundwater; and

a* Ptentiai impacts on the livelihood of the waste pickers in the existing dump sites of the

q t w ! re¶pective LGUs.

L The alove issues were incorporated in the scope of the proposed San Fernando landfill EIA, as

descriled below.

1A t vL Scoping Meeting with EIARC and DENR

lThe D,NR Procedural Manual recommqnds that the EIA Scoping should be conducted in three

l S t hss re-scoping, scoping and post-scoping. The pre-scoping involves the following steps:

r : r Ste 1 Letter of Intent : the City of San Femando communicated their intention and readiness to

commence the EIA process to the DENR in November, 1998.

Sten 2: Schedule First Level Scopine Meetina: DENR retained the services of the EIARC that was

lconducting the review of the Iloilo City Landfl,l EIA and the first level scoping meeting

betwveen Golder Associates, DENR and a representative(s) of the EIARC was scheduled for

; jFebruary 17, 1999. A draft version of the EIA Scoping Report, which presented the technical

and substantive scope of the proposed EIA, was provided to those cncermed Jt,l M-,-EMB,

k9 l 4 1,Golder Assoclates

r I

X !^K

\E~~~.-

I~~~~~~- ' ± A I - -

Ocdj ber 1999 1 - 1d ' - IB

SIPVEEP, Suit Ferrniitnil.Jo L a /rial Sa,ai,art' Lannfill E1.1

; EIARC Representa-'l- , ihe Cii,, riie '.'orld B3dnk .. fc. Ior their re%ie%: on Fehruar, 4. P.I't.

so thai their commenis could be diseu;,ed durinz time ineling in order v, arrRie at a3n Aslieci

Upon Scope' for ih,e EIA ias re-,nmendVd ilr SLCp 3 helo i. IL inrlud.d r.lairice . I and '

I and highlighted the result of the ptiblik c.n1Silitaifn, conducied to ihat dale irefer ui.

App,endix B)..-~~~~~~~~~~~~~):LeE 3 Firs: Level Sconini: The first level scuping meeting. v hiich %a.; anended by reprrc-fiatat e; ot

lhe EIARC (Engr. Pedro Virav) DENR-ENIB r1.1r. Bcbs:" N'iPe and 1>. M.ivr iR.a. ar i ili

1reparer. iGoider Associates), was held at the EMB office in Quezon City ori February 17, 1999.

:1 j'hese representatives did not have any comments on ihe draft scoping report. As part of the first

evel scoping,. the- representatives completed and. attested the 'Scope and Coverage' forb7-,

l, af ~~~~~icularl). the`'M"iust ntieria, which outlines the scope irtd coveratge of tnhe proposed EIA

greed among the DENR-EMB, EIARC and the Preparers. A copy |of this form is presented in

,he Scoping Report.

t ej 4- Schedule Form'al Scoping Session: It was proposed during the first level scoping meeting that

, torrnal scoping session: should be conducted as soon as possible.' The City scheduled the Formal

;,_r__ I copihg 'Session for February 23, 1999. This schedule was confirmed by the representatives of

DNR-EMB and tle EIARC at the end of the first level meeting.

: L - Tile City prepared and distributed invitations/public notices and, where appropriate, the materials to

be resented during the session including a project description-that was submitted as part of the draft

Sco ing Report (e.g. site development map, map of the project area, etc.).

, ,, I , : . - ,

1 ..L.4. Scoping Meeting with Stakeholders

l.'Socia` Prenartion:' Social; prepation had taken place in 'San Femando during May to December,i : . x , ,;- ... 199 . 'This effort was led by the City -(ayor,. etc.), and assisted by PRRM, the DENR (EMB and

Lt RO' and Golder Associates. Prior to the participation of PRRM, the Mayor's Office, with the

assi I3ne o'FPMO (DENR, local NGO representatives, City Medical Officer, etc.), conducted a series

of ih 'rmiational meetihigs with'various civic groups, local NGOs, and identified community leaders to

pro ide information o;n the project and its benefits and financing to gan Fernando. PRRM

supl emented these meetings with focus group discussions with identified stakeholders, in which the

City; (Mayor, etc.) participated. to present information on the project. PRRM also facilitated to elicit

Golder Associates

L 4 ,

., U: C : . .

., yD.

U .1

Ocibber 1999 __ - 17 981-2730BTW7 S^'E_EP, : n1 Ferrtando La V'nion S;r:iiarr Lamfill El-.

.i-i sfrom the .'; range ` -'J hch1dIJrs. As l,iled aho%e, the restil; of ihe:e ,x-Uial preparation

acti itiesarestj iu ;izcdin 1h- 'R 'lIiep:nrr,ter .Se.ti. 'i

* 1 Ste 5: Forma'f. oin- SessK ic rr'l ' orii, e. -.. n w.s held di lieCi' oI Sin Fernand,a Union ci.e Ccria 23. S 3 , v - h.- d 'c.'. As t',° -il v a. nol ronsiJ-red s,, .. blk to conductuch a m.etinc, t s I , I .. a c. nfirr.r: 'aciiihv. The SeFsion : a, aitended by over

Atno panicipants. inLdalding resi.ler.: *;f eimire ti: :rnmediate . iciniu, ol the pr posed site,

|vasle piekers, Ci D!.AY r)tr R. I-.-! ir--C:i :,rnd rilier sltkehoId2rs The mninunes of this Sessiona inda lis l of flar l (iiKIdd;ig sinnnruru -:] prrsrit.!d in iheScop%n Rep...rt

* Ase 1ensi%e -i, :.I n;!a.1teenl:edo n i. cr,I -. ;c i*'ri xith all heid.Ir;Wedli-4olders(andan) d -r pari. . . ;red) since Arril, IcO:S, in.l the Cr.,- R, tENfB and ROt and lihc LGLI (i.e. City)had L involved In the project from its inception (i.e; April, 1998) as the proponents, the results ofthe s cons tions were initially presented by the City, DENR, the World Bank, PRRM and

<iGold e Associates. The presentations included project description, site selection process, results ofthe p _U'i . i. .:i activities and the proposed scope (Matrices, I and 2, etc.). Subsequently, an

open forum ; oiiducted to soliit additional input from the publi and stakeholders. The| W1paniipantsan. n a tour of the site following the open forum and lunch, provided by the City.

-As n ted in i!dAr attached minutes, no concerns regarding the proposed EIA scope were expresseddurin Ihe Forr . Scoping Session. It is noted that the various stakeholders expressed a number ofconc during the previous consultations which had been addressed in' the PRRM report, dated

|n; 4 6 Janu3 , 1999 and Matrices I and 2 (refer to Appendix B).

1.1 4.5' ,Pri,al Er-neCiciaries oftheProposedProject

The pgincip; beneficiaries of the proposed landfill project are: i

**i Tll.e residents of the lands adjacent to the proposed development (which is' the same as theeisting dumpsite);**., ^ -, * .Tllte wasteipickers; ! -

: .* T eIresiPents of the City of San Fermando;

_.* Tle commercial and institutional establishments of,the City; and

T,'eCity council.;

r Golder Associates

LIMU

Oj ober 1999 I-i *8 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EIA

I; Th principal benefits to the beneficiaries are:

* Improved sanitary conditions which would result in improved health;

. Improved environmental and living conditions;

I! ^1 ! . * mnproved direct and indirect employment opportunities;

.* dditional business opportunities; and

4 * f1igher profile for the City as a SWEEP demonstration LGU.

r L. - Sec ndary beneficiaries of the proposed landfill projects are:

* - ENR, as it is the main GOP proponent of the SWEEP demonstration projects;

* he Department of Health, as it is responsible for the health of the City residents;

s he Department of Trade and Industry, as a result of increased business opportunities;

: ,* 'he Department of Agriculture, as a result of increased agricultural production in the lands

resently affected by the existing open dump site; and

: t . *4 ' ' ' 'he population of the Province of La Union and other Provinces in Region 1, as they benefit from

presence of a demonistration engineered landfill for use as an example in other LGUs.

1.5. Structure of the Report

L L This report reflects the EIA reporting format recommended by the DENR and the World Bank and

comwrises eleven Sections. Following this introduction, Section 2 describes the policy, legal and

r h3 admi' istrative framework as it applies to the proposed landfill project Section 3 presents the evaluation

of alt:mat.es, both altematives for s6lid waste management system component and altematives for the

Xengi ered landfill site. Section 4 describes the consultation activities carried out as part of this project

lr(i.e. S as well as EIA). Section 5 describes the prqposed project, including the components of the

propoced landfill construction, operation and closure/after use. Section 6 describes the existing

envir ental baseline conditions of the proposed landfill site. Section 7 presents the identification and

assess ent of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed works. Section 8 outlines the

mitigrtion measures that are proposed tQ address the potential environmental impacts. Section 9 presents

an en,ironmental management plan which recommends the environmental monitoring requirements

i neces ary to ensure effectiveness of the environmental protection measures adopted; it also presents a

ri g contin ency plan. Section 10 provides an outline of the proposed institutional ,prrangement that would be

L 1 | * 1 Golder Associates

l''~~~1l. .

(7 O A,kber M99K' 1-7 l. 30BS I'EEP. San Fer.inIztJ. L l nIion Sair, l. L,,landrill El 4rreq ired for the implementation of ihe proposed project. An Executive Summary presented the

beg *ning of this report provides a summary of the EIA.

The levant Tables and Figures are provided following their respective section of the text inv. , * they

are isEussed. Appendices are provihded in a separate volume accompanying this EIA report.

r~~~~~~~~~~~~Gle Assoiate

(7 I

... 4t . . .

r Eq ..

I:.....L a ' 1

! I

^ X § ~~~~~~~~~~Golder Associates

r -j

., t : ' LOCATION PLANCI;lY OF SAN i-EP%JANDO, LA UNION FIolk 1.1

SWEEP, '.HE PHILIPPINES

j r- . I TO V/IGAN

L 8:;I^ Ib

,: t j ,,'^-@<l~~~~~~LOCOS 8tS'LIR. X,' . L|.! )ti.;W 4 ?A .

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P

C ~. r . ~ . 4 . rW 4 t jAP7. )

I a41 PO Pl X W FEW1!.-60 .& ' .: ., I, (\ t -z \ ( ':!NVS. j J

AC'.OIA,J LALA __rJ

L.. : . s,' } , \Ar A a A

s~~~~~~~~EED 7 g. TOMST

PROVINCIALCAPITAL ",.MUNIC PALITY

. - I PROYINCIALBOUNDARIES

C: 6|5 = | MIIUOR'ROADS__MINOR ROADS SC4PNAIA

! {6~~~~~~EASHORE )\

" ~~~~~~~LINGAYEN i

GULF TO 01: IILA

TO DAGUPAN

o . 0 . | NOT TO SCALE]

Dote AeR .19.9aaa Golder Associates Drown..K.

L < s Project _7.?0.8C(5100) Chkd .. ;.

L. lz .H E _ _ _ _

_ __ _ I,.

tH~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~og V.,u. -;ounido'

i!

U(odSl W13gw lo u.JtddjIIS 9

uwid VowI, Wu;wouoza I

IS @u1 0A ' WS _ _ _

IL . 'lCU - - -" I

' I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gi .0 e 119v

r i : } : = I .. _ \ . t j . - - _ _ . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" '

* [o

O tober 1999 2-1 981-2730BSWEEP, San I "ernanto La Union Sanitary Landill E

22. POLICY, LEGAL AND AI tIN lSTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

42. Introduction

TI isSrciicn presents .he policy, le, di and a.!:nio.r4ihe framework goveming environmental

-mt , m nagement ii iha Philippinies, with! Liu.ular reference to the'reguaii'ons governing SWM and the

ureiurements for Environmental Im IAssessment (EIA). The specific procedures for project

-f < ! t evaluation and approval are also disc ussed.

* a; eP,rc jtst prtptsals must comply wiih applicable environmental policies, legislation,' regulations and

gui elines of the Govemnment of the Philippines and the World Bank. Specifically, before an

engineered (sanitary) landfill can be Implemented in the City of San Fernando (La Union), an EIA of

the project proposals must be prepared, evaluated and approved in accordance with prevailing

en: irionmental pollciesand associalted regulations and guidelines.

-:In lditio to the above, the preparation of the EIA was supported'also by the Canadian International

De elopment Agency Industrial Cooperation Program (CIDA-INC) and, therefore, the EIA was also

pr lared in general accord,ance with the applicable requirements of CIDA-INC (e.g. the Canadian

'Environnental AssessmeritAct).- in particular, tle socio-economic assessment included the carrying

.out orasseismenis and thepreparation of additional reports ongenderequality and trainingneeds.

2.2 LegalFramework

i 7 ' 2.2.: The Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System

The Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System was implemented in 1979 by virtue of

Presiderllial Decree (PD) 11a. 1586 and has undergone several refinements and revisions since that

date DEN;R Administraiive Order (AO) No. 37, Series of 1996 (DAO 96-37), replacing DAO 92-21,

sets ut the current legal framework for ELA in the Philippines.

. C .s.5i... ....-: | ' 'l ',The IA process requires that an EIS, must be prepared for all projects or undertakings within the

cate ry of Environmentally Critical Projects (ECP), regardless of their location. ECPs are those

proje Is deemed to have a high potential for negative environmental impacts as listed under PD No.

2146 Steries of 1981 and PD No. 803, Series of 1996. In addition, the President may designate a

proje t as an ECP in accordance with Section 4 of PD No. 1586, The agency responsible for the

' : ! . imple mentation of the EIS system for ECPs Is the Environmental Managetpent Bureau (EMB) of the

r DEN,

Golder Assoclates

;! .....~. .. I.I ..r ,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~j.i

tober 1999 ' - 2 931-27301"R

S_--EEP, Saui F e ,',unao La tion Si Inary LatlltyJi ELI

. ^ I 'rojecis located scithin En%irontmentlli, Crilic3l Arets ti-l' s) arc reCr1ireu 1 ubmi an hii,1

nvironmenal Examinaiun IEEt to ti,e concerned DEIII' Itnal rtrIiCe. %*. -nht p,ijud-l:e Lo ihe

ecision of ithe Region3l E'ecwise >Dir.-rctr (RED) siho ma .uire ilte projctt .roponenr to -uhnin

EIS in accordance ':ith Sectic.n 30 of Artici [it of .! .()

r *K I-hile solid waste disposal facUties a are rhOal lisle-i as s; n,ler ' )K -. 3 the El Ie

chsiders nIast, under the pr% siiins cC ?D a1I. 2146. engineenr *'r slinrar; -t. 1i.I cnmriiaiainwei %

L - E~P Fand, therefore, reqtiires an IEI. L E erience, '. rt in the I ppiiac- I:-' e here. has

i r.t'such projects may give rise potetlili tai signiriant wegark m ir;rf ' ,, ,

i' P , , pojec' appronal procedures urder tlie Er. prioce-, nre Ji:, n :. 1 :. '1 .n 2 heI.Ml.

, * 2;. 2.2 The Sectural Environmental Pli ecgion Leg'.athti

- S WM XVaste hangStcement

T national legislaih e franiewort: spec`ic.:'!.. Col ernini s:-EJ , e:ie rnrza'nlsni tr, tclt PhilInpilric

- is Hsed on separate provisions cantained ia 3.: *-S r.; hii' i%diial pitce-, - If ! kol: n :, hI,eae in

r ~~~~~~~~T,le 2.1. None ot (lLe eistring li'., s.) rr.i' an, in- icrFih Li'-i N-i-lCb O?-- SV '-in

- -5 1ad 4irion, s5ine of the runctions of din' ill agncesnil 1- tI, b. ' ale-a .ra.o,-. I -* .rlap,

iiji ch can lead to rcassible *onfnicts %% i(h ru& rd a-' eric ni-niei it i- -Is

* TIl gaps in ihe ex.isting S\W'NI legislation tate ben ifle 'mnndei Canmp.:.n'cni . I ' n.l1I Polhc.

* - -. .. Fo mplalionn of the SWVEEP project. The rrcoinl'v]jiidris -r.n acii-:n plani.l rili c,

L ' - *Stt dy have identified mech3nisms al a nratinal ke'cl for ro.-A '1ge. all/. .la, .I0 C-1I ig 'Or porlnlral

. . defciencies and barriers in the legal ani ai,linisrt&i.e fai.nev,iilrl: gciernir.g rIft-. c s-l. I art

, mamA agenienr thro7ighout the Philippinei. ln laii % ih this 1!radcwl i,s. I .. *i -U ,, -;ii

s ,- . Orders xere promitilgatci ltbradop.icn (aefcr ;a fable 2 1, 5s &'!-s:

3*DAO9 S-49 Technical Gi-idcliile t iSt N-r T- i'A,' . hi,. h call. f-r IIh,- p.:: ii. :aid

pgrading or relaLcerrient uf e iftiri or.n- hiJian. :ites e ilth mn-re ;ailr, :a d-t ir-, Iwraalil .

-- I, ]ccept3hle nwclitdi ot a- asie di .- ,'z ;1: .rid

p - . * AO98.-51) Landlill Silc lderaidicaieoarid Sc:,eeŽa Crcriza Fi.r P.15 u Di3p; F-

La: Associates

r _U.-'

I ',:o ober 1999 2- -.- - ~ ~ ° ¢ ] 9 Sll *EEP, Sitd Ft aiundo Io Un!ion Sanitalrl, Lai ndu .l E 7I

.D 098-49 covers the de% clopmrz1 t * nev. municipal disposa sites and pr. ides a phased schedLile

, for the conversion and upgradir.y o replacenient or eNisting dump t te .mne more sanitwrv an.]

. enwironmentall sound landfilil. V\: oLti st3ges ar. recognized in the ir grc.i'e upgradiisg foiro

op n dumps to till ni'iar, lanittill e .y k -ir,ar3ter*:a-cs of each *tq cre sumitmarieed e-n 'r 1-

. ;! ~~~~~ . ~-'2.21Th" DINR is err'. ercd to *.c:c. i .v nd rnoni -r the gradual pNhasinig CAR' ieisting open dt..npJ

. h naDli oide in co -'inafion l;':i dr 2 C1F, E,ILG, aris LGUs and other -Ie anm entidiei ,nl to

.protide techni-2' ;-istan-e in Aj': n i.bia mid irviwCcnvatidr oFrlte ut'rra .-ing of open d'-op Siis

'In aLc'rd3rnce n'ih the Techlr,ical FjuilluIn.;

3Forheir pan LG'Jis are required to pr pFre and ;,>niemerIrrcal acilon I ;n; and to for fl,ljtt lioc;l

regit lations to f. ilitate and support the closure and upgrading of exislinr open dumr . LGUs are

req ired to fulf '1 the upgrading plan in accordance 'tith the follokning s-he !ile:

1. 'All highly urbanized cities are required o con- ertnupgrade all their Oipe. Du' ip; to Cc,irro lleJ

I ! . .- Dumps not later Lhair December 2'0 1;

2. 1II highly urbanized cifie; are required to eoi' ertAIpgrade Irom Conirtrll; : umpl t Sanharx

rP* . I Etndrill Level I no later than December 2tlflS anid from E:initar,- Lan If. I -e I i., Saniiar.

;andull l.e. el 2 not later than December 200):

3. 11 nlidependent cc.mponent, component andl irst clas; cities and munkii Lare required n.

fl-: 9gonvert'upgrade all their exiking Open Duimps to Controlled Dripls n i .113ha Decemn-ler

' .- ,- 4003, and from Controlled Dump; iO Sanimarv LandJfll Le% el I not later [i. ) .rnber 21ii(9

-U II? ' -LikeIlse, DAO 98-50 was promulgated to guide LGUs in flit dentifcatlon ani. creniiig of pate niul

' sules' kor sle asie dipcos3l. griefly. he hiey factors co,hidered are:

j~~~~~~~~~~ a aiai cjpacir! and a. Aiabilfl y;

_ .* .h!ulidisianccandlime;, ;., *~~~~~~~ P oximit) to censitive groundu:awer rc;ciiurcei;

'rm pf oximitx to perennia i sur face "'ater;

, * odurrence .f tloodinV:

Colder Ascoc1adn?s

L;/ n1. '-S 1

0 L ,er 1999 2 -4 981-2730BB

* proximityto SH=P, San Fernando La Unton Sanitary Lan~rl EIA

lQcal ecol.;,- l Icondiflkns;

cu~rrent and hI aire land use;

* seismic conlil1 ions;

1 ~~ ~~0 geologic conditions;r S~~~~~~~ jsoil/land conditions;

* topograph y; 4nd

. proximity to airport

The~ development of the proposed MSW disposal component of the preferred waste management

syst m for San Femnando has been guided by the provisions of both new DAOs. In San Fernando

City~ the conversion of its open dump site into a Controlled Dump was completed i-n late 1998, ahead

ofeshed Iprescri~ed in DAQ, 98-49. The proposed conversion of this Controlled Dump to an

erii ere snitrylandfill, e%pi~:Id to be implemented in 2001,adheres to DAC)9849. Sim-ilarly,

- the roposed sitefor the engineered landfill was identified using the site selection process stipulated in

Thc) oerning body responsible for the quality of water is the DENR. Freshi surface waters are

classl fld into five sub-categories (AA, A, B, C and D) according to their potential

benef'calIdesignated use, while coastal and marine waters are classified into four sub-categories (SA,

r ~~~~~~~SB, and SD), again according to their potentieal beneficial/designated use.

Class s AA and SA generally have the most stringent water quality criteria requirements and Classes

D an SD generally the least stringent waiter quality requirements. Section 69 of DAO 90-34 specifies

year average values, or in soine Instances the mnaximum value, of a range of physical, biological and

chemi al parameters for each class of water. -,Pcilable water supply (Class AA or Class A) should

I confo with requirements of the National Standards for Drinking Water (Department of Health,

The qi~al'ity of any effluent or waste discharged from any mianufacturing planit, industrial plant or

3 ~~~treatmin plant, whether treated or not, is governed by the revise~d effluent standards emnbodied in

DAO 40-35. The quality standards specified encompass toxic and other deleterious substances, in

U I . 6 ~~~~~~~older Associates

4-;

K -4okr 1999 ~~~~ikEP SiiFerntando LaMll alayLaud/iill EU-I 9123

L, - dilion ro a limited ranSWe oS ph.si;Jn: .ni b iologil pa r Fmr iriru. F ri es pr'ducinztorji e

'4asres, where ihe Biological O.xygen Demrrand (1B3)D) of rawv ts.c u a vier e\ceeds 3.rOIjX mcnl, ih':

pnrnissible quialiry of created effluent Ii .lf ined by a ma-.imum limit of ROD or a minimwm

- ! Pflrcentage removal of BOD, whiche%eris t. mirt trict of ihe t%c.r

' ¶~ Te applicable rriteria for x%arer quzlit: and eftilueit quilir. are presented and di1cui;;d in dcuiil in

. S cions 4i.t) and 6.f0.

- t i A r Qualitv

V z TlTe goseming boad. respun&ihle for both niz-hilk and statiaonaN 4urcee of enhi;si.:,n! t. 3ir is tl-:

iDENR. DAO 93-14 saipulrws intee alco, national emisiion siandards tor snmoke and pani':tlase

matrer frocn stationan' sources and tor source-speciaic air po..lutants. In additrion, DAO) 93-14

Isp*; ifes shi t ::n i:ogr aional Amtbient Air Qualirn Guidelines CNA'CXjQi tbr ti,

1.L ~~~~~~~fo lowing Pollutant1s:

* Total Suspended Paniculav: telauier;

I F ; * | Sulpliur Dio.idle (SO);

Nitrogen Dioxide (1'NC O:

* Photochenic3l o :idant;, Ozone C(i)) and Carborn Mono .ide sCOt, art.!- ;..i .. Lead.r f_ .It hould be noted that the fossil ful uie that results in the gcneration '.f 1,w ab ... e pollu,iats z

I L. mi imal in engineered landilil lcvelopmenti

Nad6nal Amblent Air Quality Standards are also specified fl'r a range or surce-specilic air polluutants

; -F 5fro industrial sotrces and operations TIuerc are no specific proviiion;. ho. cer. refating tv air

poilltants, suclh as ethane it and Ctjb,.n DT;Jide (CO,), wx:hich are the pre,inindnt landfillF - - 7 gasls nonnally associaleti % -iii solid - a Le Jispn,ai zits. Under Secoi:n 6:5f .,r f) \ 14 *'fm-fl

w ~~~~burning i-. ieclair t. t..]...... , L apr- hinucd J i t

The1applicahle criteria ltr ar qu.dil. ariA cmi i ci:n ,ialit:, are J :srI, .lisu -z d ii,till in

i-3 ; Section 6.t:

Colder Asaroc:>nes

.

i .~~~j. Ž-.;.-a ... 8f .~~~~- - .... ... ..

Occoler 19994

. -I - Sll'EEP, S.g,i FI'rnz,tu ii ni., S'lsilari Ll'ldiiI E1.4

-NoiselOualil MeLI

a ^ . DENI has adopied Li,e rukl aiid regulafiari3 Orf iic NatioLmil Pollution ConiTol Coir.n,i,,in rIPS,

- Official G3zene c-f the Pr%llii;.n:' 'i ,!3tinn C (nN-- I1n 1`olLime 74, l'".err,!er 23, P.72

regar ing ilie e'ir.nnm l qu,Iir 1: :ni. fi ...Anli en lki:e Qw,alit Strri.1Jid

(m lirnum allnt'abl rneise I we':r ac spe.:;eJ f: Jc'.r-.J r:Tegori,e, of 3ra ifi-e in toial' ter

dayri f, night tinie and monmiig n e . p: '. . 14 % i Lte ar;limcriiw lidin nrir lj;

seven iscrele reading;.

,_, t ~~~~1. Thapplicable criterk. kcr n ...........i:e; les:.r ,e, ¢ >u 1.......'. lC,I ci intl *I.'ih ^:inhSe. ,, .

....2.3 Adnihnislralhie Frantneiork

L ____ 2.3.1. Department of Environment and National Resources (DENR)

The D ENR is the inain government agency involved in solid waste management in the Phiiippines. It,

[ a Is the ;rimary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of

the co intry's environment and natural resources.

L KI. nF,tI ental Management Bureau (EMB)

r qi The E MB is the main office concerned with waste management within DENR. Besides being a

regula ory agency concerned with the implementation of the policy to maintain a reasonable standard

r .for air and water quality, the functions of EMB include the formulation of rules and regulations for the

prope disposal of solid wastes and toxicand hazardous substances.

r One u it:within EMB has direct responsibility for waste management issues. The Chemicals and

Waste anagement Section supervises the implementation of the "Toxic, Hazardous Substances and

r Nucle r Wastes Control Act of 1990" (Republic Act 6969). The Section is also responsible for

providjng draft policy guidelines to the DENR on hazardous waste management and technical

assista ice to industry, regional offices, NGOs and other public and private entities. This Section was

i i -also or ginally active in SWM, but these activities were transferred to the PMO-PTFWM when it wascreatea in 1993.

: $2 I Golder Associates

.--

I.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

I,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2-7 ~~~~~~~981-2730BOztobes h iSWEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfl ES

_ ^ Thle Chemicals and Waste Management Section has co-ordinated the Urban Environmnent and Solid

W te Management Study, the EU-funded Metro Manila Toxic and Hazardous Waste Management

SC dy and the [ndustrial Environmental Management Project (IFMP).

: jesideatral Task Force on Solid Waste Mansne0lem t ( IWM) & 9ToWM uPIrote

3 ~~~Miiitaeflemet Offilce (PTFM-PMOt

The PMO of the PTFwm was cre8ted under AO No. 90 (October t993} in otder to support the

. . -FWM in the development and implementation of the Integrated National Sqlid Waste Mainagement

Syrten Framework (INSWMF). In addition, the PMO-PTFWM was tasled to:

il, . |fpOrmulate guidelines for prepaying local solid waste management plans;

* establish a waste management database;

_ .formulatetimplement an information, Education and Communication plan;

U Lo : j - * ! rpr a capability program for LEocal Govemment Units' and

X evaluate programs and project proposals on solid waste management.

iDENR chairs the reconstituted PTFWM which has members from the Department of Public

W klCs and Highway5l (DPWH), Department of Health (DOK), Department of-Trade and Industry

( D¶L , 1 epart ent of Intereior and. Local Government (DILO) and the National Economic and

D*,DedOpmeOp 7t Authority (NEDA).

i i Department of Health (DOW

Tb pimary funition of the DOH is to protect, preserve and/or restore tie health of the people

th Xouh the provision of healtth services. It is included in the PTFWM due to its responsibilities under

th Sanitation Code. These responsibilities include the preparation of guidelines for the treatment and

di osal of hospital waste. Within DO1I, the Environmental Sanitation Division (ESD) of the

_ , . En tironrnietal Health Service Unit (EHSU) is the division which impacts most on SWM. The

reonsibilities of the ESO include the following:

C to fortnulate environmental health laws, policies and standards;

. to developfreview long-term, medium-term and annualUnational plans and programs for

.Environmental Health (EH) in the following areas of concem: water supply and sanitation,

l., - . excreta and sewage collection and disposal, food sanitation, industrial hygiene and safety, solid

;e |reta Gotder Associates

ar 4 !'''S''' l

- ~ ~~ ~ ~ -- fl s Xn -z

f lr9 , ts -* -. _

Octo 4er 1999 2 - 8 981-2730B

SI EEP, San Fer,iiniik La Unjt; n Sai,iionr Loiiifill Ef4

J aste management, pest control, slaughterhouse and market sanitation, sanitation in public places,

h using sanitation and urban sanitation;

* tc prepare operational work, financial and action plans for environmental health (Eli) Programs;

* tc provide technical, consultative and advisory services to upper and lower units and agencies

e ative to sanitation services;

: to prepare and develop research protocols on Enviromnental Sanitation and to formulate

J3! g . idelines for effective implementation of Environmental Sanitation Programs;

* 'c to formulate implementing rules and regulations based on the Sanitatidn Code of the Philippines

an i other Sanitation Laws;

* to Dromote and strengthen the enforcement mechanisms of the rules and regulations;

0 @ to evelop trairling programs for EH personnel at all levels; and

'JE ~~* to levelop IEC materials on EH for dissemination at all levels.

~ !- The ESP spearheaded the, move to produce a Manual on Hospital Waste Management, which was

released in 1994.

2.3.3 Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

Waste l ianagement has not been a priority within the DTI in the past since most of the emphasis has

been o attracting industry through incentive programs; waste treatment regulations have been

consieed generally to be a disincentive to private sector investments. However, the supporting

-t^ memor¶ fda to AO No. 90 setting up the PMO-PTFWM explicitly tasked the DTI to prepare

guidelir es on indtisttial waste management and to include SWM projects in the Investment Priorities

L' Plan. ',he Board of Investments (BOI) has been tasked as the responsible unit within the DTI.

Howevr. despite some initial work drafting the industrial waste management guidelines, these have

ro ! yet to bd, produced.

2.3.4 1National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)

NEDA as set up in 1972 as the government's central planning body. The division which represents

NEDA dn the PTFWM is the Water Resources Division (WRD) of the Infrastructure Staff. The

r WRD is tasked to:

X prov le technical staff support in co-ordinating the formulation of physical plans for the

transtottation, communications, water, power and energy and social infrastructure sectors;

L Golder Associates

.3~~~~~~~~~

Octobr 1999 2-9 9R1-2730B; - ~~~~~~SWE, ^Y -, :~nFe,,,a:, Lu Cl.tiin San iiary LanJi 1 EL-I

Icealuate and conduct st.o lies on policies in the above sectors;

* Pvide technical staff s 1pport in the evaluation and review of proposed programs and projects in

th aboveswctors;

, * * pvide technical assi: ,;ce in program and project identification, development and evaluation;

* onitorsectoralperft t ice.

U NED.A's main solid wa, e .nanagement role is to review and clear all proposals for foreign donor-4 Y . | fmde I technical assis_. , and investment in SWM infrastructure hnprovements prepared by other,__ NalioNat! Government At e .ies (NGAs), LGUs and LGU clusters.

Thes proposals are i 'd initially to the PTFWM to ensure that they are acceptable under the

INSh MSF. After thek 1 -A or LGU obtains all necessary clearances, NEDA reviews the financing

plan i nd the social, p,hysical, financial, economic and enviromnental justification of the project and

make a recommernation to the Investment Co-ordination Committee ([CC), which is chaired by 'arepr entative of 'iae Department of Finance (DOF). The project can only proceed to implementation

when ICC Clear; nce has been obtained.

b 2.3-5| Depai tment of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)

| ~ |The jILG is responsible for overall supervision of local govemment functions and activities. The, _ ^ unit that imp ..cts most on SWM is the Bureau of Local Governnent Supervision (BLGS). The head

of this unit attends the PTFWM. The BLGS is concemed primnarily with the monitoring of local

govfinment performance and their compliance with national laws. It also provides assistance and

-IP!YiIU secre aial services to the League of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities.

The Ihcocal Government Academy (LGA) is responsible for training local, government officials and. stren tnening the human resource base of the local govemment sections of the DILG. The LGA also

. II imphqments the Integrated Capability Building Prograrnme (ICBP), designed to enhance local

* gove nment competencies, harness the active participation of the public and improve service delivery.

The lGA offers a course on Environmental Management that contains some modules of relevance to

estab ishing the systems necessary for effective SWM. However, there is currently no course

avail able through the LGA aimed exclusively at improving SWM.

Golder Associates

a7'

. I~~~~~~

'etaE er19Q9 if)J ~ l~'O

SWiEEP, San Fe,, .aj 2 Lrn;jo, Sanidiry Landfil1 L 1.4

4 Provtncllevel

4 ~~~Provircial governments have executive power~ over both city and mncplty Local Government

UnItO GUs) within its jurisdiction, except ft *r highly urbanized and independent component cities

'4 ~~(HUC ;ahdICCs). In ni-.'.tics- -the Governor,as head of the province, has responsibility for peace and'

order i 4plays a c.- r'3irr:iing role with LGUs within his area. Historically', provincial governments

havd likd little involvement in SWM.

4 ~~~The ide±ntiticatioii and formulation of S'WM Programs and projects is carried out at the LGU level.

The f4 ished development plans are then forwarded to the provincial government where they are

ceonsoIldatedaandsubmitted to the Regional Development Council (RDC). h ... s and ICCs submit

theircw development plans to the RDC directly. The task of the RDC is to consolidate and

pnorn these proposals.' The NEDA regional office provides the secretariat to the RDC and also

provid appropriate assistance upon request.

Finall4, under the Local Government Code, the League of Local Governlment Units (league of,

Baana)s,league of Cities, league of Municipalities and league of Provinces) was formalized. These

U o~~rg tosexist primarily to articulate and crystallize issues affecting local governmentadmiitrtons. Some of their more important functions are:

*to as'Mst the national government in the formulation of policies, programs and projects affecting

LC Us;

*to g dopt measures for the promotion of the welfare of LGUs; and

*to se&~e as a foru m fot crystallizing and expressing ideas, seeking the necessary assistance of the

nationalvgovernment and providing private sector awareness for co-operatiorn in the promotion of

thehWelfare of the LGUs.

~~4~ n LLoa vrnmetLee

Under t~ie Philippines legislative framework, SWM provision has traditionally been the ir~.: .irsta

of the LOUs. Under the Local Government Code this role is re-iterated and strengthened. In

Particudir, Sections 17 (2) (vi) and 17'(4) of the Code provide the basis for the devolution' of

environmental management fumctions where cities and:municipalities are mandated to carry out the

Golder Associates

I~~~~~~~~~ 99 2- ..-.1 ....... .... .

it

O L it 1999 _ _ _ 2-l1 . 981-2730B* t ! 1 Sh, S _P, San Feina lo La Un/in Sanir Land EU

r _, -. *~.:!. and disp- .al of wastes accordir to existing legislation. Book III of the Code sets out the

. *o . d:1a!i 1 -sponmibiitivs oftheLGUsan. statesthatthelocalauthoritys'rall:

. Lulate the dis. osal *f clinical and other wastes from hospitals, clinics and other similar

~~ S l E ,i ihmnins; r¢.d

pros ide for an efficient :nd effective system of solid waste and garbage collection and disposal

and I ;s '. iier.n in i the placing or thowing of garbage refuse and other filthy' wastes.

be units il charge of se!i . waste . . vary from one LGU to another. In HUJCs and [CCs,

waste collertion and . sal is canried out by the General Services Office, the Planning and

5*d: . e'xeIoinet Office or .1 sngineering Office. Other LGUs have units attached to the office of the

ayor, while some sm, i '-r cities and municipalities have no system at all. The present institutional

C - 1 r''''1' : t sjrangements for SWt. i 1San Fernando City are discussed in Section 3.2.

2.3.6 1'i cm- 'm t Public Works and Highways (DPWH)

fbe DPWH is the .nain implementing arm of the government in respect of infrastructure and public

1 : uildings. On the r- WxVM it is represented by the Director of the PMO on Solid Waste. This PMO

0 - -s j . w: ^ versees the devel .nient of sanitary landfills serving Metro Manila. Its rote in SWM is limited to the

ion Capita Region's landfills and transfer stations.

l t .- -1 .. , t.3.7 te Sector and Non-Government Organizations

.olid wast. management activities undertaken by the private sector organizations are mainly focused

4 -x;' 5Rtn storag, and collection. Waste receptacles and collection equipment, donated (and appropriately

,Iarked) ;-y private and civic organizations e.g. KIWANIS, LIONS, ROTARY CLUBS, are a

-' ; nnn1ealure in Metro Manila- and other H-UCs in the country.

I-ron-govermment organizations (NGOs) began,to take an active role in the urban and development

dncernh; during the latter part of the 1980s. Most of their interventions in SWM are in the areas of

twaste recycling and materials recovery, IEC campaigns and in conducting training on livelihood

i - "|.4. 'prcje.l and programs. Some of the most active NGOs in these areas are:

-_ '' " ,> l ' , the Recycling Movement of the Philippines Foundation Inc. (RMPFI);

in. - ' S* the Balikatan Movement;

V - X ! Golder Assoclates

I,, ~ ~ -3-

.... . I .

; Octour 2 -12 981-2730B

79 J.EEP, ~Sa. Fernando La Union SanitaryLandfill EL4

* *de Cenrre for Ad-.anced Phil. )ine Studies (CAPS);

a t.IeSagip Pasig h1oement (Si v);

a * 'artnership of Philippines Sup ort Service Agencies (PHILSSA);

* 4ssoned V'ate AdminiqrratV and Recycling Enterprises Inc. (AWARE);

* t¶ie Ayal 3 Pcur,,11,i -.n, I r,.., an.

* iriam College's Pili II' ion and Awareness Campaign for the Environment (PEACE)

The a ctiviIies r f .hC . rrie 1 It in co-ordination with government organizations, academia and

Iother pTivate organiztins. n- I f the NGOs are Metro Manila-based although 'some NGOs are

y7 inQlorepir-., ..h-jra.-ii'iri- seseN here inthe country.

In San Femrnd"l rCi,, che v aste r'icld rs at the dump are organized by the Barangay captain, who

compInsa!es Ih-rn *hr ilivir ,.o ,e.. tis .- . is being carried out under the auspices of the City,

Govereimeni. .ur l', I. ;_isr- ..... ._ his are provided in Section 4.0.

r .4 |W. Vc Plhi l: ' 'raW.nai Guidelines 4.01

In order to .c.mr.rl; 1it ihi-e conditions of the World Bank, the EIA must be prepared in a manner

ionsient - I.i . he Guid_lines for Environmental Assessment set out in the World Bank Operationalr [ Direcit. es (OD) BP4.0l, UP4.0l and GP4.01 (refer to Appendix D.2). The Guidelines stress that the

purposp of an EIA is to improve decision-making and to ensure that project options under

r* onsideriiion are environnmentally sound and sustainable.

The EIA 'should identify ways of improving projects environmentally, by preventing, minimizing,

miiigat ng or compensating for adverse impacts. Accordingly, WB GP4.01 identifies that project-

speciltc EIA s should normally cover the following aspects:

*xil ing baseline environmental conditions;

-ot ntiai environmental impacts;

iy matic environmental comparison-of alternative investments;

* sys ematic environmental comparison of alternative sites'

sysmatic environmental comparison of alternative technologies and designs;

pre entive.mitigation or management plans;

Golder Associates

l.tg '. ' I'

Ol; ober 1999... d mazi::t:; -~rna,,d 2- 13 981-2730B4 | ~~~~~~SNf EE:P, San Fernan$7o La UL1ion S12ni11,r La -;UEL4

; * lenvirOniental management and training; and

. environmental monitoring.

The level of EIA performed should be based on the expected enviror;mental impi t ;, as determined

,* , by Ybe type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the proposed project, as well i s die nature and

,magiitude c,rits lil.dIY potential impacts. Engineered or sanitary lahdfill projects ar. (-fined . .f:il'y

as qategory A projects within the OD 4.01 and, as such, should be subjected to i environmental

anal, sis through the planning and implementation phases.

This EIS has been prepared in -accordance with, the World Bank OP, BP a. d GP, applicable

Phili pines regulations (e.g. DAO 96-37: EIS Procedural Manual), the scope ot %.-.-rk in the ToR

^pP ndzixA.1 ) and the DENR EIS Scoping Guidelines on the P::,' 0 .; 7oIS for Sanitary

Landfill Projects.

_-§ 2;51 CIDA INC Guidelines

;i - - As n?ted in Section 1, the EIA and FS for the proposed San Femando engir. eied landfill was

l partiay funded by the Canadian agency, CIDA INC. As part of the requireme; s of this funding,

CID INC requires that the projectimust demonstrate the environmental benefits li: .ely to result from

the project and how environmental concerns will be addressed. The CIDA th. C Guidelines for

.Iegr 2fng Envfronmentdl Considerations into Projects indicates that, whenever a ' 31A INC funded

projec L wjll, lead to changes in the environment or when a project is subjec: Vt the Canadian

Envir rnmental Assessment Act (CEAA), an environmental assessment must be conducted in general

| accor ance with the CEAA.

, The e vironmental assessment should encompass all components of the projec& (e.g. all facilities,

t access road, utilities) and consider each stage of the project, (e.g. eff'cts due to u- .c' ; lior, site

propa lion, construction, operation, transportation of raw materials and firnished products, site

abhndo nment). Although the level of effort, details of assessment and aJrl .: methods will vary

accord ng to the nature, scale and location of the project, the CEAA requires that every environmental

-; t i assessrlentconsider at least the following:

Golder Associates

I i,

m.,J

Otber 1999 I2 -14 981-2730B

~~~ ~SWEEP, San Fernando La UnzioM Sanitary LwoiflWIEL4

~~~~ *~~~a assessment of the projects effects on the natural and human -envirounment, including health and

soco-economic conditions, physical and cultural heritage, ct!rrent use of land and resurces or

rnvstructure, 3it or thiings of historical, archaealogice~, paleontological Or architectural

rpifiance.it must also consider the effects, that mnay ariie fromi malfunctions or accidents,'

cumulative effects and the impact of the enviromnment on the pi oject;

-J * ~~ublic comments/conceems;

* roposed measures to mitigate adverse envirornmental effoezts and enhance the envirounmental

- ~~~~~3nefits;F * ignific~~~~~~ance of thne effects;

* edfor, and components of,.a follow-up program;

- et~~~~her relevant maatters such as the need for, anid altemnatives to, the project; and'

* f~large infrastructure projects: the purpose of the project; alternative means of curiying out thle

prOject; and the effects of the project on the capacity of renewable resources to meet present and

ruture needs.

The1 EIA should be presented In a report in the- format suggested in the CIDA INC Guidelines; this

ifornatit comparable to that required by the DENR and the World Bank.

*2.6 i Project Approval Requirements

2.6.1 Project Proponent and Project PreparerI '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4-

Thie.Cin Government of San Fernando is the Project Proponent. DENR, through its Wlorld Bank-..7

astId SWEEP program, Is assisting the LGUs to undertake the EIA/FS for the proposed engineered

landir"ll and associated facilitites in the City of San Fernando. Golder Associates was retained by the

L. GOlF~~~~0 (DENR) and the World Bank inApdil, 1998 to carry out the ElA/FS in iccordance with the above

noicd T..R for the City pf San Femnando. The funding for this EIA/FS preparation was provided by the

Candtan InterrnationaliDevelopment Agency's Industrial Cooperation Programr (CIDA INC). GolderLI ~~ ~~~~~ Ass clates are hereafter referred to as the Preparer.

F * iZ~~~~~.6.: Project Approval Requirements

Proiect Approvine Agency

-DElNR is the agency responsible for approval of this project. The EIS will undergo the formal review

Ssof the EMB, as set outh in DAO 96-37.F P~~~~~~~rocrs

Golder Associates

L.

* October 1999 2 -15 981-2730B

I - g SWEEP, San Fernanzdo La Union Sanitary Landfll EIA

I wIA Apnroval Pro*dure

The fortjal project approval procedure and period allotted for each step are summarized inFigure 2.1.

The key stages of the process, on the basis that there is no requirement for a public hearing, are as.

foflows

l> s.-brnlssion of draft Final EIS to EMB;

2) itummediate review of the EIS by EMB for completeness;

_- ! : . 3) convening oft4e EIA Review Committee (EIARC);

. 4Y initial review by EIARC and requcst for further infortnation;

' -completion of substantve review;

6) submission of EIARC report to EMB tirector,

7), E s' recommendation to the DENR Secretary; and

- I \3 t ) : DENR Secretary's decision to grant or deny an ECC.

- . -I e fo review by the EIARC may include site visits and attendance at a second series of public

consult,tions to be held in San Femando City. The public consultation has the specific objective of

forrn .11 p;e-eAnir.j il; project proposals to key stakeholders, at which time stakeholders are provided

. rwth the o4ponuiiity to question the Project Proponent and Preparcr on all aspects of the proposed

V. ! 0 t project. The EIARC may request for additional information to be provided by the Preparer and would

nonnally be cspected to convene a meeting attended by the Project Proponent and the Preparer inrordcr to 'clrlry any quiesllons and lssues on the gIS submitted.

. u ;e *arine

A public hearing may be called for bXthe DENR upon recommendation of the EIARC at a date to be

(2) eon r Ilya weal.- III any newspaplr orge;iersii circuiltoti at least 15 days prior to the scheduled

I iiearing .. l NollCCs shall likewise be posted In cohspicuous placc in the City and Barangay where the

! pro3ect 1ptroposed to be located. Notificatlon of the public'hearlng may also utilize other media

routes (e&g. radio, posters, Sunday mass/servie, etc.).

Golder Associates

rr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oclob6r 1999 1 2 -16 981-2730B

SHTEP, San Fe -nando La [nifon Sanihary Lzndfill EL4

A pubiic hearing is a valpable mechanism for communicating the aims of the projev-t and allowing

* residu4l public concerns to be voiced and discussed. A public hearing can signifi-antly mininmize

socio:conomic impacts and reduce.. jcct risl-s during implementation.

< ) " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Otber'APDrP>-i_r Following the issne of an- ECC, the detailed design of -the proposed development would require a

building/develnprnent permnit from the LGU (including consultation with the Local Air Transport

Office" as nece.;saryl. In addition, all industries, establishments or facilities which- have need to

discharge ireate] ehfluent or wastewater or emit pollutants to air must obtain a Permit to Operawe

r (P/) upon completion of each such facility. The PlO is issued by the DENR Regional Office up. o

echieving confurmance to the relevant emission and/or discharge standards.

2'6 jSlimmary of Key Issues

l of key issues have arisen from a review of the existing legal and administrative fra: ework

pertaining to solid waste management. In brief, with respect to the disposal of MSW, the p1 incipal

|issues are:

* theie is' no single entity at present responsible for implementing and/or enforcing existing

lxegiIation relating to the management of solid wastes; <

-r i . | . alih IMigh directives are now in place (DAO 9849 and DAO 98-50). there are no specitL: g, l lingdouudieis qvallaote tbr the overall construotion, operation and management of wolid waate

dIip sUl (scllilos or the performance standards to which the disposal tpcilltids should ber i : conitructed and managed;

% V.hile there are specific provisions regarding the discharge of treated effluent or planned

L there are no specific provisions to regulate the quality of emissions to ground or to air, whether

planted or uthenvise, that are typically generated by the disposal and decomposition of MSW;

and~

.4 p:S Golder Associates

C t1 f

Och 2- 99 2 - 981-2730B

C .-* -, SWEEP, San FernandoLa Union SanirmyLandfdIEIA

_ lowing receipt of an ECC, there is no formal regulatcry procedure (monitoring, enforcement)

0 * nsure that the detailed design, construction and on-going operation of a solid waste disposal

Il ,y conforms with the performance standards envisaged at the time of project preparation.

it is 'IL vted that the primary purpose of SWEEP is to address the above listed issues throughi the

* deveg pmi .' of appropriate mechanisms (e.g. institutional, etc.) to improve the present situation

relat4d lo WN¶ praetices and reguladons in the tli.i;k, and this demonstration project is one

componeni ;f this effort. As the '-rious aci- iIiis of SWEEP, including the EIA and FS, are being

, [: m i carri4d out by or with the assistance of institutions and professionals with ei tensive SWM experience

in bllh d. loping and developed countries, the results of the demonstration projects are expected-to

l_ sign~iVca.-,w'. improve the present situation by developing local SWM experience. In this regard,

specilic mdasutes (technical and in I,i-i;i r.15 have been presented in this EIA to apl ropriately

address the above listed issues.

r 1 '

_.G I .. . .

,~~~ Golde Assjc',ates

U ;- -!

Tahle .1 "'umMLr% of Nalional Solit "Vasae Mtanagement Leg1slation

L.egislaulon . iimnin ' | Enforcing (EI and

_ , __ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Agenc%LA1nt Durping ProhibiLsdtsmping o z vaseinto ri.er;. Funishmni vi t .e nrlie

._ Law b imptis--nin in of n, mWIre ihan 5 rnr.nth; *.; t- a riit of

Con6monwealthi att uworc I...n ['P21.rj; or Lr

fNo.B83,192) !_.Gen ral Order Orders al! re -. idenLs to underake the cleaning of their DP .'IH (E)

* No. 13, 1972 surroundings and riohibits thron, in of rarbige in ptblicplaces. All nmrtr-: niost tninlain idle lots clean and ifunable i) lo o50, ."eminent w;ll ,oni.rake clemnup at the

3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . ,ner's es\ rer se

PD 125, 197: Fr.% ides peri2Ifies lo. nnpmp2r Jispof1 ,ij garftge. EPI-WH tEt

r t ; 8 ! ' Vinlstors -ball sinffer irnnrisnnment of not less than 5 days or

Sill : rne~~~~~~mre thani I year, or - Lr..f noi I;ss ilhan P i10 Lor IIm e5fi i - w _ ~~~ihaLn p2,oon, or both

Sanialior. .e Stalei that .-iIc, and nutnieI,lttI shMl provide an ade&uLe LGLIU I IiPD 8:o,: eftr s o.sor lknning andispc;ing c.l DOtIH LH.)A . E

refu.c in th-ir areas ofjurt,Ji;tion in a manner appro%e1 t.b;

' . . u i 4l .,the local health authority.

Ml a.fle:Pollution To rpre er.t and control pollution of seas by thie dumping of DENR Regional1,qm t. SnrDr wastes and other matter which create hazards to human Office PCG (E)

t PD O -as health, harms living resources and marine life.

%t ded by* m -: 'PD!S 7~~9j 1976_.

Poll tion Control lnclu¶,es provisions for prevention and control of pollution DENR-EMB and

Law from solid, toxic and hazardous wvastes. Section 81 caption Regional Offices

PD9 4, 1978 (a) states ihat SW shall not be stored, collected, processed,

transported or disposed SW in a manner to cause pollution to

7 & --:, , 0 i ~~~~~~thte environinent. Section 82 caption, (a) states that SW will

.: t :t. .be stored, collected, processed, transported and disposed of. Iin such a manner ai to connr.'l du;t ernmu;iorm. %ind-H-o,nmaterial, .o.:.u.r-d i t irrnin andi

Envinmnmental Tile 43 of the code SlIjLCi that: DEr.P ,EI

CodelPD 1152, Prep3ration an.1 implementition or % a:te tmanagemer, LGU ii)

IEi!F 1979 programmes shall br FeQuirdd Of4ft pro- inces, cities, and .-

.Exective ;brder Ordered ihe strict imrpl:neneLaon LIf PD 825 b' all la%I lrlMA arid i:,ther

sq . ., |, , . ~~Authorir., tr i.nln -upi ............r... otie: andaericiei c.nctrned . ,1 . j ............ 4 . 1991

Golder Associates

_ S '' l I-

'' q . .. ~'

, islation Suriarne, n ;cing (E) and

ipiesnentlng (I)- '>*. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Agencyi* 4 LOCE IProvisions in the Code state that: I ).O (E)3 r ~ AGov en,t 'local govei ment units shall likewise exercise such other Lo 1; (1).Code, powers and. iiclIarge suchi other functions and,Republic Act responsilities as are necessary, appropriate and incidental. 160, 1991 to efficient and effective provision of the basic service and

facilities enumerated herein ... services related to generalhygiene and sanitation, ou.ai w ad;i and solid waste

__;_,_:,_!; collec'ion disposal system and facilities"

OWN i Regulates the use, movement and eventual disposal of toxic DEr - EMB (E)Substanc-s and chemicals and hazardous and nuclear wastes in theHazarlous & Philippines.Nuc* r Waste .U ; ConI ActRepulki- . . ci6969, .1990 and

* IRR'IDAO 92-

Execu ve Order Setting up of the DENR. EMB functions include DE} ' 1 - EMB1* : ' 192 "formulate rules and regulations for the proper disposal of

. 3| - ) u | i solid wastes, toxic and hazardous substatnces".

, Admirlistrative Create a Project Management Office on Solid Waste DEN l i-)F Order 1lo. 90, Management under the PTFWM with DENR as the lead

1993| implementing agencyr , ! . t-Memoiandum Reconstituted the PTFWM DEN31 (E)Circular 88, ,

Adminisurativc Provides for phased closure of open dumps anq their DENk (E)Order No. 49. replacement by more sanitary methods of waste disposal LGU ( )1998 (DAO 98-

rOrdr o s0, i asic dhspoa4t blios LItJ i

L ¶ . ;

L Gode Asscite

L

i ' Golder Associates~~~~~~~~~~~-

Tabc i .2: Key Characteristics ofPrinci Stages/Types indrl

, Type Key CharacteristicsCon,roled May be hydrogeologically sited, but generally not..;. mip * N.) cell planning but waste deposition restricted to small work r Ereas

* A.,aerobic and aerobic decompositiona .i Pt ;eral site drainage and surface water control

l e S ,. * Nu leachate or landfill gas management.,!!r, but not nec;s, vi;Y daily, inert cover, with compacti i k i some cases

L: * Fence, including provisioin for litter control. J3asic record keeping but no cbntrol over waste inputs* Prova sions of maintained access road

,_ . . * Controlled waste picking and trading* Site c.vered and replanted following completion of waste de o itionl

Sani * Site dusign based on hydrogeological considerations:dLand Ii * Plaitnc ; capacity with phased cell development

|L. .i,-ve ll * Si,- p eparation including surface water control and contaii trent engineeri; ag where_ .essary&Et i ; * Pritmarily anaerobic decompositionLeachate management with leachate extraction.and simp,e it.nentL Sandfill gas management with passive landfill gas measurc

,* pplication of cover materials a

C* ompaction of waste to minimum specified target densitiesL .: : > i , * 3Specified operational procedures to protect local amenities, iMclua. ng v .ctor control

_ i ; .; ; l * ~~Fence, gate and other site infrastructure with surfaced primary acce, -). adFull record of waste volumes, types and sourceSpecial provisions and procedures for dealing with special wastes

- Fully trained1 labour force and experienced site managementI Provision for aftercare following site restoration and closure

a~ i , * No waste pickingSanita Y Site design based on environmental assessmentXLndfi)ll Key factors in site.design are often hydrogeological site conditionsLevel * Planned capacity with phased cell development

. Extensive site preparation and containment engineeringr Prirmarily anaerobic decomposition. .* . '. + Full leachate management with leachate extraction and treatment

a Full gas 'management with active landfill gas extraction where necess,,rI a { ; ! Application of daily, intermediate and final cover

* Compaction of waste to minimum specified target densitiest1 ty r i e Specified operationalIprocedures to protect local amenities, includine vector controlL Fence, gate and other site infrastructured Surfaced primary access road and maintained secondary and tertiary lIaul .uads

. q .. ! * Full record of waste volumes, types and source* Special provisions and procedures for dealing with special wastes, cluding on-site

.| laboratory* Fully trained labour force and experienced site management. Extended lifetime* Provision for aftercare following site restoration and closureLNo waste picking

L l!qIc,t;

L g~~~~~ Golder Associates

L~ ; I

FLOW CHART Ot EIS REVIEW PROCESS I FIGt JRE 2.1

L a,._

1s ; '' >- | ~~~Approved FORMAL SCOPING REPORT

r rr E . =i ~~~~~~~~~Prepare/P.evise EIS_ J ; -- ';" -' not

T[ anariie MOA r r ReviewSubmit I copy for Wnrk and Find r -ial Plan

procedural review ,- . . -w . ' f ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~twihhn a

warklng day-r

0. ~~~~~elect Ft'rad ' rAg n

9 L *:: [ | 0 w~~istribiit additional l Di'tribte R addeiptiosSubmit 10 copies of EIA , I stbish Ia'y1L copies,t LGUe. PENRO _,s _

* CENRO. eta. I~~~~py procossingj fee I

- '.Acknowledgment

; . v ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Add.a.ion, ir 'ormation:eonduct site visit, public EIMSRC reviews eAnd 1 requea c dy) clartylr

hodc,iearing,pulc IR review s itrand( eutcI)caiyconsultation or public evaluate EIS based on & discuss ii-.. preparer.ri , , , , 'hearing , reviewJ criteria

160 days)

.a ^ . /,EIARC prepares andL prapai~ent suumit EIARC Report

L ilal , g txs~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 d.ysl

Propontnt revises the-proposled projects to EMAB Director submits

conform with DENR report to DEN4R Secretara'requirements t116 days)

.rDENR Secretary makes aiI q ECC denied decision lo graDt or deny

; g { t ~~~~~~~~~E,;C applilcation |

iEMSi distributeirelease |ECC to proponent, etc.

.16 daysil

.. Source: DENR - EMS

L I. .Data: A ..rawn:..A sc ates hdP_.

L ,

- ~ ~ --

October 199-' . 3 -1 1-2730B

SWEEP, San f e nmando La Unloi Sanitary Landfill EU

- 3.0' *;VAUATIOlN OF ALTERNATIVES

3.1 - Introduction

3.1.1 City of San Femnando

The City'df San Fernando is' situated about 270 ki'ometres north-northwest of Metro-Manila, (refer to

q , Figure 1ii). It stretches along a portion of the shoreline of the Lingayen Gulf and San Fermando Bay

* ; on thew st(refer'toF'V. 1.1). Along the City's eastern boundaries li the municipalities of Bagulin

and Naguilian (refer to -i -.e 3.1);.towards the south is the municipalityofBauang while to the

north is th6'mur6icipliv" of San Juan. The City is the capital of the Prnvince of La Itnion.

Th e Cit of Sin Fernando is approximately 60 kilometres to the west of Baguio City, about 135

kilometres south ofi agan; and about 270 kilometres to th¶ south of Loag (refer to Figurel .1).

_ *-1- li l ,; i ':

The Cit' af San Feirriando comprises fifty-nine (59) barangays and accounts for 10,272 hectares of

land in; tie'Provii*ce of La'Union, representing more than 12% of the province,s total land area.

Baranga~ Sacyud is the largest in terms of land area comprising about 590 hectaires. Barangay

Ilocanos F!orte .:te smallest with a total land area of 5 hectares. Of the 59 barangays, 24 are

_ 4 ; ' presenJiy ronsid .-1 urban, while the rest are considered rural.. About 20 barangays are found within

the coastal plaiwrr, while the rest are found in hilly and mountainous terrain east of thq poblacion. The

former Ppro Point Naval Base, which comprises the land area along the south side of San Femando

Bay has recenilt j been incorporated into t.e City.

3.i.2 iAlrnli e IIe%" elomer.t Strategies for Management of MSW

in order to arrive at the overall preferred solid waste management strategy for a specific situation, or

oiSi thi -case for the City of San Femando, it is important to systematically evaluate the various

alternativVs. The. purpose of this evaluation is to identify possible viable alternatives that can satisfy

ltie project objectives, and then select the preferred alternative on the basis of technical, 'environmental

and SOC -econlomic factors. In Environmental Assessments, thes¶ can be basically 'broken down into

"Alwemaii"es To. and "AIternatives For".

Golder Associates

* -I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I,-

October 1999 3-2 981-2730B.I - SI :P, San Fernarido La Unian Sanitar Lanftill EU9

In Solid Wasle Management EIA's, "Alternatives To" includes the Do-Nothing aitemative (i.e.,

maintaij the current silu3tion) as %ell as alternalive strategies or Lechnolggies to the three main

components of a solid waste management system- waste collection, diversion of materials from

dispossl, and dispos3l of rosidual waste. The alternative strategies and technologies are.evaluated on

the basis oravailaLi:iry, technical feasibility and economics. The preferred combination of these three

main components defines the preferred waste management system.

MA1ternatives For' the undertaking. In this case the preferred waste matnagement systent, refers to the

altemative ways for implermenting the system, and selection of the app bach1 that optimizes the

s System. The preferred altetatives are those that result'in acceptable envirotinental impacts and are___; ' l techni1lly and economically viable. For example, in terms-of engineered landfill sites, this includes

the site seleclion process and the preferred approach to design and operations that optimizes the

utilization fthe prererred site. 'I

This section Of Lhe EIA describes the existing waste management system in San Fernando and

provides the rstionale for the selection of the preferred approach to fttture planning and' 1; impleenialion o'wte mangeent for the City.

i -'- ~ 3.2 'Solid WVaAte Nianagement in San Fernando City

A des ription of the eCiSting waste management system was presented imi the Inception' nd Site

Seleclidn Reports an.d those relevatit to the ETA are summarized below. A recent City planning'study

-repot outlines the existing sys'tem.

t w t3.2.11 itlnstituticEnal Arrange ina:e.em

,'1: The solid wasit (arbge management in the City of San Femando is presently the responsibility of* t ! ~~~the CiWTlhe of fice orshe City EngineerOVeRseeS the City's solid waste management- It should be

,r;: icld thiat under the Ne'w Local Govemment Code (RA 7160), solid waste management is theresponsibility Of the municipal government (LGU). The City proposes to create a separate section tooversee its solid wvasLe m3nagement related activities as part of the'proposed landfill development. I

l. 0: ;1 3.12j C2urrent ServiceArea

The collection covers 14ostly the urban areas and is not available to about 40 mountainous,

i X predominantly rural, barangays in the eastern region of the City. The population density in these rural

Goldpr Associates

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. I

Octol2er i99 3 - 3 981-2730B

i . SWEb:P,&~ S I .... nda La tunion Sani:ar Landfill EL4

barangaysiis very low compared to Jih. urban barangays. Where there is no collection, due to both the

distance and absence of all, weather .oac.s in the interiolr barangays, solid waste (garbage) management

consists of small scale burning and burial.

3.2.3 'Waste Composition

___ The City's planning document presents al roximate composition of the solid waste collected in the

City. It is predominantly organic (about .)%) with the rest made up of plastics, paper, glass, etc.

Also, the majority of the waste comes fron the domestic/residential area antd a significant amount of'

the organic waste being collected in the Ci' y rnarket area.

j-i U'e 3 teriz it:'ai studies have not been conducted in the City and, therefore, no City specific

waste composition data is available. Hiowever, for, the purposes of the ETA and the FS, it is

i considered sufficient to use waste composition data available for other similar municipalities in the

Philippines. A summary of waste composition to date for a number of Philippino cities and the City

of Comlubo, Sri Lanka is presented in Table 3.1.

32.4 Waste Generation

The rate of solid waste generation in the City was estimated by the City in 1997 at'14 tonnesJday.

-isi This was considered low for the area covered and the population served compared to the information

'aila for other Phiippines cities and in published literatureX Therefore, the City commenced a

program in 1998 to monitor the amouit of solid waste that was being disposed at the dump site by

.keepirig records of the number of trucks that bring the waste to'the dump (i.e. truck counts).

The City has recorded truck counts since August, 1998 and these data indicate that approximately 200

m3/d.i of solid waste is being presently collected. At an uncompacted density of approximately 200

kIg/m'and' a solid waste capacity of the trucks of approximately 8 n3/truck,' this translates to a

collectlion rate of about 40 tonnes/day.

As tlhe existing waste generation data are limited, the future wasteigeneration/collection rates were

predicted using other available information for site selection and landfill design purposes, as described

in Section 3.3. This prediction suggests the 1998 waste generation rate should have been about 35

tonneslday,,wwhich is comparable to the estimate based on truck counts, i.e. 40 tonnes/day.

1 C Golder Associates

j.'S~ ~ .,. :

- ~ L~

r ' 5- ... _

{ , g ~~~OCtoDber 1999 _ 41_- ~October1999. . - ~A ,3- -. ~ I -4 . - 981l2730B

S.EEP, San j, rn:,. to La inn SLniran'Lan d E4L1

3.r.5 - VWalteCo!ectdotandTrans. port

Ite San Fernando sIlid waste m31 Lci.- ni system includes 5 trucks for collection, each wv zh one

driver and five wvorl'ers: The c lecli n.is perforrned night and day, but is not consdered y * he City

as a iequate IO carr'J out the required ;ollection in the municipality, as no backup trucks are available

to cover Lck breakdowns. 'te gam ago on the street and sidewalks is collected daily by 17 street

W l M ers"inder tl.,, supervision ofa~ reman.

L.. 3,2.6 raste 1)isposal

Presently, the collected solid waste is disposed of in a dumpsite, known as the San Fernando 'Sanitary

rLndfill .(for!- (on, refer to ',.i 1- 3.2 J. Prior to the opening of the existirig facility ir, 1997, thte

collected solid waste was being ;: in an open dump located in the Poro Point a] ea (refer to

| o Pt~~~Fgure 3., ThePoro Point dumr is now closed.

3.2.7 Resources

Waste collection and transport re. ources are summarized in Section 3.2.5.

The coil d waste is being dir. ,ed at the existing Controlled Dump in Barangay 1a tmeltac using

an exca aMtr and a bulldozer. Thise heavy equipment are used in the City's olher infrastructure

constriuction an.i maintenance-operat ions during the con;ti.. ii.-n (dry) season and Ere therefore made

available for iue e td:. dumpsnte whlw they are not needed for these operations.

Tpe City s planning documents bt icLte that the 199S operating cost for the above system was

94 1 approxirnately 5.25 million Pesos (abotut US$132,000). This includes the direct cost (labour, fuel, oil

and repair & maintenance) and the indirect cost (salaries and allowances of solid waste engineer,

supervisor and mechanic & helper, I. 'c,ai and insurance). There are no cost breakdowns

r -~~~~~~avatilabfe for co:llection and disposat costs but, based on field olbservations and discussions with the

,ityoitcials, it appears thatthe predominant portion ofthe above cost (70 to 90 %) is associated with

the collecli.n activities.

About 8 to 10 waste pilcer;. culilecl .2.,yclable materials at the dumpsite, under the organization of the

Marnettac Barangay Captain. The waste pickers are paid by the Captain, who pays a fee to the City

for this operation and arranges for,the sale of the picked recyclable materials.

Golder Assoclates

t.. .

October 1999 ,_3 -_5 tJS,_-_'__SWEEP, San Fer =ando La Union San itary Landfil EL4

3.2.8 Waste IT orrsion

ecy cling of soli waste is not I eir ractised at source; however, the City would like to implement

appropriate waste liversion measures divert solid waste from the dump/landfill Barangay based

recycling is. ctr. l red by the -i0 y having a high potential to succeed. It is also felt thal

comnposting wo: oduce an en d prc act ('humus') that could be used as fertilizeri/soil conditioner

tF,_ i in tlie agriculrt., Is of La I ion. The City wishes to consider the pocsibility of stting up a

composting faci' ' y r the orgar wastes from the market.

Limited recyc ing of some of th garbage components is being carried out at the dump site. A number

of waste pi e-ars collect recyc ules, such as plastic, paper, metal, etc. and are organized by the

Barangyc .ptain under an a~ .ement with the City. They would like to continue this practice at the

r ~~~~~~~proposeden~;gineered landfill f -

D lt is und-rstooad that the i;i - (medical) waste is being disposed predominantly by burning at the

;hospit21 -nd is-:.I disp: at the landfill site.

3.2.9 1 -.. rat , Education and Communication (IEC)

The Ctl, as part; its proposed engineered landfill project, proposes to educate the public on landfill

related issues b, )rniiding educatiorial material, to be disttibuted through the PMO ;.- in Medical

Offleer's ofice. he DENR office and through the!media) [TV, radio, the Philippines Information

Agency (PIA), p iblic education programs such as War on Waste (WOW)]. As part of this initiative,

l *the City his car. ed ou! a number of public information activities with the assistance of the DENR RO

(Region 1) since April, 1998.

3.3i 1 Waste t.eneration Predictions

The future was; e generation in the City was predicted as part of the site selection process in order to

arive at the area requirements for the proposed landfill. A summary of this prediction exercise is

-, X presehted here and the 4etails are presented in the site selection report (refer to Appendix C).

Based,on current waste data, population distribution and waste collection, Golder estimated future

waste quantities and developed an initial relationship between required landfill sitesize (land area)

: Golder Associates'

.... ~*... F- :l....i ,.._ . u, -........................................... Aa~

,Ij

Octobeq.999 3-6 9,1-27308S. E' SalP n Fernando La tUftion SaniarRy Landfi' E-i

rand site ife, recognizing that as a minimumn the DEiSR/World Bank tare targeting a 10 year design

life' As discussed during the initial visit, this is proposed as a minimntand, providing there isavailable land, an even longer planning penod of say IS to 20 years could be considered during thedetailed design phase.

An assessment of present and future waste quantities for the City of San Femnao was carried asdescribed below:

InformationprovidedbythepElR and/or CitvofSanFernando. LaUnion:-

* City populition in '1995 was 91,943. The Urban barangay pbpulation was 67, 913 and that in the,4 fi! .rural barangays was 24,030 (refer to Table 1, Appendix C); !

*2Av&rage annual populaton growth rate is 1.59%;r Approximately 200 m' of solid waste per day is being-disposed at the existing dump site (basedon ru ck counts, as noted above). This volume inchitdes the materials that are being recycled atthelsite by the waste pickers;

*. Rat of solid waste generation commonly used for cities in the Philippines by solid wastemapagement practitioners is 0.5 kg/capitalday. This rate is based on the results of studies carriedout f,r cities in the Philippines, including that for Metro Manila (this rate is also comparable tothat presented fMr developing countries in published literature);

Assumptions:

The following assumptions have beer, made in estimating the waste generat on rate for the proposed

qw Z * The proposed engineered landfill will commence operation in year 2001;

* The waste already being disposed in the existing dump site (from 1997) will be incorporated inthe proposed engineered landfill facility. It is noted that, based on infornation availableregarding present collection coverage and observations made at the dump site, the estimated

* q qubntity of the waste that has already been disposed at the dump is expected to be larger than the* actually disposed quantity;

Golder Associates

it- II

Pctober 1999 3 - 7 981-2730BSWEEP, San. .ernanIo La UJlibiu Sanitary Landfill EU

* Waste collection will cover the entire urban Barangay area (refer to Figure 6, Appendix C, for

approximate location of urban area). It should be noted that, the collection resources presently

available to the City are not sufficient to effectively cover the entire urban Barangays;

* No waste diversion will be practiced during the landfill life. However, some waste diversion is

presently being practiced it the site (e.g. recycling by waste pickers), effectively reducing the

waste disposed at the dump. The City intends to continue this practice, together with compost, rn-

of separable organic materials, as part of the proposed landfill operation; and

* No increase in solid waste collection beyond the urban Barangay areas is planned through .ie

landfill life.

Based on the above information and assumptions, an estimnate of waste generation was prep. ed as

presented in Table 2a, Appendix C (no waste diversion). In order to demonstrate the effects of u ture

waste diversion efforts by the City (through recycling, composting, etc.) on the required landfi a ea,

t w this area was estimated assuming 10%, 20% and 30% 'waste diversion rates and the resu ts are

presented in, Tables 2b (10% waste diversion), 2c (20% waste diversion) and 2d (30%/b waste

diversibn) in Appendix C. The results of these estimates are also shown on Chart 1. Appendix

it should be noted that these estimates are based on a number of what were considered cons, rvative

assumptions as noted above and, therefore, resulted in conservative values for.the predict, i waste

generajion rate.

U 3.4 Alternative Waste Management Systems

r 3.4.1 Ilntroduction

As decribed previously, the main components of any solid waste management system are waste

clulecdioii, diversion of materials from becoming waste, and waste disposal.

The CiiN of San Fernando is currently generating approximately 40 tonnes of waste per day and

collecting and disposing it at their landfill site. The objective of reducing the quantity of waste

-< I niateriaisl requiring final disposal (through the 3R's- reduce, re-use and recycle) is recognized world

r wide, and has been incorporated by the GOP into their principles of Ecological Waste Management to

address, the increasing waste management problem in the Philippines. However, it must be recognized

that regardless of the waste management components selected and their implementation, there will

r 4 always be a need for final disposal of some quantity of material that cannot be diverted. Collection of

Golder Associates

r

:- ~ ~ -- . -,-_~r~~ -~-~ ,z-. - *-

October 1999 . 3 - 8 981-2730BI SWEEP, San Fernando La trion Sanitary Landfill E14

' | materialsi requires a certain amount of equipment and manpower in order to achieve the collection

objectives with acceptable frequency and efficiency, but the main limiting factor in collection is the

-t ~ J presence prabsence of all-weather roads and travel distance between the source and the disposal site.

x IIn: San Fernando, and similarly for many other LGU's in the Philippines, it is reasonable to work

I towards achieving a certain percentage of diversiorn (either at source or at the disposal facility) and

then piati accordingly and implement an environrnentally sound approach for disposal. Once a* 4 sustainable approach for collection and disposal is in place for the planning period, additional efforts

r X can be difected at increasing the diversion of materials.

The DAO 98-49 sets out the characteristics of four different types of wastelldisposal facilities for

X: d implemesjtation in the Philippines, ranging from Open Dumpsites. through Controlled Landfills toSanitary iandfills Level I and II. It is important to recognize that the requirements or cornponents

i|needed t develop .'a particular site to meet acceptable environmental standards is site specific,

depending in large part on the site setting, supsurface coqditions and the nature of the adjacent land

, r | use. Therefore, it is not necessary that all sites of a -:nicuiar type incorporate all of the features set

out in the DAO 98-49. RatIher, it is important that each site be assessed individually and that the

appropriate features be incorporated to achieve an acceptable and affordable level'of environmental

r planning, design and management of the disposal facility.

*l u 3.4.2- The "Do Nothing" Alternative

The 'do-nothing" alternative is that the existing site in San Femando would continue to be used fordisposal of wastes, and waste diversion through the removable of recyclables would continue by

waste pick ing in the landfill when the mateial is tipped from the collection vehicles.

In terms of wvaste collection, the waste ctnrrently being collected originates from the urban barangays,

and due to the lack of all weather roads and the travel distances it is not proposed under the evaluation

of "alternatiyes to" to collect,waste from the mountainous barangays for disposal at the current site.

Therefore, from a collection perspective under the "do-nothing" scenario, the proposed service area

within the City wiU remain essentially the same as the present situation, although there could be some

improvements made to the collection operations in terms of efficiency and coverage.

. .l,I

i 8 Golder Assoclates

.

i .7 ' '.:.- - - -. - -

October 1999 3 - 9 rn -2730B

2 SWEEP, San irecrnando [a Untion Sanitary Landfllf ,L4

In lerrns or iwasie .izversion, under f he current practices there is no segregation of typici, tousehold

waste from other .ore dangerous sp ecial waste types. This creates potential health and so. f ;ty risks to

both the collecti *n crews and the w aste pickers. Also, in the case of the waste picketi at the site,

there is additior 31 exposure in the p ractice of recovery of materials from the garbage i after it has

''been Iiped in the site. It is cons .dered that there are practical and affordable measur:. that can be

* implemented segregate materials at source, improve the procedures for recovery of .yclables at

the-site and thereby potentially incn ease the overall percentage of waste diversion:'

||g , | .-xarinalion oft 11 portion of the - lans available from the City, as prepeared, the lassist an e of USAID,

U | f. r the curren site ..hen it was f. it being considered for waste disposal in the mid '9;V's, indicates

it it it was envis3ged that the sit. be operated as a form of engineered sanitary liS If.ll. The design

cc wicept included a pittemT1 of lea, hiate underdrain and collection lines leading to a ti at ment lagoon in

th - northeast cormer of the p. ; . At that time, the site was fenced around the eo re perimeter, and

C.2 t j st uctures were built at the no} .h st corner of the site, as'well as a concrete access t )ad leading to' the

lover portheast comer. 'One of A ainderdrain lines witji three manholes was also it stalled in a west-

rest direction across the northe n portion of the site, leading to where the treat. ent lagoon was

itidicated on the drawing. The s'ite remained munused until 1997 when the City coni, :enced use of the

site and operattd it as an open d impsite with waste spread in an uncontrolled fashio on the surface of

the land. In 'he latter jpart of 19 ?8 and into.1999, the City commenced improvement-7 to the operation

or he site as follows:

i. ! , 1 -disallowed burnhi of waste;

* dedicated City e. ployees to the direction and operation of the site;

* canied out landsc sping and other aesthetic improvements to the site;

a used equipment bulldozer and hydraulic shovel) to excavate and place waste -in

- holes/trenches in o.,der to obtain on-site soil to use to cover the waste on a daily basis,

L 1 , ' i thereby reducing od.urs and the potential for health and aesthetic airborne contaminants.

Some degree of compaction of the waste is also achieved where the waste is spread in

C. I I | ' !layers in trenches.

I: | t These improvements in the site and operations have advanced the site operations from an open

L.F ! dumpsite towards the features of a Controlled Landfill as described in DAO 98-49.

f. in~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i!

| v Golder Assoc7iates

i~~

October 1999 3 -10 931-2730B

SWEEI San Fernando La Unlon Sankary Landf1 ELS

There afe two maia factors o be considered in the evaluation of the 'do-nothing" option and its

sustainability in both the shoii term and long term:

7 1. The present site is only a :tually 3.3 hectares in area. There is currently no developn.e.ut plan on

which to base the expect. XI life of the site. However, based on the waste generatio!i projections

_an4 assuning an orderly taping of the available portion for waste disposal, it is rxpected that

:with continued utilization * f the site it would be filled in a few years time. This would not

*p Frovide sound solid waste m sp *men.lr planning for the City, since they would be faced relatively

soon with having to establish at 'other disposal site.

2. Asi discussed fully in Section 6.( of this report, there are significant environmental concerns with

the existing disposal p,actices. 'I -, is evidence that the dumping of the waste without adequate

enyiromnnental controls has begun to adversely affect groundwater qtn. ir, beneath and

downgradient from the c6irreit tispo 31 area. 4It. is noted that there art irrigation wells

l immediately downgradient of the site that are in use (which are showing evldence of leachate

effec i). andsomewhatfurther awayyarewellsusedforwatersupply. Also,.dusingwetterperiods

.t ofih: year there,is runoffofsE'il_'c water that has been contamninated.by :;, tiill leachate onto

th adjacent agricultural lands to the north. Continued use of the site under its present operational

tractices will result in increased degradation of groundwater and surface water quality beyond the

limits of the property, causing pollution and degradation of adjacent land use and possibly land

value. Depending on the degree of adverse effects on water quality in the future, it could become

L, S necessary for the City to provide altemative water supply for irrigation and drinking purposes

*3 ' ' from a further distance away and pipe the water to the residents and/or land users.

Aiihou',lh the City has undertaken meaningful improvements to the operation of its current disposal

site " it is apparent that continuation of the current practices does not represent sound, longer term

L, q , muni ipa1 or environmental planning. It is considered that an overall waste management strategy

.'needs to be developed to provide the City with the means to fulfil their responsibility to the residents

Xto ProWie affordable waste disposal in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner. Although

the ."id-nothing" altemative represents the least cost option, it does not satisfy the objectives of

_ X~4 iimplenmenting properly planned modem waste management for the future waste generation of the

City,

r ;~~~.VGolder Associates

,7 U._~

October 1999 3 -11 981-2730B

,,, Kl SIWEEP, San Fernand La Unlon Sanitary Landfill EL

It is concluded that the '"do-notliinge alternative is not the approach for the City of San Femanrdo to

adopt for the long term, enviramnentally acceptable approach to management of their municipal waste

into ihe future.

3.43 WasteDiversion

jThis' important component of the waste management system aims at achieving the maximum

4 * reduction in the amount of waste material being sent to disposal. This has beneficial environrmiental

effects and as shown in Section 3.3 also can significantly extend the life of the landfill site. The

pnrmay components that comprise waste diversion are each discussed-below as they relate to the San

Fernando situation.

fRedActio.n

Waste reduction has the most beneficial effect on the environment since it eliminates the need to

develop and utilize other waste management activities to manage the waste. It has been shown that of

the jR's, waste reduction should be given the highest priority. Both household generators of waste

and'generators in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sectors can undertake waste

e" treduction initiatives.

. Waqse reduction initiatives, at the residential household level initially requires public education, in'

* order that the consumer makes purchases that will ultimately result in the reduction of the amount of

residual or waste after the goods have been used. Examples include goods that are more durable,

goob that are designed to be reused (i.e., are not one-time use or disposable) and purchasing goods

s s , ~thatae less packaging. Ai ICI establishments, waste reduction primarily involves changes to theirX

!prozsses and their approach to purchasing.

It his been shown' throughout the world that waste generation rates increase as urban development

occurs, urbanization increases, and the standard of living rises. Urbanization is increasing in the City

of San Fernando, as more development occurs within the poblacion (City center) and the population

increases. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the waste generation rate per capita will increase to

some degree above the current rate. Even if the rate remains similar to that which currently exists, the

total, quantity of waste generated will increase as the population increases.

Golder Associates

Octobuer 1999-12 981-2730

1999 . SWEEP, San Fernan o La Union San aryLandfiUELI

The City,of San Fernando, at both the City: 5x ernienr and barangay government levels, is interested

in providing educational programs aimed at waste minirmization, in order to reduce the amount of

waste generated overall, with particular emphasis on the portions of the City to be served by the waste

managenient system. Specific educatica,al programs will be developed and implemented in

association with the SWEEP dernonstrailo;-

Reuse

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Reuse can be defined as the return of a product to use by either reusing it or by finding a new use for

;it without;modifying it. Reuse of materials is the second priority in the 3R's, below reduction but

abbve rec"cling. Increasing the amount of materials that are reused also depends greatly on public

education and attitude, convenience and economics (simjlar to waste reduction). This component of

the 3R's can also be implemented to the extent possible as part of the public educational programs

described above. For example, the economic attractiveness of material reuse could be increased by

implementing a user pay system for household (and commercial) waste collection.

gRecoVery and Recycling

-' i l t Waste recycling involves the sorting, c:.l:rrr and processing of waste material so that it can be used

for a similar or different purpose. Recovery and recycling is less desirable than reduction and reuse

since it consumes energy and resources., However, in the Philippines and other dc. el.;pi countries,

' cycliiig is an important source of livelihood and income for a certain sector of the p.- liii q- n who

are involved in scavenging/waste,picking and the sale of the recycled items. This is also true of San

Femando, and is an important socioeconomic factor in ;the development of the waste managementFi, 43 I system antl Rehabilitation Action Plan (RAP) as discussed later in the EIA report.

There are two main approaches to recycling. The first is termed direct particip'ation and involves the

separation of the recyclable items at the source (at the home or business), which then requires

:1 ii minimum processing of the recyclable materials before marketing them. The second is indirect

participation where there is minimal source separation and a much higher level of energy needs to beexpended to separate the recyclables from the mixed wastes and process them for marketing.

The City of San Femando currently has an organized recovery and recycling practice at the existing

disposal'site. In brief, the recycling concession is given for a fee to one person (at present the

Golder As*ociates

L ''IL.Rl

F.. .

- - October1999 3 - 13 981-2730B

l -'. , SWEEP, San Fernando L a Union Sanitary LandfillEL4

- Barahgay captain), who organizes the waste pici ers, pays them for the recyclable materials that they

recover from the collection vehicles after they ar dumped at the disposal site, and then markets the 1

Trecydable materials. Glass, metal, polyethylen -, paper of various grades and cardboard are the

primary items thiat are currently recovered and ma:keted.

Althoigh this indirect approach to recycling is e fective to a degree in reducing the amount of waste

for disposal, it is considered that there could b a highet level of materials recovery for recy4.;.

achieved. However, in countries where waste management is developing, the implementation of

forrnal systems has often been less successful than hoped for two main reasops. Firstly, the use of

mechanized systems for tnaterials iet rr .. '.... 1 has a very high capital cost and is expensive to operate

and maintain ct . 1.3. i ;o the ir..Jii: r .l approach to mantual waste picking. Secondly, the economic

viability of recycling is highly dependent on the .. B i.i:i:i:, and .- I.a:; h c,f markets for the

recovered materials, which are quite variable over time. i

Consideration can also be given to implementing source separation, however this requires a char ge in

household approaches and practices, separation and storage of materials at the home/busines and a

* change in the collection practices and perhaps the collection vehicles to segregate the recyclal,. es from

the waste. Source- separation would also have an adverse economic impact on ihose wb. re;y on

waste picking for their income, unless those involved in waste picking are incorporated into - te sourcef7~~-separation activities. As an example, in the City of Dumaguete, Negros Oriental a numt,.:r of the

waste pickers were proyided by the City with carts for the door-to-door collection of i.:cydlable

mate;ials in certain,barangays. They pay the individual householders for the rrtaterials, the Chy pays

the c6llector and the City is then responsible for the marketing of the materials. This type o0 initiative

could also be organized as an individual enterprise under an agreement with the City, sim lar to the

currerst recycling activity.

It is considered that an appropriate approach to further developing the recycling efforts in San

r- Fernando is to build on the existing system rather than trying to replace it, although some degree of

sourc,e separation would be beneficial.. This should protect existing income derived from the

recycling activities, increase the amount diverted from disposal and reduce the overall costs of waste

management. The specific approach proposed is aimed at implementing operational procedures to

improve, the hygienic conditions of work for the waste pickers, and is discussed in greater detail later

in this EIA report.

J Golder Associates

L ,

October 1999 3 - 14 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union ,aIarTdry Landf:l El;4

Even though the amount of material diverted from land-' mnay increase, as indicated in Section 3.3

the volume of waste requiring disposal is still expected to iocrease over time as the service population

increases.

Conpostiig

Composting is the controlled biological and chemic,.' decomposition of the organic fraction of the

-I solid waste stream, resulting in a humus-like product *nat can be used for soil conditioning.'

Composting can be practiced simply and inexpensi ;ely at either the individual residence or by

transpprting the compostable material to a centralizeu facility. It is important to recognize that the

L, I materias that can be r,; ipostel in this way are limite. to organic kitchen and yard type wastes (fruit

and vegetable peelings, leaves, grass, plants, etc.). l'he approach' involves the placement of these

|| materials in piles, windrows or vessels and tuming them either manually or with equipment to aerate

them; water may also be added, as well as additives to accelerate the decomposition process and/or to

'-g || j c9ntrol:odour. Cor.- - ilig of the entire decomposable portion of the waste streatn (i.e., all "wet"

Wa-les )tpiallv req'dis sophisticated and expensive mechanical digestion systems that are fully

enclosed to accomplish aerobic or anaerobic biodegradation of these materials in order to avoid

problemns with odours, contaminated surface water runoff and uncontrolled bio-gas production. 'The

source separation and collection of wet wastes and construction of a sophisticated biodegradation

plant'is not considered, to be a realistic approach for the City of San Femando.

Considering that greater than half of the waste stream of San Femando consists of organic materials,

l d , including a ;ni ii|: volume originating from the market, the implementation of c..mrp..ltit has the

potential to significantly reduce the volume of waste going to disposal. 'IThe implementation of

Cindividt'al household composting may be problematic in general due to the lack of space in individual

L. | . properties; similarly the sejaration of kitchen and yard wastes at the source for separate collection and

transfer1 to a centralized composting facility may also present a problem due to lack of space, limited

availability of collection vehicles and unpleasant odours until it is collected.

.The most el[ec& approach to composting for San Femando would be: I) for the City to provide the

public with education regarding backyard composting so that it could be implemented by interested

residents where possible, and 2) to concentrate on the separation of organic wastes at the market and

the setup of a pilot composting area at the disposal facility. Leaves and other yard cleanup collected

Golder Associates

.I' X

a. .

:_ .. ._ ,,,_w, .. .r_ e t1< a,7I

October 1999 3 -15 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fer,i mndo La Union Sankary Landfill ELI

'by the 71irv swe, i ers could also be inclu 'cd. With proper operation, it is expected that a compost

product could bh t;eveloped in 30 to 60 da Is. The compost could be distributed or sold by the City

,* and used for cot I itioning of fields, garden and park areas. It could also be used as a soil condition

for thd,'fina lIan. i. i cover. This has been s cessfully carried out in other cities in the Philippines and

othersirnilarcotr. ;s.

With a high deSjt of success with thi '. . .:!:1 composting approach, it is considered that the

I { - volunt iof we.ste . i,iring disposal mi at be reduced by up to about 10 to 15 percent. This will still

L leave a signilcant amnount of waste r .aterial requiring final disposal. However,lremoval of a portion

of theI or ii.; fraction of the wasV; stream -will have the added'beneficial effects at the disposal

facility in terms of reducing odo .rs and landfill gas generation, and reducing the strength of the

leachate * inlip. Ire (m-. nt

q 3.4.4 Waste Disposal.AlI Latives

Thereb-.e three basic .5p.. - . to be considered for disposal of residual wastes from the City of San

* Fernanco, each of which is d scussed below.

V"St ' ! " k

Wastd export invu; es the collection of waste materials in the City, possibly including a transfer

statio)i and expo,; lg the waste for disposal at a facility located outside of the'City. This is only a

- viabi altemative there is such an approved facility available to the City within a reasonable and

economic haul . ziate, and if the disposal fee charged to the City is also affordable. In this case,

- ; ' t.therY is;no such ,ih6ty available and this altemative does not warrant further consideration.

W $! f ' ,~ncntrIt. : ..Ntj_Lo Etl nerr,

lncineralion o. waste to energy facilities use combustion at high temperatures to reduce the volumne of

Lk 5te sienilak 1nly (by as much as 90 to 95 percent), leaving only the small balance for landfill

K'ispoial. Inc ineration is a form of waste treatment, not disposal. These facilities mobilize the

potential heat energy from the waste to produce energy in the form of electricity and/or steam for

-, X ' heating. Examination of the potential use of incineration in developing countries indicates the

following geaeral points:

Golder Associates

"'A~~~~~~~~~~~

.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z 7. I-.

-^ q October 1999 _ 3 - 16 981-2730BIEWEEP,S.sn . r'.anaoLa Union SantaiyLandfWELA

. Incineration is an expensivp ' * ogy and has very high operational and capital co0, compared

K to:Qther disposal approaches s ich; s landfill. Unless the economics from sate of t1e energy can

be used to significantly offset the c )sts of the plant, the cost to the user must be very high to make

the projectecon 1om Illy 'i; *. fbi. either a public or private sector proponent.

' - ,\ ' * .Incineration technology is such th at if the facility is properly designed and operated, dL .-missions

,- 1 . ' from the plant carn be treated to n -et most air quality standards.

L .e Incineration reqlires complicat I and sophisticated technology and ongoing mrintenance by,

,'U ' ' ' trained specialist personnel.r -. Because wa'te composition n doveloping countries consists of a high proportion of organic

* | "; mate'rial Wldi a highemoistw cqntent, it does not provide the caloric heat outr-ut to achieve the

r i.' red temperatures for e eand, complete incineration. This would .g&nerally hold true

ejen if all waste diversi )n activities were eliminated and the entire washe stream went to

iniciner-.lon. It is ther. re necessary to supplemrent the waste with a fuel s.,urce, at additional

I-m ;cost.

*'Tie residue from the incinei ator requires disposal in an appropriately designed engineered landfill

in order tolavoid ground:sa -.r and surface water contamination. Although the landfill could be

significantly smaller in area and utilize less land resources, the residue is T' F -a classified as

0M lhzardous industrial waste (as opposed to non-hazardous municipal solid vwaste) requiring a,

b iglier degree of engineered containment, leachate treatment and maintenance.

For all of the above reasons, it is considered that incineration is not the appropriate approach for San

t - Femando to take in satisfyin, their longer term SWM needs. This is consistent with that

recontimendd in the DAO rs- as well as the Clean Air Act that effectively prohibits incineration in

the Philippines.

r S Landfill

Lqn4(ill'is the disposal of solid wastes on land under controlled conditions, spreading the waste in

layers and compacting and covering it with soil on a regular basis. Modem landfills include

appropriate engineered controls to manage leachate, surface water'runoff and landfill gas to control

X | ' emissions from the facility to acceptable limits, as well as a development aid operational plan for ther site to control nuisance effects such as odours, dust, litter and vermin. The extent of controls required

is highly dependent on the natural settitig of the specific site. These controls remain in effect during

site development, operations and post closure periods.

Golder Assoclates

rL..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4,- 1-

October 1499 3 - 17 981-2730s

S"R,E, San Fernando La 'Union Sanitary Landfdl EL4

In developirig countries where open dumping and burning is typically practiced, the move to

engineered landfiil facilities is recognized as being more expensiVe. However, the continued use of

open dumping will result in increasing amounts of pollution and publici concem/opposition, creating

unsustainable conditions into the future. This has been clearly recognized in developed countries, and

is also clearly stated in the legislation and guidelines currently in effect in the Philippines and

- ~ demonstrated in their interest in undertaking SWEEP. In developed countries, landfill technology has

been proven successfuil.

L. It is considered that landfilling using appropriate modem approaches is the only technically and

economically feasible altemative approach to disposal to be considered for San Femando that can be

integrated with waste diversion and is capable of dealing with all the residual from the solid waste

stream. Depending on the size and population of the service area, as well as the road network, it can

sometimes be preferable to have more than one disposal site. However, for San Femando's situation,

only one disposal site is considered necessary.

3.4.5 Preferred Waste Management System

Based'on the above discussion, a preferred integrated waste management system can be identified for

r San Fernando as follows:

* WasteDiversion:

r7 Undertake public education of the residents to encourage participation in waste diversion

activities.

- Consider the implementation of user pay fees to at least partially cover the costs of waste

management and encourage diversion.

- Consider the implementation of trial source separation programs is selected areas.r Consider the establishment of a centralized composting operation at the disposal site to

deal with orgapic. wastes that are source separated at the market and transported to

composting area.,

L Enhance the current approach to recovery of recyclables at the disposal site.

G

r - a

Golder Associates

r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_-~~~~~ ~ .... I

October 1999 3 -18 981-2730B,,, SWE San Femnando La Union Santary LandJfll L4 J

Waste Collection:

- Considering that waste collection will only be from the urban barangays along accessible

roads, it is not necessary to construct a transfer station(s) for temporary handling and

storage of waste.

- Continie residential and commercial pickup from the urban barangays (which represents

about 75 percent of the population), with enhancements to increase efficiency, coverage

and reliF bility. The enhancement would consist of at least Wone additional packer truck

and pers onnel. 51

- Extensi .n of collection to the mountainous and distant rural barangays is not considered

to be p! actical or economically viable

r Waste Disposal:

- Develop a single landfill disposal facility with appropriate modem engineered controls

r Ur,.! nit e r iional landfill site selection process to identify the overall preferred site for

this l; w. -,l facility. If required, undertake proper closure of the existing disposal site

L' 3.5 Alternative Sites For The Engineered Sanitary Landfill

3.5.1 Introduction

The background information was assessed in view of the DENR Site Screening Criteria (DENR

Administrative Order No. 98-50, dated 1998; refer to Appendix D.l) to assist the City of San

Femando to identify Candidate Areas and subsequently potential Candidate Sites for development of

a sanitary (engineered) landfill in the City.

A report was prepared at the request of the City of San Femando and the DENR in order to assist

them with and to document their site selection process. This report, presented in Appendix C,

includes the following:

r . Summary of the results of background information review;

Us * Projected municipal solid waste generation;

* Estimate of required landfill site area;

* Screening of potential areas;

* Screening of potential sites within the preferred area;

Golder Associates

C

K.

I | October 1999 3 - 19 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EU

* Landfill site identification and selection for the Sites as which aret being considered for

acceptability in accordance with the DENR criteria;

* * Recommendations regarding the technically preferred site for the landfill;

* The tigres presenting the potential sites and the information used to screen sites/areas; and

* List of references.

,,, The majoriiy of the backgroitnd information was provided by the DENR and the City. In addition, the

information obtained from the various agencies in the Philippines and the observations made during

the site 'isits (May and October, 1998 and February, 1999) have been used, where appropriate (for

List of Sources of Information, refer to Appendix C).

4g The technical recommendations from this site selection process were originally'provided to the DENR

and the City in draft for their consideration, in order that they could confirm/identify potential sites

L; w v ithin the recommended areas. |Subsequently, the potential.sites proposed by the City were assessed

and a ricommendation regarding the ranking of those sites was provided so that the City could

proceed toselect the preferred site and complete the necessary contractual documentation with the

landowner(s) for subsequent purchase of the property, if required.

The Citv, made a preliminary decision on their preferred site based on the draft technical

recom 9 imndations and the results of the initial public consultations and secured purchase agreements

. * with the! owners of the properties located within the preferred site. Subsequently, the City presented

l the site 6election process to the public for comments in October, 1998 and February, 1999. A final

de,isi6n regarding the feasibility of the preferred site was made based on theloUtcome of this public

consultalion. In view of the favourahl, public/stakeholder response to the site selection process, the

City proeeded with the purchase of the properties of the preferred site and commenced the technical

and finarcial feasibility study and environmental impact assessment in February, 1999.

3.5.2 Public Consultation

! J As part of the site selection process, the City, with the assistance of the SWEEP NGO, i.e. PRRM,

held extensive consultations with several stakeholder groups (e.g. residents in the potential site areas)

to present the site selection process in October, 1998. The results of these consultations were

presented in a report by PRRM, dated January, 1999. In addition, the City and the DENR. held

informaj consultations with these stakeholders between May, 1998 and February, 1999. A formal

r g Golder Associates

. ' ,.I , ' '

,,, S Octobera1999 3-20 981-2730BJ . . SWEEP, S. t. .ernanc:o La Union Saniary LandfdiU 9-3

consultation to present the process and results was also held in February, 1999. Representatives from

the DENR were present during I he various consultation meetings.

q t Additional details of public corsultation are presented in Section 4.0.

__ 3.5.3 Required Area

,J j QThe required area for the . v landfill was predicted as part of the site selection process in order

to select an appropriately sized site. This area was based on the predicted waste generation rates

(refer td Section 3.3) and the following assumptions- -

- , ~ * The landfill footprint will be rectangular with a 2:1 length to width ratio. It should be noted that

'4 i9 !actual configuration will depend on site specific conditions;

* A buffer zone of approximately 50m on each side of the landfill will be required for support

- f i3cilities 'such as leacIite treatment facility, surface water drainage structures, on-site access

roads, recycled material storage, composting, office, etc.;

* Th4 long-term volume of the landfill is estimated using a factor known as Air-space Utilization

Factor (AUF). AUF is a factor commonly used to estimate the actual volume of landfill that will

be occupied by the waste during operation and/or after closure. It includes an allowance for daily

cover volume and is based on actual values of waste tonnage and corresponding surveyed landfill

:volotmes; AUF for Ontario (Canada) landfills ranges from 0.65 to 0.7 t/m3; and a conservative

AUF of 0.5 tVm3 has been used to represent conditions in the City; and 4

* An iaVerage waste thickness of ISm can be achieved in the proposed landfill; it should be noted

that actual value will depend on site specific conditions.

In order tb demonstrate the effects of future waste diversion efforts by the City (through recycling,

composfing, etc.) on the required landfill area, this area was estimated assuming 10%, 20% and 30%

waste diversion rates and the results are presented in Appendix C. The estimates were also prepared

for an alverage landfill thickness of lOim, for purposes of comparison. The estimates indicate that an

increase in waste diversion or an increase in average waste thickness will reduce the required area for

the landfill site (in other words, for a fixed site area, this will increase the landhill life).

L a Golder Associates

l7

K~~~

Octuber 1999 3 3-22 981-2730B

SWEEP, Sat Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfil ELI

Caudid¶te Sites

-. 1~~I

-1 ..~~The C ity, with the assistance of the DENR, identified three Candidate Sites (Site #1, Site #2 and Site

-1 #3)fortieproposed sn. ' r1- 'P" inaccordancewith theDENR'ssite-selectioncriteria (refer to

,l ! Figure S, Al, A .esl; C, for,locations), and these sites were automatically 'included in the screening

jI process.

Brief dest riptions of the Candidate Sites are presented in Appendix C.

The three sites included, (I) Site #1, the existing dwnpsite, (2) Site #2, located immediately adjacent

r ~ to and on t ie west side -of the existing dumpsite, and Site #3, located immediately adjacent to and on

the south tside of the existing dump site.

17Based on discussions with the City and the DENR and observations made during the site visits, an

adI i n1 vtwo sites were identified for consideration. Site #4 is a combination of the existing dump

site (Site #1) and the adjacent property to the west (Site #2). It has been included as a potential site

based on the results-of the preliminary screening process, particularly because the three sites identified

by the City did not appear to have the required area to meet even the Absolute Criteria required by

the DENR (i.e. 5 year landrill life). Site #2 and Site #3 have very limited land area (i.e. do not have

the land area required to accommodate the minimum required area); and the area available within Site

#1 is ndt sufficient to accommodate the minimum required area -unless significantly engineered (e.g.

deep excavation with multi-layer containment systems which is likely to increase the landfill cost

substanially). Site #5 is a combination of the existing dump site (Site #1) and the adjacent property to

the souai,Sitc #3). it was included asa petential site for the same reasons as that for Site #4, above.

3.5.5 Comparative Assessment of Sites

- I The detaili and results of the comparative assessment (screening) process are presented in Appendix

C and, therefore, only a summary is presented here.

The baclkground information was examined, interpreted and compiled onto appropriate base mapping

of the C.ity for purposes of presenting the physical characteristics (refer to Appendix C). It is clear

that, together with protection of groundwater resources, identification and ,protection. of significant

- iologic! resources is a very important aspect of landfill siting in the Philippines. In order to assist inM - . Golder Associates

I -

r

1- - -'- f -v v s

October 1999 3 -23 981-273OB. 'EEP,SavFernandoLaUnionSanitary LandflllEL4

the sitq screening pr ess, a detailed review of biological conditions was carried out using existing

information (refer to '-ection 6.8), and the results of this review were used in the site-screening

process.

The Candidate Sites v re prioritized in termns of their potential suitability for engineered landfill

lcvclo ment uihig.' L TR criteria, supplemented with secondary criteria developed by Golder.

3.5.6 t The Preferred ,ite

Ea The results of the idenf Ication and screening of candidate sites, including the ratidnale, assumptions

and references, are n__ __nted in Apendix C. A summary of tltese results are presented in Table 3.2.

L , 4 ~~~~The 'results of thf e techncal assessment indicate that Site #S is the preferred site for the proposed

sanitary landfill; As noted1 above, Site #5 is a combination of the existing dump site (Site #1) and the

adjacerit propr to the south (Site #3).

3.6 i Sumiaary

A systelmmi approach to the identification and evaluation of the alternative waste management

system| components was completed and, togetler with public consultation, the preferred wvaste

e L. management system approach was identified.

The City of San Fernando currently collects about 40 tonnes/day of residential and commercial waste

from the urban barangays and operates a disposal site on a 4.5 hectare parcel of land that commenced

operations in 1997. In 1999 it has implemented operational practices that are moving the site from an

open Lipsite towards a! Controlled Landfill as described in DAO 98-49. There is organized

recovery of recyclables from the disposal site by waste pickers.

Technical studies undertaken as part of this EIA demonstrate that the disposal site is having

unacce?table effects on groundwater quality and surface water runoff.

l LEven with enhancements tp the waste diversion programs, in terms of both recovery of recyclables

and centralized composting for organics from the market, as well as public education initiatives, it is

evident'that there will still be a significant quantity of residual solid waste requiring disposal in the

future. The current disposal site does not have adequate land area for a reasonable planning period

il , Golder Associates

.'.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. i

{ r : ; v-

_ _ _ r- _ _ _ _ _ -_ , '

I . -

Table 3.1 Mtnicipal Solid-Waste Composition Estimates

I'llillippineI Sri lanka

CM~~~~~~ ii ~~~~~~~~~~n M~~hetro Nionila Duniagee CoIombtY'G(lmlmnzixirbn .B.)l:n"nillOlonr;zpo g | L9 [ | F | ,zl~Narkets Ci:' | ..

I Inrome Ln,ceme Inecon.

P.oer _ < ,. 7,~~~~~~~~~~Ihl j - 7'c , > ; 9.a ,10 .1 _ .IC;sruibto: d j ________ 5 2 - 3. 2.o . _, _2_.___l-o'4xx le *.'X:u;ibI putr..'icires:loh4 AU k,74 27 4ra i.3 I 1..1 I lu. l J. - 3.0Plastic _13.21 12.36 6.35 13.5 .86 5.6 757 20.0 - 6.

Textile 2.8 3.44 2.17 8.39 3.12 2.85 2.21 2.0 _

Rubber and leather 0.98 2.09 2,12 3.13 1.88 1.06 I 04 1.0 P::rolunm Products/combustibles 3.03 5.2 11.8 0.01 0.01 3.73 0 . . _

Yard and Field Waste/Wood - 29.8 26.32 25.02 32.08 41.11 50 6: 56.19. 27.0 2.5

Metals 3.32 5.51 3.86 3.64 4.73 2.51 2.17 40 - 2.

Glass 2.38 2.;94 2.44 2.58 2.55 1.84 0.73 3.0 0.5Ila- :S. I'-.-t-' 10.82 9.95 5.51 19.4 13.73 10.83 _ 7.53 10.0 0.0sp.:-,;l; \'.:i*. - - - ° 0.81 0.23 0-

TOTAL 99.97 99.99 99.93 100.01 100.23 99.53 100.02 99 0 100.

classified as organic (bio-degradable) waste

Ndte: All esdimates are in percent C%)Source:1. - EIA for Proposed Ecologically Oriented Landfill for lloilo city, Phlilipines, Draft Report by ERMITEST Conltants. Jauxatay, 1999.

2. - City of Dumaguete. Pbillipines.

3. - EIA for Proposed Sanitary Landfill, CEIP, Colombo. Sui LAnka. Report by ERM, November, 1997. . -

Golder Assoclates

-'., t j . ;I TABLE 3.2SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING

CANDIDATE SITES FOR PROPOSED LANDFILL£428 ; CtTY OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION, PHILIPPINES

'_ _ _ _ _ _ 1 l_ 1_ 2 f i ' ! 1~~~~~a7; Area capacity 1 0 0 2 2

i11 ~~~~161 Availability 2 1 2 12 |2 ;Haul distance and Time 2 2 2 2 2

; i 3 I Proximity to sensitive_______ groundwater-resources 2 2 2 2 2 |

4 Proximity to perennial surfacewaters 2 2 2 2 1 2

5 Occurrence of flooding 2 2 2 2 2I _ r 61 i rProximity to siprisitive land

users 1 1 1 *1 17 Local ecological conditions .2 .2 2 !2 2* | i Current and future land use 2 2 2 2

Selsmic conditions 2 2 2 2 210d Geologic conditions 2 2 2 2 211 . SoiULand conditions 1 1 1 1 1121 Topography 2 2 2 2 1 2

* | 13i Proximitytoairports 2 2 2 2 2L q 14; Road conditions 2 2 2 2 2

15! Acceptability liy general public 1 1 _1_1_|

r16 Land'value 1 1 1 _ 1

U. Total 29 27 28-Rank 2 _

Site identification and screening criteria by DENR (refer to Appendix C);

* i All cdteria assumed to have the same weight (importance)- .- * - ! | tYes = 2; Conditional = 1; No = 0.

' 0 S ' ~~~~~Notes:q 1 A 'No' (Zero) score should rule a potential site out and should be considereu further only if

no other Sites area feasible. Therefore Sites #2 & #3 should be considered 'urther only if thehighest ranked alternative becomes unavailable at the end of the site selection process.

2 This table should be used in conjunction with Tables 4a to 4e in Appendix C.

L G ' <cGlder Associates

'_ I''.

0,;, ,_, ... __ .. 1-.. .. :1........ :...,.I^ww.*

.I:-.111

* SAN FERNANDO (LA UNION) AND VICINITY. . ' ~~~SVVEEP, THE PHILIPPINES 3

Aq

:Q1w'X'A i50i

* ODNR SH,E 706 5 C .1I DaSED ON 1977 .INVORUAJiCA

(APPRX) -

Dme P 2 M ... rawn..KO ...

q ~ D:cAPnLJ.9~.9 00)Golder Associate's C_ Project A00) Chkd

* i'

October 1999 4-1 981-2730B

SVEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfU ELM

4.0 CONSULTAT1ON ACTrVTriES

4.1 Introduction t

. ConSiltatioris on project proposals are important for the overall success of the project.. .This is

particularly of coneern with those 'groups and individuals potentially marginalised in the project

, * planthin process, or those whose inputs are essential to ensure full definition of project compqnents

and the consequence of teprojecrt-. It is essentiall that the valid concerns of all parties with an

interest iii the project be integrated into the project design from the outset.

: In order to address this issue, -a stakeholder identification and consultatidn exercise has been

undertaken as part of the San Ferando engineered landfill EIA. Aside from the lnitial scoping

meetips. the following consultations have been undertaken:

-} _ . - a, perception survey in the vicinity of the proposed project; .i

. four sectoral and one tnulti-sectoral consultation by an NGO (PRRM) contracted by the DENR;

t ' -, swsurveyof waste pickers at the ecstingprojectsite;

afull survey of the people directly affected by the proposed project activities; and

t ^ .- meetings with, and a socio-economic survey of, repidents in the vicinity of the site.

___ i *Details of the above surveys are presented in Section 6. The summary results of the PRRM-facilitated

public consulLations is presented lin Section 4.4.1 (refer to Appendix E for the full report by PRRM).

The. tindings of the consultations with the residents/waste pickers and the perception survey are

summarized below in Seclions 4.4 and 4.5, respectively.

K_ 1 . , :;':,... ! ..

,1

43 Sukeholder Anatlsie; ;

'Stakeholders in the project have been identified and evaluated in terms of:

F0'1* importqpce in the context of.the project aims and the development proposals, assessed

; t w usingthefollowing criteria-.'.

L * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LGolder Associates

i r m -i .,.,, .... ,*. . I. .IIYs

..

October'1999' 4-2

981-2730B

S I%E;P?, Sain Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfll EL.

° those parties with an interest in sustainable development;

those parties concerned with environmental protection;

those parties concerned with improving and maintaining public health; and

those parties, that may be impacted negatively by the project proposals.

relative authority in influencing the decision-making process with respect to the potential

I outcome or approval of the project. a -e u d

This analysis identifies those interested puries that shoul4 be cnulted during the planning stage and,.

q in particlr "key sakeholders with relatively high importance/authority in the context of the project.

,k Staeholder identification has been based on the outcome of the scoping meetings, allied with the

findings,of the socio-economic field surveys described in Section 6.12 which produced a detailed

profile orf the communities,wvithin and adjacent to the project site and helped to identify the key

stakeholders in the locality of the project site.

Following identification of stakeholders, meetings have been held with the key'stakeholders:

to introduce the projecti

* to advise the scope and aims of tho project;

* to discuss potential environmental issues, related to piroject implementation;

*i, -to atcertain the view orthe key stakeholders; and

* o pzls,ent'the concept4o plans developed.

This section of the EIA reports on the project consultation process and documents the key issues

raised at stasieholder mectings held to-date during the preparationlof the EIA.

- - 43 Key Stakeholders

All poential stakeholders have been identified -and evaluated, qualitatively according to their

perceiveJ 'r'elative importance and authority on the project. The level of importance/authority

eetedjye,ach group of stakeholders ha's been ranked on a. scale from I (lowest rating-least

importance/authority) to 10 (highest rating-greatest importance/ authority). Confirmation of relative

. importance and authority has been obtained, as far as possible, by. field data and informatio, gathered

-through ,, socio-economic¶surveys.|:> , , ' ,. ' ' ' Golder Associates

1'' ~ ~~~~~ -

I -

;

L t

14-October 1999

- 4-3

981-2730B

/ .; : ,. . SIVEEP,,San Fernando La Union Sanifazy LandfdlEL4

j j Stakeholders have been identified and grouped into the following four categories:

G* PGROP A: thQse stakeholders with high impotanice but low authority in relation to the project;

.- I. ; -.

* GROUP B: those stakeholders with high importance and high, authority in relation to the project;

' * GR)u C: those stakeholders with low importance and low adtfi?rlty In relation to the project

| ,. GRP.)UP D:those stakeholders with low irnportance but high authority inWrelation to the project.

GRouPA k .stakeholders. represent those on the margins of the project planning process, but who 'are

impa t to success of the projec Consultatioh with this group is fundamental and should

involve meetings "and discussiops to understand any key concens andlor perceived vulnerabilities.

4: 1 ~Where GRtOUP A stakeholders are likely to be disadvantaged by the project, all reasonable efforts

.Ix. ,id 6 madc to SeUCe t negafive impact..

GROUP E st$akeholders are those with whom ponsultation is mo,t. important to ,ensure proper definition

of the Froject. Where possible,'GROUP B stakeholders should be ircluded within the projectdecision

|imaking process and efforts,should be made to solicit consensus between them. -

I!^ ..

:'ROUT C stakeholders are khose who do not need to be consulted to ensure the success of the project.

Stk eholders in this group may beexcluded from decision making.

GROUR D stakeholders are'those who the Project Proponent should keep informed about the project

propozat-s. Many of thesp stakeholders have an influence over project decisions, but have little to gain

| -S ' ' ' or lose directly Cr m the project. Ongoing briefing meetings with these stakeholders are reqpired to

q | -allow the project to proceed successfully. I

q * t The stakehol(' !rs assessed as being within these four categories are listed below. The values indicated

represent a qualitative assessment of their relatiie importance and/or authority respectively, on a scale

|| ' .~~~~o I to 10

Golder Assoclates

I,-rt.

4.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Octo4er 1999 4.4 9SI-2730BSW2EP, Son Ferando La Un Ion Sanitary Landfall EL4

Stakeholder Table, Ranking According to Importance aa,, Autborily

I 1 ~~om. uniiies within l.0 km of tic proj-l ' 10' 4 A1^l -~~~~,Iein Barangay NaineWx ,

2. Communities within 1.0 km of the project . 10 4 Asite in Barangay,DalangyianOeste _

2. |communities wlthin ;.O1km of the projcct 9 3'4 Asite in Barangay Dqalagayan Este ._

4. Communities wihin I.0 kip of the project 9 3 Ab | site'in Barangaj Saoay

5. Clwpers of agdicpitural land eannaiked for 10 A:qui;ihiwn '

6. Owners ofprivate infrastructires earmarked 10 Aforacquisition

7 Wa pickers and junkshop opcrtor __ A- I[ ~~~d,ependent on the.site ;

8. h '2Mayor of SanFernando City 10 10 'B

l3. 9. waFemando City Council 10 10 B

l10. I arangay Captains of4 affected barangays: l0 . 8 BI Iameltac, Dalangayan Oeste, Dalangayan

1E and Saoay

11. LjcalMedicalOffrcer of Health 7 7 13

12. P bc Hfealth Inspctor' 6 B

ll t1 .13. G9vrnmentagencies not directly involved 4 4 Cincluding. '\ Department of Health

Department of Tmade & Industry and .Department of Agriculture

14 Fina! WlInstitutions(WorldBank.Land 2 10 DBjtnk .1dother.funding sources)

l5 Govesnment'agenciesdirectly,involved 2 10 D

1Ij= {iepantment of Environment and11 . ~~L, ; Ntatural JFesourccs.:

1 NEDA; . .-I -parlment of Publ; Works andUl j* , F uhisr,s _______G l_ ___rAs oci te

\ l t i . Golder Associates

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I LIv

K: '_ .~ LNjV7 j 7 ;VJ m ^'

October 1999 4-5 981-2730BSIVEEP, San Fernundo La Union Sanilary LandfilEL E-

On the basis of the s'tAkehcoder table, a slaeholder matrix (shown below) has been produced

,illust ng the inter-relationship crwal sUkeholders. Boxes A, B and C contain those considered key

:stakel.olders becatue meeting their needs is a priority under the project (Category A) or they can

significantly influence the project (Category B and D)

$ak coU1derMadx ' I

High JO , ,A ( (JO) B m'')

E X . . _~~~~~~~~~~- "as: -, - '-.= F {/

9 (3)J(J L.

_ * tid X ws~~~t~ *f-.S ''{' -5 - -. -9 ___

,,,w, . - 4 . . Low Xuthyit High~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~i~' '*jr ,, _______,,, ,...

- jt ~~~~~~~Th¶, analysis helps to ensure that appropriate consultations asre held with all-key interest groups. In

,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t, .iular, IOC.USed can%ul;acion with Group A and Group B stakeholders is most vita.' to the proper

tJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~c cign! of the project, and fgr its evenSual chance of successful implementation with minimal

-ensiaronmental impacts. Discussions have been held with these'groups and the key issues raised are

t ~~~~~~~~s.rnmmarized in the following sections. -As appropriate, project consul¢ations have been held also *rith

L_ t . . ~~~~~- .D! s:akeholders, primarily Govemnment Agencies.

r. * . I ! . . , ,

..

Colder Associates ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I -W.

L

r

r '!. tt1<-- ---- =~~~~4'12-L 4-~~~~~~~~~~~3 46 V

K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o uhrt Hig

October 199 4- 6 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union S aniary Landfill EUI

4A Stakeholder Consultitions I

4.4.1 Public Consultaoo

The sectoraland multi-sectoral consultations held by PRRM are discussed in detaiis in Appendix E.

T' e conc&ns that were raised focused oh livelihood, working conditions, land compensation, health

and se7ices, impaas on the cn% ironmenl duringand after closure of the landfill, and issues associated ¶

with the' financial aspects?!the loan and landfill operator. A smma of issue is provided in ther | table belop S. '

. g ' ~~~~~Summary of Pbtblc Issues and Couicemts-'

I Livelihood The concem for livelihood is strongest in the waste picker sector. As an informal sectorin the SWM system, the waste pickers strongly feel they are the most vulnerable group. |

Replacement by new waSte pickers from Brgy. Mameltac (the host barangay for the* landfill) is the most serious threat to their livelihood.

._ | ' | Lost of recyclable materials.

-The landowners and land users in the vicinity of the landfill also express concern about. their livelihood with contamination of water resources and garbage from the landfill

Invading their farms.

I. 3 WorDI ng l iton The gar'bage collectors expressed that coSlecting garbage is hard work where they are

L ~ lI . , B .exposed to tlce elements, health and safety hazards, and lack equipmn t..The waste pickers also expressed this concem by their exposure to health and safety

I B I Land Landowners concened with the manner ofpayment and how existing crops, structures,Compensaio l- and treeQ will be valued or compensated.

; ' . 1, ,Right- of- way to the relocated land.

En.ironm. .t and _-40owners, farmers, and residents near the landfill site are concemed with theLNatural R soirces -ie contamination'of their water resource, and tie intrusion of garbage from the

landfill into their farms.

r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The garbage collectors and L43U also expressed this concern in the scattering ofFi t S ; . ; garbage by stray dogs, the dumping of garbage from neighbouring municipalities in

-Y , ':, ' public ptaces, and the&dumping of garbage in streets aftercollection.

H. .lth, !- Direct contac4 of garbage collectors a9 d waste pickers with garbage, which they': ' xconsider as a health haiard. They do not have safety equipment.

| ' ' I ' i I ' ' Gtilder Associates

I ' .',' ; i!| 'iI

* t s- October1999 . 4-7 981-2730B.SWEEP, San Fernando La Vnlon SaniarJy Landfdl Ez4

_ ~~~~~~~~Landowners, esideni, and hirntts around the laiidfill site are conceracd wihte, t3 ' . ~~~~~~~~~possible conuaminaion ofddrikins water.

'noe LGU and garbage collectozs are eoncerrned about stray dogs scavenging food in thegarbage as a carrier ofrables.

Public 'Oe.Oarlle collectors,' the LOU, and the multi-sectoral groups -are eoncerned withinadequate equipment, and lack of public coneen and cooperation aifecis efficientr r:aa e collection.

7The LOU consultation cited inadequate reveues from garbage collection hinder* .:. delivery of the senvice.-The LGU censultation' aso rises the conren of an alte{nativelandfill in casm the present landfill breaks down. ,

-Public . Garbage colletors are concerned with the lack of public supper." ~~~Particlostion anid§ SuppoiE LGU and die multi-sectoral consultations express the need for public participation and- UPO .} DeoSTtation. !..-

eTh LGU!ailso xpressed the need for public inforamdon and education to geheratepublic pazticipation and support:

aRevem e The LOU aed the muld-ctora sectoral consultations consider revenue generation forsolid waste managemer t as another concrn. Revenues genesated from garbagercoletionvis too low and is collected only fom the business sector.Two consultations are also considering generating revenues from the landfill byallowing neighbouring municipalities to use the city landfill. One participant suggested_ Q ; the acquisition of a bigger landfill to geslerat revaues.

Policy Formulation The LGU, garbage collectors, and the multd-sectoral4consultations consider enactmentand Administ uion and implementation of ordinance is an issue the City's SWM system. Among these arethe enforcement of stray dog ban, and the littering ordinancestI

The participants in these consultations also saw the need for a new policy on garbage. fee add garbage collection system..r, : . The garbage pickers are concerned with the policy of paying the Barangay Captain(who in turm, pays the City a fee for the right to the recyclables) 2SY. from their sale ofm.eyeytbe materials. The pickers had asked the City Mayor to reduce the fee forpicking waste in the landfill.

LrU , ;, art L(iU eonsultation showed concem about the co ar of the dy goveriment for.tSWEEP as to whether it is an equity, loan, grant, the manner of payment of the loansand interest rate.

f t ? ~~~~~~~Will the World Bank dictate fees for the gabage collection?Y . Will the eity govemment continue to pay the World Bank ifthe landfill breaks down?

_. .9 Post operati. of The concenm for potential uses of the landfill after its closure was expressed by thelv. - dithe Landfill _ LOU.

. t i } Golder Associates

*

'II

i ___

: ' i

L

|l i -O r - -

* Octoberl999 - '- i- si | 4-8 981-2730B_ ; Sfl'E,!P, San Fernando La Union Sani*ary LawdfdllEL4

- * g ~ 4.4.2 Consultation with Stakeholder Groups

The wo en waste pickers who participated in the focused group dis,dssion held on 23 March 1999 at

* Baratng,a B Canaoay, San Fernando City raised the following issues and concerns:

a Health Risks in. Waste'Pic g. Waste picking activities at the site expose them to heat, dust and

foul odour. They ha,veto endure these conditions while waste picking. They also attribute the

'development.of respiratory diseases l cough p'd colds and of influenza to the fact that

wa,e pickers are not able t'change their sweaty clothes Immediately. They hope to have better

impleiments like masks and boots if the City Governnent will still allow such activity in the

proposed Materia4s Recovery Center. They also ask for regular check ups by the city health

service. '

* Excessi'e ll'asle Picking Charges. The Mameltac Barangay Captain operates the junk shop at the

r .ji site ania e:clusively purchases all recyclab1ls recovered. He is required,to pay PhPSOOO pesos tothe City GJovernment as a service fee. However, he gets 25% of the waste pickers' total daily

, ^, sales. 1I e waste pickers consider'this burdensome since they also spend almost PhP50.00 daily

for.their Lransportation expe,ses and refreshlnents. They therefore request that the operator -lower

thelre' :nlageloalleast10o%toomakeitfir and af1ordable.

LI .'..........They als. ..nioned that the buying price of several materials in the landfill is l ower than the price

outside. ';nce the operator has exclusive rights to the recovered items, thy cannot bring the

recycla, cs ronm the landfill site without buying it from the Captain or without permission. They

hope tl 1' buyingjrice of materials in the landfill be made equal to or higler than outside prices.

rMoreo- :aste pickers also'fear that, with the expansion of landfill, sotmeone else, such as the

DaLanga * Oeste Barangay Captain, will take over the operation and will prevent thern from picking

U d 'in or en,' i 'the landfill site.

Overall a a aste pickers are!requesting that they will still be allowed to collect recyclables and that a

fair and. . stem of recovering waste at the site will be implemented.

4.4.3 i ised Group Discussion With Land Owners, Land Occupants and Tenants

Land ank. ructure oyiners and the tenant raised the following issues and conceras during the Focused

Group Di. ission (FGD):

K ' ~ " I 4 | Golder Associates

_ _

October1999w ''- ' 4-9 981-2730BrSWEEP, San ferrnaddo La Uilon fanUary Landfl lEM

Relocation and Resettlement Process. They mentioned that although most ofthem have found a place,'

. to transfer'to, there are still some who have not. They are therefore asking the City Government to

r I give them ample time (at leasL 3-4 months) to prepare for their inevitable eviction from the site. They

' * are also,hoping that the City government would ke,ep their promise to6assist them financially in the'r Q relocation proess aswella'intheconstruction of their houses.

LeIss of 4W!hpe;o&tStandJng Crops and Trees Concern was raised on the 1aq of enough spacelland

on which'to' ;ow vegetables jnd raise livestock, therefore they seek assistance from the City

, g g ~~~~~~Govemmenl ui he fiollowing:' '

tU * em of one of iheir inemployed family mebers during the different phases of project

,,.1 im }ation. They have the skill and could engage in carpentry, construction works and'

-wg,o astes.

: *-Provi of spaceland within Barangay Dalangayan Oeste. They are willing to pay for it on anr . irent ~~~~~~~~basis.!iPrOv1:,o,f livelihood training/workshops like food preservation and processing.

Air aand .. Pollurlin,Q The present deep well which serves as. the main so,1arce of water, is located

near the pi o iosed expansion site of the landfill. They believe that the expansion of the landfill will

- 11 | conataim ;beir water supply and cause the spread of diseases. They request the City Govermnent

to esiablisl .a other deep well far from the proposed site for the extension of the CSF Sanitary landfill.

-rTheN ? ' I at with the expansionof the landfill theFe will be more smoke, foul odour and an

increase -in vermin population. They. therefore request the City Goverranent to establish a

-, , !;health ceqici icar the landfill (the existing Center is 15 to 30 minute walk away). Though there are

t,wo i y ealth Workers in the area, the residents are not confident that Ihey have the basic

a medical eqr ipr. nt and supplies. ,

t- M Jlfodeo Z,'je,:. for Lnd. Lapdownwrs were giveninitialpaymeI$t However,some,ftheamountKu-Q ' paid , them has ;ir 3dy been used foD. Ihe needs of their families. They fear that by the time they

r- hav tlo t-ansrer to their new home, they will no longer have any money left.

-~~~~~~ t -.I:. -.

- , C | s 1 ' I ' | Golder Associates

K^ a --.. , i :,-

7E. , : . ..

* October 1999-' " S~ -tt.;s i-,{ * 4-10 981-2730B_J .S WEP,'San FeFlrando La U,.len Saii *ary LandJlEIA 1

4A.4 4Qpinions of key Persons and Lcy Leaders

a!The Cli Mayor and Other City OfficialsFor a yoting city such as,SWn Fernando, the proposed project is a welcome developmenL The CityMayor IQoking forward to its implementation and'sees it as an opportunity for'San Fernando tobecome £ model city wheyr development works in harmony with the enviroMnent. The City Mayorhas travelled in several cities abroad and has witnessed success stories on waste management anddisposal.Prior to t,he ,imple,m,entatio of the project, she has initiated improvemehts in the dumpsite

U-; i opersati:o and has emulated the processes involved in landfilling. She has alfo developed a schemewherein he City Government, the former waste pickers and the host barangays are working hand inhand to egulate waste picking,in the area. Asi4e fr,om improvement in dumpsite operations, she isalso developin, a support system in the' City Proper through 'the conduct of an. information andeducatio' camp gn, provision of separate trashcans for iecyclable and non-recyclable waste as wellas monitpring cf garbage collection.

X '' BarangaayChairpersons of Mamelhc and Dalanaavan Oeste' 1Both Bar E *y Chairpersons of Mameltac and Dalangayan Oeste favour the proposed projects and are- illing to e: wad any. assistance needed to assist in commencing its implementation. Bothcoinmunizj le ,ers see it not only as a chance for their barangays to be involved in a major citydevepoppna. xoject but as an opportunity for sorpe of their-onstituents to earn a little extra incomethrough wa-e icking at the site. Both! are aware that there might be limitations in this aspect but arenevenhel` s por1iea of the-project.

r 4.5 }Con sm itations on The Project Proposals

A P erceptic .-une was administered to households surrounding the project site. Households were

-;-,. g asked'on their knowledge of the project proposals and their attitudes towards the project proposals.

Sev enty se% e a percent (n= 115) are aware of the proposed projects. Following a brief explanation ofthe project propos'1 the majori o the held the view that the project would bringpositive. (Jr bcncficial cffect to their cQmmunity and accordingly, were ih favour of the projectpropos. ben

I T | | Golde-r Associates

!,

'October 1999 4-li 9-1-273GB

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanikawy Landfll ELI

I 1 4.6 Summary or Key lssaes

The principal imsues raised dLdng the foc.ed group discuss;ons that necd to be addressed by the

_ * deelopinent propoils awe discussed in the subsectiorns oiScction 44.

Summury or Key Lssues Raised during Project Consultailon

1 He-lJh Rsks due to esposure to h:a dust and foul odour.

j - * Pr.ni;iun of healih senrices durind s a.te picing and provision of prciect.we implements lke

m mas and booL,

1 I * Esmcssne Crar.;es for the pr. slege cr 'A a.i Picking at the site aiw rclus r, of purchaze of

. oasof luselhhocd from sasre pickmng.

1* mplementaion ifa fairanJ jusit sijern c-f ieco%ennr sa:teatlthesae

--f . i * AssAniCce an ithe relocat,on sad incienemcni pcocesi

r - < ' Lo;sofLnethood'Stangcropi and ees.E £mplo,rmeni of one of the.r unemploAed 1m.1 members during the Mafcreni phase; of project

!- . - ~~~~~~~~implememanlom

' c ~~~~~ProG%;ion of ipice lind %%,th,n biijn4a; D-lang;; &r Oesic

7

7 - b m o h ccr,rConerrim n of water suppl and pread of diseaaes rad esr3bhshmem of a be3hh center nem

the affected baasi;a,i

-jlode of pa)men for lard

, O Golder Assoclatos

rI-E ,~3 o s -

e '-

. 1l ig 1:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

>~ ~ ~~~~~~~~-

October 1999 . ' 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EM

.5.0 j T1t PROPOSED PROJECT

5.1 a lroduction

5.1.1 Tbe SWEEP Demonstration'Sub-project

,The o4ral; objectivc for each city participating in Component 3 of SWEEP, the demonstration

sub-project, is to develop and implement an environ4nentally sound andiaffordable solid wasteJ! managztmCnt system that hicorporates the principles o,,ecological waste managem ent In broader

terms, Pp. is also to develop a,successful methodology for solid waste planning that willE,I meet te GOPI's requiremen,ts for approval and issuance of an Environmental ComplianceCerliricatc (ECC), in order that this methodology calt be followed in future by other Philippine.

cities to upfgrae thefir current waste disposal practices.

In order to de% elop a successfu'l methodology and develop and implement a reasible solution, itis importazfl to addressseveral key issues:

Realization that landfilling is the only feasible'alternative for'waste disposal at this time in

the Philippines; '

! UpFroni eSlimalion of rpalistic'waste quantity projections so that, in conjunction with

E conceptual assumptions'on modemr landfill layout, the search for the preferred site includes

the! requirement for a largp enough land area for medium to long tqrm (10 or more years)

X .planig;

Thre isaned to uprade the.current standards and practices of waste disporl, and move as

g < t qui,kl as practiciil from open durnpsites to modern sanitary landfill. The elements of

L a ' ' modern stni3ary landfillin- have been incorporated into the practices of many developedcodntries and embodied in DAO 98-49. It is important io realize however that each site

needs to be examined on a she-specific basis. It is not mandatory to implement every

coriponent that, is set out in DAO 98-49 at every site, but'4rather to evaluate the site settingj * X .~ ,~ *, 21..* e . 4 and linco .-orate [hose pcomponents' needed such that the facility design and 'operations

achie e an acceptable level of environmental performance; and

' . i : I :, . Golder Associates

, EN * |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* October.1999 5-2 981-2730B

-,WEEP, San Feriando La Union Saniary Landfill EL4

There is a need to promote and adopt the principles of ecological waste management as set

out by the PTFWM and DENR, in order to attain as much diversion of materials as practical

from Phe waste streant, thereby reducing the amount of waste to be landfilled. The

implementation of sustainable diversion initiatives and corresponding enterpri,es can also

potentially provide employment opportunities and a source of income for a number of

families.

Fez 5.1.2. General Description ofPropc,sed Project

The rationale followed during the de elopmenr of the preferred %'aste management ststem for

San Femando has been discussed .n Section 3.4 of this document, and considered the existing

solid waste situation in San Fernando, the anticipated future demands, the results of public

consultation and what are considered modifications and upgrades that are expected to be

practical and reasonably achievable b; the LGU.

In cneral, the proposed project consists of the following main components:

a* iaintain collection (with increased eficiency) from the urban ponion of the City onhN;

I Increase %kaste diNersior. through a combination of public educaLion, centralized cormpoSting

of organic wastes from the market (at a specified location at the landfill site) and

smodifications to the present waite picking practices. In addition, the initiation of source

Iseparation programs will be considered;

o Continued use and modification of the nxi.ting disposal site to create a modem landfill, and

expansion onto an adjacent parcel of land for development of additional s3nitary laiidfiil

capacity to accommodate a reasonable planning period of about 10 years; and

Upgrading of landrill operational practices to control potential nuisance effects (noise, dust,

!odours, vermnin) on adjacent lands, as %%ell as control ad%erse effects on groundwater and

, B j~ surface 'later b) nieans of on-site interception, collection and treamient of leachate impacled

o ' *~~~~~~ ~~aters.

This section of the report presents the Conceptual Design of the proposed %%aste management

system. with emphasis on the de%e epmer., of an ecologically sound sanitar) landfill faciliv, on

the. preferred site.

Golder Associates

* L .-__f_____

L

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I # -i ' i~~~~~~T

Oclober 1999 5 -3 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

5.2 1 'Projected Demand f?r Sound Waste Management Services

'As presented in Section 3.3 and in Appendix C, the demand for waste managenent services,.

particularly the future Waste generation and landfill capacity requirements, was projected as part

!of the site selection process.' ;This projection incorporated the growth in p6pulation during theperiod, ,as 'predicted in' the City planning documents, and what are considered

reasonable but somewhat conservative waste generation rgtes. These values were used in the

design of the proposed landfilL.

Basedj on the above ,noted predictions, the miniimurn land area required to meet the DENR

cnLeia,' a,ugmented as d, scused above (i.e. 10 year service life; 15 m average waste thickness, a

c'wastel gcnerate' o'f'k gl prscapita/day, an AUF of 0.5 tonnem' 50m buffer zone, no waste

' diversion, tc Lai coUe-ction in urban arela, tet.), was estirnated during the siting study to be

t3 ~~~appro uim:e ',. 7.10 hectares., -

It should '_ noted that:these estimates are based on a number of assumipt1ions as noted in

'Appendix C and, therefore, result in an approximation of the required landfill area. As

a !;demonstrst by, the estiat presented in Section 3.3, an increase in waste diversion or an,

increase in ayerage waste thickness will reduce the required area for the landfill site (in other

e words, for i:xed site area, this will increase the landfilllife). Therefore, the City's intentions to

impkic en wvaste diversion measures as part of'the proposed landfill development is expected to

increas: tu aradfill life or allow,for some limited expansion of waste collection area coverage

withi the', '', if warranted.

As d ribe 'in Section3.6,the preferred disposal site selected consists of the existing site and

the adjoironn 'snd to the south, with an originally proposed total land area of about 7.0 hectares.

Following, operty negotiations and a site.survey, the total site area is actually only 5.8 hectares,

highlightin h'I.importance of site optimization and diversion to maximize the life of the

disposal s e. It %as been estimated that with little waste diversion, a landfill air space of someI

*L350, cM D .. 400.: CO cubic metres wilLbe required to meet the needs of the City for 10 years.

,;

' Golder Associates

-- l' 1

* October 1999 5 - 4 981-2730B

; !. SWEEP, San Fernando LaTUnion SankaryLandjlIEL .

.5.3 Kjy;;Desigu CCusiderations

5.3.1 Introduction :

The development of the sanitary landfill to meet the disposal needs,of San Fernando, as well as

implementation of a number of diversion initiatives, is proposed to,itake place by the

modi0cation of the existing disposal site in Barangay Mameltac and development of the adjacent

land to the south in Barangay Dalangayan Oeste. A description of the existing site conditions is

r ~~~~~~presented "itISlction -6.2, while the,topograpy dsrtinothextngiecniinssFigure 5 1 The site survey wh s pre parephy and site features are shown on the Site Plan;

Figure 5.1; Tbesitesurvy wa prepared by CFNRO survey personnel in October 1998 and*

February 1999, and the elevations are referenced to Geodetic elevation.

The alteatives considered and the proposed conceptual design of each of the-key components

that det,eFnine or comprise the engineered sanitary landfill are presented below. In this concept,

it has bee iassun.e 1 that the placement of wastes will continue in a similar fashion to the present

until this proposal is approved and implemented in 2001.

In the foljowing discussion, the, existing site is termed the "North Parcel" and the newly acquired

site the "South I ,rcel".

5.3.2 E%is 'y Site Conditions and Constraints

There are i r.um er of constraints or features associated with the site that are fundamental to the

developmrien of the, most appropriate site design, as follows:

- -13 . * .The topogrn phy of the-site is sloping, which has a significant effect on the approach to be

taken to la ,ot,and. geometry. of the landfill cells, leachate management and drainage. The

-site(com'oincd North and South Parcels) has a high point at the midpoint of the west

boundar, from which the land slopes down towards the east, northeast and south. The

diffe' .ice in ,.levationlis some 14! metres across the North Parcel aid 25 metres across the

Scut±d g r :el rerer to contour elevations on Figure 5.1);

v -* -. m: is N cor tower #21 on the north portion of the South Parcel, which forms part of the

,: Bauang-Sa,n Eateban 230 kV line. This to% er, which is a steel frame structure rising to some

50 metres bove th4 ground surface, currently carries a single high voltage line at a variable

Golder Assoclates

-r mU. Ks

fl r _,il' ___- ~ U7 _

- --

^ ' kOctobrl99 I 5-5 981-2730B'SWEEP, San Fenando ~aUnion SRnir 4N=UL

X height of about 15to 25 metres above the ground. From discussion with Napocor personnel,

it is ifnportant for paty reasons that the finished ground stuface ofthe landfill is separated

at least 12 metres fromrthe power line. This has been fully respected in the cqncepwal site

,desi. 'Also, it'is essential that an adequate setback between the tower and any excavation

' ' or other activity,associated with the landfill development be maintained such that there is no

. adverse effect on the tower foundations. Information received from Napocor indicates that

- the tower is'supported.on a .'Foundation Type I; for final design iurposes,' it will beneceisary to confinnC the details of the tower foundations and confirm ihe required setbacks.

.For purposes of,this conceptual design, a minimum setback of 25 metres has been provided

on aU sidps of the sower, -

*Ihe 'site is somewhat limited. in area to 'accommodate the required landfill airspace andprovide all gf the other components needed for proper operation of the sanitary landfill, as

well as the ecological waste, management features. It is 'a well established principle of

9 Y landfill des' -. that the' most cost-effective design is achieved by minimizing the land area or

'footprint'.of the landfill cell and maximizing the allqwable height of the waste. The

,, nma,imu. height is 'governed by two main factors-the strengVt and settlement properties of

-the 'sub.urface soils and rock 'and the geometry of the 'waste mound that can be

acconPimodated within the shape and size of the property. Minimizing the waste footprint

'arep biso ..duces thc quantit of leachate generated;

* Ba$ -or, the measured adverse effects of the existing disposal site on the ground%a.erbene. t nd just nonh of the siie, as %%ell as reported leachate affected surface water

d;schLrge .T-sie to the north, an approprika engineered bottom liner and leachate collection

s'ste-. %'1 be necessary to prevcnt future degradation of orf-site groundwater quality on

both t' e .orth and SoULh Parcels;

* The sih loxated remote from any established surface water courses;l

C-, * The Ir .areel has been used for %%aite disposal,since 1997, in a fashion that has

- progre: i,, from an open dumpsite tov.ards. in 1999, a Controlled Dump. It is estimated that

by the ei I of the yesr 20O0 there could be of the order c r C5,000 cubic metres of "aste and

soil cov -in place over much of the North Parcel. A la Je portion of this material will hame

to,be e :ated relocated to a desiGnated area on the t.-operty for placemenL and properly

7C close' .n ordc. that the sanitary landfill can bc developed .he remainder;

l ' { ~~~~~~~Golder AssociatesEI. -I

Ft ,~5

' October 1999 5-6 981-2730B

I,, I 5VEEL', San FernandoLaUnionSanitary Landfill EL4

'* The 4ite is located about 6 kilometres from ;he City in a rural setting. 1There are no sewage

treatrpent facilities available in the City or in neighbouring municipalities, which in many

developed countries;are used fol the treatment of collected landfill leachate. As such,

leacat9 ,treatment must be carried out on the site;

l u * As indicated,on Figure 5.1''there are a number of residences that will continue to exist

adjacent to the west, south and east sides of the South Parcel. As agreed by the City during

' the stIa ,eholder consultations, a three metre wide access will be provided, along the west side

of the South Parcel.h r,e also a few residences adjacent to the east bide of the North

, Par,cel whose,present access will be disrupted by the proposed site development, to which a

j fornn of access should also be provided. In addition,! adequate perimeter fencing and

setbacks between the propowd fill areas and the prope*ty iines must be provided;kand

r The landfill site,will continue to generate leachate and landfill gas for at least several tens of

years after the site, stops ;receiving waste. As such, leachate treatment, landfill gas

management, monitoring and site maintenance will be ongoing and remain, as a

responsibility of the City,fora period of time into the future. This is also important when

r | considering possible uses of,the site after it has been closed.

53.3 Facility Access i

Access to'the landfill site from the urban Barangays from which waste is to be collected, is

- presently*and will be via a two lane, 4 metre wide concrete road with 0.5 metre wide shoulders.

The road!provides a continuous, all-weather circular route from two'main access points within

l the, Cii t is, from the main'coastat highway at both the central downtowin area-and the

_ , northeni end just south of the bridge crossing the Carlatan lagoon. The n -w bypass being

I { consirn led in the City to qase traffic gongestion in the downtown area, which is also a concrete

roacl, also inte,rsects tis concre,t road. As. such, the existing access roac will provide an

r ,adc. ue )ear round route for collection and other vehlcles travelling to the la dfill site, without

L ! -any upgrading required.

-,~~~~~ .:,. :

iAs dc crbed later, therewill be a need for construction of access roads aejacent to and within

the sie.

Golder Associates-

, l l.

'' :L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

Oilobcr 1999 5,7 981-2730B

SI VEEP, San Fernando La UnIon Sanltay Landfdl El

5.3A4 Subsurrace Conditions

Published gcologicai information indicates that the proposed landfill site is underlain by the

Rosaric Furnation, which is a thick deposit of sedin6entary rock types. The, soil derived from

the h eathering of th,i fine ga,r.rcJ b-d1..1. consists of clay known asBliang Clay.

i The subsurfa e conditio,ns that underlie the landfill site are the single factor thnat determines the

need for and nature of engineered containment (liners, leachate collection) to control the release

1 of potcc.fi3l groundwater and surface water contaminants from the landfill facility. In order to

I i'chmra:rize the subsurface conditions at the site, a subsurface investigation involying the

drill;; tf fi a detailed sampled boreholes was caried out in February 1999. The investigation t

progr: included detailed sampling of the soil and coring of the undetlying bedrock, the- J..

install .*n of a groundwater monitors in each completed borehole followed by subsequent

l' ;,meaJ lent of groundwater levels and collection of groundwater samples for chemical

l -, ;, an and a: laboratory testing program on -the soils and bedrock. The elevations of the

! . , ' |l b *les and monitors were surveyed to the same datum (Geodetic) as that used for the site

I o.o .pl,ie survey. I

it! . uli; of the investigation are provided on the Record of Borehole sheets in Appendix F,

,I;o includes the field and laboratory investigation report by Geoanalytics Inc of Manila.

A -i na.ry of the findings is presented below.

On' .. a:e.isting landfill site there has been waste placed over' much of the property in variable

a . I |%a: . During 1997 and most of 1998 the waste was dumped and sometimes spread in a layer

0. ' o surface of the site. In the latter part of 1998 and in .1999 the site operations commenced

- I ' ! I ii :,.a : ation of trenches or pits.tb a depth of up to about 4 metres below ground surface in

, * - M j dish s te- able to obtain soil to cover the garbage. The waste was then ramped into the trenches

*'.- j | or d ed into the pits and covered with soil on a regular frequency. As such, the upperportion

of brorface profile on muhi of the existing landfill consists of a,disturbed mixed garbage

and so. *one, that extends to variable height above the original ground and to a depth of up to

i, but t 4 etr, bclow existing ground. On the South Parcel there is no garbage present and

na!ural i s a e typically present at ground surface.

Golder Assoclates

I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11

' q * ~~~October 1999 ' -~"-'-~- 1399 _-8 981-2730BSWYEEP, San Fernaido La Uioun Sanitarr Landful ELI

The nat;ai sub-,urface prorile.encouiltredr on both Parcels appears to be fairly uniform andconsists 1essentially of a weathered bedrock sequence, with tho upper portion being completelyweathere l'to soil and'the degree of weathering decreasing with depth to reach intact freshbedrock.t

- To a depth of ab)ut 4.5 to 6.5 metres below original ground surface, a layer of brown weatheredsilty cIa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ndurto cylay -ne resilt to ysoil is present. This soil layer, which is derived from th'e underlying bedrock,was obser-ved to retain a portion of the joint and bedding plane structureothat characterizes the

* - bedrock, with t ie amoupt of remnant structure incresing with depth. The s,oil is indicated tohave a hard to stiff corsiscency. Grain.size distribution curves indicate that the soil has greaterthan a ut 75 percent,clay sizes. The soil is indicated to be of generally high plasticity, withbl

q ' v plastic l,imni : of about, 27 to 35'and plasticity indicies of about 3p1 to 50. The natural moisturecontent ft' -ay soil ranges from About 25 to 49 percent, and typically .etween about 30 to 40rperent.! " e clay contains an otganic fraction of about 2 to 4 percent.; Two laboratory

_i p ermeubilit. t -.s carried, out on undisturbed samples of the clay gave results of about Ix 10'7cr/s, idicaii S a low permieability soil., It is considered however that due to the presence. of

* disc.diontnui1,e: in the clay dge!to both the induced weathering and the secondary remnant joint

- , structurie as di scribed above, the actual penneability of the, clay is probably about 2 to 3 ordersof nagpiiude %her, corrpsponzding to a moderate permeability soil.

r A standard i lb )r compaction test was conducted on a bulk sample of the soil taken from a testhole e,c- .vated o t the existing landfill site. The test result indicates that the optimum moisturecontent for comp clion of the clay is at about 33 percent, or around its plastic limit as is typical

'q11. for pi .tic clay E 's.: The optimum moisture content to achieve the lowpst permeability is likely

a f' ,w pOrcentaw ints higher, or around 35 percent. It is concluded that the clay soil deposits

in the slis are at near their optimumn moisture such that they could be excavated and used fori '' 'the cdn stru tioi t f a low permeability bottom liner for the landfill to prevent leachate

q || contan inati )n of t2 ,e groundwater, and also for use 4s a final cover when landrilling is complete

to { - to min iz the qt tntitc if leachate generation. The clay can also be used for daily cover of thewastc, altl tough with its .aoisture content it may create problems for access of garbage trucks andequipme n 4uring the wi t season.'

I' ;Golder Assocliates

L . ., ....~~~~~~~~~~~~*.~ ._'

Octob4r 1999 5-9 8 9-2 0

F, ' jSWEEP, San Fernando La UnionSankarYLwwdflqffIA

At about 4.5 to 6.5 metre deptU the clay soh transitions into a weathered brown to grey brown

'shale edrock zone'wbich spmehimnes contains zones of completely weathered shale in the formn

of .utar clay. With depth the degree of weathering gets less and the bedrock consists of fresh

to faintly weathered dark grey shale. The bedrock!was penetrated for. some 4 to 7.5 metres in

most of the borings, although borehole 99-1 on the high ground was terminated after some 17

metres inito the rock.

h;e grour dwater level in borehole 99-1 on the high. ground along the west boundary was at

about 19 mmetre depth below ground surface d*ring March to May 1999, and it is expected that it,

is relatrvel deep in the bedrock at this location throughoutmuch of the year. IR the other

monitLrs tile water levelwas at'about 6 to 8.5 metrefdepth and located near or slightly below the

soil to i wtthered shale pone transition; it is expected that these water, levels may be somewhat

higher dur dlg wetter periods of the year.

In. term- f landfill design, the subsurface conditions are considered favourable due to the

presence :'the clay soil layer that is suitable for the construction of low perrneability liners and, covers' fo the engpneered landfill containment components. Also, the clay is quite stiff and is

expected .u be capable of supporting large applied loads without experiencing excessive

sertle in nt or deformation. As well, the groundwater tablq is relatively lovi, which facilitates a

landf l i design that extends to some depth below grouncr surface, -

=l ., ~~ ~i. . -, -

a5,3.',! 'Ifks;gn Capacity and Service Life

'.' ei tn 'jectives of this undertaking is to provide an engineered landfill and related facilities

'iat 1- pr ,vide disposal Icapacity for at least 10 years. As mentioned previously, the final site

area .X sonr ewat limnited in size (conpad to that1 suggested in the initial site selection stage),

I' and as suc it will be necessary to optimize the available land area during the design process.

It is kprup e to antempt Lo achieve a design air space w ilhin the landfill ol' sonie 350,0 JO cubic

3imeres or disposal of waste (including an allowance for daily cov'er). In addiLio i. and

dep-n aing, on the %%aste cell foolprinL (o %aste ihickness ratio, an addiLional 15 uk, 20 pcrcenil of

thi 'iutc ccHuld be needed l;r the cngineered bonomi liner, leacliale colleclioin ss, sein and filial

* , l' ' Golder Associates

1. X.S X* A-. -w..-

Ocobrj1999. 5- 1091-3B- i SWEEP, San Fernando La Union SwraryLandfIllEL4

4 cover components. This includes the volume of mixed waste and soil material on the North

;Parcel, which by the end of the year 2000 could be some 85,000 cubic metres.

Because of the presence of the NAPOCOR tower, it will be necessary tocreate two separate

landfill icells- one on the North Parcel and one on the South Parcel. These will not result in themost effective use of the land area (since the intermediate area cannot be incorporated into thelandfill space), however there is no dpparent alternative short of moving the tower.

The deqign capacity is also governed by:

* the geometry of each parcei, in this case rectangular,

; *the: need to provide an ecological waste management area, access roads and leachate

' treatnent and stormvnter management facilities;

* thei need to provide adequate buffer zones between the disposal cells and the adjacent

perties/residences. It is proposed that the minimum buffer width be 10 metres where thesztq is adjacent to non-residential land uses, and increased to at least 20 metres where the siteborders existiig residences. In addition, it is necessary to provide a 3 metre wide access to

resideiices along the southwest, south, southeast and northwest sides of the site;

- g>;" ! * '; the sideslopes or the waste disposal cell, whether the below ground excavated portion or the

PoVon raised above the1 ground surface, must not be steeper than a slope angle which is

stable.' This relates to the stability of the waste itself, the combined stability of the waste andh th underlying soil mass 'and liner system, and for the final -cover the ability to support

- | ' ' vegetation and resist erosion. For the setting at this site, maximum slope inclinations of 3

|| ', '' 1 horiiontal to I vertical (3H: IV) are proposed;

the lowest excavation depth should be planned to generally terminate iri th!: soil above the

bej'rock, although calized excavation of the rock could be considered for spccific features

-1 Although the active life of the facility is intended to be greater than 10 years, it is important torelize, that the engineered containment and treatment components of'rhe site necd to have a

serv ce life that is cons derable longer in order that they can be maintair ed and provide the-' 'requi controls for at least several tens of years after the site stops receivinlg wvaste.

L I:.' ,* , ' l L I | , ! Golder Associates

.,,*-_

_jZ

W >. , .1Z4

,-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 ' u 1

I .* L ...... ...,. ............

l .^ ' O ctober 1999 5 -Il 98 0-

SW EEP,SanFernando La UnionA ELI-2730B

'qS3.6 ;ContaiumentEngineering

In orier that the leachate generated at the site is prevented from entering the groundwater system

and flung off-sitc moving off-site as surface water discharge, engineered containment

measures will be required. These can be described as a low penneability bottom liner, a leachate

'colel'tion and removal system and a final cover system.

eeab,ility bottom liner typically consists of a layer of fine grained soil, such as clay,

' which can range from about 6i0 mm to a few metres in thickness; a synthetic plastic

geomembimne such as 60 to 80 miluthick high density polyethylene (HDPE); or, a combination of

'Xthese mat-als to form a composite liner. At the San Fernando site, apd in the area of the city

wheri cldy soils are plentiful, it is proposed that a clay liner be considered for purposes of this

.desig 1 e cisy liner would be constructed by excavating the ciay, spreading it in the proposed!4 I~~iner area, in IS0mm thick'~layers and compacting each layer un'til the total design thickness is

achieved; the,compactiori is achieved using a heay.sheepsfoot or padfoot roller, and the layers

are bor. I together by scarifying them with a farm disc or harrow. The final surface is rolledsmootlh ,vith a drum roller. 'In this way, a minimum, liner hydraulic conductivity of lxlO' 7 cm/sshou41 b achievale.. In the South Parcel where excavation will be into virgin ground it is

r; excp,ed that nearly all of the excavated clay will be usable for this purpose. In the North ParcelqeJ t '. ; however . is expected that part of the excavated matarial will consist of mixed waste and soil,and.only ' ',e undisturbed clay will be separated out for re-use for bottom liner o0 final top coverpurposes. As such, it may be necessary for the City to locate a source of suitable clay and haul it

-to thg site '-*r construction purposes.

lThe le7 .hate collection systemi is constructed above the bottom liner and gen -rally consists of a

layer if highly permeableigranular material (such as gravel) such that the leachate can beeffir iently removed by gravity drainage from, above the liner to a low poit from wbere it can be

dr nedor pumpedan removed from the landfill cell for subsequent treatment. The granularreachate collction layer often contains a series of perforated pipes at spa ing of 30 to 60 metresto most effect _onvey the leachate (as described in the DENR Guidelines on Sanitary

r ! 1 " i. Landrlills). Hc .. , the successful operation of these pipes requires them to be maintained byregular cleanin -; in developed countries this is typically perforned using remote sewver flushingequipment. T nLs is seen as being problematic in San Femando and 'perhaps other parts of the

Golder Assoclates

r , ' :7:-. ,

October I99V! 5 -12 981-2730BPJi - SiYEEP, San Fernainde La Union Sanitary Landfill EM

_;,Philippinc svher tliis:equipment is not gencrall) available, and would be expensive to ncquire

':and maintain for a singie iandrzil operation. is ipossiblelodesign aleachaecollectionsystem

without piping providing: the granular material is sufriciently coarse; the physical and biological

clogging %vi r timc can be,cpntrolled to acceptable limits, and; the bottom liner can be sloped at a

, s geep enoli grade to etTectively transmit leachate to the low point for remo% al.

- iS At the San Fenia jo landidlll site, it is proposed to design a leachate collection system %iLhout f

piping byjtaing Ivantage whcn establishing the cell design of die natural drainage offered by

_ X The W113 t rrain. ' '

| purpc o ' finaltover,is gpicaly.to isolate the wast from exposure and provide a final

| cover o virtl, aste that is stave, resistant afid cant support the growth of grasses or

otljer veg tatir.n If a lw permeabilitye c,ayeyoil i,s used. the attempt is to encourage the

rainfall to run f as clean %ater without contacting the.garbage, thereby controlling the post-

-: "< ' closure leicha: rnerrtior and corresponding treatment requirements. Anothqr approach is to

use pe,rmabl: .nd) cover iozl and allow the rainwater to infitrate the walte and "wash" out the

contamin ints, t -reby temporarily increasing the leachate strength and generation rate but

, stabilizinq the 1: II Ifill in a shorter'period of time. At this site, ivh're clay is plentiful and the

r lafi4rill cjlls v ., ot be open for'too long, it is proposed to use a clay cover layer. InconJuncti n w' .h he :over, ar' appropriate approach to m'anagement of landfill gas is needed.

5.3.7 to o(Cpnt Cmaonats

Thle two .iaii; sourc;s o potential off-site contaminant higration are landfill leachate migration

. ,h gr: jnd,%aicr and suw ice water. As described above, it is proposed to construct a liner and

,, ** Ig l; Jia ec on sy! cm.W rhich!will resultin -the need to treat the collected leachate before it

:...;alb.di chargcd tl le environmen.t The design pf the landfill cells and the capacity of theRI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

trcamen cilitv nmu' t be, such thtt theu can contain the required quantity of contaminated liquid

I for treatment wth t rlou l he m owirg ,..

,t 'his le' it is p posed to constct an on site treatment facility takinag full advantage of

* .tural tr&atment' , ocesses availabte ilit Pilippnes climate. It is. proposed to construct an

on-site cornbined *agoon and.wet1and,treatment facility, integrated with a stormwater detention

' .. "I^ '*; " ': , , `Oolder Assoclatesr , t :'! '-.-. 3; . .I, L-,-,j 9l84-

r! -.

21;'~ ' October 1999 5 - 13 981-2730BSWEEP, Saia Fernanido La Union Sanitawy Landfl C

-' ! ' '~1 p (Th ;.eoar is chiara teiized by distinct dry- and wet se'sons, such that the majority of the

' leaeha ~ Zneranion wvill occur during and after the rainy season. Water' balance calculations

. indicakI talai there is a net annual moisture deficit, such that evaporatior i'is a significant factor in

the required sizing. It is prrposed to try and minimize off-sitc discharge from the treatment

* ' facility by re.ir.Lilating Lhe water between the lagoon cells, and perhaps recirculating a portion of Li

' tftho treated leaclaie backlonto'or inito'the'landflIl cells.

53.7: Alanqigd nent of Surface WRte,r

-. f The s irface wrlter.des.ign will intercept/divert and separate the clean water runoff from the'

ilandfi|, 'ell li 5uidi, arnd direct it via: a series of gra,sed s broader -wetland/swale

MA t1 I systcm s to st' alwaLer detention/welland ponds prior to discharge off-siLe. !Tlhis will serve to

! ren ousr anded solidsand other constituens from the water'and control flocding of adjacent

4 :pro prpe ti ois,aresultof thejandfi*ilsitedevch6pment. Plan details of the proposed surface water .

* m1apa?I si .oncept is presentted on Figtie5..;

5.3.8; ,rite lrtrastrucjure

Variouss. e irastructure ComponentS "'iil be required to:

Place r rl I compact the aste and operate the landfill operations in an ef.ective manner;

*; hMonitr r he effecrs of thc site operations on the ph)sical environment;

* EnsL. r appropriatelevelofwoiller healthandsaret); and

Ep-tur th: ihe site is operated in accordance %idi the design and th: requirements of ihe

5.4 0Q -nrie. crProposed Facility De clopnientr .BP' .d on :ie hey e .gn considerations and ihe rationiale for the preferecic: ofcenaih appro-iches

o detign .n %iew oi ltie specilie features of the San Femando site, an over, iew of the proposed

ficiliI; d.velopme.it is described below. Figures illustrating various asp.-ts of th. aoposed

develor ient are pros ide at the end of this SecLion.

I 'older Associates

* 7 ..

, ..

October1999 ' 5-14 1 : 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union SanJitry Landfill 'l

iropoet dEgineere Landrill . ;:I 't'' ' ''' ' 8 ' [' ' ;~V I 'a ! ,

-The'proposed engincered landfill developmentis illustrated on Figure'5.2 in plan view. 'Plan_views fthe proposed top and bottom contours are sliown1 og Figures 5.3 and 5.4 respeci

-.hile ross sections'through the proposed cells are shown on Figure 5.5.

Cell Develonrizelit ,

t ! q ;1 1Io s: |! ' . .;,!i: ,; .i ;,Iti pTposp d to, develop theIlandfill portion of the facility in two cells, named the South Cell and|North Cell. The basic'planr for lieSwULth Cell is to e axctaae to the design grades and slopes, andtons t| bottom liner and leachate collection system. The basic plan for the North Cell is to

I first locate all the mixed waste and soil to the southern portion of the proposed cell footprint,place L above the present ground surface (without excavation) after the placement of a leachate

Lw 4 , collecdion layer, shape tiis relocated rnaterial to the final top contours shown and close this* - relocated waste area widi a layer of clay The rem s iig ra of the North Cell would then be:eilavrted to the design grades and the bottom liher and leachate collection system constructed; t

r subsujface drainage from the relocated waste area to the south woul,d be connected into theleachate collection system '

Sit;e 68ci*ri -

"" I iI' .' ' " .'

,The primel fe;:e that preseuitly exisis along the soutli side of die exisfing disposal site will beI | , remo'veJ. n reused if qossible. A new perimeter fciice, consisling mostly of concrete block will

be constric J around the perinicLer of the Soutlh Cell. Site access %%ill-be provided off the- a Barangay R: id in at%o wa)s. The existing concrete access road will provide access to the north

end ot the? Ath Cell. A new two lane concrcte access road s%ill be constructed along the: | nun) ipa ro 1 allowan.e adjacent to the * est side ol the North Cell to a new entrance gate (4')fl a t ahl hign Ant oF the site and then split - ope brancih of the road % ill go across theWrecc Cing/cLn posling arca and around the proposed Nornh Cell; a second branch %%ill go along

L I t the zest sid if ilie South Cell to prov'ide its access route. A 2 metre %%ide Ur.el surf3ced roadmXr~ j will be pro it .'I for site travel around Ihc perimeter of the South Cell. Thiese ro; iways v6 ill be

provided . t surface %-ater drainage ditching. rIk addiLion, pedesirian access ill be crecaed

Gold er Assoclates

r-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .

Il* , October 1999 5 -15l 981-2730B

.1' Y i SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanltqly Landfill EeA

'along'i 'north'side' of the North Cell and along ahe west side o f the South Cell., ' The general

ayout jfthese roadway anddinage features are shown on Figures 5.6 and 5.7..

!Access to the siteurin the' operation of the South Cell will be via gate #2 where the wligh

scalew ill be located. During the operation of the North Cell, access could either continue to be

via gatt #2, or the scale could be moved such that sh'orter access to the cell can be achieved via

gate #1

ul ' ' 4 I $; ' | 1s i~ ~ t i | .' | 1

It J i eiihote Clle tion' System

The key reatui s of the bottom liner and leachate collection systom are shown on Figure 5.8. It

is proplosed td at the system consist of the following components (from the base subgrade, or

t t . botb iom up):;

N .,*|I subgrade, reached by excavation of the subsurface material. At the conceptual

ba , ItoIt ;urs; excavation is expected to still be within' the clay soils, although locally (i.e.

foz sum JI)" it could, extend into the underlying ''eadiered shale bedfock. As illustrated on

| -...... qK < F4jure 4 hei proposed sideslopes are 3H: IV and the cells are shaped such that the drainage

1--4..*-' ' " * )will bcx. r owards,t7iecentrad portion of the floor:of the cell. The central portion of the floor

is apc a fplo the natural slope of the land (refer to proposed grades op Figure 5.4 and

w I hay slope of 6 percent towards the south end of the South Cell and the north end of

.thNortd ,ell. `.In the South Cell, the excavated clay soil will be stockpiled for re-use in I

o- sIru. cI of the various containment and cover ;featutes. In the North' Cell, the mixed

9 isto and. ;oil will be excavated for placement in the south end of the cell, separated outt rrm the t'l derlying clay Aoil wl,ich will also be stockpiled for re-use on the site;

*eA 0.6 n th ick compacted clay liner, constructed in four layers as previously described;

l ; ' -A ,noo-tzb . 1 separator geotextile, to prevent the leachate collection layer from mixing into

1. iq , ',^,~~~~~ th :thClaylin ;r,::;, '

q.. 'A granul. 'eachatc c - iecLion layer> 0.5 metres ick on the floor and 0.3 metres thick on the

sideslope . confist.., )f 19 to 4u mm size durable gravel or crushied rock. It is noied that

there is perforated c Illeetion piping propLased;

* I

Golder Associates

;r ER ~~-' i- .'

October 1999 5-16 981-2730B', ~ H , I ' $WEP,San Fernando L Sanion itarO-Ana,her non-iNovea eotextil,.,separator, to prevcnt direct contWt betwenthe garbage ad

* ,, . thy granuta'rl,sa-b3te collecction layer,and control-potetttial cogygi of te collection la,yer

_with fines fom the waste. This geotextile fabric is supplied in rolls and would be placed just1;l *, . bef7rc the first.1ift of waste is.placcd in a,.portion of the c!!. TIhe rolls would-be overlapped f

at: lat 0.5 m. It canmot all be placed at the time of construction since ii is sensitive to

degradation from.ultra-violet rays (sunlight) and should lbg coveted soon after it is placed.

Figure 512 shows that a leachate pumr stat will be required at the low end of each of the

i'Noruh aind Soutl, C,-ells to remove the collected leachate from the cells and transfer it to the.lacht ticrat- .. nt facility via the forecemains. It is anticipated that this,could be accomplished

in one; cf two 1vays, as follows:

i* T f,irst vay is by,means of 400 mm high density polyethylene riser pipes installed at twor . l ,o 1-7,bati': 1 on the cell sideslope, within each of which a specially designed explosion-proof

.su bimei s. :eachale pumrp would be installed. The pumps are designed to operate based on I

;elevr f liquid in the cell' and are easily removable for maintenance or replacement

.p,i0sps. flhis is the preferred approach utilized in modern landfills since it avoids headerpipes c r- ingleachate having tq pass thirougli the liner system. This is illustrated on Figure

C r 5 9 an; is aie option'protosed for this conceptual design.

Th seco7r i 4pproach wpuld. be to install -a perforated HDP£ leachate header pipe

Jr ,iedi. e outside the low end of the landfill cell. At the edge of the liner the pipe would

;bec ome ntc a-perforated, and this pipe would then pass through the clay liner (after being

;uzui ably se Jed to prevent leakage around the pipe) and be connected to a conventional, water6 ! >, ' tig conci manhole or wet well that contains a submprsible pump to transmit leachate to

0 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

I' ih'' forcc' 'am.

Le achte ' reatment

UliThe, prpr ased on-site 11 &'ihate tr.eatent facility, is proppsed:to be. located along the northeast

sJde a, to thie Nor . Cell as-shown in plan view on Figure 5.2 and a cross section through

the .f lity sshown on ure 5.10

' , *1 ,?,, * ; I , ?,, i ' , Golder Aroclates

II 1I

Octobe| 999" 5-16 i 981-2730B

4 ! 1. 4 a,~~~~~SEEP,SanFernand LU:ntioSantay adfdlEM

y t * 9 Sinother non~~-%voventeilspato,t preivent direct coqntact between the garbage and.Anter non otextile separator, t

the granular ba'bate colleclion layer,and"control potential cloggng of the collection layer

~~~i1999 lea- , Satlecin Ferayd aUio aie!ylogum ofU &L gco baeto ande

with fines from the,waste. This geotextile fabric is supplied in rolls and would-be placed just

before the firA1 lift of waste is placed in a,portion of the Uell. The rolls would be overlapped

| Q ! ,at. lTast 9.5. ,m. ,Itcannot,all*be placed at the time of construction since it is sensitive to

'degratdaion fromultra-violet rays (sunlight) and siould be covered soon after it is placed.

Figure 52 shows that a leachate gumo station will be required at the low end of each of the

,rNonh nd South Cells to remove the collected leachate from the cells and transfer it to the

, leaIhal treamii nt facility b via the forecemains. It is anticipated that this,could be accomplished

s , , , I ~~~in one; qf t4o Ivays, as follows: :

The,rirst way is bymeans of 400 mm high density polyethylene riser pipeslinstalled at two

t loc,tig on the'cell sideslope, within each of which a specially designed explosion-proof

* iq ; l , X svtbfersil . leachate pump would be installed. :The pumps are designed to operate based on I

S" tX ' ;-purpose. his isthe preferred approach utilized, in- modem landfills since it avoids header

~ Y pipes,ca'rr .pac4afS having tq pass through the li,er system. This is illustrated on Figure

5.9, and is 'ie option proposed for this conceptual design.

.secr approach ;would be to install a 'perforated HDPE leachate header pipe

iimnredi a outside the low end of the landfill cell. At the edge of the liner the pipe would

1 . !'' '' -I ' ' .$' be ome c a-perforated, and this pipe would then pas through the clay liner (after being

,uiably sJed to preIvent leakage around the pipe) and be connected to a,conventional, water

tig .t conci mpnhole or wet well that contains a submersible pump to transmit leachate to

th forcer ain. ,

Leachate'I reatment

The. prT T idl on-site I 4Phate tr,eatmeht facility is propqsed,to be. located along the northeast

f-dn adr i to the Noro . Cell as showr in plan view on Figure 5.2; and a cross section through

the 'f lity 's shown on ure5.10.

! 1 a: E Golder Associates

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

..

October'9l '' 5-17? 981-2730B °. -,.ip SWS EP,SiSFernan4,La.Uniot,Sndta,yLandflUELn

It is proposed that the leachate collected from'the landfill will be treated in a passive natural

treatmept1system. The sytem will comprise three lagoons in series followed by a wetland. The

treated effluent from'the wetland will discharge to the stormwater management pond located at,,, the northeast corner of the North Cell and eventually onto the agricultural lands to the north, as is

the case with current storm runoff. 'The natural grade of the area has been made use of to providei ' ' gravity flow thrugli the system, Le. from the first lagoon to the pond, via the second and third

lagoons and the wc land;'¶his avoids the need for any mechanical pumping.in'the treatment

system. 10ff-site dh chargT is expected to occur only during storm events.

The lagjon system has been designed to treat the influent leachate to applicable standards. In, ] | this case,'as the *ischarge is expected to flow onto the downstream agicultural lands (to the

q northeat of lb, site), tho criteria spccificd in tho DENR AO No. 35 (Effluent QualityRegulatons) &pp "Ablc fOr discharges to Class D waters (for agriculture, irrigation, livestock

- waterin4) fror- 1 .v/Proposed Industry or Wastewater Treatment Plants to be constructed (NPI)was usel as ti, d charge criteria in the design.'

r The details of &j design, including the design paramneters, are presente,d in Appendix G. Itr 1 should be noted hat the three lagoon cells are expected to treat the leachate to the required

Leffluent|quality mder conditions expected based on presebtly available information. Thewetlandd tl?e ond will provide additignal 4polishing" through mixing, retention, plant uptake,L:etc.;n iidditi'or the wetland will act as a contingency facility to minimize the potential for off-

L ! site discharge effluent of unacceptable quality during unusualunanticipated leachate loading

from the, lan ifil and/or storm events. Also, during storm events, the effluent strength will ber ' signific nX'iy redty cd, due to mixing pro% ided by the storm%ater collected in the downstreamnpond. I the even. or unanticipaled occurrences'of leachaLe input (e.g. higher than aniicipatedrnadin j, large fluctu itions in leachate loadings, etc.), which is 'not uncommon for municipal solidr ' wast la dfils (refe. tc Section 7.7), these additional measures can be expected to provide the

instn i ice" necessa: so that the expected effluent discharge (DENR) criteria will not be

compr omised..

IG eLw

Golder Assoclates

r

U w1 ''''R,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,) .,.l... .. ... .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October1999 5-18 981-2730B

_ E . .! SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfil ElI

The lagoons will be constructed of earthnci (on-sitc clay) berms with concrete facing and a 0.3m'

to 0.5m thick compacted clay liner (refer to Figure 5.10). The wetland will be of similar

construction Put without the concrete facing and will be vlgetated usirg appropriate local plants.

* fi43 If the existing topography, space limitations and/or soil conditions wanrant, some of the walls of

_ .D the lagoons may have to be constructed of reinforced concrete; the oped for such construction

should be determined during the detailed design phase. The flow will be conveyed between the

lagoqnslwetland through appropriateiy located connectortoutflow pipes. Alternatively, simple

weir'tctures could be built into the berms.

Prov sions ha ve been made in the design to recirculate the leachate to the landfill, if required.

Recirculation will be uiseful to minimize off-site discharge, if strategically implemented. For

example, spr.ying the treated effluent from the wetland onto the closedlcovered portion of the

__ "landfill dtrring dry season would enhance the removal of the water from the system through

*D evapfratioi . 'Iternatively,'the farmers downstream can alcake use of the effluent to irrigate casp

crop$ such ;, -obacco, provided the effluent quality meets the ibove noted DENM criteria. Also,

the offlue. ould be used to. add moisture to the waste in the coiposting process (i.e. as a

r. P - . moisture su,i ement). -,

_ As tie leacxA; i treatment system has been designed asa passive system, the operation and

E7 tmai tenanct i quirements are expected to be mininal. It will be necessary to remove the sludge

froni the la ,c *ns on a regular (e.g. once a year) basis; the sludge could becdisposed in the

landfill. Also t is important to maintain the plants in the wetland. The operation of the landfill

should incorl iate some or all of the alternative effluent disposal measures presented above in

ord rto ninina ize off-site discharge of treated effluent, unless it is for a beneficial use(s) such as

crop| irrigation

SieeG ra ', A

In addit jn to the site tvorks associated.with the specific components, there will be a need for

L Q | som* tegrading wo - to achieve the design grades around the perimeter of the cells, as well a

the e ver.ll site drain: ;c requirements.' It is anticipated that this can be accomplished by re-using

U || ! ; on. site snils, and will mainly bc required to achieve the grades: along the south, east and

* M 2t'h' I t'

Golder Associates

4nk ,.40

October 1999 ' 5- 19 981-2730BSIVEEP, San Fernando La Ulidon Sanitar Landfill ElM

_-- > . | northeast sides of the'North Cell: for construction of the trtentmrnt lagoons and stormwatet

detejtion ponds; for construction of the concrete access road #long the west side of the South

Cell,jand; for the exterioF grades of the wetland/swale at the south end of the.South Cell.

MM Whecl waste placement isi completed, there will be a distinct mound rising to about 5 to 10

metres above the adjacent lend on the South Parcel. On the north Parcel, the ridge of existinglem natural high ground will,b? shifted eastward and raised in height by about 10 to 15 metres,

slop'ing off gradually towards.the east.,

r a . Final Landfiil Cover and Surface Runoff/Landflll Gas Mana,nement

The final landfill cover is proposed to consist of a layer of corlpacted clay of 500 mm thicknessi3v.1.1 over1the waste. The surface Would be revegetated with gmass in order I? be aesthetically pleasing

and provide erosion resistance. Although not illustrated on the cross-section on Figure 5.5, it

L£,* will ie necessary to peovide benches on the final 3H:1V slo'pesto reduce the velocity of run-off.- .water and .hreb) improve erosion resistance. Such benches would break the slope into 20.to 25

melre long sections and con,tain.a gravel lined swale leading to spillways. These benches would

n, air .be required on the long North Cell slopes. Surface runoff over the cover would be clean

r v .tjr and would be captured in perimeter toe ditches and directed to the detention ponds. The

dctal of the conceptual design of the stormwater management system are presented in

.-;pp; idix G.

In v :ew of thedlimited landfill gas (methane) generation and utilization potential of the site, it isr p c sed to install a grid pattern of permeable granular filled, geote,tile M rapped trenches into

the Jp of the waste. At each intersection point of the grid, a gas vent will be provided in order

r a to p ;ssiyely vent the landfill gas to the atmosphere. This approach is ill.strated o'n Figure 5.1A,* tA!e; San. FemanJo sanitary-lartdfill. site, the provision of an active g'ls collection, extraction

and ailizatiop systern is ndf considered to be techlnically or economical y feasible, or necessary

in te ms of potential adverse environme,ntal impacts.

.. I.

Golder Assoclates

r~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C~ C L. +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

| - October,1999 5 - 20 981-2730Bv q11 ' ' !; ' ! SW,EEP, San Fernando La Union Sanka Landfill EL4 a

5.4.2 ' ehabilitation of the Existing Disposal Area

It is anticipated that the pzacement of waste will continue on the existing disposal site until the

sanitary, landfill project is implemented, assumed to be near the end of 2010. As discussed

previously, the site is currently operated similar to a Controlled Dumpsite. This will continue,

althougo waste placement should be shifted to the southern end of the site'and set up to basicaly

conforn1 to the proposed horizoital and vertical limits of the Ndorth Cell top surface contours

(Figure 5.3). In t .is southern end of the North Cell, the site would not beexcavated as indicated

on Figure 5.4, but rather the waste'would be placed above the existing grade. As discussed under

Section,.5.4.4, waste placement in this fashion will stop when the South Cell is prepared to

receive waste.

The reh . li a' i of the North Cell to receive waste will take place during the operational period

qi ' of the 9uth (.11. -Tis will only be able'to happen just in advance of the preparation of the

North Cell t receive Waste, since otherwise a large excavation would be, left open and

' managei ll atmnent of leachate affected water would be needed for a prolonged period of

time. Howcv ., in the interim, measures should be implemented in order to minimize adverse !

environmenta. effects that the. dumpsite is currently having on the off-site groundwater and

surfacel water 'nviromnent. Once the treatment facility is built, this could simply consist of

relativ9 ly sh tllJ v ditch s along thle north and east sides of the disposal area to intercept

. .s contamninate I ni- off and direct it via pumping and temporary overland piping for treatment in

the lagoorn ,.

I Prior relocatiug thc material, the surface, of the waste in the south portion of the North Cell

sho' L lshaped such th,at it slopes towards the north at a grade of about 2 to 3 percent, and the

. anular le .chate collection layer constructed. Although this will not'prevent the ongoing

leaching fru m the waste that is left in place below the leachate collection layer, it is expected that

.: , this en'iii zred measure will serve to manage the leachate generated by the relocated waste by

conne tin-, the granular layer into the leachate collection layer in the remainder. of the North

Cell. Th s is il,1.strated on Figure 5.12. Once the mixed soil and waste have been removed and

shaped c forrim the south, part of theiNoriti Cell final georuetry, this area should receive the final

closure c iv qr.as described ij~ Section 5.4.1.

| - ' ' l Golder Associates

I , 0 '' ' ' i I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

t - *- : - -- ;- .- . -*-- --- -

October 1999 5-21 981-2730B

; 5.4.3 Ecological Facilities I

ij1 It is proposed to integrate ecological waste management projects at the site to increase waste

diversioq quantities and to provide sustainable income for the waste pickers.

Although ecological waste managemzenL activities are an essential component of thle preferred Aw|aste management system, it is important first and foreniost that the required disposal capacit)

or ine iplanning petiod and related modem sanit landfill facilities be yrovided. Te site is

relatively limited in area,' and the allocation of land to specific on-site ecological waste

Q , management components 'needs to be carefully considered, recognizing that it may be possible

(if necessary),to carry out some of these activities on City owned or leased land off-site.

.d ji The main ccological w-aste inanagement area is proposcd lo be located on the central portion of

tIhc overall property, on tl e northern portion of the South Parcel (see Figure 5.2). An area to the

L i north ol the Naprocor lowcr has been shomn for storage of recyclables and-for operation of ae I; composting area for compostable materials thaL are carefully source separa:cd at the market and

brought to the site.

In order to avoid odour and vemrin problems, only fruit and %egetable %%astcs should be

-, permtle in the composting operation. Public education Tor those rcsponsiblc for thc market

operations is %ery imporLant in this regard. The composting would take placc in s%indro0%s (or

perhaps piles), v ith approximate dimensionis of about 6 to 7 metres wide at the base, 2H:IV

sides and a h .i-Sht of about 1.5 metres. The addiLion or trichoderna as an accelerator of the

procesl, tope'ctUer with regular meekly to bivecldy tuming of tie windrosi and tie addiLion of

moistureifas n.eded (syqh as treated-efl4ent from the,laigopnd/wetland facility) is expected to

- | 1t result in a cllposL product i.i 30 to 6O days. The runoff from this.rpe ofrcomnposting operation

is not expec d to present a s cniificant environmental concern, and i% ill be directed to thie surface

, ater ditch system and the to the detention ponds prior to e%entual off-site release. Ther ,1! finishcd comnl ost product nay need to be screened prior to its re-use, v.hich could be

acconiplis.cd Jising a screen and the landfitling equipment as required. 11

" v I«i The resourc'. recovcry port-on or this area is iitt nded for ihe ltemporary slorage of reco%ered

P%1 '% matertal- C.rirecycling, likcl Is requiring the cons .uction of a shelier building for this purpose.

-. . - . - .* .CGolder As- oclates;

r '' 1- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I J 4BIIlv-;

7 .}1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U-~~ I *.. L--............- e..._v... ....

Octoberl999 ! 5 -23 I , 981-2730B

SWVEEP, San Fernando La%fnion Sanitar-LandfillEl E0

Water supply for drinkiWg(and sanitary purposes would continue to be supqlied from off-site

wells' via' the overland piping system. Ind view of the relatively small water demand, this is

preferred to the establishment of a new well on the site.

Power $upply currently exists at the existing structures at the northwest comer of the site, and

v* would 4e extended elsewhere on the property. It is recommended that upgrading the existing

supply to 3-phase should be considered during the detailed design stage.

5A.5 iSiteDeaf' )mentPhasing - .,

It is proposed to evelop the San Fernando sanitary landrill facility in three phases as described

) s Gbelow, and as illu .ated on Figure 5.13.

1 . :, , ~~~ ~~' :1,1 .. '

- Phase I will consist 'of the south half of the South Cell. This will minimize the area of

engineered cell to be prepared initially, provide a source of on-site construction material and at

the samef,i -lrgalow the commencement of sanitary landflling as soon as possible. It is

y estimaled that Phase I will provide approximately 35,000 cubic metres of air space for

landfilling, wh.lh will correspond to about 1 year of disposal capacity commencing in 2001.

Phase 2 w- onsist of the remaining north half of the South Cell, which will also provide

approximately 35,000 cubic metres of air space for landfilling, which will correspond to about

1.5 to g years Xf disposal capacity for 2002 and until about mid 2003.

PhaseT will 'onsist of the relocation of the mixed waste and soil in the North Parcel into the

southern por tion of the North Cell footprint and the construction and filling of the remainder of

the North '_ell. It is estimated that the volume of material to'be relocated could be of the order

of 55,pr U? cubic metres. This will result in a net air, space in Phase 3 of about 120,000 cubic

metreZ that will accommodate waste disposal for a period of about 4V2 to 5 years, or to the end of

F1 200'1 to nil J 2(8. .; I.-.

The above a .mptions assurie little to no waste diversion. If some 10 to 20 percent diversion

can b+ achievid from the theoretical waste projections without diversion, it will extend the life of

Golder Associates

L

Octob er 1999 I I5 -22 981-2730B-, '511S6WP,SanFernando LaUnionSanitar LandflUEIA1

Stora*e of recyclables will also continue in the portion or tde existing building at the northweste comef of the site. In view of what is really a litnited volume of garbage delivered daily to the

site, and the area limitations, the adoption of mechanized sorting or ctnveyor type systems forinitial dumping and waste picking of collected materials outside the disposal area is not bein'proposed at the site. It is envisaged that the waste pickers be provided with suitable protective

-' ' clothing, gloves, masks and footwear and continue to sort through the garbage on the disposalarea. The regular placement and spre'ding of covpr soil over the garbage adjacent to the active

'7jj { area will provide a place for the- ollection trucks to dump initially and the picking of recyclableitems tb occur; the waste can then be pushed into the active disposal area.

- There is other 'and area available adjacent to the Napocor tower that could be used, for exarnple,for t,he tempor sry storage of suspect hazardous or toxic wastes (until their classification can beconfirmedr X I the appropriate disposal option identified). It may also be necessary to use part ofthis area fc Eockpiling of earth materials for daily cover purposes.

A5.4. Sit I iTrastructure

.The existi. it buildings,tthenorhstcomerwillcontinue to be used for site administrationi ,, | oEc~~~ffies ant ivhicle/equiprnent shelter and maintenance purposes.- Some upgrading of the, , h ! ~~~~~builjiing h 3 .,osed to provide:

23. * One oi- yo toilets and washing facilities for the.site workers. It is noted that the sanitary'effluem: -rom these fixtures can be discharged to the leachate treatment facility, initially byr a viyl) I eand later dire^ ' into the leachate collection s'stem of the adjacent North Cell'

R * gT~~elep: . esystein * Nair I cirical pou%cr cont ol

At ,Calc Ji the siieaccss 'etween the North and South Cells, there will be a 30 tonne weighscale pr.,% id d tugellier ;t' a small scale and load inspection gatehouse structure. This is

_ t! propose d as ma,. s to the site, although when the North Cell is put into operation it%*oulO be p. .si L (to,n .he access point (and the weigh scale) to Gate.#l. Toilet and washing

. FW[facll ies a d cele.h ;m vice would also be provided here.

Goldier Associates

_ _ I ,.=,~ ~~~~~I A'-* ! w r "

October l990 5 - 24 !981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fnando La Union Sa,u'ry-LapdftqEL4

tae pellsby, ,acorrespoding 10 tq 20 percen, or to somet,ime in 2009 and perhaps into 2010. -

-Th ulsaighits the importapce of waste diversion.

The following table summarizes the capacity of the proposed landfill.. The total airspace volume

is that between the proposed bottom and final cover contours. The net airspace volume reflects

the v9 lume to be orocupied by the relocation of matrial in the Nordi Coll, 4s well as the voltime

taken up by the liner, leachate collection system and final cover components.

South Ce' Phase I 3,850 41,000 35 O-)0

ft So4 Cell- Phase 2 5,770 41,000 35,000

No th:Cell- Phase 3 20,400 - 131,500 120,000

l. jE,, , ,, RrTotaEs' 30,020 213,500 190,000

* iE,, ; !Compared to ,the total airspace volume of about 260,000 cubic metres illustrated on Figures 5.2

to 5.5 for tho North Cell, the requirement to relocate about 55,000 cubic metres of mixed waste

and 'il signifi,cantly modifies the configuration of the North Cell (refer to,Figure 5.12) and

reducps the ital airspace volume by about 40 percent to the volume given in the above table.

U*I, 5.4.6; Mat arial Quantities

The devel ai ent of the engineered sanitary landfill will require a combination of both on-site

U. < ' and impo - d -naterials lo construct the various landfill components. These basically consist of

-Si X clay, and'ac - -sate materials. The total quantities of the earth and aggregate materials are as

follo4s; the b cakdown of the materials by landfill Phase is provided in Section 5.6.

I * Tptol siltr Iay for liners, final cover and,general grading 24,000 cubic metres

, iailab' .silt clay fronm on-site excavations 47,000 cubic metres

' Silty c',ay needed from off-site sources : 22,500 cubic metres

* C is'Xed stone for leachate collection system & gas venting 12,600 cubic metresj

A!g gregate for access road construction '': 650 cubic metres

L j - I'!

Golder Assocla .%s;

* U

~~~~~~~~~~ -a

ct orl 1999 5-25 981-2730Br ' V S!,J*EEP, San Fernando La Union SankatyLandfdl Fr

,,The ff-site source of suitable silty clay will have to be located by the City or ste developmentcontractor, and tucked to the site.., During the construction and operation of Phases I and 2

(South Cell) There should be adequate clay soil from on-site eicavaiois; the i nportation of claywill -be required for a portion of the-operations (daily cover) and/or ai portion of final cover ini:E¢ ' Pha4, 3.

GranulAr materials/aggregte will have to be imported from local sources during all three Phases.r The primaay sources of aggiegates are located both to the south and north of San Fernando.

r - H 55 Overview of Site Operations And Managementt Fn ~~~~5.5.i Intrn:duction

In order that the engineered components of the proposed landfill performn as intended to improveC theeraii Zirfiormance of the facility, the level of site manement and operational proceduresmust alsc. 1 iodified and upgraded from those that are appropriate for an Open or Controlled~ij Durr,tpsite; % ich is the historical and currenl situ3t'ion. The proper maintenance, monitoring andoperation ot ie proposed engineered works is cssential in order lo minimize the potential forL F adverse e- v *nmental effects associated "jibh waste disposal on the site. In order tc sene as ademonstr ii project and a posilhe example for other municipalitics, as is the intent of SWEEP,the site niusi :e properly operated during the construction, active and after-closure periods.

L e Following is n overview of the site operatipn and management requirements.5.5.2 S. lanagement

[; gb A high levf .-site and project management is needed in order Lo ensure that c 1 site construclionw%ork and o . ations are undenaken in accordance % ith the project design, sp- ifications and thesite dc%elop I aeit and operations (D&O) plan. As such, it is proposed ihai r Site Mlanager besetected an; app o -ted by the City and given the overall responsibilit) or monitoring theconstructior irga,,3 q and directing.the site development and operations, :nsuring that healthand safery r quiren., are follo%ed and direcling the actihities of othcr site staff Miorespecific. h - dt *f the Site Mianager, partially through designation to other supeinisor)staln, should n.Jude

Colder Associat.

r -C t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

Elfd~/A _irt, s

OctoLier 1999, 5 -261 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union SankrIyCLandfil EL4 'C. EisurigtyatLandfles, sit

*Ensuring that employees, site users, visitors and the general public are aware of the required

health and'safety procedilres to be followed; q nh

, l * iocation of adequate resources of labour and equipment to operate the site;1* Aielquaermin gof staff;.',* Adequate levels of site supervision during site operations;

* Monitoring and enforcement of specific operating and quality assurance protocols;

' Conducting the specified environmental monitoring programs. ensuring that the operations

and overall performance of thesite conforms with the design and environmeiptal regulations,

and undertaking the appropriate corrective actions when and if req4tired.

In regard to the above, It will be necessary to keep complete records of staffing and operational

matters.

'4 - , !It is c,onsidered that Solid,Waste Management could become a separate department of the City,

or ahlerria.vely be.included under an existing department such as the Engineering and Public

Work sr epartmenti*t

5.5,3 ! Site afing,

An adequate number of both skilled and unskilled staff-will be required on 'the engineered

landf 11 she .o ensure that the site is operated and maintained in accordance with the design. The

j numnter of s'La .'may change to some-degree depending on the nature of ongoing activities at the

site. eIf,lh 'ng types and approximate numbers of site staffing are anticipated, nQt including

thoseinivolvec' in material recovery from the collected waste:

' Offlce 5er *inistration (1)- clerical, records and cashier

E i operations and load inspection (2)

* Heavy et -- ntnt operators (2)

* Site geu .ral labourers (2)

e 0* Operat mns superviisor(l)

* Equip lent maintenance - mechanica, and elecirical (1)

* En%';oi menial monitoring iechniciar (I)

* W tchrn .i l or-2):

IJ~ Go:. der Associates

a. I: _E,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

lOctober 1999 5 -27 981-2730B'SWEEP, San Fernando La Union SonitaryLandfil EU (

In iotaV, there could be about 12 or 13 site employees, plus the Site Nfanager. This does notinclude the people involved in the on-site waste diversinrptera recovery,activities. Thenumber of operational staff may be somewhat larger than this, depending on final staffmgrequirements as decided' by the City and the Site Manager or by the needs of the facility in its

:3 various phases Of.-nerations. '..

All taff on the site must be trained to pensure that they fully understand the work that they arefl Alistaff '~mus ' aree t nsr ta te

' I ! required to perf ;n. In most cases, the personnel should.be trained such that they-understand

mor l4ian one assignnrent; this will provide backup to the primary person, and better ensure thatstafr understanis J.e.importance of their job within the overall site operatons. All staff shouldbe pfovided with appropriate uniforms or work clothing and footwear (safety boots, overalls,

X - gloves,, dust r.iasks, hearing and eye protection and safety hielmets).

C 1 , ,,,1 5.5.4 -Healfi and Safety.

.The [activities .ivolved in constru,ction and operation of landfill sites inherently, have certainhazaids due to .he presence of waste materials, the resultant leachate and landfill gas, and the use

r gO of heavy const. uction equipment. Development and strict adherence to a site specific Health andSafety Plan is essential to minimize potential health risks associated with each activity, and

> ' ED , shouid cover di following topics:

* Designatir a of the Site Safety Officer,

r Full detai. 'f safety procedures to be followed on the site;

___ !t. * l Nlecessary Tic and equipment control measures, including backup horns on all vehicles;

* Prescribe r responses to various types of incidents;

.* ppropr late levels of initial and ongoing staff training-and supervision;

-. An ap aopiate frequency of Health and Safety,meetings!with all staff;

* WVas recqrding and dionitoring procedures;

* ln: jection of incoming wastes and.assessment of their acceptability;. . .rT roced-r-s to deal h,iih unacceptable.wastes of various types;

- £1 , * blinim= n sanicarn 'cilifies for staff use;

* Appropriate protect equipment to be worn for the various on-site opiration.d .ctivities;CU Exclusion of smohii , intoxicanLs and drug use on the site;

Golder Associates

X, -.~~A I _ . .__ _ . _.

October 1999 5-28 981-2730B

r.. ! 'SWEFP, San Fernando La Union Sanitay Landfsl ELl

* Suitable on-site communications systems;

* Security measures to restrict access to the site;

* Visitor control and access;

. Health and safety ralated monitoring requirements; and

. Disciplinary actions for not following safety procedures.

5.5.5 Emergency Response

The site acc.ss and on-sile roads are designed to provide all weather travel, and must be

maintained cl - and unobsLrucred at all times for emergency access within the site.

r a

L > > Emergency pi -cedures for dealing with fires, accidents and injuries shall be included as part of

the Opera!ii') -Plan. Procedures must be set out to deal with emergency situations, including the

following

* Regular ning and practice sessions for all sLaIT;

* ReguL. iaison with local City emergency departments and staff, to ensure that all are

familiar vith site access and conditions and x!%e equipment capabilities and procedures of the

others

|. *. * First 1 training of selected staff and designation as first aid personnel;

E K - * Pro' .sion of regularly stocked on-site medical kits and firsL aid materials in all on-siLe

ve' icles and in on-site buildings;

-- * ' -iningofall site staffin the proper use of fire extinguishers;

-. . * frr n , of all on-site personnel in the dangers of high voltage power lines, %hirh the

ass. stince ofNapocor;

l- a .s~ * Sus ion of site actfvities in the event of dangerous situations;

Prc *sion for the upgrading and improvement of procedures; and

b-:' . * F. F ,rding of all accidents and injuries.

5.5 WVaste Reception

In . sdance with the requirements for the operations-of modem sanitary landfills, all malerials

de zd to the site for processing in the recyclincomposting area or for disposal in the landfill

CC' -J11 be weighed at the scale, inspected as to their suitability and recorded.

l .. Golder Associates

L

l l~~~~__ -4w

* ' ' |-f I October 1999, 5 - 29 1 . 98t-2730BSWEEI San Fernando La Union SanilayLaadfdl EL4

Weighing and inspwtion-of the incoming material uill ensure that only suitable types are

accepted at the si. Tbe Acceptance of unaccepabaeelmate ,canresultinadversecnvironmental ,effee n te-ms of worker health and safety, lea treatment, gas emissions orexplosion. In .addt .. Lo.publj; education as to the 1typesqf,waste that re acceptable, the-

I . following procedtre are proposed when materials are received at the site. !

" I; F: t, ' .. Q One veigh :c- ejust'inside theentrancegateto recordthe material,tona received. This

- will prefer-lEy - automated/compulerized such that the weight, type and t sporter of thewaste are recor ' d. When appropriate, any'fees would'also be 'collected at this point and

recorded; ! ,'Li- *-. Insp*ction ' ch load 'to check acceptability- a levate gatry orm iatqvatod. g lntry rm associaed

- I --. with fiesc.ai-," o-s-e fay be beneficial for this purpose, '

.A sreoc.was t cmporary-holding area until 'any testing is complete and a decision.made asII1to the finai'dc .notion of the material;'

* Suitable sarr sling protocols and test,kits for eptnmT types of waste materials.

i '' 1..F F1'' '' 'I''' ' " '''' ii Waste gene aor: bhu1Cri rilltbe required to provide the site. with advance notice of their

'propqsedl ielivery of 4dfficult or special waste materials that-may require spedial ppovision for- - 1 receipi, indlir -nd disposal. If any of these types of wastes require testing, they shall remain

, attl source unt after the required testing'is carried out. Only if acceptable %ill they then beF b ought to 'hr 1k lill site. Any unaccepuble wastes received (such,as hazardous, liquid or bio-

-edical wastes) sIiall remain in a temporary. storage location pending instruction from DENR. -

The -ultimia ,e, onsibility for disposal' of uastes that' are''unacceptable for disposal or,- . tFjF2. " .'l i .+ F !:. ' t:J J i ' I 'reprocessin aatthe, .z Femando facility rests iih the owvner or generator of the waste.

5.5.7 1 nste Deposil iohi in the Landfill I ' IL~. ,F I 'F As desc:i d, e tile .! ll be-de 14eloped in'LIhre Phases. Within each Phase, the waste will be

t _ ' placed *.1 .ells e acti%e operating area. The active operating.area is,determined to a

;-large' de£ by the p iysical area needed for safe site equipment imanoeuvers and operations, but4 1, should ' e kept a small as possible to minimize potental, odours and other, nuisance

renvirorr ienial issue;. This will'be controlled by the waste.spotter utilizing adequate signage

and ma- .ers to designate access joutes and direct the collection trtcks to the active area.

. ' 1 ''" i ' f '' 'd rS c ' ' .aiI9J ,, !' }j 'F dolder Associateis'i"I ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ __-s!

,.,,__ I... __.'' . .. ,_Wi. -. -U_-

I~~~~ ~ 'I j

Octobci1999 5-30 981-2730B ' l

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sani!ar' Landfill AL4

It is propsed to place,theawaste in each Phase in layers. Thbe initial lift must be placed to ensure

that the leachate collection and liner system is not disturbed. No equipment will be allowed-to

E -travel direct,ly op;the.collctionlayer.' Immediately prior to-placement of the 'first lift, the non-

woven geotextile will be pliced over the gravel and the geotextile seams overlapped at least 450

* I3 | mm in the downgradient direction from which the waste will be spread. Any bulky or large

items should be exclqd6d1from the first lift, which should be about 1.5 to 2 nletres in thickness,

-i and spread by a bulldozerlcompactor operating on pto of the waste. The placement of waste in

this initial layer should be monitored elosely in order that any, suspect problems can be identified

immediitely and appropriate corrective action taken. l

Each layer of ww&e hould be dumped.initially onto an area where soil cover has been placed

adjacent to the active area, in order tha recovery of recyclable items can take place. The

residual waste woul then .b pushed into the disposal location. Each layer shall be compacted

using a large steel-l heeled landfill compactot. ThorVugh compaction of each layer is essential

to optimize the uSf, of the available air space. The number of passes over each layer depends on

the weight/size of vompa tor. The greatest degree of compaction is achieyed by ramping the

new waste up ag.:i. an initial waste s of lifts is significanit in that the use of

too thi¶k a lift wil .esult in an unacceptably low degree of;compaction, while too thin a lift wvill I

result in; the exc&v :ive use of cover material. A reasonable ii.t thickness once above the initial

lift is aot 1.2 to 1.5 metres. After compaction, and at the end of each day, the waste must be.

* p covered with'a ci. 'y cover soil layer having a nominal thickness of 'I SO mm. The daily cover

could cansist oi on-site or' imported soil, incoming suitably sized construction/demolition

y ' , materiales compc t street sqeepings. o

The proposed site velopment %%ill result in the placement of garbage in a mound above the

surrounding -and are In this regard, there is the potential for blo%%ing litter to occur. The use

of a portal .e 'itier f -a dqo nwind of the acti%e disposal area is suggested to cortrol liner and

minirm' % zin lb .vnj ebris; regular checking for and pickup or litter (on-site and ofl-site) will

be p. rto'on Oli g site Jpera3ions.

The occurrenice of the rain) season requires certain measures to be undertaken so that collection

vehicles can tlinue to access the disposal arei. In areas %%here filling' h3s been lemporaril)

suspended, * ni ,, rim cover of at least 300 mm of cover soil should be placed and compacted. It

Golder Associates1 | !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1: Q "~~~~~~~~~~-

October 1999 5 - 31 981-27308SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfII EL4

rmay also;be necessary to construct Lemporary gravel access roads to the active disposal areaunder wet weather conditions. lp adlition, all storniWater ditching and deLenLion ponds should

L fl be cleaned out and all mainten3rnce of the lezchate pu.nps completed prior to the onset of rainyseason.

,

5.5.3 Equipment .

Site equipment for handling/disposal of waste and monitoring can be summarized as follows:

Landfill Operations - One bulldozer (CAT D6 or equivalent)- One landfill compactor(CAT 816 or equivalent); - One dump truck (ror moving of daily cover soil, compost, etc.)- One four wheel drive pickup trucl- One front end loader (CAT 95OFor equivalent)

Leachate Handling: - Four in-service leachate pumps- One backup generator set (40kVA)- Mliscellaneous tcols

IL :Landfill Monitoring: - air qua!ity monitoring equipment (.:ombustibles, oxygen, hydrogen sulphide)- noise meter- water level indicator- groundwater and treated leachate sampling equipment, pH, dissolNed

ox% gen, temperature and conducti% ity meters

5.5.9 Operai inral Practices

Proper operatit practices are essential to protect the etmvironment and minimize potentialoadvrsc effect, on-site andioff-site. These include the control of such nuisances as noise, dust,,odours, p L. birds, litter, and fires. Although it will be necessaty for developing specificpractices f.r vach of these as part of the Developmepit and OperaLions Plan, the approach to*R L dealing wit:i the can be generally summarized as follo%ws:

* Use or. .I: . interin and final co%er niaterials;

;* Ninimiii.34 ,IfLhesizeoftheacti%edisposalarea;

I ' - * Site security icing;

i Portable lIst encing;

* Accep:ance fonly solid non-hazardous residential wastes;

Golder Assoclates

_ _

|| OctobeiN999,; !5 31 981-2730B'' X i -SWWI ?SanFernandoLaVUnion Sanitary LandfilEL4

* Proper opratior of ihe composting operation, especially the acceptance of only fruit and

vegetable wastes and yard wastes;

* Application of insecticides and pesticides when and if needed;

* Regular cleaning of mud, etc. from the on-site access roads;

E* Application'of dLst"control'during dry weather;

* CoveriAg ofstockpiledimaterials;

rogrcssivc placement of the'firal cover and vegetation as disposal areas are completed to

finail gradesl;a 1AO

*Regularsit inspections and the taking of immediate action when any problems are observted to

5.6 Ijnplexnentation Plan

i sThe implementation of the San Fernando engineered sanitary landfill project wiTl be carried out

~ t *,in a umber;o steps,as follo%s: Project Documentation, Approvals and Design; Construction;

Operatips, sad;, Closure and Postolosure Care.

I: The protect documentation, approvals and design step includes the folloving main components:

, Successful appraisal of the proposed project by the DENR and the World Bank;

* '- ' tI*suance of an ECC by DENR review of the El-and FS by NEDA and issuance of

ICC Clearance;

' I Approval of the loan;

r * ioprnent'of contractual arrangements and bid and tender documents; and

CDt 'led final design, engineering drawings and specifications. I

It is anticipated ,. ,at the above components will be completed part way through year 2000 such

that construct . a . n commence in 2000 and the engineered landfill is available to receive waste

- in the early par e ,f 200 1.

i . I, .

As previously de .ribed in Section 5.4.5 the facility will be developed in three phases, with the

first phtse inco poiating a large portion of the basic site infrastructure as well as the -hase I

m aste disposal -11. The projecied schedule for construction and the period or operation ,or each

phase ofrthezs-.e II.; :rovided belowv:

Golder Assaciates

-W 41g

-; October 1999 I 5-33 ' 981-2730B .* SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary La = D;,

, ; ~~~~~~Phase I (SouthCell) , 2000 , 2001-2002 Phase 2 (Sput4 Cell)' 2001 2002-2003

,. Phase ast Relocation) 2001

Phase 3 (North Cell) ' 2002-2003 '2003-2008

Note: with the achievement| I of 10 to 20 percent diversion,

it is expected'ithat the': ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~operational peridd will 4

extend into2010-

The construction of Phase I will not interrupt the disposal of waste at the site, since disposal will' continucein the exi:sting dump site until Phase I is ready to receive waste. 'iecommendations for

short term improev3ments to.the operations at the existing sitejto facilitate implementation of, li Phase 3 are provid'! J in Section' 8.2 ofthis report.

.

, ' ' |' '' ! ' / ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ,

The clospire of ea.- phase of the landfill will take place after it has reached its final contours,such that IPhase 1 *1 be closed during the initial operational period of Phase 2, and similarly forr 1 ! Phase 2 during th* nitial operational period of Phase 3. The poSt-closure and aftercare activitieswill therefore be p ,gte sisely phased into site operations during the active life pf the overall

* | j waste dclposal faci v, and,then continue as the responsibility of the City after Phase 3 has beenfilled. The ,mai. aflarcare activities include' ongoing leaclnate management and treatment,landfill. as ma'..agemient, inspection and maintenance of the final cover and monitoring of ;,groundwater,',.urface we ' Jerfornance of the treatment facility. ,

5.7- tstimated Costs f ProposedProject

j ~; Therc are two main cc .nponepits that form the tot1 l investment cost to the City for theimplementation of this I roject, namely the ,apital cost which includes the proposed works and

Lv - ; I the,costs-ofiimplem n d ion of*the Resettlenieni Action Plan (RAP), and the operational costs. Abudgiary estmateof :ie capitai cosis of the conceptual design.as proposed and,described earlierin this section is pre yided in Table 5.1 in both US and Philippine pesos. Table 5.1 provides the

I.~~

;

Golder Associates AL

U-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii'. _____,________

October 1999 5 - 34 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill E1A

estimated total cost of the major items, including materials and site equipment (as described in

Section 5.5.8), using estimated quantities and unit prices b,sed on a combination of government-r1 Spublished construction prices and contractor bid pricing in the Phtilippines (in 1999 prices). It is

-- noted that the prices for site equipment and an additional garbage truck are based on

reconditioned (rather than new) equipment. In additior are the costs of the detailed engineering

L , desigp and construction management/Qualir) AssuFance monitoring. These capital costs are

considered eligible for the World Bank loa,n.

The costs for implementation of the RAP are taken from the detailed surveys presented in

rl ;=Appendix Mi, and consist of two parts- the portion funded independently by the Cit) and the

portion cligible for inclusion in the World Bank loan amount.

r 41da A summary of the estimated capital costs of the proposed project is provided in the table below:

Summary or Estimated Costs (U.S. S)

- Componet, .; ,4- *e Id

A. Capital \\'orks (including site N.'A

equipment and collection truck) 1,897,000

Contingency (I 00/D) 189,700

Subtotal 2,086,700B. i.DDetailt d Engineering

. fDesign(l151 ofA.) 313,005

' * - ii. Constr *:tion Management N/A

, I and QA t .ofA.) 20P.670e 8 Subtota! 521,67526

_ C. RAP n ilenientation 3,650 106 30t;

-(includic.g . § contingency) _

TOT, 'OTIMMATED COST S2,612,025 I S! 6,000

T'he estiniat.d sits o`site operations include the salaries of on-site emploLe including the Site

hianager. . 'n tistrative expenses, utilities, direct operating and mainten: ice costs of on-site

equipment. ni itenance of site infrastructure, site monitoring programs (3f ±escribed in SectionI I

9), the mulip .ite monitoring Leam (NINIT- refer to Section 10), ex. t ate technical advisor,

I insurance . .d epreciation. One of the most significant operational c. its if f;.r an expatriate

technical advi r (refer to Section 10) which during at least the initial p :iod could be 1/4 to 1/3

Golder Associates

'a,.

1K

JOctober1999 - 5-35 981-2730BSWJ.EP, San Fernando La Uition Sanilary Landfill EJ°

of the itotal annual operatng hosts. The estimated -cost of site operations and management isSUS 145,000 (P5,800,000) per annurm. Based on an average waste generation of 13,500 tonnes-ofwaste :per year frwi the served area of the! City,- the operational cost corresponds to aboutSUSI 0.75/tonne (P4 A/onne). Depending on the method of implementation of the project, as .

l- (I discus ed in SecLion 9, there could be variations in operational cost.

As noted in Secti,n. 5.3.5, c tere. will also be ongoing cosis to the City:for ope r tions,maintenance and Jnonitoring after the site stops receiving:waste, and is 'closed. It is estimated

,that tW-annual '). *-closure costs culd be in the mnge of P2,000,000 to 4,000,000 (US$50,000, rn * to 100;000); ass c, 4Id be required until the landfill leachate and gas generation-is stabilized (for

aperiid ofiseveral ens ofyears).

5.8 Summar of Key Isues

The kIey issues r f the proposed engineered sanitary landfill construction, operations and closurefor Saa! Feman jo can be summarized as follows:

. , , ., ~~~~~I , ,- E -

i* lle elements ofmodaem sanitary landfills: as set out in D1O 98-49 have been evaluated

in the context of their'applicability to the specific setting and circumstances of the San.D!Fernando site, and a site-specific facility design proposed that, when properly operated,L ;vil achieve an acceptable levei of environmental performance;

L e * The bln Fem;ando project site comprises a total land area of 5.8 hectares, consisting of

* . the 3.5 hectare existing disposal site (the North Parcel) and the adjoining 2.3 hectares tothe south (South Parcel). This will accommodate the disposal cells, leachate treatment

' - . l - aTnd storrnivate.: anagement facilities and ecological waste management area. n 'The site will be developed progressively in three Phases of engineered landfil cells, the

development of which will require the rehabiltation of' the existing dumpsite by'i relxating the existing mixed waste and soil onto la designated area of tl,e site. The

, active life of the landfill is estimated to be about 8 and up to 10 years, depiending on ther : , -actual waste generation rate and percentage of waste diversion thlt can be achieved;

,-','The site is locate4 on sloping topography and is underlain by about 4.5 to 6.5 metres ofisveathered clay soil transitioning into shale bedrock. The subsurfac:e conditions are

| -| - | ~~~considefed favourable fo'r landrill deyelopmlent;'

Golder Associates

n g,

_ _ _ _ _ __ I@ '1'

October 1999 5 - 36 981-2730B

_ SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EtA

The site design muit ensure thl stability of the foundationis of Napocor tower #21 on the

South Parcel- for inal design purposes it will be necessary to confum the tower

found tion details and cqfirmn the required setbacks;,

* I The proposed facility design utilizes a compacted clay liner and granular leachate

t' | .' , collection system to control potential adverse effects on groundwater and surface water.

A clay soil final coyVer with vegetation is proposed for the waste disposal cells. On-site

leachate treatmeDt and passive landfill gas venting are proposed to control environmental

'tpacts from the Isposal cells;

| ' U; ! * ' Iriprovements tc the site management and operational procqdures are proposed in order

that the site fuictions and its performance is monitored efficiently and effectively in

accordance wida modem landfill practices; and

* '- Thire will e: a rdquirement Ifor the City to operate and/or maintain the leachate

collection a,rd treatment works, the stornwater management facilities and the final

vegetated c e. surface for at least several ters of years after the site stops receiving

X . i, waste.

I *, The estimated *,ital cost of the project, including the works and implementation of theI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IRAP, is $US, .718,025 (P108,721,000).: The annual operating costs are estimated at

$US 145,000 (' '5,800,000). It is estimated that the annual post-closure costs could be in

thj range.of ' _ 0,000 to 4,000,000 (US$50,000. to 100,p00), and could be required

uiitil the Ian 1ill , achate and.gas generation is stabilized (f6t a period of several tens of

ye ars). 11

* } . ~~~~~~~~~~~~I . t,l~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ .I,1 '- -,IQ

. .' ,, ,1 I 11

L . , * .E.

Golder Associates

" . ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ' I '

L 0: b- -tJt- -i i - ., An. . _V

JwAM~X;

October 1999 6- I 981-2730B 0!7 SWEEP, San Fernando La Unitn Sanitory Landfill EU

6.0 DESCRIPTION OF TME EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Key Site Characteristics

The description of the existing environment is based on the results of a comiprehensive baieline 4data collection program. The data collection covered the proposed site and its immediate

vicinity, as appropriaLe (refer to Figure 6.1). Where appropriate, some of the baseline data wasan" pcollected beyond this locale.

I

.-. -y :

As noted in Sectc -. 3.5, the proposed sile comprises the existing dump siLe and a parcel of landto the south of th; dump site (refer to Figures 3.2 and 5.1); the total area of the proposed site is

approximately 5. ha.

; I The baseline .i& i collection was based on the results of Cie sccping process (refer to Section

* 1.4); partic. .ay, the issues raised during public consultation and the "N1WST' criteria agreed

upon with th; r .4R and the EIARC (refer to Scoping Report, Appendix B). Also, the datacollection v. - ssigned to be compatible with the design of the proposed engineered landfillfacility, and t .-t the recommendations of the DENR Scoping Guidelines and the World BankL L requirements * ed to sanitary landfill projects.

In particular. to data collection focused on the following environmental characteristics as theyinfluence or a -ifluelnced b) the proposed landfill development:

I) Physical E' .. ai nment:

. * Jet gy;t

- :i and Land LIse:

* H! -aogeology and Groundwater Qualiry;

mo I >, drology and Surface Water Quality;

e Air Quality.

Noise: and

i_ -D ~~~~~~~~Traffic.

_ ~ J ,Golder Assoclat 5*s

f 7I:sl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ' J

- - - - &s|sr-|,| r - u .. - .

October 199 6 - 2 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EI.

2) Biological Environment

mn I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

* Flora and Fauna. I

3) Human Environment

* Socio-economic Profile of San Femando;

* Perceplion Survey; and

* Survey of Affected Populafion.

1EX - A description of the Agreed Upon issues and impacts, and studies to be undertaken is presenited

in M1atrices I and 2 of the Scoping Report (mefer to Appendix B).

6.1.2 Collection of Baseline Data and 1a:oriaution

A comprehensive baseline data collection program was implemented from Februar) to June,

1999. This program included both primary and secondary data collection.' Where appropriate,

the data collected from the secondary sources u%as verifiedlaugmented with the data collected

from the primary ources. A summary of this program is presented belou .

Environmei t . BaselinellPrimnary) Data'CoUectedl, , Ref - -

- .~~~~~. .~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 4' t~~~~~~.V~~ .,,E- '~

Physical:

Geology Drilling of five boreholes, and excavation of one test Sect on 6.4I9 i .| pit.w';J Soils and Land I - Site reconnaissance survey and mapping. Se :ion 6.5

Hydrogeolog; 2 Installation of monitoring wells in the five boreholes; Se .ion 6.7;

L" Groundwater Monitoring for groundwater levels and quality in

* 31 Quality these wells. In addition, monitoring of water quality

in six water supply wells in the immediate vicinitv..

Hydrology ar.. Site reconnaissance survey and mapping of drainage !ction 6.6

Surface Wate conditions. MIonitoring for surface water quality a.

Quality the closest (one) downstrearn location.

Air Quality Ambient air qtiality mornitorirg (or suspended .ection 6.10

particulate at six locations; in addition, methan:

_concentrations %ere moniored at site at 20 locatio:-

* Noise Qualir) Ambient noise level monitoring at six locations. Section 6.9

Golder Associates

- - - - - .. r~fl

.. U.-._I

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~051 TABLE 5.1

Summary of Capital Costs

A. ect Proposals 7 1.| . ^ ~~~1. Excavation antd S;te Clearing; 277,0001 1],080,0i)K . 12. LandfW Cover Svstem . 171,000 6,840,000

3. Pelocation of Ex4zing Waste 243,000 9,920,0004. Roads (On-site) 69,000 2,760,0005. Stormwater Man i.-ment Svstem 81,000 3,240,0006. Buildings, Struch -es and Utilities 235,000 9,4u0,0007. _ _ _7achinerv 141,000 5,640,0008. Leachate Cofle. i :,>stem (Drainage Blanket) 533,000 21,320,000

- S 9. Leachate Extracti Ti System 80,000 3,200,00010. Landfill Gas (LPF System 6',000 2,4S0,000

Sub-Total of Project Proposals 1,897,000 75,880,000__________________ Contingenc (10%) 1897008,

Total Cost of Project Proposal 2,086,700 83,468,000 ,

B. Contract Manager c i ' i1. DetaUed Engi- .ng Design, . 313,005 12,520,200

15% of Projec ' oosals Cost[ - W (iiiclud1ing si: i ztifigations and techrdcal support) ,_i2. Construction. .;agement and Supenrision, 208,670 8,346,800

10% of Project )posals Cost :_:3 Cost of RAP 109,650 4,386,000

Sub-To 3f Contract Management and R 631,351 25,253,000]r ~_ _ R A_I'L TOTAL PROJECT COST 2,718,025 10S,721,000

Es! zva.ed Net Site Capacity (Tlonnes) 125,000 125,0001 '3 Investment Cost per Tonne 21.74 870

Golder Ass'ociates

L _ _ _ _ _

t_ , ' !, _ I

~~~ ____,-,_. .. .* .--,_

_ . _ __ ,' '. -. __ _ __._ 1.

|EV.,IO-TER 4 DA T _ EARIWNO DRAWN CHECKED REVIEWSCALE PROJECT SANITARY LANDFILL - -

SAN FERNANDO, LA UNIONPROJECT 2812730e - PHIUPI. -,

DESIGN SHEET 1tl-,

DRAWN MM. AUG.

8 -. CHECK PAS CROSS SECTIONS -.; r _ . REIEW . _ * -

- .wm

_ .F E

K -FIGUREIJO

;~~ ~~~ -~ - A&., ciates- -- 5.-> .--W N . :Mr-i

.

L-A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-j

_ _ .. -- . ._ .x .~ .

*~ ~ ~ - § Lil- 1 Ln I L¢

D02. 08 as 01 09 09 Ov 0c DZ 0M a

Cc

9*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ l

DO; oe OB OS.~- NO9 OS 8ot t I D

_.-----r P - ~ -Z --- ......................... ....

C. 0~.0.2. C, 8 0 9 0 _~ O, ; 0,._ -0

... 'S; mS ~~~~~~-------, .......... 0i

,,.'.....i',,,,,,,,,, ,o ...... .... ........... .. ...... ....$ ............ ' .,,,, ,t .............. ..... ..j...0...... ....... . --'--_----- ........... ............... - , o

.--- ---------- i ----- - ------------- ------ ------ ------------ 0

. . ..... . ............... .. .. . ' . .. ..... . ... .. .. ....- .. .. ..-.-------..--. so OL

MDNOUD:)3 S8OXiD

Tiamna HllION

o£n On q A OOL 0o oe 0402. 09 os t O OZ 0 O

'*1 . . . 0

. e - **1''* . S ' '

... ''.R:'''"'---'*r-->;--s .............. ... .... .......... I--- ............. ..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. . E 0. ............. S t a

. i~~~~~~-- -- t--- ; ; - ----- -- 1- ot

-x- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ------ ---.-- ......... ....... n..i...

-091

.TRi NOXIDgS SSOYdD

9rr' 40r Sz; 09& Sr 0 9L O9 9z O

YIIOZV ..~O ______....... . ... .. ... .. .. ... .. ..... . .. ..... ... .. --- ----- ---- -----~---- n-- ---------- 7 SZ................ ........................ ...... .............. %i:, . .... ............ .... .. . or:

... .,,;;.

o6

... ''''''' o ...... .......I.. .... ..... .. ..

. ....... -- -.............................. ..... 09!

111,1 ; .......... ........... -

... .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . ...... .=...... . .. ........

_ s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 1--5-

t~~~~~~~~ ;g 0e 99 as 9P, or GE osDe s .S aS

... - s .....d

.. . . ... . . .------------

O z

j , ', TI' :a: I I-L',IOS

. _ ' ==1-, .... ~~~~................ ....... ....... . cco

,,,:-................................ --- -- ....... ...... ....................... e, ._ ...... _ ' SC

, ,_ .~ , ,, 0= U o- ,

4..... ....... ------- ----,--- ..... -------- ''''' ......'' -- ' - t-S

.............. . t _._ . t ..... --

Tl±IaNvI Hlulnos

Drd 0a 09 h)YI5m oco OS 0 o,

* ._ < RiSt.

~~~~ .OL

. ,t~~~~~~~~~~~iN0L1Ds SSO1lD........... I....I ItiflO S

. . . = -G a a > ̂ -^ ~~~~~m, n_ . -Mrzl a o- ,i'.l-27j3b/AC%D/rGU-6 Oh%G AUG. go

* -~. ._ w -~ P\RETERCE0j% ~ ~ ~ .

*!. .. Y. .'- . =.LLEcT ,,

F(R. __N DEP0-. m

10.0m SIDES 2H:iV

SECTION W -W'

_ . .- _g WETLAIN/DEtrEN1ONPOND ii x- ' J * - - /7W8PI Sl'>ly3E ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VOLWME

<--- . . . |_- t /sU ~~~~~~~~~~MAtMUMINATERLEvgYM/

_ 1 ..

. . , - ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~40.0m *.SEC*ION X-X' -

1:200 SANITARY LANDFILL9812730 B SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION

.1 _ 4KS.--- T`YPICALSURtACE WATERMANAGEMENT CROSS SECTIONS

- q rAuNg~ | FIGURE 5.6

71

l~~~~~~~ -~ E

L;nEi O.tI1U/Ih/ti-2731Cb 7ACA /O.DwG AUG. l9

- I.- ACCESS -F .

''_~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AC8 ,,,D --,-X r

".w j *I -II*o ....T

SIDE SLOPES 4H IVDEPTH .M -1

-.CM

_ -a 1~ ia. -7 .O nm t o -1 2 . mr 4 .O m

SECTION Y-Y'

tOAD . *SFEIZMETER CE

F-Pi;ij~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IE . W4H: IV|I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DEPfl4 1omi ;5t ,, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~16.5m_

SECTION Z-Z ;

_ : 2N 0 SANITARY LANDFILL

F ~ oaH1-30 B SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION

."'I r § TYPICAL SURFACE WATER

U! . 1 NV MANAGEMENT CROSS SECTIONS

PWAINO-

M M- t | ^ | | FIGURE 5.7r-IzIz'j

i * ir -

: & A .Ž'.. ., .. .. _

- m * Ca X1 GMtMhO1ONLAYU 134 AU' 537 -- S 92w

, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ... . ... .. -.. ... ... .... .. . .... .. ... .

r -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3-

-- .ACKET ,a ni-n a _ SAN F L U NIOa .,-- -.- - - - - . - - G- E- 5-

.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - - _. - .. '. '".- ' - - '' - - - - - - ' ' - -. '- - - .- - - .' ' ' , - - - ' .- . . . . . . . . . . ......................... - '. __ - , - -

! . -~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~- -- - - - - - F r ; w = = =--- - --- ----= -=-==--=-- - \ \ \ \,._ i gS t , . _ _~~~~~~- - - ----- ==- - - - -- -' - -

k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 12 .. .1 1t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SNTR LAN_ _ |m DFILL- _ j - _ w-b "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~91-27 |_ SANFERADO, LAUNION_ ,

| 1 i l ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-1T PCLOTMLNER-

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kr .~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ _ __ .S.C.I..

-~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - (

~~_ -- - ,_ _ ,_ - _ a -J~

nm o.mr n./33/i51-173b/ACAD/5-I.0nW AUOM . -. -" _

c- .;. ; - VACWUUf ELECTRICAL POWV CONTPOL PANEL

'. - --........ . .:BREA V \ , .. Am' - 5 ' _ fAgRRELASAE \ .,kRAVEL COLLECTION LAYE

4M0E mmE RSER CH.ASINUIL A ,S .AR R O.TOaXT .- . . .

.42-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

-ISCWIJA PUMP(W--.P.lY cJwELECTRKCAL ECLAYORNER

... . 2 . , CONNECTlON AND LEVQSENO0R - 4

- -I _ -r. . ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~N.T.S 8ANITJARY LANDhILLr

! . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ^"wi-o B 8AN FERNANDO. W&UNION-

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 .~ . . "'ii iWfKTIYICAL LEAC8ATE SUMP __k PUMciP t ANDPUMPSET-LP

_SQUARExIDISCHARGE . (E6 FIGURE 5.9

t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 mm- DO. H .D

_~~~~ . .- r .- '..--.-.- . -- - - r -- - - -- 1 --

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SMRSRm

J -- -

i~~~~~~ -- - Isi~ kA~dL3 L PLE! O.CnLc/.0/9f1-273Ob/Ae D/rICS-IO.D.r AUG. to

v i |fm VArm Vgm

3r- gLE-CHP"-iiLET

-~ CONC-RET FACING aL 1: A Iobo ,agNT N< . r/ / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ON LAGCON SIDE LOPS EL 2 F =nNORTH

3 CELL 3: Polg Lego

._ ., , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~CLAY UNER AND BERMASUGOS- / .¢

*~~~~~~~~~~3 O.3m.Ifl -HIC -CO(-' C1EZj/

; . . - ~~~~~~BOD: 2000mg/I 1000mglLI . 500mg/IL 200mgIL *10Omg/L. Z | . ~~~~REMOVAL: 50% 50% 60%C S0% - -.

. ._; ~~~~~DETENTION TIME: IB1days I 18days | IBdayd J 38day8 - I

r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~RAMN PRCS PAAETR SECTION V-CC-ESSw..

^ v 91 27g30 B | El{WNW, tA2UNION

b ! D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Th ROS ElOTIUGH CELL I . g . 2 -PROPOSED LEACHATE TREAXM SYSTEM F

_ . . . . _ I . . sl~~~~~~~~~316 j I _ I G B FIGURE 5.10 e~~~~~~~~~~CLL .~ ~~~~~~ 3 OUTFLO

~ . . r . . ..

. z ,ffl1 -Mil i3 W=}- , z WD . XwS Sm ,223 , i,:! ,~L.m f.~ E: AA .; iL*A-S 9 i

___ ii fJ]!l. 1_ -f

1,^ rS;Wil 101~ il

-- _,.12 -7- !

.,.~ ~~lii I. li MM_ _ _ n _ ._ _ _ .. ...-

I LO

rsw otCfLE/I9's1 l-273Ob/.ACD/s1-2.WAiC -AUO.

U. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-fROIPVUD -. -

I U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o

lp~ 0-1W CiY FOA

± 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....

. ............U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~................

I ~~~~~~~~~8?UMo8oL~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....

-u-i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... .....

.............. ........ 1.... .. N.... Y. LAN......................... 0 8 . AN.F.NAN.O..L..UNIO

.......... .........~~ CHMAICSETIN hR UGU~~~~~- -- - ha w WJL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........ ..ThCEL.. H SE3.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

. ..... FIGURE .5.12

PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PHASING FIGURE 5.13

PHA.SE3

AREA FOR RELOCATEDI

PROPOSsitED MIXED Ot)END 8OL /

_, ! Q ~ 7CE . )

| -_,. ! / : / -

SOUTH CO¶I~.PHASE 2 jQ ! * * | | / / ~~~~~PHAE I

.SCALE 1:2500

| fliS DRAVWNG IS 10 BE Rr. CO4NJ IOt t .A.OPW a. I

WJ W| I r- _ ........ __ .. ==__ ..............Chkd

r~~~~~~~ -

October 1999 6 - 3 981-2730B

n . " . z SIVEEP, San Fernando La Union Saniiary Landfill EL4

Traffic Categorized trafTic counts at two locations on the Section 6.11proposed principal haulage route to the site.

Biological:

Flora and Fauna Obsyrvation. and ~recording of. floia and fauna in and Section 6.8adja~ent to, the site: Identification of threatened

_______ .__.__._ species and sensitive habitatsS . Hutman:

Socio-economic Secondary data available from the City, supplemented Section 6.12Li t1Prorile of San with interviews wfith key informants.

FemandoPerception Surv. , Systematic household interviews covering between 10 Section 6.12

- 25% of residents near proposed project and onaccess roads near project site, complemented bygeneral public consultation process and Focus Group

.t . Discussions in Barangay and San Femando.

Survey of. d In-depLh suney of 100°,o of identified popularion Sefti,n 6.12PopulaLion directl) affected by the project. House-to-house

interviews. Conducting of market surve> and. s1 interviews to determine local replacement value for

lost assets.

EJ _ :The majority ci ae secondary b3seline/background data v%as provided b) the DENI and the Cir)

P--i of San Fernand . La Union. In addition, the information obtained from the %aricus agencies in

the Philippine; d Lhe observations made during the site visits (Mlay, 1998 to J ne, 1999) ha%e

been used, wt : ieEF?ropriate (for complete List ofl Information Sources, refer to .ppendix C).

CL -- 6.2 Tlt e Project Site

6.2.1 egional Setting

The '.iry of San Fern3ndo is situMted about '70 kilonietres north-north%. :,t of Mletro-Nlan,3,

- - (re er to Figure 1.1). It stretches along a portion of the shoreline of L nga)en Gulf and v an

ern2ndo) Bay on the u%est (refer to Figure 1.1). Along the City's .3 .tern boundaries lie -he

i municipilities of Bagulin and Naguilian (refer to Figure 3.1); to .ards the south is the

municipality of Bauang. Ahile to the nonh is the municipaliv, of San Ja nri.

Golder Ass.. Oates

T. P

i e * ,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 6 -4 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Uion Santary Landfill EL4

The City is approxiinately 60 kilometres to the west of Baguio City, about 135 kiloinetres south

of Vigan; and about 210 kilometres to the south of Loag (refer to Figure 11.).

The City comprises rifty-nine (59) barangays and accowts for 10,2 hectares of land in the

Province of La Union, representing more than 12% of the province's total land,area. Of the 59

barangays, 24 are presently considered urban, while the rest are cot sidered rural. About 20

barangays are found within the coastal plains, while the rest are found In hilly and mountainous

terrain east of the poblicion i

- 6.2.2 Topography and LT-udscape

The present built up area, w*iich sprawls along the valleys of seven hills that dominate the sights

of the Down towards t4,e e, st, is sandwiched between two barriers. Along the City's eastern

boundaries are thq f,opthili.; of the Cordillera Mountain Range. Bodies of water (mainly the

South China Sea) lie to the -vest.

The major landforms in the area include (referto Figure 5, Appendix C):

* A coastal plaiii ihaL ocCUl i abouL one-fourth (X/4) of theitotal land area;

* !Arugged easternm interior formed mainly by narrow north to south trending hills and

mountainis;', and'

* Inland valleys incised by 3 ilel lined mountains and drained by creeks and streams.

The last two lanc'f. -usocci. , i.he remaining three-fourths h/4) of the City's area.

The coastal plaia is widest .i the northwest quadrant and narrowest at the center where the

poblacion is locaf ed. Towa ds the midwest is a peninsula that protrudes into the sea forming

Poro Point, proy.ding the sQuthern enclosure of the arch-shaped San Fernando Bay (refer to

E Figure 3.2.).A total of abelut 5,2. inectares or 43% of the terrain in San Fernando has a slope of about 18%;

appraxiimale'y 3,300 hec,tares or 27% has a slope of between 18% to 25%; and about 3,500

hectares or 29% of d . t land area has greater than a 25% slope.

Golder Associates

ri@

. 41-7'._

I g~ .,E~ Sw F..ad 6- . 98-70October 1999 981-2730B

''I' $WEEP,SanFernandoLa Unidn Saniary LandflLU Wl

.6.23 i Site Reconnsissaince

X " 11The eisting municipal solid waste disposal site (existing dump) has been in use for about two

years (refer to Figure 3.2 for' location). It is comprised of approximately a 3.3 hectare fenced

parcel of land with a concrete access road from the City..' .

As noted above, the proposed site consists of the existing dump site and a parcel of land adjacent

to it. A brief description of the site conditions observed during the various site reconnaissance'

visits conducted between May, 1998 and March, 1999 is presented below.

* The dunip site had solid waste spread over much of the site in 1997 and 1998. In 1999 in

some areas the waste was spread over the ground, while in other portions holes or trencheshave been excavated and filled with the solid waste;

* The waste was not being covered (e:g. using a daily cover material) and no equipment (e.g.

bulldozer)-to place the waste in a desired /confined location was present during the May

1998 visit. However, the waste was being covered using soil from the site using an

excavator and a bi "dozer during the October, 1998 and February, 1999 visits;

* An uncovered dug well was present at the low northeast comer of the,dumpsite and is

considered to be downgradient of the waste;

L.. 2, * Thie surficial soil appears to be a fine grained (clayey) weathered rock. It appears to,

maintain its'or ,ginal structure, with discontinuities or fracturing due to weathering;r . Local resident. - -3ort that the water table is 7 to 10 metres below the lowest point of land;

; * These apparent soil characteristics have the potehtial for use in an engineered landfill design

as' a compaL .e '1 clay liner or clay cover. The available soil maps show that the Province of

1. Union is de minated by clayey soil;

i I_, *' The Baranga3 Captain indicated that the water samples from a number of deeper wells

located in the 4icinity of jhe dump site area were analyzed for 'potability' and were reportedto be potable; l

' i i a * The site is n'Ji rovided with any surface water drainage structures, such as diversion ditches,

forthe mariagement of surface drainage; and

* About 8 waste pickers were observed collecting recyclable materials. They are organized by

the Ma meltac Barmngay Captain, who assists them with the sale of the picked recyclable

* ' materials. Bags of tliese materials were seen stored in an on-site building.

* ; - Golder Associates

in. .: '

r --

H __ £nFI

[I I

October1999 ' ' 6 -6 981-2730B

1 - 6 1 ,SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfdlEIA; .I , ' 1: -,. -.. . :

The rest of the proposed site is located immediately adjaxient to and on' the south side of the'It I

existing dump site. It 'is comprised of about a 2.5 hectare parcel'of land and has the'same access

road from the City' as that for the existing dump site. The observations made during the site visits

related to this parcel of land are summarized below:

* The northern property boundary of this parcel of land is the same as the southernnost

Boundary of the 'e*isting dump site;

* The northern part of this site is unused and covere4 with vegetation. The rest of the site

comprises dwellings or farmland; ,

It is well screened visually and covered by trees and bushes;

* it has good surfafe drainage (Note: a significant component of landfill site design is

- s 5 diversion of suirface water away from the garbage so that it remains clean and doesn't require

treatment); and

* The water table appears to be relatively deep, based on water levels observed in an adjacent

dug well (inferred shallow water table at about 5 m below ground level).

6.2.4' Site Topography and Land Use

The existing dumpsite slopes towards the northeast at an approximate grade of 5%. The adjacent

-propc,rty slopes towards the pouth at an approximate grade of 8%. The highest point is at the

southwest corner of the existing dump site, which is the same as the northwest corner of the

-Ia! Ps ! adjacent property. the topographyof the site is shown on Figure 5.1.

* As noted above, the northern portion (about :i ha) of the proposed site is presently used to

dispse the City's s'olid waste (i.e. the dumpsite). The predominant portion of the adjacent

propety is unused and covered with vegetation and tbe rest of it comprises dwellings or'

farmbland..

6.2.5.t Site In rrastructure/Structures

The iv&rAstructure on the existing dump pc.-tion of the site (North Parcel) comprises the

following: l

Ai 'Agated entrarice witm an iron gae;

Gold ar Associates

7 ;-,. , .. . 1.

October 1999 6 - 7' 981-27301SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill E

A,fence around the property. The fence consists of a lqwer coocrete block portion on top op t gwhich are moubted reel fence panels;

. A'building of concrete block construction at the northwest corner which consists of an office,

repyclables <'z age area and open bays (parking and maintenance garage);

* A paved parking area between the western boundary fence and the office building-, and

* Concrete road from the gate to the northeast portion of the site.

The infrastructue on the adjacent property portiozk of the site (South Parcel) comprises the

following:

U` Z :''!* A number af -wellings; '

A Adirt access oad; and

1 An electric p ,.Yer (NAPOCOR) tower.

No storm water x iaiagement structures are present at the site.

.. . , ~~~I '-,

6.2.6 !nfrast ucture/Structures Adjacent to the Site

A number of dwelilngs are present to the north, northeast, south and southwest. of the site. The

concrete mr aicipal access road to the site is located to the west of the site, running north-south.

There are' ;,, municipal water supplies on the site and water for general use at the existing dump I

* % ! site and the dwpllings in'the- site area is being obtained from shallow and deep wells and

transwr itted via local pipelines.

L F ;ectrjcal powe. supply is ayailable'at the site. It is understood that this supply is of single-phase

t tpe.t i'rj iso iyi sewer service available.to the site area and the residents appear to

use on-siif sanitary faciliLies.

No storm water management structures are ptesent adjacent to the site.

6.2.7! i SiteOperations

4 ! The dumpsite is pr *sently being' used by the City to dispose garbage. The predominant site

operations cornpri earth moving, garbage placenient and daily (temporary) cover placement.

t 4 - s:-;; ,q....I Golder Associates

..! 4 er 8 ' w k |~~. -- - ''

October 1999' 6-8 981-2730B

|g ' t SWEEP, San Fernando La UnionSanitary Landfdl ELI

In addition, about 15 Waste pickers collect recyclable ffiater'ias from the freshly disposed

garbage; the collected material is stored on site and subsequently sold to outside recycling

businesses.

The site is being operated under the supervision of the City's Engineering Departnent.

6.2.8 Visibility J

The ite: is -located in a relatively' high location in the general area. As the dump site is

predominantly cleared open land, the lands to the north are visible from the high points of the

site. The visibility to the areas to the west, south and east of the dump site is limited due to the

presence of thick vegetation (bushes and trees). The farmlands to the south are visible from the

southem portion of the site.

6.3 Meteorology and Cliniate ,

6.3.1 Mlethodology

Data on the prevailing meteorological and climatological conditions of the Study Area have been

obtained from the P1lilippine Atmospherical, Geophysical and Astronomic'al Service

Administration (PAGASA) synoptic station in Vig,ai, Ilocos Sur, located approximately 115 km

north of the project site. These data include:

0 climatological normals for the period 1961to l925 inclusive;

* dail3 me:eorological observations from January 1971 to December 1998 ifelusive; and

* climatological extremes as of 1996.

In addition, rainfall data have been obtained from San Fernando City in La Union Province.

These data were used to assess:

* meQ.nmonthly and annual rainfiiPi

* maximum daily tainfall perrnoiith;*

* days per year with 24 hr. rainfall totals greater than 50 mm, 100 mm and 150 mm;

Golder'Associates

* i , x; ,, ,. ,

I~~~~~~~~ I

{, ' October 1999 ' { ' t 6-9 981-2730BI ~ > E g: SWEEP, San Fernando La Utnion Sanu*wy Landfill EU

~~ * days peryearwith 24'hr. rainfall totals greater than 200m,mantd300mm; ,

r a . ~~~meanmonthly andl annual rain free days;., b''

* mean daily maximum and minimum temperature on a monthly basis;

. mean daily wind speeds on a daily and monthly basis;

* prevailing wind direction on a daily and monthly basis; and

* mean monthly and annual potential evaporation.

fl q ' Key meteorological and climatological data are presented in Tables 6.1 aii4 6.2 and summarized.

r below.

6.3.2 1Regional Climatic Setting

San 'Fe ando City is chaacterized by a Type I climate of the Modified Coronas system of

climate'classirication as indicated in Figure 6.2, with two pronounced seasons, being generally

'dry' from December to Mlay and 'wet' from June to Novemter. The strongly seasonal nature of

the climate is dictated by the NE'and SW monsoons. The NE mboisoon (Amihan)pis co-incident !

with thd dr season and afects the area during'NovemXber to April. The SW monsoon (Habagat),

'dominates the area- from May to September, the rainfall is moderate when compared, for

C r exampl6 io the SW mponsoon of western Luzon.

6.3.3 Ral3fall

' , The mean annual rainfall (moderate) recorded at San Femando City, based on records for Station

222 for t' e period of 1961 - 1995, is 2430 mm (Table 6.1). The highest rnonthly rainfalls are

* recorded between April and October when the mean monthly rainfalls are in excess of 130 mm,

Nw } Q with ,g .,ust being the wettest month with a mean monthly rainfall of 698 mm. The driest

rmonths occur after the cessation of the SW monsoon; mean monthly rainfall totals.are typically

below 100 mm from November to April and above I QO mm from May to October.

The raiifall data indicatep that the number of rainy days (classified as a day with at least 0.1 mmDof rai -11) ranged from I day in January, April and December to 21 days in August, iLh

Februuy and March having no rainy days. On average, there are 16 to 21 rainy days per month

in the wet season throughout the months of June to September inclusive. The mean annual.* p r number of rainy days is 95.

Golder Assoclat3s

,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-

.k,eJ~~~-I

._ I "'--'~~ 1 L..

J ' Octoberl1999 6- 10 981-2730B

SHTEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfll EJA

Not only is the rainfall highly seasonal but the paterm of rainfall distribution indicates that a

significant proportion of the monthly rainfall may result from a single or a few rainfall events.

Table 6.3 summarizes thfic,fequency of 24-hour rainfall of various magnitudes, from 50 mm up

to, and exceeding, 300 mm per day. On average, there are nine days per annum where the 24-

hour rainfall is between 50 mm and 100 mm. More extreme rainfall events are less frequent,

with 24-hour rainfali: i

* in excess of 100 mm experienced, on average, once every year, 1

* in exce'ss.of 200 mm experienced, on average, once every pine years;:and -"

* in excess of 300 mm once every twenty years.- . . I'- - ' - -

The greatest daily rainfall recorded in the San Fernando City area since records began in 1903 is

594 mm and occurred in July 18, 1920 (Table 6.2). In absolute terms, the greatest daily rainfalls

tend to be experielnced1between May tolNovember when the SW monsoon is active; these

extreme high magnitude rainfall events typically produce between 60% and 90% of the mean

monthly rainfall in a singlqe event. In. contrast, although of comparatively lower magnitude,

extreme rainfralls recorded during the dry season may produce between 200% and 300% of the

mean monthly rainfall.

63.4 Temperature

The ainyalimean temperature is 27.1- OC (fable 6.1). January, the'coldest month, has a mean

daily airtemperature of25.4 PC while May, the warmest month, has a mean daily temperature of

'jreater than 28.9 °C.

The highest monthly maR;imum temperature is 31.2 0C in the month of October while the lowest

monthly minimum temperature is 20.90C in the month of January. The mean diurnal variation of

temperature is 7.10C. The highest air temperature recorded in San Fernando is 39.3 °C (October

17,195 1) while'the lowest air temperature observed is i3.5 IC (January 4,1986) (Table 6.2).

kfd ' Golder Associates

LI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . if:

-, - .- - . - -e =- -. t n . m # 7 w . M - -- - l .=- -r

,.'October 1999 .- . 6-11 . 1 J- . 981-2730B'SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfdll'4

6.3.5 ,PrevaillgWind .-

1The project areai affected by the north wind fromOqtr to May, the south wind flow fromJune tO September,' nd hep t?d4e winds occur betweeh monsoons. The annual prevailing windOrirectign in the area is north. The montlhly wind speed ranges from 2 to 3 metres per second(mls) with an annual average of 3 mls. Th, highest extrqme wind speed of 60 m/s was recorded

_ ':,- onJuly,9,1986. I -

The typical wind cor.ditions for the period covering 1961-1995 which are representative of theS r E wind in the projec; site, are represented as monthly,,and Innual windrose diagrams in

I AppendixH.I. '

63.6 San F avpor Citn a were

The evaporat:. a raLes for the Sari Femando City area were obtained from the PAGASA Agrometstation in Balaoan. La Union. .the evaporation rate r#nges from 140.3 mm to 216.6 mm (refer toTable 6.4). .'

. I ,

, ' q - 6.3.7 'Other 'r eorologieal Parameters

7Thunderstorms: ccasional heavy rainfall episodes occut- in the area due to localized

thunderstorm aci ities. The frequency of, thunderstorm; .occurrence in.the area during the !.northeast ,monso . :, southwest monsoon, and transition. months are illustrated in theThundprstorin Hi i rd Maps in Appendix H2.

*. U 4. 'it o-. ..', ,-- ,.',-, .h..:.. .1

* 'U . Tropic4l cydoat .ropical cyclone data for the pastI20 years show that the area experienced 8

tropical cyclones i'hich passep within 50 kilometres of the project site (refer to Appendix H.2).Out or the 8 tropi -,a, . *ciones'3 were of typhoon Iity, 3 were tropical storms and 2 were

depressions whir mo tly occurred during the second half,of the year. In addition, 43 tropical.cyclontes pass-: inh: 10, km distance from, the projectAsite (refer to .ApRendix H.2). These

data also kr tes .hat o* the average at least 2 tropical cyclones pass and affect the project site. I; ' , ; I ' , ' , i _ .. '. *. ' ;. ' : .. ,. ; ' : !9 i , .per yea - . ..-'

* ; 1 : t . : t-

!-oller Assoclates

I--V

._ _ - I 1 1i...<

October 1999 6- i2 981-2730B1 r! . tI .SWA1 tank'rnando La Union Sanitary Lan dfdl ELI

6.3.8 Meteorological Hazards

Other synoptic systems or hzards affecting the temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall in

-these areas and in the country as a whole' include thunderstorms, cold front, intertropical

convergence zone (ITC), easterly wave, tornado (Buhawi), and the northeast tAmihan) and

southwest (Habagat)-monsoons. The following sections give brief discussions on these natural

hazards.

Thundersto,rms develop in areas with high relative humidity and atmospheric instability usuallyq' triggered by localized heating of land masses. The presence of moisture and unstable

atmosphere coupled with orographic lifting starts the process of cumulus convection which'

j * EF! ultiately ilead to the development of a cumulonim,us cloud or a thunderstorm cloud, bringing

I' . ' substantial rainfall of short duration usually during the summer months.

In the period from Janu?.ry to March, the country is affected by the cold front as a result of the

intrusion of cold air, mass towards the tropics where it meets with the warmeair mass. Since the

cold air is heavier and denser, it remains close to the suwface and as it advances, the warm air

tAI glides'over the cold air, brought to higher levels forming thunderstorm clouds which bring rains

in the northeastern portions of the country. '

Li3 The inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) affects the Philippines from April to October

bringing widespread cloludiness, rainfall, lightning, thunder and moderate to strong winds. The

ITCZ poscillates' nbrth to south of the country. It moves northward in May reaching its northem-

| 8 most position in July or August, and moves in the southem positions during the months of

November to April.

About once or twice a week during summer, a weak westward propagating disturbance (with a

'lifespan of one week) in the basic easterly wind flow affects the country. This elsterly wave is

associ!ated with alternative regions of fair weather and enhanced cloudiness due to connective,

activity with resulting rainfall.

-dI ' '

Golder Associates

iC,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

V t gE ' October 1999 6 -13 981-2730B.I y SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sainiiary Landfill ELI

Occasionally weak tornadoes occur in the Philippines, in relation to severe thunderstorms and

tropical cyclones. The location of the country in the! low latitudes is fortunate since temperature

., ! La variation is small along t vertical and coriolis force in the area is weak, hence tornadoes are

also weak and short-lived.

L Iii During the winter season of the northern hemisphere, the snow coyered Asiatic mainland

- g , develops a high pressure system and the cold dry wind flQw towards the Philippines comes from

the noz$heast directlon. The northeast monsoon (Amihan) season occurs from October to March,

and is most active during the months of January and February. As the cold dry air mass passes

over the Pacific Ocean, it absorbs moisture and dumps rain ii, the eastern section of the country.

:'- In summer, the Tibetan Plateau serves as an elevated heat source, a low pressure system

develops, and because of, the large-scale upward air movements towards the low pressure,

rsurfacf airmass transport1 is triggered, such that a cross-equatorial flow of air commences. The

wind flovw passes over the Ihdian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, and ultimately the South China Sea,

arriving in ithe Philippines f1om the southwest (Habagat) directions loaded with moisture,

bringing torrential rain in, the westem portions of the country during the months of June tol tv n l ~October.

-V ! ,6.4 ' Geology

- g ~~~~6.4.1 hIIelbodolt: r' '

Inf6rin4tion on the geological setting of the San.Fernando area was obtained from published

a,, U 8 geological and soi ' mapping 'from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau and the City of San

.r Ferando, publishr-1 rep rts at the reference library of the Universik of the Philippines, and

information obt.; ie from the Metro La Union Water District.

Geological, geotechi 'ical and hydrogeological information specific tc. the proposed landfill site.

were obtained from I Jo main sources:

L E' ' ' ''{' I * Walk-over -. 1 at ions of the study site and adjacent lands;

r . * Observation of .xcavations on the existing disposal site;

* Observationti Er iurements of a number of existing wells in-the,vic Aty of the site; and

Golder Associates.

.. ~ ~ ~~~~~..,r

U October 1999 - 6 - 14 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfll EM

t . *A subsurface drilling and laboratory testing program, including groundwater monitor

installations and testing..1

Geoanalytics, Inc of Manila undertook the subsurface investigation program under the direction

of a Golder Associat9s' engineer. The programn was undertakezi in February 1999 and consisted

of the following cqmponents: !

; * Te drilling of five boreholes on the site using wash boring and rotary coring techniques, to

depths! ranging from 10.5 to 22.5 m bclow ground surface;

* Geotechnical togging arid description of theisubsurface materials encountered and the

location of the transition zones from one type of subsurface material to another;

* The recovery of botb disturbed (split spoon) and undisturbed (Shelby tube) samrples;

* The installation of one groundwater monitor in eachl completed borehole, and

a Laboratory classification, index propertm and geotechnical testing.

The results of the investigation are provided in AppendiN F in the forn of Record of Borehole

Sheets, together with the field and laborator) inmestigation report by Geoanal)-tics Inc. The

borehole to ations are shov%n on Figure 5.1 and also on Figure 6.3.

;L

6.4.2 . R gional Geological Setting

The geclogic setting of the San Fernando area is dominated b) the presence of upla-d bedrock-

doniinaLtd tcrrain, with alluvial sediments in the lovlands along the coast and in major river

Nvalleys. The predominant geologic formation in the up!and areas is the Rosai.c Formation,

which coomprises thick sedimentary rocks originall) deposited on an ocean flOr b) bottom

flowinL currents (i.e. turbidity currents). ThW turbidities consist of rh3thmi -'I inrerbedded

turbid te, siltstone, shale and nminor conglomerate in the lo% er portion (deep wa' deposifion),'

and coarse-grained tuffaceous sandstone and conglomerate, shale, patch-reel imeslone and

bascit flow in the upper portions (shallow %kater deposition). These sedimencts v se derived from

volcanic rocks and other formations during oplift of the Central Cordillera r.1 gmatic are to the

* cast.

e The geological history of the City of San Fernando is shown on Fioure i in .pendix C.

Go!der Associatas

- . - - - j

j: * October,l999 6-15 1 I '981-2730BSMEP, San FernandoLa Union SankaryLa.dltip 9A

The Rosario Fm. is tihtly f9lded along a roughly north-south axis, producing the north to southtrending hills. The Philip ine Fault lZone, a major fault extending from Mindinao to Luzon,

splays iqto a: series of northwest trending faults near the San Femando area. Several areconsidered potentially active failts. I

r' ~ The Quaternary alluvial 1eposits comprise a variety of marine sands, lagoon and estuary

deposits, river chareil and floodplain deposits, and deltaic deposits. Most of these are medium

to coarse grained, snds, silts and silty clays.

The Groundwater Availability Map -of the Philippines (DENR, 1997) indicates that the SanCp Fernando area is situated within an area characterized by 'local and less productive aquifers'.

The important groundwater resources are in the aliuvial deposits of the river valleys and

coastline. Groundwater r,echarge in the alluvial sediments is facilitated since the alluvialsediments are relatively medium to coarse grained, and occur in low topographic positions.

Groundwater flow in the upland areas is generally characterized by lower storativity and yield,based on',the presence of fincr-grained sediments. Wells in the upland areas tend to be in excessof 2Q m deep below ground surface, while wells in the shallow sediments are generally less than20 m below ground su': face.

F' .- I 6.4.3 Geology of the Project Site

* | The subsurface ir za. *-tion indicates that the natural subsurface profle on the study siteF' w appears to be fairl, . -,ioron and consists essentially of a weathered bedrock sequence, with the

U - pper portion being cc npletely weathered to soil and the degree of weathering decrea.sing with

depth until intact fresh bedrock is encountered.

On the existing dur D ' there has been waste placed over much of the property, initially bydumping!and somet.ries spreading it in a layer over thc surface and since late 1998 by

i . excavatinig holes and trf -tches and placing the waste mixed with/covered by the excavated clayey

soil. The waste zone a lends to variable height above original ground surface and to a depth of

l up to about 4 metres I elow the ground surface as it existed in February 1999. On the Southr Parcel there is no wastf present and natural soils are typically prescnt at ground surface.

LJ 1

Golder Assoclates

nj _ __

_ I

October 1999 6-16 981-2730B

SEP,SanFernandoLaUnionSanitaryLandfllEL4

To a depth of about 4.5 to 6.5 metres below original ground surface, a layer*of brown weathered

silty clay to clay spil is present This soil layer, which is derived from the underlying bedrock,

I | , was observed to retain a portion of the joint and bedding 'plane structure that characterizes the,

bedrock, with the amount of remnant structure increasing with depth. The clay soil is of

|| generally high plasticity and has a hard to stiff consistency. Two laboratory permeability tests

- sam carried out on undisur samplep of the clay gave results 'bf about Ix 1iO cm/s, indicating a

r2 low permeability soil.i However the presence of discontinuities in the clay due to both the

induwed weathering and the secondary remnant joint structure, as described above, suggests that

the actual permeability of the clay is probably 'about 2 to 3 orders of magnitude higher,

corresponding to a moderate permeability soil.

r From laboratory testing carried out on the clay, it is concluded that the clay soil deposits on the

- 3 site are at or near their optimum moisture. Thus, this c!ay could be excavated and used for the

construction of a low permeability bottom liner for the landfill to prevent leachate contaminatiod

|iv N of the groundwater, and also for use as a final cover when landfilling is complete to minimize the

quantity of leachate generation.

At about 4.5 to 6.5 m depth the clay soil transitions into a weathered brown to grey brown shale

bedrock zone which sometimes contains zones of completely weathered shale in the form of

nodular clay. With depth the degree of weathering gets less ana the bedrock consists of fresh to

I faintly weathered dark grey shale.

.6.4.4 Seismicity

The Philipl *ne Islands are located in a seismically and volcanically active zone as a part of the

Circu-P;n iflc Belt Earthquakes are often classified into!tectonic and volcanic. For the

proposed engineered landfill, the major concern is from tectonic-earthquakes as they are the

destructive:ones. -denerally, earthquakes occur when the tectonic stress exceeds the frictional

_ - <. strengii of the fault/subduction walls, thus resulting into slippage of opposite walls/sides. Slip

movenients alonig fault surface's could be either strike-slip or lateral movement, up.dip/do%wn-dip

or thrus'Inormal, oblique, rotational or hinge-fault.1

Zi A'der AsscciatU a

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

' . u ' October 1999 6-17 981-2730BSWgEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EIA

A Regional Seismotectonic Miap of Westemn Luzon (refer to Appendix H.3) shows the

distribution of epicenters of earthquakes with magnitude greater or equal to 6, which have caused

significant destructiors to the region over the course of history. I

A Tectork Map of Luzoi4 (refer to Appendix H.3) shows the subduction -zones and faults that are

associated with,th strqng earthqu,kes. The Philippine Fault (PF) is a 1,300 kilometre long

' ' asstcratedswipth thet cut thr,4ugh, the Philippine Archipelago. On July 16, 1990 a 7.8 magnitude

F L ear,thqu,ske occurred-that originated from the Philippine Fault Zone.' This earthquake damagedmany structures in Baguio, Central Luzon and Metro Manila. Another destructive earthquake

gener,tor is the Manila Trench, which has been reported as the cause of movement that caused

, -U damaged to propertie! * Metro Manila and vicinity in 1677 and 1863.

d L The 'Earthquake Mal of Luzon Island (refer to Appendix H.3), shows the epicenters of

earthquakes with magnitude greater than 4. Epicenters of,magnitude of lesser value are!

; L 3 ii considered to cause ;nsignificant effects and their locations are not ploted on the map. Thus for

the Cordillera Cent. the nearest-fault line to the project site is the Digdig fault which is about

-271 k aerial dis,.a e from the propdsed project site. No earthquakes above magnitude 6 with

an average return -e 'od of O to 100 years have been recorded. No active volcanoes are present

in La Union.

I The table below shi zw, s the Seismicity occurrence at La Union Province and San Fernando City.

,'S mcityOccurrence at La Union and San Fernando City

1 .ir DI) Dst [ Time Lat Long. | hi in |-.ensity.-. | ml e . vh mm ss.s _

s 27 31 16.43N :120.07E iO 4.8 RF3 t2 2 - 20 31 2S 16.40N 120.83E 42 4.3. 2RF '' E:3 ' 3 6 , - 7 . , 36. 16.28 N 120.28 E 14 4;3 RF2

,* ~ : Source. E, .racted from PHILY'OCS' report on 'Seismicioy @San Fernando, ta Union and vicinity' Lat. 16.Od tofi. .d, Long. 120.0do 121.0dE. Period Covered: 1985 to July /999

j.~~~~~'1 ! ~~~~~Notcr:.

ri7 D- Duratio, MzgnittdeRF2 Slightly FeCL Felt by few individuals at rest indoors. Hanging objects swing-slightly. Still water in containers

oscillates not iceably._RF3 'eak Felt' !many people indoorsspeciallyinupperfloorsofbuildings. Vibrationisfeltlikethepassingofa

1 , Ilzt truck ..::Umess and nausea are experienced by some people. Ilanging objects swing moderately. StillL wai %S,4r in cot itainers oscilates moderately.

Golder Associates

r S p

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ S 1 >

October 1999 6 - 18 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfdi EL4

1 t 6.5 Pedology aild Land Use

6.5.1; Methodology '

.Information on soil types anO, land use has been based on secondary data sources provided by the

Planning and Engineering departments; of the City of San Fernando, 'supplemented by general

observations made by the study team during the baseline data collection portion of the project.

6.5.21 Soil Types .is

There are seven (7) types of soil found in the area (referito Figure 7 of Site. Selection Repqrtf

Appendix C). These are Bauang Clay, the Barcelona Clay, the. Bolinao Clay, the San Manuel

Silt Loan, Annam Clay Loam, Hydrosol and San Manuel Sand. Th! deposits likely comprise

weathered bedrock nmiaterials.. A brief description of these soil types is described as follows:

J h ';.r ~ ~ ~~4. , j |1 . -

Buatg Clay The surface soil of this type ranging in depth from 10 to 35 centimetres is brown

to light brown, very "friabC loose, and cparse granumar to slightly cloudy clay.

* Barcelona Clay - lhis,soil is dark brown to grayish brown, granular, sticky to plastic surface

soils underlain b, yellowish brown to grayish brow n granular clay loarm su,bsoil.

* ofinao Clay It is a light to dark reddish brown, slightly fo moderately compact clay which

ex.hibits a stic; to friable consistency when wet and is hard when dry.

* San 1a.: Silt m - This is a light brow to brownish gray, fine to coarse granular silt

loam..

* Annam Clay Loam - It is a brown,'slightly compact, granular, gravely loam to clay loam and

is rich in ornr-ic matter.

m I~~~~I

* Hydrosol: -Th is type of soil is found in patches along thc coast near the mouth of large

streams.

* San iigu. - e- iis a fine loose, brownish gray .oil.

Golder Associates

: LWi--

October 1999 6 - 19 981-2730BI: S j ' .: ',Sa FernandoLaUnionSanlyLad_flllLlii The soil type at the'sjte is indicated as Buang Clay.

iJ 8 65.3 Present Land Vse inSan Fernando City'

Located on the western section of the northern Philippines Island known, Ls Luzon, the Province

V| of LaWnion has a predominantly hilly terrain which gradually rises eastward from the shorelines

of Lingayen Gulf (refer. to Figure 5 of Site Selection Report, Appendix C). The western border

of the province is a coastal plain of raised coral and alluvium (sand/clay deposited by flowing

water) which overlays previously deposited sedimenet.

About i(0 percent of the t?tal land area of the province is certified alienable and disposable. This

s tj refers tlo iand of public domain, which has been subject to the present system of classification

and declared as not'n,eeded for forest purposes. Alienable and disposable land in La Union

Proyince includes a)'protection land; b) production land; c) fishing grounds/fisheries; d) built-up

areas; a) industrial areas; and e) tourism areas. The remaining 20 percent of lands have been

'VLS | classified as tlands. These forestlands are lands of public domaii, which have not been

declard alienable artd disposable and includes a) public/production forests; b) forest reserves; c)

timberlands; d) grazi-ig linds; e) game refuge, and f) bird sanctuaries.

* t .' The existing 1d L in La Union includes the folkowing land utilization: grasslands, mature

trees, cultivated are,, arable lands, croplands, siltation sections, barrenland, riverbeds, fishponds,

and buili-up areas. At! the moment, much'of La Union is used for cultivated/amble lands. The

current land use pat :erp in the City is shown on Figure 6 of Site Selection Report, Appendix C.

The land use oppoi tinity in La Union includes the following categories: agricultural areas,

agricultural expansi ' areas, watershed/preservation areas, rehabilitation areas, ahd wetlands.

* .. Almos 80' percent of the province has been identified for possible rehabilitation due to some

L q degree of 'soil erc sion' auributed t? its hilly and steep slopes. The northern section of the

provinice identifi s the watershed/preservation areas, which are important in providing irrigation

water to the lo' ver sections o& the province.- The area of San Fernando is identified as mostly

agricultural ar a, with the northem section for watershed/preservation areas.

Golder kssociates

ON"

_ _

-. - - j -l *v-uu jf fl~

October 1999 6 - 20 981-2730B

. ' . -SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitxy Landifil EL4

01 A.i6.54 Land Use within the Study Area

-The land use within the study area is!P"minartly agriulwal (refer to Figure 6 of Site

Selection Report, Appendix C). The areas along the roads are predominantly residential.

I;p ~ II , .

6.5.5 Proposed I1atd Development

The proposed development at the site comprises the construction and operation associated with

the development of an engineered landfill. Further details of this development. are presented in

Section 5.0. ..I

- - The City has no plans' for alny other developments at the proposed site except for the proposed

... -l landfill development. nerefore; the proposed development does not interfere in any way with

City planning but, inl enhances potential develbpment in the City by providing sound and

. reliable SWM.

6.6 Surface Watoi -Tydrology)

6.6.1' Methodology

As municipal landfilis, .nerate leachate that could potentially, impact the surface runoff, if'

adequate containment4 --otection is not provided, it is irtportant to address this impact in the

EIA. This was done .t;rough a comprehensive hydrological investigation and assessment. It

should pe noted that th -e are neither, surface water bodies (creek, lake, etc.) nor surface water

supplyq spurjes loated N. .h;n one kilometre of the proposed site (refer to Figure 4, AppendLx C),

.qand the storn.water jwif from the site appears to flow overland onto downstream (to the

-northeast or the sol zth) agricultural lands. Also, the existing open dump has reportedly been

impactirg the sur'.ace runoff quality ahd has changed the, surface drainage in the imrnediate

- vicinitjr'of the :.le. 'The construction of an engiqeered landfill (i.e. with appropriate

cont3inmc .dd ainag' s iclures such as'an engineered'cover/liner, ditches, etc.) is expected to

. imrproiel tti .0 ickn: L

I~ .

Golder Assoclates

*. . ili 3 ____

t October 1999 6 - 21 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Saniary Landfill ERL

Baseline data related to drainage were obtained from:

' d . topogrphic maps available at NAMRIA (DENR Sheet 7076 11);

iPhiippines Water. sources Summary Data (1970) by National Water Resources Council

(NElRC),

.* site topographic survey (ref* to Figure 5.1);

" e !- City Planning Report provided by the, City;

s site reconnaissance;afd a

* verbal infornatiot provided by City officials and the resident in the Study Area.

j . ! - ....... . , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!, I p

Baseline data related to surface water quality were obtamed by collecting a water sample from

the nearest flowing and/or non-stagnant water body, the Carlatan:Lagoon.

6.6.2 Regional Hydrology

Surface drainage, classjfied according to its directional flows, can be represented by four basins

corresponding to the four quadrants towards which the suiface drains, i.e., towards San Fernando

L, , |Bay, towards the municipality of San Juan, towardslthe municipality of Naguilian and Bauang,

and towards the sea south of San Fernando Bay (refer to Figure 3.1 and Appendix C). The

| largest-basin is found in the northwestem quadrant, with its drainage network flowing towards

San Fernando Bay; the second largest is found on the southeastern interior rise to about one

j ! hundred metres above sea level. The highest elevated area is found in the northeastert quadrant

near the boundary with altitudes reaching over 400 metres (refer to Figure 5 in Appendix C).

6.63 Surface Wnter Drainage in the Study Area I

Surface water drair. Ce in the study, area is influenced by the terraces of the farm lands in the

iIarea. 'her are no . inage courses located within the area, even though temporary'. p schannels appear fm during major stormn events. Any significant runoff from the Study Area

(e.g. d,uring major ltorrn'events) flows overland through the terraces and temporary and/or

interminent diti -s vales towards Creek I to the south and Creek 2 to the north, and eventually

drains ito San Fe r do Bay via Carlatan'Lagoon (for location, refer to Figure 6.1). Creeks I

and 2 are intermi water courses and appear to flo'% only during niajor storm e%ents.

w eLTZt . Golcder AssoclLte-sr ! f Mt(i,2 t drr q0 ;j; 0 i;vl0& S 5iIWVV~ O.4 fAI/;~1 1g_ M e , .~~~

I~~~~~~~~~

I October 1999 6 -622 981-2730Bli*, S. ' '. 'SW SanFernandoLaUnion SanitaryLandfiELU8 0

6.6.4 Surface WaterDrainage at the Project Site

Surface water drainage at thp existing site flows mainly as overland (sheet) flow. There are no

distinct drainage courses on or near the site, however, during significant rainfall (storm) events

interrnittent streams develop in some of the gullies and along the existing pathways and roads.

Based on the limited topographic information available for the area, it appears that the site is

located on the drainage divide between Creek I (about 1.5 km nbt*Inortheast) and Creek 2

(about 1.5 km south) (refer to Figure 6.1 and Figure 5 in Appendix C), resulting in two distinct

drainage areas within the site. The northern' portion of the site, the existing dumpsite, drains

predominately in a northeast direction to the lower northeast corner of the property where it

flows offsite as overland flow onto the adjacent agricultural fields. The 'southem portion of the

site, the adjacent property, drains mainly southward aAd continues to flow offsite as overland

flow onto: the adjacent agricultural fields. Both the existing dumpsite and the adjacent property

(predominantly vegetated land) provide significant potential for surface storage in small

depressions created during landfill and/or agricultural terracing.

It is noted that, because of thp prevailing drainage conditions at the existing dumpsite (i.e. no

proper dr,inage management), garbage and/or leachate impacted storm runoff flows overland: I

onto the adjacent agricultural fields to the north during storm events. This has been raised as a

significant issue by the vaiious stakeholders during the consultations and, therefore, has been

addressed in the design of the landfill.

6.6.5 Surface Water Quality

As there no perennial surface water courses present within the study area, it was not possible

to assess. the surface:water quality within the study area during the baseliqe data collection

prograrm. However, an indication of receiving water quality in the general area was obtained by

sampling the waterbody within this area that is closest to and downstream from the proposed

site, the Carlatan Lagoon. As noted above, the runoff from the proposed site eventually drains

into Carlatan Lagoon during major storm events. A sample was collected, !'rom Carlatan La goon

|J . at location SW-2 (refer to Figure 6.1) on April 11, 1999 and analysed for a suite of pararneters

represenlative of municipal landfill leachate. The results of this analysis are presented isi Table

| .' 6.5 and the retpective laboratory reports are presented in Appendix 1.

Golder Associates

*:1

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.~~~~~~~~~~~~

Octobir 1999 S6EP Frnand 6-23.Sia L EA 981-2730B- , ^. October 1999 SEJEP,SanFernandoLa UnionSaniry LandJU'EL

I' i 'As expected, the Lagoo4 water quality is similar to typical sea water quality. It is understood

that a small portion of the Lagoon is being used for prawn (shellfish) farming. A comparisoh of

j Lii the results to Class SA Criteria of the DENR Water Quality Regulations (AO No. 34, 1990),

which applies to coastal waters suitable for the propagation, survival and harvesting of shellfish

for comn,mercial purpqse indicates that the Lagoon water quality at location SW-2 is generally

comparable to the Class SA criteria;, the water quality marginally exceeds the Class SA criteria

for oil and grease, cadmium, lead and total coliform. It should be noted that these (or any other)

chemical constituents, even if they arxe encountered in rnunicipal landfill leachate, are not

expected to be transported via overlantd flow from the existing dtimpsite in Mameltac to Carlatan

Lagoon, about 2 km away, through the farm terraces and intermittent/ temporary ditches/swales.

+ , ' ~~6.6.6 Use of Surface AW'ateir in th e S tudy Area j ~~~~~~~~~~~. , t '-*;- -* -- .i

As there no permanent surface water bodies, there are no identified uses of surface water

within the Study Area. The farming activities in this area partially depend on surface water from

precipitation for irrigating the crops; however, the majority of irrigation water is derived from

|' tlocal wells.

6.7 'Groundwater, (Hydrogeology) - ':|6.7.1 Methodology . i

As municipal landfill3 generate leachate that could potentially enter the subsurface, if adequate

H t 3 containment is not provided, -itis important to address this impact in the EIA. This was done

l-through a comprehensive 'hdrogeological and geotechnical investigation and assessment. It

should be npted that there are no City water supply wells located within 2.5 km of the proposed

i site (refer to Figures 4 and 5, Appendix C).

L Informatibn on the general hydrogeology of the San Fernando area was obtained from publishedmaps and reports. afornimtion on water supply to the urban portion of the City wyas provided by

the Metro La Uuion,Water District. Informastion on water supply in the vicinity of the subject

a ' w site was provided by the Barangay Captains as well as observations and discussions with local

residents by the study team duripg the site work.

Golder Associates

K I.

- 5 3~~~~~~~U

October 1999 6 - 24 981-2730B;ISWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill.EL4

Information on the site-specific hydrogeological conditions on the study site was obtained by:

I | * Installation of groundwater monitors in the five boreholes completkd at the site;* Measurement of grqundwater levels in these monitors on three separate occasions during

March to May 199! (by staff of TEST Consultants);J * Development of the five (5) monitors, designated. as 99-1 to 99-5, and sampling of the

groundwater (by staff of TEST Consultants);

Sampling of one dizg well and five existing irrigatiotkqr domestic water wells, designated asGW-I to GW-6, in the immediate vicinity, of tihe subject site (by staff of TEST Consultants);and- .

* Submission of these 11 water samples to private analytical laboratories jn Manila for a suite; ofichemical and bacteriological analyses, to characterize the groundwater beneath and in the

vicinity of the subject site. This was meant to identify tnatural background quality atlocations that could not be affected by the present waste'disposal activities, as well as

E identify any adverse effects from the landfill on groundwater quality.

6.7.2 Groundwater Occu nce and Use at the Site and Immediate Vicinity

: - The.general hydrogeological setting in-the City has bpen described in Section 6.4.2. The urbanportioi of the City obtains its water supply from four shallow or deep drilled wells, the closest ofwhich is located about 2 km south of the subject site; water is also obtained via a pipeline from aI - spring located in the! mountainous terrain of the easterd portion of the City, greater than 5 kminland, om the subject:site. The location of these water supply sources are shown on Figure 4

ii aia a Metro La Union Water District report on the City's water supply (demand, ctc), presented* in Appondix J.

1i In the immediate vicinity pf the site, water for both domestic (potable) purposes and irrigation is- obtained from dug or drilled wells that are typically completed at depths of about 10 to 20 .m

below gigoiind' surface. ,A numl1ber of these wells are Iqcated within both the agricultural andhousing areas that surround the existing and prg,posed landfill site pro,?ei-ties. One well to thewest of the new site in Dalangayan Oeste is reportedly drilled to about 50 In depth. Based on the

results of the drilling investigation'on the site, it is indicated that these we . derive the majorityof their water from i''e bedrock. These local wells provide water to tht desired location via

Golder Associates

2~~~~~~~~~4

.~~~~~~-

October 1999 6 - 25 981-2730Bsmai1 .*:SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sah,itary Landfll EIA

small diameter overland pipelines, typically by means of surface suction lift pumps. The

groundwater level reported by owners and/or measured in several of these wells in February

___ ' 1999 was at about,5.5 to 10 m below ground surface. In addition, there is q dug well in the low-

lying northeast portion of the existing landfill site; the static level in this well was measured at

about 4 m below grotind surface.':

- u The groundwater elevations measured in the five groundwater monitors,99-1 to 99-5 are given in

Table 6.6, together with the corresponding groundiwater elevations. The groundwater levels

recorded over the March to May 1999 period are relatively consistent, and are considered to

repreient stabilized groundwater conditions. The groundwater level in borehole 99-1 on the-high

i ^ ground along the west boundary was at about 19 netre depth below ground surface during March

to May 1999, and it is expected that it is relatively deep in the bedrock at this location throughout

much of the year. In the other monitors the water level was at about 6 to 8.5 metre depth and

-_ located pear or slightly brlow the soil to weathered shale zone transition; it is expected that these

water levels may be somewhat higher during wetter periods of the year.

As described in Section 6.4.3, a layer of weathered clay soil underlies the site. It would typically

be expected that in these fine grained soil conditions the groundwater level would be shallower

than measured in the groundwater monitors (say within I to. 2 metres of ground surface),

especially in the low lying lands; that comprise the southern portion of the South Parcel and the

norther;porp n of the Tohth Parcel. The measured water levels at 6 to 8.5 metre depth in these

areas are considered to indicate that the discontinui;ies in the clay created by weathering action

land the remnant joint structure in the clay deposit increase its permneability and allows some

__ ! drainap of the spils to occur, resulting in the measured water levels. This also indicates the

need to compact the on-site clay to form low permeability engineered b6ttom liners for theA l° landfill cells (as discussed in Section 5.3:6), if leachate containment is to be achieved.

L Groundwater flow patterns typically reflect the ground surface,topography, i.e., groundwater

' fr g9 should; flow from higher land to lower land. .As such, on the subject site, it would be expected

that the highest groundwater elevations should be on the high point of the site along the west

- g: central oauundary, and that groundwater flow would radiate out in the south, east and northeast

directions. This expected situation is indicated to hold true for the groundwater elevations

Golder Associates

' . K ;Lj nE,:

|| October 1999 6 - 26 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitiary Aandflll E|

measured in monitors 99-2 to 99-5. However, the groundwater elevatiop in monitor 99-1 at the

high point of the site is lower than those measured elsewhere on the North Parcel, but higher than

that measured at monitor. 99-2, which is the lowest value; this is unexpected. One possible

explanation ;for this unexpectedly low water level in monitor 99-1 is that the monitor is

completed quite deep in the bedrock compared to the other monitors, and as such may not be4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

representative of the same groundwater (piezometric) zone as the other monitors.

The interpreted generalized groundwater flow directions on the site are indicated on Figure 6.4.

Fps It is ipterpreted, considering the data.in,.monitor 99.1, that there may be a groundwater divide

present that is somewhat to the north of the topographic divide that exists approximately along

the boundary between the North and South Parcels. Existing water supply (domestic or

irrigation) wells located to the north, south and east of the existing and proposed landfill site

Parcels, are considered to be potentially downgradient from the landfill cells in terms of

groundwater flow. Wells to the west of the South-Parcel are not indicated to be directly

downgradieDt, bat hather cross-gradient in terms of groundwater flow.

6.7.3 Groundwater Quality at the Site and Immediate Vicinity

Groundwater samples were recovered from the five on-site monitors 99-1 to 99-5, as well as

from existing wells located to the west of the South Parcel (GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3), to the

northwest of the North Parcel (GW-4), to the northeast of th,e North Parcel (GW-5), and GW-6

S which is the on-site dug well. These sampling locations are shown on Figure 6.3.

I $;ampling was carried out iritially at the above locations on March 10 to 15, 1999 and submitted

to a private laboratory fog a,nalysis of a selected suite of chemical and bacteriological parameters.

These parameters were selected to provide information on general water chemistry as it relates to

the applicable Class AA Water Usage Criteria ayd. parameters that typically characterize

municipal landfill leachate. After review of the analytical data, a number of the results were

considered suspect. Therefore, monitors 99-1 to 99-5 were resampled again on May 19, 1999,

and reanalyzed for certairi parameters.

Golder Associates

.- ,

October 1999 6 - 27 981-2730BSWEEP, San Femnando La Union Saritaiy Landfill EL4

lTho Laboratory Analytical Reports are included in Appendix rL From thee, the chemistry results

that are considered representative and used for interpretation purposes are provided in Table 6.5.

I ^l ~~Also included on th'is table for comparison of the analytical results are the Philippines Class AA

Water Usage/Water.tuality Criteria, Public Water Supply Class I (DAO No. 34, 1990) and the

* . t World Health Organization (WHO) criteria.

In evaluating groundwater chemistry data in the vicinity of a potential contaminant source such

.- ! as the existing waste disposal site, it is- important to frst consider the position of the groundwater

sampling locations relative to the potential contaminanit source. Based on projected groundwater

flow direction, it is possible to categorize the-sampling locations as follows:. i ..

1 . Backgrowud ITatei Quality: upgradient locations wvhere the groundwater,does not or could

not be affected by the landfill

: ||.* Leachate Source Quality: locations beneath the landfill where the groundwater qpality has

beer degraded by the landfill leachate. This is- typically reflected by higher dissolved

concentrations ofthe;leachate constituents in the grpundwater

r . . Dow,ngpad1ent Water Quality: locations downgradient that could possibly be affected by the

flow or. migration of leachate affected water and its mixing with natural water. This is

termed the groundwater "leachate plume", which represents the distance beyond the source

(the waste disposal area) where groundwater has been affected. The size or extent of the

' plume is variableover time, and generally increases over time. The rate at which the plume

- advances is differcht -for different contauninants, and depends largely on the groundwater

flow velocity and- the concentration and type: of dissolved--contaminant in the leachate

i o' w affected -roundwater. -

Based on tfie physical hydrogeology- as described in Section '6.7.2, the following groundwater

sampling po -.-ts would be expected to fit into the aboveccategories:,L. ?i' .; , ; ;. and C ' *

Background Water Quality: ' ' : 'ells GW-I, GW-2, GW-3 and C &--l;

l z : * - Monitors 99-1 and 99-2

'K E: - ~~~~~~~~~Golder Associates

!_ Z ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 6 - 28 981-2730B. r SfEE-P, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ELA .

* Leachate Source Quality: Monitors 99-3, 99-4 and 99-5

Downgradient'Water Quality: Wells GW-5 and GW-6

|-Z. J The;general water quality chemistry in the. vicinity of the study area can be characterized by the

analytical results in *ie background locations GWN-I to GW-4 and monitors 99-1 and 99-2, as

shown on Table 6.5 and discussed below:

* There is an apparent difference between operating supply wells GW-I to GW-4 and monitors

99-1 and 99-2, in that the wells are much lower in BOD, iron, manganese and aluminum.

This is considered more to reflect the difference in development and ongoing use of the well

water in GW-1 to GW-4'compared to monitors 99-1 and 99-2, rather than significant

differences in the real groundwater quality;

' * The water is relatively low in dissolved oxygen, -with typical measured values of 2 to 4

mgL;. IThe presence of nitrate-nitrogen in GW-2, GW-3 gand GW-4 indicates some alteration of the

groundwater quality,, likely related to nitrogen fertilizer or from human- sanitary waste.

'U tConcentrations of up to about 3 mg/L exceed the Class AA criteria of I mg/L, but are well

below the WHO criteria of 11.3 mg/L (i.e. 50 mg/L as nitrate);

All of these locations had very elevated.total and fecal coliform counts, typically in the 10,000 to

1,000,000 MPN/100 ml range. These are very high counts and not indicative of natural waters

and, if in fact true values, ind,icate very significant contamination of the groundwater. Although

Ole% ated values compared to the Class AA criteria may be present, these analytical results are

considered suspect. Th? City was advised of these results at the time and it was recommended

that the wells be resampled and analyzed for bacteria.

E3 The characteristics of the leachate source quality monitors 99-3, 99-4 and 99-5 can be

established by examining the differences between these locations and the background quality

Elocations for those ,henical parameters that are typical of municipal landfill leachate. This is

illustrated by the grouping of data as shown in Table 6.7, The "leachate affected monitors" have

elevated BOD, TDS, hardness, chloride, sulphate, conductivity, iron and manganese compared to

Golder Associates

E 11

| _ I _ 1 I~~~~~~~T.

October 1999 il 6 - 29 , 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ELJ

l w | ~~the natural background'quality; all of these are typi'cal of' landfiUl leachate. It is noted that thel

heavy metals are not elevated'in the leachate, also typical of municipal solid waste leachate.

Also, the groundwater in monitor 99-3 located near the north.boundary, of the. existing disposal

site is the most affectedipf the three monitors, reflecting that this location is beneath the area

| where waste disposal commenced and hence where leachate geperation has been ongoing for the

longest time. It should be realized that this chemistry is leachate affected groundwater of

Ielatively weak strength (low.concentrations) compared to pure full strength leachate such as that

to be collected from above an engineered bottom liner system.

The effects of the existing waste disposal activities since 1997 on off-site groundwater can be

studied by examining the water quality in existing wells GW-5 and GW-6 that are located,

respectively, about 20 metres north (downgradient) and at the nqrtheast corner of the existing

dumpsiie. 'As,indicated in Table 6.7, these two wells have elevated TDS,, hardness, chloride and

_conductiv,y compared to the batckground wells, but at lower concentrations than in the leachate

source locations. These ,chemical parameters are typical of the leading edge or front of the

leachate plume development, aid are interpreted to demonstrate that the groundwater has already

been altered by waste disposal for a distance of greater than 20 metres off-site onto the

agricultural lands to the north.

These results demonstrate the need for the implementation of an engineered bottom liner and

leachate collection system to prevent ongoing contamination of the off-site groundwater. As

additional,waste is placed there will be higher dissolved concentrations of contaminanti in the

grpundwater beneath the source (the waste). Without an engineered liner and leachate collection

- system, this would otherwise result in higher concentrations in the off-site leachate plume and

expansion of the plume as it moves in the groundwater flow direction.

There is the potential for off-site ,wells- in the, low,v lying agricultural lands to the north of the

, ; ' existing disposal site to beconle affected or more,affected by the present and ongoing waste

disposal activities until such time that the engineered landfill is implemented. Off-site wells

adjacent so the South Parcel should not be affected by the future engineered landfill

development. Also, tiere is no potential for the current or proposed landfill activities to affect

the main water supplies of the urban area of San Femando.

Golder Associates

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ I '.. .

,,.,___________________________________

- - ~ ~ .-30 -2730

October 1999 6-30 981-2730BSWE3EP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

6.8 Ecology

6.8.1 Introduction

The study of biologital baseline conditions, which includes the present dumpsite activities, has

been carried out to provide a basis of comparison for the subsequent impact assessment on

biological resources associated with the proposed sanitary landfill.

The study area includes the immediate vicinity of ihe existing San Fernando landfill site and the

landfill expansion area. There will be no impact to:aquatic resources, as there are no

waterbodies within the study area. Therefore, it will notbe discussed as part of this biological

baseline assessment. :

6.8±2 iMithodology

Vegetation Survey

To describe the vegetation charcteristics (relsiive density and species diversity) of the area that

will be affected by this project, two transect lines were, established in the proposed landfill site

and'samples of all plants intersected were collected. 'In the existing landfill site, samples of all

plawts were collected and their locations mapped. A sumrmary ,of the vegeU*.tion survey is

pro% ided in Figure 6.5. These samples were washed air-dried, classified and identified through

the use-of availabl,e -ferencs.[AFinal coiirr,naEion has been'done through comparisons with

' - - ~~saroples l-ept aL the National Herbarium/Botany Dj% isioni of the Philippine National Museutm.

Wildlife Survey

The wildlife survey examined the three groups of animals that inhabit the projr ^t area: insects,

birds and mammals. ' ' ' ' v '

To establish an inventory of insects.withjn the proposed landfill site, rawnni collections were

*w .undertaken. Collected specimens from the sits were brought to! khe !fJnratory Ror sorting,

classification and identification. i

Golder Assoclates

I F

T. ,17 October 1999 6 - 31 981-273013

. . ; SIVEEP, San Fernajndo La Union Sajitary Landfill EL4

. For the bird group, sightings and bird caUs heard were tecorded frt lhiee consecuti e days in the

study area. Interviews with local residents were condue to assist. in baseline data collection

and to detemiine if chap0 es in *vildlife sightings over time haveoccurred in the area. Two pairs

of binoculars (7 x 35 magnification) were used by Iheteamn to observe and identifx birds.

Two mist nets (3 x 10 m) were installed using bamboo polgs anqsituated in open areas to capture

bats. These were held in position overnight-anda e the Following momning.

Fi'. snap traps were placed in the study area (one at tbe ce dfour in opposite sections of

the study area) to capture ground mammals. TrapswreU4 _With coconut meat and peanut

r buner and %%ere checked at 12-hour intervals The tea -iffor,nammal activities such as

diggings, fecal droppings and footprints. Secondaiycdata wvVp1so collected through interviews

with local residents.

A list of references consulted for purposes of tlhe Biological baseline sune)s is provided ini

i Table 6.8. i .

6.8.3 Vegetation

: :~'* Over 8,000 piant species %%ere listed by Mlerrill (1926) as present in the Philippines. Other plant

studies have been conducted since Mlerrill's stud) includitg'Pricp (1974), de Laubenfels (1978)y

L. Coronel and Zuno (1980), Miadulid (1981), Pancho'(1983a,,i983b), Herrerra, et al. (1984),

vlacabenta and Capina (1984), Mloody et al. (1984), De jui2znan:ai;d Fernando (19S6), Vera

r Santos (1986a, 1986b) and others. Considering that some species listed by Mlerrill (1926) may

L ! ha%e been classified funher into subspecies, it is estimnated that ovcr 8,600 plant species are

found in the Philippines todaŽ.

Existine San Fernando Landrill Site

A %egetation sur'ey in the e.xisting San Fernando landrill site mas conducted to deLermnine the

floristic composition of the area. A total or 25 species of plants *were identified and of this

number, 21 species %%cre non-dipterocarps, 2 were bamboos and 2 %%ere grass species. Most of

the non-dipterocarp species %%ere introduced to the landfill sitethrough tree p13nting, activities

Golder Associates

l I 1F . : .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

rtlF_~~~~~~~~2~ I..

Oclober 1999 6 - 32 981-2730l

SIESW ,' San Fernando La Union Sanilary,Landfill ESA

l w ~~spearheaded by both the former and present mayor of the City of S'an Fernando. In addition,

ornamental species of plants such as Birds of Paradise, Gutnamela, Golden Box plants, Mayana,

VietnTn Rose, San Frincisco, White Kalachuchi and Morning Glory have also been planted.

Table 6.9 provides a listing of the plants identified Within the existing landfill sife, and Figure

6.5 is the vegetation map of the area.

The 25 species of plant identified in the existing landfill area are mostly ornamental and of high

economic importance,as either fruit-bearing trees or high quality wood sources. Nine (9) species

Of identified non-dipterocarp trees are ecologically important as sources of food for birds. lThese

include Annona muricata (guyabano), Pil.becelloblum dulce (kanachile), Tama-indus indicd

w ~~(taniarind), Puteria campechiana (chesa), MangfJera indica (mango), Spondiats purpurea

(sineguelas), Musa sapentium (banana) and Annona squamosa (atis). A number of insects also

use th:ese noli-diptemcarp, trees for food (flowers) and-assist in pollination. Notable insect food

plants are Moringa oleffe'rt (malunggay), Delonix regia (flaimc tree) and Gliricidia sepium

i lii(kakawate. Birds' an insects also use most of these planits as temporary shelter from extreme

% eather conditions. In the existing landfill site, most stands of non-dipterocarp trees in the

%eslern section are in mature stages and could be sources of food as well as shelter. Most of

these mature trees have a diameter at breast height (DBH) of more than 10 cm and are assumed

to be more than 6 years old.. However, it appears that these plants are utilized minimally by local

fauna due to disturbance from human activities (garbage sorters) and vehicular noise from the

adjacent municipal coutcrete road on the west side of the landfill. Furthermore, stands of these

trees are limited in number and are have been planted in a row against the west perimeter wall of

1thc existing landfill site. The younger stands of bees in the eastern section of the existing

L q - landfil site contain individuals of on~ly 4 cm to 8 cm DBH and' are non fruit-bearing at present.

Although some of these plantis have also been identified as having medicinal properties, the

limited number of these trees makes them not economical to harvest. The majority of the

vegetation present within the project area is introduced and are non-endemic species of little

natural heritage value.

* I tGolder Associates

s ' .I

October 1999 6 - 33 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfdl EL

Proposed Landfill Extension Area

~J tWithin the proposed sanitary landfill expansion site, 30 species of plants were identified: 22

non-dipterocarps, 4 bamboos and 4 grasses.

During the five day-sampling period (13-14 and 18-20 March 1999), 208 plant samples were

collected. Table 6.10 preseiqts the list of identified plant samples and their common names,

frequency, relative density and species diversity. The non- dipterocarps are the most dominant

species in the study area. Among these, GlIric1i1a sepium, Psidium guajava, Leucaena

leucocephala, and Tamarindus indica are the most abundant.

Most of the 22 species of non-dipterocarp plants in the vicinity of the landfill site are of high

| economic importance. As discussed earlier, most fruit-bearing trees in the area are ecologically

important as sources of food and shelter for birds and insects.! HoI% ever, since these fruit-bearing

plants are not mature, they are not utilized by 'wildlife. The economic importance of each

species is presented in Tables 6.11 and 6.12. Despite their high economic importance, the

' l ' | number'of stands of these plants is very limited and they are relatively small in terms of size.

Furthermnore, these plants are growing in an unproductive and uncultivated area.

Four species of bamboo were observed in the landfill expansion area. Most of these bamboo.

plants were relatively young, with only 5-6 basal stands with an average height of 3 m. In

_ gngeral, bamboos are an hnportant group of plants to the economy of the rural areas in the

Southeast Asia, as is evi4ent from the fact that all parts of the bamboo are extensively used by

local people.

Within the project site, local people find little use for bamboo plants. Those located near' houses

are sometimes used as fencing material. However, very few families indicated this practice. In

an interview with local r?sidents, whenever they find young shoots that can be used for food,

these are cut from the basal! section of the tree and cooked as a vegetable. Thick stands of

bamboo are often used by birde for nesting. During vegetation surveys, however, inspection of

e l| bamboo stands reveale, that there were no bird nests in the area.

Golder Associates

.rFeF t

October 1999 6 - 34 981-2730Bi - ' SWEEP, San Fernando La Union S4nitary Landfll/ EL4

Four species of grasses, dominated by Imperata cylindrica were found in the proposed landfill

site.: Based on an interview with local people, the area is often used as a grazing zone for

animals such as goats, carabaos and cows. Grasses and other fodder plants in the area serve as

feed for domestic herbivpres. Most of these plants belong to the families Gramineae and

Leguininosae, although other herbaceous and woody plants are also eaten by animals. Grassland

and fodder plants are collectively called forages. iForages can be defined as feed for herbivores

and are usually lower in nutrient concentration and digestibility than concentrates, such as grain.

Forage plants can dczur in the wild and are commonly found in grasslands, in tree crop

plantations or in open spaces in and near forests and along roads and canals. In tropical areas

with high rainfall, grasslands are usually sub-climax vegetation communities, because the natural

climax is almost always closed canopy forests. These sub-climax grasslands haye been formed

through human clearing of forests for agricultural purposes and are maintained as sub-climax

e communities by the grazing and burning of abandoned croplands (Whyte, 1974). Visual

inspection of the grass ,tands in tl e landfill expansion area indiI,atcd no utilization of the grasses

as nesting areas for birds. i

In general, the presence, relative abundance or coverage, and relative size of the various species

in a secondary forest, such as the landfill expansion area, are indicative of the health of the local

forest ecosystem and, tlus may serve as indicators of site quality. In this pase, the very limited

biodiversity of plants in the landfill extension area and its vicinity indicate low soil fertility. The

correlation may or may not be apparent because vegetation also reflects the effect of events and

.*S factors that are unrelated to site quality, i.e., plant competition and mutualisin, herbivory, low

* light conditions in the understory or past events in the history of the v getation such as drought,

insect outbreaks and hluman disturbance. This last factor has considerably affected vegetation

and wildlife in-the proj ct site. Nevertheless, site characteristics are sufficiently reflected in the

vegetation to make it a successful index of site quality in many instances. The plants them!jelves

are used a measure of the quality of the site as they integrate the effects of many climatic and

soil factors that are difficult to measure directly.

Tree species are usefu indicators because they are lotng-lived, relatively-unaffected by stand

density and easily identified in all seasons. of the year. Some species have sucL a narrow

ecological range that their occurrence is 'indicative of a particular site characteristi;. Most trees,

Golder Associates

I . '

October 1999 6-3$ 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La UnionSaiaiary Landfill EJA

however, have a wide ecological range and may occur and thrive in a wide variety of

environments. Thus, their presence is of little value as indicators of sitd quality. Within the

X1 proposed project site, the characteristic tree species were similar to those found in other sections

of San Fernando City. This implies homogeniety of climate and soil conditions in the area.

Plant species of the shrub, herb and moss-lichen layers (termed ground!flora or ground cover) of

forest communities may be more useful than tree species as indicators of environmental quality.

However, as they were not observed throughout the study area, they could not be used to

- | evaluate site conditions.

* During the rainy season, local people observed no additional species of significance growing in the

proposed landfill expan,ion area. This could be attributed to the homogeneity of climatic and soil

characteristics of the area.

Surrounding Landfill Area

Visual inspection within a 10 km radius of the proposed project site indicated that the vegetation

was comprised nmostly of secondary growth species. This can be attributed to existing land use.

Twenty two (22) species of plants were identified outside the study area. Of these, 17 species were

* r | non-dipterocarps, 3 were bamboos and 2 were gra'ses. This limited pumbee of plant species

outside the study area wps a reflection of the prefereoces of the residents around the area for fruit-

bearing and ornamental plants.

Of ecological importance, 10 species of these non-dipterocarp trees are used by birds and insects as

sources of food and sbelter. Most of the tree species in this area are mature. However, the scarcity

of these -stands severely restricts the number of bird and insect species that they are able to support.

Psidium guajava is the most abundant tree species in this area, but stands ofthis tree were relatively

L a young land non-fruit-bearing. The same was true for stands of Gliricidia sepium. (kakawate) and

Tqianri7ndus indica (tamarind). Funhermnore, most of theso-stands were found along the road in the

northetn section of the proposed landfill site expansion, indicating that these trees were planted.

Golder Associates

FL -

October 1999 6-36 981-2730BS1fEEP, Sana Fernando La UViion Sanitary Laidfill EL4

On the northeastern si o of the existing San Femando Landfill, large cultivated plots of bitter

gourdlanpalaya (Momoirdida charantia) were observed. They are grown here because o'f the

tefraiii of the area, which directs water and 'even-fertilizers from a -nearby tobacco plantation

towards these plots. * J

Summar,

Altogeher, 77 species of pants ere -identified in the existing landfill site, the expansion area and,

the siuaounding vicinity. However, only 8 species were cormmon to all these three sites: Gliricidia

sepiunmi(kakawate), Taiparindas bidica (tamarind). Leucaena leucocephdla (ipil), Pithecellobium

dutce kamniachile), Afwigifera idic-a (mango), Clrwsopbllumln.,cainito (kainito), Musa sapientum

(banana) and Schizotachl,utn braclhycladun (bamboo). ,--

6.8.4 Wildlife ... I .

Based on io4erviews with local people, conducted prior to the wildlife survey, vefy ftw wild

animals (birJls and a few insects)-are"ever- sighted in the proposed landfill site. This is partially

due to h,e fa.t that the landfill site isi surrounded by a fence that severely limits animal access.

Due to its character as a developed landrill sihe, % ildfife habitats are no longer present i'n the

existiri 'landfill site. his could bo partially attributed to the disturbance caused by vebicular

trafric" in' the landfill site as well as on the aearby road. Further, the limited relative abundance

and types of vegetation p'resent do riot-support many species of-birds and mammals. The types

and aunt of food available is %ea' limited as most.fruit-bearing species of trees are in early

stages of dovelopment

r Birds N

Birds were the most num.erpus wildlite group observed within the study area. A listing of the

birds sighted is given in Table 6.13. Due to donminance of grass species in the proposed project

site, Cisticola exilis serinirufa, or the Pipit cogon, was the most common species encountered.

During the study, this species'was sighted more than 7 times. However, its densiiv in the area is

unknown.

Golder AsSociates

r 1t~~~r-m _ ____'S

October 1q99 6 - 37 981-2730B

* SP§Egp,~~ San Fernando La Unfon SandtazyLandfilES

At least 51 bird species are recognized as endemic to Luzon Island, with 10 specjes exclusively

found in Northem Luzon. These include the Bleeding Heait Pigeon (Gaflicoltmba luzonica

griseolateralis), Rough crested Cucako -(Phoenicophaewuperdciosau-agayensis), Philippine

Trogoon (Harpactes ardens iaerbeli), White-bellied -Woodpeckerisj,Docopus jaemk

estoItherusJ, Isabela Oriole (O*iolus isabella,e), Plain-hea&ed.Creeper (Rhabdornis innoratlus

grandisj, 6Elegant Tiumouse (Parui elegans nionlegenis). Blue-headed Fantail (Rhipidura

cyanicopsipinocota), Chesinut Niannikin (Loticliira malaccaforpmsana) and Glossy Swiftlet

(Collo,c4ia esculenta isolootc). None of these IO specics were observed in the study area, either

.. during the wildlife in% estigatioris, or by locaq reside nt.! The Yegetation of the proposed landfill

sitedoreqotmeet the food requircments of these species. i-

Alirafraja('aiica philppinenisis (Tagping) ranges throughout India, Indo-China, Malaysi.a and

AustraliN 1Where it is represenated bylsubspecles or races. Two subspecies are: founcLin the

fl Philippi'es (M j. philippihensis and AL Y.Wp,. a'<sM. JA recencly as 15 years.ago, this bird

was common in open areas, especially in pastares and grasslands with short grass. At present, it

is uncommon in these areas indicating that the conversion ofgr!bslands and farms to residential

developpints4 especially along the road leading to the landfill has adversely affected local

popul,ati.0 oqthis bird in the ilandfill area. ' ;f'

_ ~ Th 1 .! I ._, :

The grass hillside and open rolling terratnR-of the proposed• landfill site, covered mainly, with

grass (k6g6n) mixed with $hrubs, arelvery favorable environments for Cisticola exilis sendrnrfa

I- < ' (Pipit cQgon). These birds zrie also, found in rie §elds before the harvest. Often, this 'p,ecies

r I sta. arp,O"ng dense grass grov.ths and perches on top of kogon or talahib. Due toi its small size

fromand sw movements, this bird is racher difficult to catch. This species is widy distributed

from India to southern China, Taiwan, Philippines, Java and down south to Australia. The

rT - | Philippine subspecies is resident and is wvidely distribured.among numerous islands, from Luzon,

j * to central Philippines, to NMindanao and the Sulu Arehipela,o, bui it is not found in Palawan.

fT r- ->..Zr . '-

Pycnonolus goiavier goiavic;; (Yeliow-vented Bulbul) is one of the most common birds in the

Philippines. They are found on farms, in bushes.. on open and cultivated lands,' in patches of

secondary growth andl 6earings. 'The )ellow-vented bulbul feeds on ripe fruits, such as guava,

I which is rather abunda,nt wiii the proposed s'anitary landfill andin the surroindir;g area. These

. _ E . Golder Associates

.. I ), '..' '

22oe;I 996- 38 981-2730B

'SWEF2P,'SanFernandoLa UnionSanitaryLandflEL4

* birds ar, not timid and do not seem to mind the presence of Iumans in the immediate vicinity of

the plaxits where.they feed. The species includes some 23 silWspecies or races, which are

distributed from India and Manchuria to the Philippines and Celebesill Ohe race is widely.

distributed on the numerous islands of the Philippines ranging from Luzon west to Palawan, and

south to tecentral Philippines, down'to Mindanao and southwest to the Sulu Archipelago.

Insects i

During the study period, only; three species of insects were observed in the project site:

AIopolus tamulus (s40ort-4orned grasshopper), Praying Mantis, and Tereglyllus testaceous

(brown cricket). Most of these insects are residents of grasslands, kaingin or cultivated lands.

However, the number of collected insects may not represent thp actual number in the project site.

Only seven (7) short hprned grasshopper, three (3) Praying Mantis ,ad three (3) brqwn crickets

were noted during the study. Most of these insects are preyed upon by bir'M.

Mammals,

No mamnwals were trapped in the proposed landfill site However, local residents have observed

Kurarapnit, or the short-nosed fruit bat (Cynopterus brachyotis luzoniensis), during early

evening. This could be attributed to the presence of a number of fruit-bearing trees within the

project site and its vicinity. The short-nosed fruit bat was sighted only rarely by local residents,

likely as a r '- of the limited number of trees and that most are non-fruit-bearing.

Ecdleaical*,c ircance or ildlireStudyFindings

A host of aiiuals of all sizes forms an indispensable part of foress ecosystem. As bio ic factors,

they markt; ifluence foresii commuriity composition and ecosystem processes. Animals, in

turn, are si. ly affecled both tiy the physical environment and. by the plants with which they

associate. ,Ib,- small number of Ouit bearing tr,es and jpatches of vegetation ser;e as limiting

factors for the ;urvival of wildlife in the landfill site and its proposed extension.

Golder Associ3tes

l; \' ' l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

I £riK

l - ~ ~ - - :

I' Otoberl999 6 1!- 981-2730B-tbr 1;999 :WB, Sa F rlandfoLa Uionio Sani!aiy Landfill EM

6.8.5 Tcologicaly Sigdificant Species

Based on the vegetation'and wildlife surveys conducted and review of available secondary

information, no threatened, endangered or rare species were identified within the project site and in

- the surroutding vicinity. Table 6.14 lists the birds, mammals and reptiles as endangered,

- threatened, vulnerable or indeterminate in terms of population number in the Philippines. Table

6.15 identifies the rare, endemic and endangered plants of the Philippines.

6.9 Noise

6.9.1 Methodology '

Actual on-site noise levelJdetermination was undertaken to establish baseline noise levels on

March 9 and 10, 1999 as there are rio available data of ambient noise levels in the project area.

Using a portable' Sound Level Meter, measurements were made at six sampling stations. At H

Station 1, which is adjacent'to a more densely populated area, diurnal sampling was conducted.'

Seven readings were recqrded at each sampling point, for which the maximum, minimutn and

mean values were recorded. At the time of sampling the wind speed was 1.0 n/s blowing from

the NNE direction.

6.9.2 Measurement Locations

The locations of noise level measuremi ents are shown on Figure 6.3. These locations are the

same as those used for ambient air measurements. For additional information refer to

photographs in Appendix K ,

The description of each sampling point together with the rationale for the selection of these

sampling points is pres,ented below:

K ^,¢,Stalidn'No:,' c-;'jDescr;'tion~of.LoeaI~on , *' . e- Raijonalefors-50ectior F

Located in a flat open area near a Located doAn wind of prev; ilingresidential subdivision, Western wind regime for the NE mo,nsoon l

portion of thq proposed 2.5 ha dump with external sources of noise.,site and about 100 m away from Potential for airlpdour/noisecorner of lot no.23.' nuisance to residences i

SSW ernd of the proposed 2.5 ha Located near residential house on

Golder Associates '

JW1*

, ! ___________________________________

,,,, ; -'_]SM

October 1999 6 - 40 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL

S ^7$~~StaliidjSo:Yrj i m!}eSc1p!tion;oFLbAatiori95'P$ 1

.Ratioinale for Seiqctioj>;}additional disposal site located at SSW margin or the project site.Brgy. Dalangayan approximately 40 Provides qmbient air quality andim away from the lot corner of lot no. noise level for rural areas18 of the proposed site. surrounding the project site.

Downwind of the proposed- m project site during the NE

monsoon. Will be potentially. . _ ! affected by increased air andmn ' noise levels.

11s1 ' E 3 Lqcated East side of the proposed 2.5 Located along access road near'ha waste disposal site and about 80 residential area. Providesm maway from the lot corner of lot no. ambient air quality and noisex_ 7. levels for rural areas.

El| ; 4 Located NNE of the existing landfill i Located in an open hilly area nearsite, and 30 m away from the residential houses. Measurement

______________ existing landfill site perimeter fence. was taken on the upwind side.5 Located along Brgy. Dalangayan Located in a vacant lot near the

Oeste Road, about 60 m away from periphery of residential area.the waste reception and Measurements were taken on the

Ee| _ _ ~~~~~adininistratiori building. upwind side.6 Located at Purok 11 along Brgy. Located near residential area.

gayan Road eastern side of the Provides ambient air quality and1ll existing and proposed sites. I noise levels for a semi-rurl

areas... ~ ~ 5 b. . . ulig pidsd.6.93 'Noise Survey gtesults

__ 11 The observed noise levels range from 34 dB(A) at 12:15 A.M. in Station l.c tb 52 dB(A) at 3:15

-P.M.'at Station b. The maximum and minimum noise levels monitored during daytine wvere 38

W 'vdB(A) and 52 dB(A), respectively (Table 6,16). I

Although during sampling time there were activities in the existing dump site, the observed

noise levels throughout the sampling'day were very much lower than the DENR standard (refera to Table 6.17).

It was observed that the periphery of the existing site has been planted with different trees such

' ' as: ban1boo, ipil-ipil, etc. which also serve as sound barrier,

Golder Associates

4;

-U-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

_- _ _ I

i_ -~ ' - - t- - L~~- - ~

, .'1, October 1999 6 - 41 ' 981-2730Br1 SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL

6.10 Air Quality

n ,q S ~~6.10.1 IMethodology I

, Hstoric ambient ar quality data for the Study Area are not available. An air quality survey was

conducted at and in the vicinity of the proposed site to determine air quality conditions in March,

'19W The air quality survey was undertaken at selegted locations as shown on Figure 6.3. The,

- ;, streYwas carried oyt for the concentrations of the following parameters:

| Methare Gas (Cl)

* Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)

* Sulphur Dioxide (SO 2)

A 5: | . Methane Gas(CH?

The methane gas (CH4) concentration was oieaswred using a Drager Ellylarm Nlethane Gas

Detector. The Ex-larn gas delector alarm threshold level %%as set to 201o of the Lower

E7 f Explosive Limit (LEL).

- F Total Suspend.e. particulate ITSP)

A Staflex High V *lume Air Samnpler %%as used to ot;ain sanmple. for measurement of TSP. A

r~ q. . one hour samplinj: time was,psed. Glass fibre filter papers w.eie seighed, desiccated and then

q w%eighed again 2- hours after use. A gra% imecric method v.as useL to determine concentrations

r t .- ~of TSP.

U Sulphur Dioxii ).-

The prcsence o' SD2 %wzs measured using a Gas Bubbler Samiipler, f INIOTO HS-7. ..3 10 ml

absorbing solution - f potassium teirachlorom icurate (TCNI) " as prel ared in the lablx itory in a

L @ small plastic boatlk. This 10 ml absorbing solution vas prese.vcd in ; containcr s: 2 .e before

and after use. Th. Gas Bubbler sampler was run at a constant flo% r. ;of 0.5 L pai .-.in. for a

one hour sampl`.ie period at each sampling station.

Golder Associatr

A mF

1w~~~~~~~~~~~~~o

x,~~~~~ _____._ V

|| October 1999 C 6-42 981-2730BS1P, San -Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfdl El

6.10.2 Measurement Locations

7 1 The TSt and S02 measulements were taken at the sampling stations shown on Figure 6.3. The

sampling.stations were chosen according to the location of key potential receptors in the area.

_, 04CEI, was measured at different locations within the existing dumpsite where waste had already

been placed (refer to Figure 63).

r . | 6.10.3 Survey Results

| Methane Gas (CI)

CH4 wa,s not detected above 20 percent LEL at any of the locations monitored for it. It is noted

that the existing dumpsite has only been in operation since 1997 and the waste has been placed in

thin layers. Also, daily cover has been in use only since the latter part of 1998. As such, the

extent of anaerobic conditiona, required for COH4 generation, may be limited at this time.

Total Suspended PWrticulates (TSPC

I Measured TSP coi centrations ranged from 4.98 ug/Nm' to 25.88 ug/ Nm3 at the sampling

|_ stations within and outside of the existing and proposed sites (Table 6.18). These concentrations

are well below the LDi iR I hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (DENR Standard) for

TSP of 300 ug/Nm3. .

1ulphur Dioxide (aOm t a p

Measured SO2 conceifr rations ranged from less than 7 ug/ Nm3 to 13.8 ug/ Nm3 at the sampling

stations within and oi !tside of the existing and proposed site (rable 6.19). These measured

fL iconcentrations of SO2 -e all below the DENR Standard of 340 ug/ Nm3 .

6.11 Traffic

6.11.1 MIeltd ... ;y

| Categorized counts of vehiwulaw and pedestrian traffic movements were conducted manua Iy at

two locations al.,ng Dalangayan Oeste Road leading to the project site. Traffic counts were

,Golder Associates

L~~~~.D, 1. . '~~-

| ¢ j October 1999 6-43 981-2730B

r = , : f , SWVEEP, San Fernatmdo La Uniion Salaity Landfill ELA

-- 11undertaken for.24 hours beghlning at 8:30 hours on XVednesday, March 10, 1999, and at 6:3p

hours on Saturday, March 13, 1999. All waste haulage traffic'to the site curreitly uses this roaa

from the developed centre of the city proper to Brgy. Mameltac and balangayan Oeste, where

the project site is located. Waste haulage traffic will continue to use this road for the foreseeable

futurei.

v , . - .........

- t} Two sets of iraftlic counts were made at each location in order to establish prevailing traffic

flows. The monitoring points selected are shown on Figure 6.1.

Ti - located along Brgy. Dalangayan Oeste Road in front of e4isting MSW disposal site;

31 ,and

12 - located along Brgy, Dalangayan Oeste Road at the corner of Dalangayan Este Roa1

|| . (junction)

3 6.11.2 Existing Traffic Flows

Detailed traffic counts, for'each 15 minute period throughout the 24 hours counting period .were

recorded.! 'A sample of the categorized data is reproduced in Appendix L, while summary hourly

two-way raffic flows at each location are presented in Table 6.20 to'Table 6.29 inclusive for

|| , locations Ti and 12 respectively. The remainder of the categorized data is in the project files.

The main findings of thle traffic survey are summarized below.

Location TI (Date ofSuurvey. March 9-10.1999)

The monitoring station is located along the westem side of Dalangayan Oeste Road facing the

main entrance to the existing disposal site. At this location the road is concrete-paved, two-lane,

4 m wide with 0.5 m sh6ulders on each side.

r - ~ ~ Two traffic counts were conducted and reported separately as follows:

' traffic travelling only along Dalangayan Oeste Road (Table 6.20); and

r traffic entering/leaviiig the existing service road to the dump site (Table 6.21).

Golder Associates

C_K

wic ' ' ,,1 . .. 1 . . - .: ---' -... '''' i-

October 1999 6 - 44 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La L(nion Sanitary Landfll ELI

The total traffic, flows aL the site entrance were obtained by summing these two counts.

Considering the aggregate traffic flow, the principal fundings of the survey at ,TI are as follows:

* motorized traffic represents approximately 62% of the total recorded traffic flow; !* peak traffic flows, both total and motorized traffic, occur between 07:00 and 09:00 hours.

From 09:OQ until 11:00 hours there is a build-up of traffic flows and after 11:00 hours traffic

flows are relatively constant, diminishing somewhat between 13:00 and 15:00 hours. After

19:00 hours, and afteu 22:00 until 05:00 hours there is very little traffic flow. Between 01:00

hnd 04:00 hours no traffic movements were recorded;

* pedestrians constitute the most significant component of the traffic flow, accounting for

approximately 31% of the total traffic flow. The majority of the pedestrians are waste

| z . pickers and their relatives entering and leaving the dump site;

* tricycles and motorcycles are the major component of the motorised traffic flow recorded,

representing approxinmately 17% of the total measured flows and about 27% of the total

motorised traffic flow,

* another significant component of the traffic are vans, trucks ,and dump trucks which

comprise 13% of the total traffic flow and approximately 21% of the total motorised flow.

Approximately 66°e of the dunp trucks, vans and truck traffic is involved in the delivery of

MSW to the site; and

* * light vehicles, fncluding public utility jeeps and private vehicles, comprise approximately

31 % of the total traffic flow and around 51% of the total motorised traffic. Approximately

24% of private vehicle traffic is involved in the delivery of MSW to the site.

The only traffic entering the dumpsite comprises pedestrians, dump trucks and private vehicles;

r the latter two categories are used in the delivery of MSW to the site. At the time of the survey

waste. deliveries were restricted, in the main, to daylight hours (primarily between 06:00 andc

17:00: hours), with three periods of peak traffic flow recorded (see,,below). But on actual

observations, it was observed that dump trucks were still in operation up to 24:00 hours.

* between 07;00 and 08:00;

* between 09:00 and 1:00; and

Golder Assoclates

r

'

|~~ i; t ' -i, ,,

October 1999 i 6'- 45 - . 981-2730B-S jr EP. San Fernando La Union Saniary Landfill EM

-, L * betweea 16:00 and 17:00 hours.

I^ Pedestrians account for approximately 28% of the total traffic flow on thfI current service road.

Location T2 (date of Surlev March 9-10.1999'

The second monitoring location is located ,t,the junction of Dalangayan Oesto road and the

existing barangay road going to Brgy. Dalangayan Este. It is approximately 1.7 km southwest of

,_ j ' Location 'Ti and withip rqsidential areas along the road.

l Three,traffic counts were conducted as follows:

| , * traffic travelling only along Dalangayan Oeste Road (Table 6.22); *1* traffic-travelling only along Dalangayan Oeste Road to Brgy. Dalangayan Esto (Table 6.23);

and. ,

* traffic travelling qnly along Dalangayan Este road to Brgy. road going to National Road:

l (Table §.24).,'

Considering the aggregate traffic flow, the principal findings of thg survey are as follows; 7.'

.1t | * motorised traffic comprises approximately 90% of the total traffic flow;

L - - . around 33% of the traffic flow enters the existing road to Brgy. Dalangayan Este;.

l Tricycles/motorcycles and bicycles/pedicabs together account for approximately 66% of thel

traffic. iow; ''

I'> ; | * ,lightvehicles acount forapproximately24% ofthe total motorised t Cflow; i

* dunp trucks, trucks,ajid vans, wl!ich include those going to'and retuming from the dumpsite,

_ | account for approximately 6% of the total traffic flow and 7% of the motorised traffic flow.

Approximately 2% of the dump trucks, trucks and vans were recorded on the existing road to

l. J * |Brgy. Dalangayan Este, the remainder travelled on the Dalangayan Oe?te Road; and

peak hours of traffc;mo,vement are between 07:00 and 08:00 hours and between 17:00 and'

18:00 hours. The, latte'r is due to a number of tricycles bringing home employees from work

to their homes.

.II. ,. -F

Golder Associates ..O.

,i ; _ ,., ... _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

." '_ _ _ _ -__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... .d

I _ ..~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 6 - 46 981-2730B.ig '.- I SF EEP, Saun Ferntanido Li. Union Sanziiiy Lsndfill EU4

At the existing road going'to Brgy. Dalangayan Este,;tricycles/notorcycles (68%) and publicutility jeeps (13%) are the major traffic movements observed. III

* l In sunur~y, total tWo-way traffic counts at each location- over the period of monitorig are asfollows:.

* TI: Wednesday. March 10, 1999 - 655 total traffic flow and 407 vehicle movements; and 56! MSW,#ucks , !'' 2: Wednesday, iarch 10, 1999 - 2018 total traffic flow and 1829 vehicte movements; and

56 MSW trucks

Location Ti (date of Survey March 13-14. I999)

Two traffic counts were conducted as follows:

* trafflo trav.elling'only along Dalangayan Oeste Road (Table 6.25); and* traffic enterhinglng service road to!the dump site (Table 6.26).

The two traffic counts are totally exclusive. In order to obtain the total traffic flows at the siteentrance the two counts must be aggregated.I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'Considering the aggregate traffic flow, the principal findings of the survey at TI are as follows:'

E : i - '; - t;: \ : i - . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

* motorized traffic rcpresenrs approximately 71% of the total recorded trarfic flow:* peak- Lraffic flows, both toial and motorized traffic occur benveen 21:00 and 22:00 hours.

Until 06:00 hours, there is a build-up of taMic floa%s and after 08.00 hours traffic flo%,s arerelatively constant, ditrainisiting somehiat beeen 09:00 and 12:00 hours;

* pedestrians form the most significant coniponent of the uraftic flows, accounting for

;spproxiniately 21% of the total traffic flow. The majority of the pedestrians are % astepickers and their relati-Ves entering and 'eaving the dump site;

W^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

Golder Associates

- I.

e~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -. '; - ..

-. 4~~~~~, - --I

;October 1999 6-47 981-2730B

. tricycies SWVEEP, San Ferna,,do La Union Sanitary Lqndflll EJA

* ricycles and motorcycles are the major component of the motorised traffic flow recorded,

-* t representing approximately 23% or ihe ltotal measured flows and about 32'o of the total

-I n motorised traffic flowv;

* g * another significant component of tlie trafric is vans, trucks and dump trucks which comprise

14% of the total trafric flow and approximatcly 32%,, of ihe total niotorised flow.

-JApproximately 55%o of the dump truck, van and truck traUfic is involved in the delivery of

I MISW to the site;

* :light vehicles, including public utility jeeps and privale vehicles coniprise approximately

34% of the total traftic flow and around 48% of the total motorised traffic. 'Approximately

35% of private vehicle traffic is involved in the delivery of MSW to the site, and :

* ] * traffic flows deorpase significantly after 19:00 and, after 21:00 hours until 05:00 hours there

is very little traffic flow. Between 03:00 and, 04:00 hours no ttffic movemerits were

J~-~ | .recorded.| The onlyb ftrfc entering the dumpsite cotnprf ses pedestrians, dump trucks and private'vehicles,

the latter two categories are responsible fqr t4e delive&y of MSW to the site. At the, time of the

r I survey waste deliveries were restricted, in the main, to daylight hours primarily b_tween 06:00

and 17:00 hours, with two periods of peak traffic flow recorded. But on actual observations, it -

[I was noticed around 17:00 and 20:00 hours, there was still a build-up of Ira ...i due to some'

pedestrians entering and exiting the site and delivery dump trucks thit were still ona operations up'.-

r I- to24:00hours. . * . - .J pocation T122 (date of Survey March 13-14. 1999

* . The second location monitored was at the junction of Dalangayan Oeste Road and the existing

barangay ro3d going to Brgy. Dalangayan Este. It is approxidima ly 1.7 km southwest of

Location TI and within residential areas aiong the road.

. Three traftic counts were conducted as follows.

*S .. . j

: { *traffic tra elling only along Dalangayaii Oeste Road (TabI? 6.27); ., .'_. ,, , Associat.:Golder Associates .1

I ) t% . s t\VF- I

_ , _}wA ztV

October 1999 6 -48 1-7BSWEEP, San Fernalado La Unilon SnirLandfill 81-2730B

trafic travelling only along Dalangayan Oeste Road to Brgy . Dalangayan Este (Table 6.28);and

* traffic, travelling only, along Dalangayan Este Road to Brgy. Road going to National Road(Table 6.29).

Considering the aggregate traffic flow, the principal rindings ofthe survey are as follows:.

4 - 1.!* moLorised traffic comprises approximately.84.7% of the total trafficfldw;-- 1! ;';t ' * around 41% of the traffic flow enters the existing road to Brgy. Dalangayan Este;' -'

* tricycles/mnoorcycle and bicycles/pedicabs together account for approximately 640,o of theI a 4 'ltraflic fow;

-*light vehicles account for approximately 27% of tle total motorised traffic flowv;4 . * I-durip trucks, trucks and vans, which include those going to and retuming froni the dumnpsite,account for approximately 4% of the'total traffic flow and 4:7% of the motorised traffic'4 flow. Approximately I.7%of the dumptrucks, 'trucks and vans are recorded on the existing

* | road to Brgy. DalangayanEste, the remainder travelled on the Dalangayan Oesle Road; and. peak hours oftraffic movement are between 07:00 d08-00andbetween 17:00,and 18:00;

the lIfter is due to a number oftricycles bring home employees from wyork to their homes.aL

I . e ' . ; r;-;:- 2fAt the existing road goin! to Brgy. Dalanga)an &ste, tricycles/motorcycles (59%) apd public!utilityjceps ( ) werc-t'heimajor traffic movements observed.

tIi sumaairy, total two -way traffic couuts at each location over the period of monitoring'are asfollows: ; e -

* * TI Saturday, Alarcd 13, 1999 - 614 total traffic flow and 437 vehicle movements of which42 are dump trucks; and

* T2 Saturday, lMarch 13, 1999- 2546 total trafFic flow and 2l58 vehicle inovemeritis t' which40 are dunip trucks

Golder Associates

_ l'-; ~ ~~~~~~Golder Associates

._~~~~~~~~~~..~ .

:'W,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F_~~~~ L T

October 1999 6 - 49 981-2730B

SIWEEP, San Fernanido La Union Sanila6 Landyill ELA

,ther Obser ation, , r

Delivery of SWI starts,aS 06:00 hours and stdps at 24:00 hour with maximum delivery of 13

I . dump trucks/hour/day. A maximum of 3 trucks were recorded per 15 minutes. *

- 24 "4-hours traffic counts were conducted on Wednesday, March 10, 1999 and Saturday, March 13,

; fl | , 1999, vith the followiing obsenations:

III 4Trafric flows in terrns of PUJ at TI on Wednesday, Niarbh 10, 1999 uas greater compared to

that at TI on Saturday, Mlarch 13, 1999 because of school days on Wednesday and school

'1 4holidays on Saturday.

* Traffic flov s at T2 on Saturday Nlarch 13, 1999 was greater compared to T2 on WVednesday,

r T larch 10, 1999 because of 'TIANGGE" Nlarket days during Saturdays.

*| f The following data were not available at time of survey:

% K *| * Total volume of' NISW delivered at site and number of ..ehicles

* Size of delivery vehicles. On the Wednesday sur e, 28 dump trucks delivered NISW at site.

On Saturday, there %were fes%er delivery trucks in spite of thc Saturday markeL day, whicil is

expccted to generate more solid v aste.

* On the tvo days sur eyed, no traffic problem was reponed. ,.'

U 6.12 Socio-Cultural, Economic and Political Environment

* | 6.12.1 Potential Impact Zones

For the purpose of identifying inipacts, the study area has been classified into a Priniary Impact

Zone, a Secondary Imspact Zone, an Additional Secondary Impact Zone, and General Area (City

of San Fernando, La Union). These classifications are according to the likely degree of impact

of the project proposals, and are as follows: '

1-fi

. i Golder Associates

7- ..... ~~~~~~~~~~ .r

,~~~~~~~~~~- V, L T

October 1999 6- 50 981-2730B' SflSEEP, San Fernando La Unioni Sanitarj Landfill EL4

Primary impact Zone - area within the project site. The project proposals aide likely to make a* significanit impact on households %ho rely oii *asle picking at the existing dumnpsite, cultivate

-* Iq ' and/or live on the land targeted for the proposed expansion ISeconddary Impact'Zone - areas within a 1.0 km radius of the bouwiaies of the project site.Communities adjacent to the dumnpsite may benefit from the improved environmental conditionsat the site as a result 9 f the project proposals. Portions of Barangays MaIameltac, Dalangayani 'iOeste, Dalangayan Este and Saoay fall within this zone; and

Additional Secondary Imaspact Zone - areas along the access road leading to the project site -

specifically residents of houses along the Dalangayan OesCe-Mlameliac B1rangay Road.Households living along the principal haulage routes may be affected.

Geairal Area - the Miunicipality of San Feniando, vhich will be affected by improved garbagecollection and waste disposal. The baseline data serve to provide a broader sociocconomic!

context for the ininediato project area.

This section provides general socio-economic baseline inromiation on the general area andhighlights the salient findings of the socio-economic study pertaining to the primary and [secondary impact zones.

6.12.2 liethodulogy

Baseline data on the'sLudy area %sere obtained froin tlie following sources:

* Secondary docunients and background data from various offices, nameln:i

* Office of tie City Planning and Development Coordinator

* Office of the City Assessor

* Offlice of the City Agriculturist

* Office of the City NMaor

* Inten ie%% : % ith key stakeholders and cominunity leaders, including

* T. ie City Mayor

* V IC CiLy Planihing and Development Coordinatur

Golder Associates !., I

* ;* I SII

0~~~~~ ;=

T t ~~~~~October J999 I - 6-51 981-2730B 1October i999 SlYElP, Sam Fernaindo La Union Sanitarj'Landfill EIA

'.The Baiangay Chaiimen of the Mameltac, Dalangayan Oeste, Dalangayan

g Fsteand Saoay 1 1

T. The City Assessor's Office Personnel

'Onsite Junkshp Operator

An in-depth baseline survey of 26 families relying on and/or living in the Primary Impact

Zone of the proposed Project to prepare a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). The RAP

Survey had 100% coverage of households engaged in waste picking and/or junkshop

operation inside the dumpsite as well as households living on or utilizing tie land affected

by the compulsory acquisition of land by Ihe City Gov'ermment. The RAP surjvey was

-| conducted oni 17-24 larch and 24 April 1999, and covered 12 households of waste pickers,L ' I junkshop operator, 41 landowners, 2 land and struclure o%%ners, 6 structure owners and I

tenant. Unless othenvise noted, all data on %%aste pickers, landoi%neri, structure owners, or

tenants (Projecl Affected People) are from tiiis source. The RAP is provided in

Appendix. NI.

* Socio-ecouiomic and Pcrccption Survey of 115 households located i%it1in 1.0 km of the

boundary of [he project site and haulage route. The perception survey coered barangays

Mlameltac, Dalangayan Esle, Dalangayan Oeste and Saoay. A :randont sampling procedure

- was employed in selecting the households for tlte survey. This co%ered 15.5% of those *vho

were residing within the inmediate vicinity and along the main road leading Lo the locationr of the proposed sanitary landfill. Unless othenvise noted, all data related to local residents

of the landfill is from this source. The Perception Survey Results are provided in

Appendix N.

The following table summarizes the status of residents in the primary and secondary impacl

zones.

Golder_Associates

Golder Associates 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~ . -. .

x -

October 1999 6 - 52 981-2730BShVEEP, San Fernzai,do La Union Sanitary Landfill EL1

Distribulion of Surveyed Waste Pickers, Land On;nerslOccupants Households and Other Households nithin the

Impact Zone According to Residence

4Baranga-i. ql Ma.Iste-Pickers~. *. 1 .I.OtberHue dj

5Mamelkac 4 30.8 - 36 31.3%Dalangayan Oeste _- I_ 84.6 35 30.4%Dalanga)ao Este 2 15.4 .9 25.2%Saony

- --- I 30Offsl/e Baregays' 9 69.3Total 13 100.0 13 100.0 115 100.0%- - A'ote: Barangios Cabaroan. Canaoqy andSan lice a.e

; A team of %olunteers composed of einploees from Planning and Development and SocialWVelfare and De elopment offices as well as officers from the Baranga3 Y'outh C'ouncil wasfomied and trained to conduct ihe face-to-face interie"s. Intenrie%%s ̂ 'ere undertakeri inIlocano and Filipino. The head of the household, or his spouse. was gi%en priorit) in theselection of respondents; however. where bolh "ere not a%ailable, an adult householdUt member (18 years old and abo%e) *%as taken as a substitute. Funhermore, the surneyattempted to balance the ratio of male-female responderts to the sur ex. The perceptionsurvey was conducted among the residenits of Baraneay MNameltac, Dalanga%an Este andOeste and Saoay on larch 17-24, 1999.

a Focused Group Discussions (FGD) conducted *%ith women engagqd in waste picking andfemale lando%%ners and/or occupants of affected lots. Two FGDs were held to get the opinionof the women among fanilies within ilie primary impact zone. FGDs u%ere conducted inllocano aided by an interpreter from the City Go%ernrent. The summarized findings of theFGDs are included in Attachment 2 to Appendi 0.

5 Public Consultations with the secondary and prirnar) affected groups. The Philippine RuralReconstruction Movement (PRRIM) fadihitaLed four sectoral and one mnulti-sectoral publicconsultations betveen October20 and 2, 1998; lwo at the landfill, tlo at Ciry Hall and oneat the Baraugay Hall. An additional public consultation %%as lield on Fcbruar\ 23. 1999 atthe Oasis Hotel in the Cit) of San Femando. This serVEd as a scoping sessioii for the EIA.

Golder Associates

a- .~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 6 - 53 . 981-2730B

SIVEEP, San Fernando La UJnio,, Sanitiary Laidfill EI.

F,,: A copy of the minutes or,the seoping session is attached as Appendix B. The lull report of it:

PRRNI is attached as Appendix E.

- 6.12.3 Population and Demographic Characteristics

The last census in 1995 put the population of San Femando at 91,943 inhabitants, *shich was the

result of a 1.59°%o per year growth rate since 1990. Based on this growth rate, the City Planning

and Developmnent Office projected the 1999 population to be 97,95 1. The total land area of the

LGU is 10,688 hectares, which gives a popul3tion density of just over 9 people per hectare, or

916 inhabitants per square kilometre. The prOject site, i%hich is the site of tile current landrill, is

northeast of the urban center approximately 6 kni fronm the commercial do%'nlo%'n area. . r

As or 1995, Ihe total populaLion and number of households in the Barangays Nlameltac, l

Dalanga3an Oeste, Dalanga)an Este, and Saoay (the primary and secondary impact areas) %%ere I

- 3371 and 740 respectivel) (Census of Population and Housing, NSO, 1995 projected b3 CPDO).

Population and Number of Households in the Barangays !

within the Impact Zone

L .4, f~~~~~~~~~~~Population t Total Niu,isfi^tbt Are (U-2 ~_-, 4V i.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

Mameltac. 873 187 84.0 10

r Dalangayan Oeste 1194 269 157.0 8

Dalangayan Este 824 170 70.5 12

Saoay 480 114 92 5

r Total 3,371 .740 403.5 8.4

Source: Census of Population and Housing, NSO, 199S.

: r Barangay Nlameltac, Dalangayan Oeste, DalangaZan Este and Saoay arc prinmarily rural in

character and, accordingly, households are t) picall) sparsel) and 'uidel) distributed. The greatest

concentration of population occurs along the margins of the project site and adjacent to the

.. . principal road.

l L The existing landfill area is located in Barangay Niameltac while the proposed expansion wyill be

located ii Dalanga)an Oeste. Dalangayan Este lies southeast while Saoa) lies nonheast of the

project site. Only a few household; lie vithin a I km radius from the boundaries of the project

site. The greatest concentrations of the population lie on the areas nearest to the principal access

r , s road to the city. Among the barania)s, Dalangasan OesLe and Saon) are the least densely

Golder Associates

,. J d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

October 1999 6 - 54 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll EIA

populated, witlh population densities ranging fromi 5-8 persons per hectire. Population densitiesof Mameltac and Dalangayan Este although higher than Dalangayan Oeste and Saoay are stillmoderately low-density, ranging from 10-12 persons per hectare.

! For the purposes of the project and the preparation of the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), theProject Affected People are identified as of the date of the baseline surveys, March 17 -24, 1999.These are 13 waste picker households and 15 households affected by the,land acquisition forexpansion of the current site, for a'tptal of 144 individuals. These constitute the primary impactgroup. Only 4 waste picker households are located in Barangay Mameltac, a majority of therg(nine - 69.3%) occur in Barangays Cabaroan, Canaoay and San Vicente where the old dumpsitewas located. Barangays Canaoay and San Vicente are approximately 10 knm away from theproject site, to the south of the urban area. Eleven (84.6%) land ow,ners and occupantshquseholds reside on the land, which will be acquired by the City Government for the project(Dalangayan Oeste), while two land-owners live ih Dalangayan Este. Out of the I 5 respondeptacovered by the Perception Survey for the secondary impact zone households, 31.3% reside' inBarangay Mameltac, 30.4% from Barangay Dalangayan Oeste, 25.5%)o from Dalangayan Este and13.0% from Barangay Saoay. ,

Waste pickers and residents within the Impact Zones are a mixture of migrants and locally bompeople. A greater proportion of respondents were born locally: 53.8% of the waste pickers,84.6% of the landowners, and 60.9% of those from other households. Less than half of therespondents from other households (39.1%) and among waste pickers (46.2%) are migrants'frqm

* the other barangays in San Fernando City, other parts of the province of La llnion, the provincesofithe llocos Region and some are even from the Quezon Province, whereas only :15% of the,land owners and occupants are migrants.

Migratory patterns show that those not born in the survey, area transferred most frequently

because they married a resident. This is prevalent among waste pickers another common reason.for transferring is that they have acquired a house and lot in the area. Since the majority of thehouseholds within the primary and secondary impact zones are locally-born, a large percentageof them have lived in the area for more than 10 years: 76.9% of the' waste pickers households,

-- 84% of the landowners households and 80% of the other households.

Golder Associates

October 1999 6-55 981-2730B

STEEP, San Fernando La Unions Sanitary Landfill EJA

Migratory Status, Place of Origin and Length of IStay of Survey Respoudents Living/Waste picking within

the Project's Impact Zone ,I

i Characterisli' ,' .: Wasle',Pickers-. Xc'Land Owners& Other'HouaehoId;.

,~~~~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. ' ,. . .: '" ,Hot V N - ' 3.

Count % . Count i -% : Count -;WMigratory Status ._.

Born locally ,7 53.8 I 1 84.6 70 60.9

i' . Migrant '6 46.2 2 15.4 45 39.1

l ~~~~~~~~Place of Origin..,,Within the Barangay 53.8 1 I 84.6 70 60.9

Other Barangays in SFLU 2 15A 23 20.0

Adjacent Municipalities 1 7.7 1 7.7 8 7,0

OtherProvinces in Luzon 3 23.1 1 7.7 11 9.6

. --, ~~~~~~~~Mindanao . 0.9|Did Not Indicate Reas-n f2 M igratinDid not indicate . 1 0.9

Married a Resident 3 23.1 2 15.4 35 30.4

Found Employment I 7.7 1 0.9

; - Moved in with Childrei/Relativcs 2 15.4 3 2.6

Acquired lot or house . 5

r t- Not applicable 7 53.8 1 84.6 70 60.9

- (Born in ptace of residence) .

e . ~~~~~~Length of Stay __

Lessthan 10years 7.7 15.4 21 5.2

2,yerand .a'bov 10 y 76.9 1 1 84.6 -6 66.1

:. Mean 20.7 6.5 I i.8

S.D. (Standard Deviation) 11.4 3.5 ;I_ _ ;1

Household Size1-3 members - - '6 46.2 29 25.2

* , 4-6 members 10 76.9 5 38.5 66 57.4 .

e7-9 members _ 3 23.1 2 ' 15.4 16 13.9p . :: lu-l ' mel,,t; _ - . - 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3.5Mean 5.9 4.2 4.8

S.D. iS,Inult. .iaaionl 1 4 2.0 2.0

- ~ The size of h u ;-holds within the Impact Zones is between 4 and 6 nembers. Members of the

* waste picker hc aseholds are relatively young compared to the lande wners and other househplds

I - since 39.5% of .he waste pickers households have members less tha a 15 years old while there are

only 21.1% am nag the land owners and occupants and 29.6% oC other ,ouseholds. The waste

pickers househ;,. ids also have more elderly members (6.6%) than the rest of the households

within. the impa.;t zones. A little more than half (53.9%) of the M aste picker. households, 73.7%

of the land own rs/occupants households and 65.3% of other households belcng to the labor-age

Golder Associates

F1,

l

- -~ n z -t= S-n S t ~ a,- - -t - ,||l

October 1999 6- 56 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La UniJon Sanitary Lantdfll ELI

group. The economically active population for San Fernando as a whole is 72.2% (CPDOdocuments). This implies a higher dependency raitio among the waste pickers households, suchthat more people are dependent on each wage earner amongst those families. Waste pickerhouseholds are also larger than those of the other groups.

For San Fernando as a whole, women slightly outnumber men (50.6% to 49.4%) although in theurban Barangays men outnumber women (52.6% to 47.4%). There is a slight preponderance ofmale members in waste pickers and'landowners/occupants households while there are almost inequal number of genders among the other households where 50.9%f are male and 49.1% arefemales. There are more single members in the waste pickers households (65.8%) compared toland-owners/occupants (49.1%) and other households (52.9%). -

Demographic Profile of Members ofHouseholds Living/Waste Picking within the Project's Impact Zone

iDWographic4- j -: - lembersofI,\asle, 5 talembers ofLand,- ;Mejnbers of-OtbIhEcunumk Cliaracierislic P'. ickersi t. .- .iOviners& - - ;:Hoiseholds4:t

:.N-76r. HdeaIs *ount' - -.Couh:t.% O Counti iY

Age Distributo . , .14 years old and below 30 39.5 12- 21.1 164 29.6Between 15-60 years old 41 53.9 42 7317 362 65361 years old and over 5 6.6 3 5.3 28 5.1Mean 2 20 28.4 26.6S.D. 15.5 17.5 l&6Gender

.Male 445. 59.2 35 61.4 282 . 50.9Female 31 40.8 22 38.6 272 49.1Civil Status _

Single 50 65.8 28 49.1 293 52.9Married 25 32.9 24 42.1 244 44.0Widow/er I 1.3 5 8.8 17 3.1

6.12.4 Housing Information

In the general area of San Fernando City, there are 16,088 housing units of which 4.4% arevacant. 17% of the occupied houses are rented, the remainder are occupied by their owners.. Ofthe owner-occupied houses, 68% hold title to their land while a considerable number of the

IG

GNolder Associates

l October 1999 6 - 57 981-2730B

O.tober 1999 SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EUA:

remaining 32% own houses on land without the consent of the landdwner. No municipal data are

collected on standards of housing, however 99.62% of the houses have toilet facilities, according

to the 1990 NSO Census,

A considerable 42.6% of the respondents living in the barangays within the secondary impact

zone of the proposed project live in permanent/concrete houses with 3-4 layers of concrete

blocks and G.I. sheets. On the other hand, landownersloccupants live in semi-permanent

housing structures with concrete flooring and one-two layers of concrete blocks. Most of the

waste pickers who live in Barangay Canaoay and San Vicente live in houses made of light

nmaterials. Only a small number (6.1%) of Other Households occupy houses made of light

X materials while 15.4% of the landowners and occupants have houses that are made out of a

combination of light materials and GI sheets.

There are more occupants and structure owners among the landowners and occupants (46.2%o)

K housedholds, than among waste pickers households (30.8%) and those residing in the secondary

impact zone (23.5). Most of the residents in the impact zone owns the house and lot, (68.7%)

while only a small number (6.7%) are tenants and only 1.7% rent their house.

Information on Housing of Waste Pickers and Land C(wuers/

Occupants Households and Households withii the Secondary Impact

Make of Housing UnitMade of Light Materials 3 23.1 2 15.4 7 6.1

(Bamboo, Lawanlt, Wood &Hay)

1 ~~~~~~Made of Light Materirils & GI Sheets; 6 46.2 3 23.1 23 20.Q

: (Bamboo, Lawanit, Wood, GI Sheets)

Semi-perrnanent 1 7.7 6 46.2 30 26.1

(Concrete, Wood and GI Sheets)Permanent/Concrete 3 23.1 2 15.4 49 42.6

(3-4 Layers Concrete, GI Sheets)

Pernanent/Concrete W/ Improvement - - - 6 5.2

(Extension, 2nd Level)

lHouse and Lot OwnershipOwns the Land Only 4 30.8

Owns the Lot & Hduse 7 53:8 2 15.4 79 68.7

Owns the House Only 4 30.8 6 46.2 27 23.5

Tenant 1 7.7' 1 7.7 7 -6.1

Rents/Lives With Relatives 1 7.7 2 .7

Total 13 100.0 13 100.0 115 1o0.o

Golder Associates

L.

r

October 1999 6- 58 981-2730JSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EA .

6.12.5 Education l

Educational institutions in San Fernando City are concentrated within the central residential

district, or in the immediate adjoining barangays. Statistics indicate that 95% of the population

is literate, with no significant variation by gender. Of the elderly, 1/3 are illiterate according to

CPDO documents.

Pre-school and Grade School children of the land owners/occupants households as well as

households within the impact zones attend the Dalangayan Day Care' Center, Dalang¶fan

Community School, Dalangayan Elementary School, Dalangayan Este Elementary:School,

Dalangayan Qeste Elementary School, Mameltac Community School and the Mameltac

Elementary School. 1 Secondary level students on the other hand attend the Mameltac National

High School, La Union National High School-Mameltac Extension, and Dr. Quintin Balcita Sr.

National High School.

Major tertiary level institutions attended by children of the waste pickers and other households

within the impact zones are:

* the Saint Louis College;

* Lorma College; ;

* CICOSAT;

* Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University-Mid La Union Campus (DMMMSU-

MLUC); ' -:

* La Union Bible Baptist Academy, Northern Philippines Maritime College; and. -

* Union Christian College and the United Church of Christ in the Philippines.

A

G A.

Goider Associates ~ ~ ~ ~ tj3

October 1999 6 - 59 981-2730B

*e S}SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EML

Schools attended b3 Schodl Age rtlembers of

Waste Pickers and Other Resident Families of Impact Zones

- ~~~~~~ ~ Count.t ~ Counl *% ,.Colbht.

Schools Lgoaled Wilhinthe Impact ZonesDalangayan Community School , 6 5.2

Dalangayan Elementary School 2 1.7

Dalangayan Este Elementary School 1 10.0

' Dalangayan Oestc Elementary School 3 30.0

Dalangayar Day Care Center - 2 1.7

L ~ Mameltac Community School - - 20 17.4

Mameltac Elementary School 3 17.0 1 10.0 11 9.6

r Mameltac National High School - - 3 30.0 10 S.7

La Union National HS-Mameltac Extension 5 28.0 - 2 1.7

Dr. Quintin Balcita National High School 1 6.0 1 10.0 15 13.0

Other Schoos Located Offsite

_ Multiple Responses .Canaoay Conmmunity School 5 28.0CICOSAT - - I 0.9

DMMMSU-MLUC 6 5.2

La Union Bible Baptist Academy 2 ; I.

Lingsat Community School I 1 0.9

Lorma College - - 1 0.9

North Central Elementary School 1 6.0 nq - 2 1.7

i Northern Philippines Maritime College 1 6.0 _

South Central Elerm. School - * , _ 2 1.7

St. Louis College 1 6.0 1 09

Union Christian College .1 6.0 5 4.3

United Church of Christ in the Philippines I- 0.9

Utdaneta Commurdity Collqge, Pangasinan I 0.9

V Although 42.2% of the waste pickers households and 29.8% of the landowners households have

reached secondary level, members of the waste pickers and land ownersloccupants households,

have lower educational attainment. A large number of the landownersloccupants households or

63.1% of them have spent some years or graduated from pre-school and grade school; arnong

waste pickers, 47.4% have reached or graduated primary education. Only a small percentagelof

the waste pickers have at least reached college (2,6%) or graduated from college (2.6%). There

are more college level and college graduates from among members otother households (10.8%).

Golder Associates

r

'-

- - . - - -- --

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LundJyill EM

Educational Attainment of Members of Waste Picker,Landowners/Occupants and Residents of Impact Zones

J ~~~~~~~-4PondeuIsIyOm .~. HespudesIs frerq.Lsmllq~ocqubfo Other~~ iI~~~usdi~~~ -

i a js '.i'.#cn;..*'4S .. - f.:j• *ICQmIt:To. __

KJo ForrrM3l Education _ 2_ _ .00P.re;School- 4 5.3 6 10.5 80 14.4Elementary Undergraduate 20 26.3 15 26.3 85 15.30Elementary Graduate 12 15.8 15 .26.3 117 21.10High School Undergraduate 1 6 21.1 7 12.3 67 ' 12.10

_ High School Graduate 16 21.1 10 17.5 90 16.20College Undergraduate 2 2.6 2 3.5 36 6.50llege Graduate 2 2.6 - 24 4.30

Vocational School Graduate 4 5.3 2 3.5 44 7.90_ Total 76 100.0 57 100.0 554 100.0

6.12.6 Employment

l As shown in the Demographic Profile Table in Section 6.12.3, there are dependent membersamong the waste pickers households but analysis of the occupational status of the waste pickersshow that there are more economically active members among them (61.5%) than

- landowners/occupants households (53.S%) and other households (26.1%). More than half,(56.5%) of households residing adjacent to the site have at least one econornically active mcmher,while 2.6 % (elderlies living in a separate house) are totally dependent on their children for theirdaily basic necessities.

Number of Economically Active Members amongHouseholds Within the Impact Zones

NutnberofEcononiicalp3 I'S. Vnso PIc ers . :,LaAId rs,id i 2lteirH JU ho.li,

~~ ~ ~,Count~~ ~ .%. Count ';- '%' CountNone - 3 2.6One , 2 15.4 3 23.1 655Two 8 61.5 7 53.8 30 26.1Three 1 7.7 1 7.7 10 8.7Four 1 7.7 2 154 4 3.5Five 1 7.7- 3 2.6

lGrand [ulal t 13 100.0 13 1000. 100.0

bolder Associates

Golder Associates'

October 1999 6 - 61 981-2730B

SWEEP, Sah Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfdl EM

It can be noted that all of the respondents from the primary impact zones atxd the majtrity

(95.6%) of the respondents from the secondary impact zones are lpw skilled and only 4.4% of

them are employed as office workers and engineets working abroad.

The households dependent on the existing dumpsite reveal that waste picking (92.3%) and

junkshop operation (7.7%) is their primary source of income. The only junkshop operator within

the site is a resident of Barangay Mameltac. Among the respondents from the land

owners/occupants households, 46.2% of them are farmers/farm workers, 15.4% are drivers,

another 15.4% are manual laborers and 15.4% are unemployed.

X Employment Status of Respondents

Employmnent- 1ResponLdits from: I R poIdc¶s feom. Respondenr.-osebq

t~~~~~- .- : u$;-'oI Occu''ndS'g.!. 6=1e'l,t

- _ :s;;.' - -Coqnl ,, Couht:,L; y . Conit.,

Wvaste Picker 1 3

Jurikshop Operator I 77 -

Tobacco Factory Sorter 2 1 7.7 -

Driver ~ ~~~- 2 1.54 --

i Housekeeper _2 - 2 15.4 44 38.3

Farner/ Fatn Worker - - 6 46.2 33 28.7

Stevedore/Carpenter/Laborer . 2 15.4 7 6.1

TraderNendor = 8 6.9

Employee - - - 4 3.5

Overseas Contrct Worker -I 0.9

, Handicraft Maker , l 0.9

Laundrywoman _ , l 1 0.9

Lot Lessor - - I 1 0.9

Policeman - - - - 1 0.9

Student I 0.9'

Did not indicate ' _ 2 1.7

Grand-Total 13 100.0 13 100.0 115 100.0

The monthly hpusehold income within the impact zones range from PhP5000-6500. Income

from waste picking is generally small -a majority (61.5%) of the monthly earnings of waste

pickers households range between PhPI,001-P3,000. On the other hand the lone junkshop

operator earns ithore than PhP30,000 a monthi. Thc waste pickers households earn an average of

Golder Associates

U?r

- trz.W., .un r era ululto Lu Unrion tiinuary LianuJLi zi/

i PhPS,905.00 njonthlh, the land owncrs/occupants household earns less or an average of

PhlP5,067.00 a month and the other households PhP6,473.00 a month.

Between about 60 and 70% of the houseloldls within the impact zones make less than PhP5,000 amonth: 69.2% of the waste picker households, 69.3% of the landowner/occupant households and

63.5% of the other households. l

Income Distribution of Ilouseholds within the Impact Zones

-I-'%. ;,1..c'meLevel '-, W&m l'ICLceri' ' d r "p.eu&1. s.i Oiler HouseholdsbPr4 * *t v.4IW. A -. N1osd lds. A.J. M,.1W I ' -

'ilippine 'Co ' Ni .,* 13j~o

Notie - 4 3.51,000 and below 3 23.1 18 15.71,001-3000 8 61.5 1 7.7 32 27.83,001-5,000 1 7.7 5 38.5 . 19 16.55,001-40,000 3 23.1 3 23.1 24 20.910,001-20,000 - - 1 7.7 1 0 --8.7-20,001-30000 - - - 6 5.230001 and above 1 7.7 _ - 2 - 17Grand Total 13 100.0 13 100.0 -115 100.0Mean 5,905 5,067 . 6,473Std. Dev. 8,600 4,977 7,968

6.12.7 Gender Antalysis

It 'was found that in the wastepicking group of women, general considerations of poverty,

education and access to resources were of primary importance. In the productive sector, there is

little or no difference between men and women as regards the division of labour and rewards

involved in the pickiih,g of waste. The domain in which gender subordination seems to be most

evident is the reprocouctive one and the pattern of inequality is consistent with the generaldomestic situation of women in the Philippines. That is, the women are responsible for most of

the hlousehold chores and child-care duties. .

In the landowners/tenairt group, poverty is less pervasive and therefore less definitive, however,

in the productive sector gander does not play a determining role. Both men and women share the

samne rewards and responsibilities with respect to their properties. Again, it is in the reproductive

Golder Associates

October 1999 6

t'.. 'S"EP;S Fernando La UnlInSanitary Landfdl E L

4 domnain that gender1 inequality is'evident and which,'again, as with the waste pickers, reflects the

general Filipino pa#tmrn. i ,

' A secondary impac, group, those 1iving in Barapays (districts) immediately abutting the project

area and along the main road leading into the dump site, is also represented by a Perception

Survey which presents their attitudes and concerns about the project. For the purposes of the

gender cornponent of this project, there is no significant difference ascribable to gender

distinctions with respect to beliefs, 1attitudes and concerns about possible impacts of the project

on them.J. -

) j, 6.12.8 Health ' .

City health records show that there has, been sporadic incidence of measles as well as an

incileasing incidencieof 4engue fever,since 1993, ,butno clustering of cases has been noticed. In

1995,,tie t'vo leading causes of 4isease or morbidity in the City of Fernando were respiratory

r, related. upper respiratory infection'and bronchitis (see Table below). -

I s LeadingiCauses of Morbidity for the City of San Fernando 1994-1995

_ ., Si, . . .

4 ' Upper Respiratory Infection (URI) 9,633 105.17

Bronchilis 1,136 12.40

Wound/infected Wound 512 5.59

Dermatitis 163 1.78

; Hypertension (HPN) ' . 216 2.39

Diarrhea,, 696 7.60

1., : Pneumppnia .- ' .' - , 192 2.10

Piulmonaiy Tuberciuloses (PTB) 217 2.37

- ~ Abdominal Colic 107Anemia 156 1.17

Parasitism : 1.70

1Source: Tal11of Socioeconomic Profile of San Fernando City, City Planning'

Department,,1995.

The major causes of deaths in the City in 1995 were pnpumonia, cardiovascular disease (CVD),

': pulmon8 tuberculosis (PTB), 'cancer and degenerative, ieart disease (see Table beh

Pneumonia and premature births were the leading causes of infant rortality in 1995, with 138

!- ; tGolder Associates

_ ~ ~ ~ ~ - i .!

- October 1999 6 -64 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ELI

and 9 cases resp,ectizvely (Table 63 and 64 of Socioeconomic Profile of San Francisco, CityPlanning Departnent 1995). ,

Leading Causes of3Mortality for tbe City of San Fernando 1994-1995i .!,4 * I . | . :il

Degenerative Heart Disease -r- 40 I 0.44Pneumonia 138 0.51Cancer 42! 0.46'Cardio Vascular Disease (CVD) 50 0.55PTB 47 0.52HPN 25 0.27Myocardial Infraction 37 0.41Accident : 12 0!13

._ - . Congestive Heart Failure 28 0.31Septicernia 18 0.20

Source: Adappe from.Table 62-of Socioeconomic Profile of SdJ. Fernando City, CityPlanning Department, 1995. . -

In the four barangays, covered by.the household level surveys, the five major health issuesreported by the astase pickers. land owner/occupants and residents during the past two years were

- , cough, influenza, di,rrhea, asthma and dengue fever (see. Table below). Four percent reportedthey had not experienced any ailments.

I ~~~~~~~~' I 4''!'''-t --

Common Illnesses that Affect the NVaste Pickers Households andOther,Households within the Projecl Impact Zones

4

4Io'r,onuse d'Aiiqientit lWgstw; j-Pklers' ;ELind 'O*ners &l te,oshli

: :Co,unt's ,*vOL9t ',u 1 i*%- ^ ,Y -Coutt . _ _t _Cough 10 76.9 I I 84.6 92 8Q00Influenza I- 9' '69.2 1 - 69.2 66 57.4Diarrhea ' - ! 2 15.4 28 24.3 ''

, Asthma : 3 23.1 , , ' 14 12.2'Dengue '- - - - 10 8.7HighiBlood I1' j'I 7.7 - ' 8.7-Measles 7.7 - -Typhoid 1 7.7 - -

Golder Associates

1- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~' 9S-70

| - , i ;October1999 1 6-65 i 1-27iOB

I_. .rt j , , SIVEEP, San Ferntanrdo La Uiiops Santitaiy La firil EL 4

Poor eyesight . _ 3 2.6

L ! ' H~~~~~ea*hch/Migrainc ' 1 7.7 2 1.7

- K - . -Arhrilis' 1 7.7 2 '1.7

Muscle Pain , '1 7.7 -

fl >Ear disease 1 7.7

-Skin disease - - 2 1.7

Anemia ' ' ' - 1 0.9

*. .> Goiter : - --! ,.1 0.9

. Kidney .' _ _ _ ' 1 0.9'

._'Liver_ , ____ .1 0.9 '- .l ' Pneumonia

U '' 0.9

Toothache , O.9

.. No ailments . , 5 4.3

SQuWce:i RA-P and Perception Sinieys, San Fernando City, March 1999.

. ... . .... . .. , . . ..

Governnietad.. ,.-_ 't IGovernment and private health'facilities are located in the city proper. These are the Ilocos

_ I . Regional Hospital, Beth,any Hospital, Lorma Medical Center and Martinez Clinic and several

private medical, dental and diagnostic clinics. The City Health Offwe is staffed with two

physicians, 1 dentist, 6 nurses, 19 public health alidwives, 8 rural sanitation inspector, 1 dental

-aide, 1' medical technician, and two auxiliary personnel. As indicated in the Table below,

K' . . respondents rely mostly on the health services provided by the Health Center and the llo4os

- somRegiona Hospitao durin, . incide of illness. The rest goqto thq other private clinics while

some also opt tq consult the village doctor or rely on their-own diagnosis.

r- -; t.:x.>1x H ;lealtb Personnel a?ld Inslitutions Consulted from 1997-1998

.oulthOMRYersdMltilfl jlnslltittidn' itkzV3ts^ik,i%. i iiQ .*ners'&,4

s!OIher Households "

Regional Hospital 8 50.0 3 23.1°.% 27 31.3

.Health Center 7 I : ; . 43.8 12 92.3% 67 77A

. | , g Private Clinic i ____'_.2 12.5 ____ 18 20.9

Own Diagnosis 0 ° I 13.0

Village Healer - 0 0 3' 23.1% i6 70._

: Total Responsef :_17 . 18 ,. 129 _ .

Source: :RAP and Perception Surves, San Fernando City, March 1999.

L * . ! ;

; , . I . ; Golder Associates

t. I

October 1999. 6- 66 981-2730BSWEgP, San Fernando La Union Sanitaiy Landfll EJA

6.12.9 Utilities and Services

Although a large proportion of the households within the Impact, Zones are supplied with-* ~'electricity by the City, there are a number of households within the secondary impact zonetbat'have no electrical connection and rely on either kerosene or candles for their lighting facility.

: . ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I . 11, . :

In the impact zones, Inany households get their drinking water from wells: 46.2% of the-wastepickers households, 61.53o jof the lazdownerstoccupants households and 53.9% of the secondaryimpact zone households. Most of 'them. also use the communal pitcher pumps installed by the

* : government, i.e. 38.5% ofthe waste pickers households, 53.8% of theland owners/occupants.'and35.7% of the other households. Some households also have their own pitcher pumps; 15.4% of

l ' ' waste' pickers houseliolds, 7.7% of land-ownersloccupants households and 15.7% of otherhouseholds. For! daily cooking, LPG is widely used among the respondents: 50% of wastepickers households, 61.5% of land owners/occupants households and 67.0% of other households.

- , Most of them also opt tq ,ue wood as it is readily available: 50.0% waste pickers, 53.8% la downers/occupants and 5.2% other households. ,A large percentage of the households within the impact zones have water sealed toilets withmanual flush and'septic'tanks; 76.9% of waste pickers, 92.3% of land owners/occupants, and86.1% of other households. However, 15.4% of the waste pickers and 11.3% of the, other

, w ' households ,use open pits and/or communal toilets.

Garbage collection services' of the City cover only the city proper. Therefore h6useholds within-''the four barangr)s iddn:ilied in the impact zones dispose their garbage by burning,'disposing in, rashcans, or'burying mixed, waste., Exceptions to this are some waste pickers,who live inBarangay Canaoay, which is covered by garbage collection services. There are more householdswithin the secondary impact zones who burn their garbage (92;2%), than landoyvners/occupanjs

(84.6%) and other households (69.2%). A small number of households sell their recyclables tojunlkshop operators., Sore of them also reuse their garbage by composting and feeding it to pets

- and livestock., i, ' ., 'Id

,,-'GoIder Asfsociates,

October 1999 -7i0 98f-2730B

. ~~~SWEEP, Sat! Fe~rnando LaUnion S~aniiaay La?!dJwlU ¶

Inform,ation on Housing Facilities of the Waste Pickers,*1 ~~~Land O vn esOcupants a"d Ot!er Households

., .r,t,.., ~ -iCunl ~ cop'4

Candle - - 1__ 7.7% -~

EleCtmiric ity h I u-M 12 92.5 12 5238 410 95.7%

KeOsenPicer n2 1 577 1 7.7% 78 65.1

* ~~~~~~MchandledPm: 1 7.7%- 2-7SounicesofpalI Water Ptre

DLPG/Shalove W 460.2 8 61.5% 62 67.0

ConiniunalPitche~~Pump 5 38.5. 7 53.8% 41 52-23.7

- Own PiKehosPne p 2 15.4 1 7.7 18 25.7%

ElMectrnicztoedPm . 2 0.79

MatericialWaer, - I 76. 1t - - - -- -9 6

MaG/tal Fls . 500tS 615%t77 67.

Wate Scle. 3 8 50 2.2

KeOsene Pi 1 637 I 7 3 2.6.

Communa Facilty ,1

Garba.ge Disposal Practices- '- Burning 9 69.2 Il. A84.6 106 92.2

Disposed in Tras1i Cans :5 38.5 *F ~44 38.3

Burying mixed waate . 4 3. 10 8.7

Throwing inside 1pndfil'I 1 7.7 4 3.5

l-iogreedlPetrood 25 21.7

Collected by Gd)rbage Truck 3 23.1

Sold to Junkshops I 7.7 __ _ _ _ __ __ _

RAP ad Peeton Surveys

6.12.lO 0Land Use' .

- * ~~Euxising land use configuration ofthe city is mixed, with an overall low intensity of use. Forest

Ipp", T~~~eserves constitute the lrarges.t with 4810.25 hectares (4500 o lms one halfW(112) o h oa

lapid area of the cit). Agricultural areas, including fishponds, absor4p~ore than 40%. of the.jar~d.

-. ., ~Golder Associates

October 1999 6 -68 !981-2730BSIE'EEP, Sani Feraiando La Untioir Sauitary Landfill ELM

Pasture'or grazing land occupies-another 7%. Residential areas in both urban and rural areasaccount for only 2.43% of the land. The rest of the land is utilized for comimercial, industrial andopen spaces.

The general pattern of development in the city is generally linear with developments followingthe main arterial roads branching out from the central urban distric towards north, south andeast: This type of development is brought about mainly'because strip or linear development has; . . t;- W :, tt ! 5 5 ; ,} 'I L, l'' ; : .;eas aeess.to the central business district because of transportation facilities, and thellfrastriucture of the city's basic services is laid out following the road network (from the City

Socioeconomic Profile).

6.12.1 Designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas

_ No designated environmentally sensitive areas are located within the Study'Area. There are noarchaeological sites;, forest reserves, religious and cultural centers or ecologically sensitive or

_-. -protected areas within 1 km of the boundaries of the project site.

'6.12.l2;Indigenoqs Peoples/Ethnkc Identity - : . . .

The'City of San Femando is an urban centre which has been populated by migrations frommultiple regions., llocano is the principal language spoken, with 90% of the population speakingit as.a mother tongue, with Tagalog second at only 7.5%. The population identifies 57 distinctPhiilippine languages, plus diaile's and foreign languages, as their mother tongues,'indicating abi 'ethnic diversity in the ,eommunity. There. pr no designated Indigenous: Cultural

- Comrmuliiiesin the vicinity of the project site.'

6.12.13.Development Plans

The up radin- of the Maineltac Dump Site is one of the 'planned developments of the CityGoverninent of San Fernando City. Other developments: being planned within the impact zonesare the conc.ele surfAcing of barangay access roads and installation of electrical cables in the'barangays. ' ' . '

;G I.. . .

Golder Associates

t l*

K -. . :October 1999 X669 ,981-ogI SWEEP,SanFernandoLa UnionSanitaryLandfdliELI

Plans are also underway for the expansion of the coverage of electricity within the area. City

officials have becn conducting an information campaign regarding safety precautions during the

construction and installation of posts and high voltage cjables

In terms of private sector initiatives, a new residential subdivlsion project, i.e. Milagros

Subdiv'ision, has been, started in Barangay Dalangayan Oeste-within 1 km from the site.

6.12.14 Current Environmental Issues and Concems

-buch concern has' been raised about the Manueltao dumapsite since it commenced activity in

'1997. Residents say' that at one -time heavy smoke would come fropi the dumpaite making if

, X ! - diffiPUlt- for them t? breathe and sleep at night. When asked in the survey about perceived

environmental changes over the past S years, approximately 14% of tfie respondents believed

there was less, ai, and noise pollution as-a result of, improvements to the landfill management

practices. Forty-six percent, however, believed there has been more air and noise pollutirn.

_ , (Tables in Appendix N). . '

Overall respondents felt there had been a decrease in the amount of buming at the SLF and that

there had blent less uncollected garbage in the city as a result of the landfill improvements. One

-respondent di4 note, however that a truck has spilled litter qs it passes through the haulage route,

_ With respect to otherr,environmental changes in the coinmunity, respondents geierally believed

there. have been lesl fann harvests, flooding in low-lying areas, flies or mosquitoes and land

- -t .convened into subdivisions over the past five years. Generally, more respopdents felt there had

been an increase in population of the area due to people migrating from other barangays (Tables

. in AnnexN) .

.. ' . ' ' ',: , it I~~~~~~~~~~~~i

Focus group discussions:were also held with landowners and ho6usehold occupants. These

respondents 9:xpressed concerns about potential contamination of their present source of water

(deep well) due to the well's proximity to the landfill's proposed expansion site. Respondents

'also expressed concerns about developing respiratory diseases from smoke and odor of the

r landfll and the likelihood for increases in the vermin (flies) population.

Golder Assoclates

I'

-. . i * October 1999 ;' 6-70 981-2730BS WEEP,'SanFernandoLaUniouzSataryLandfilEA 'A

Overall, respondents identified the decrease in farn harvests, ii,crease in air/noise' pollutio,

!.decreasing presence of flies, increase in population/migratio, and decrease in flooding in low-lying areas to be changes Ihat have'most affected their community (Tables in Anlex'N).

; .* , '6,

6.12.15 Summary of Key Observation,s

A number of key observations have. been noted as a consequence of the collection of baselinedala6,of the cnviroinment surrounding the project site. In brief, the principal observations areconsidered as followvs:

* Residential settlements occur in the periphery. of the 'existing dumpsite and within tile*' - .proposed for. expansion. Residential structures are located 'in all 4' of:the barangays

surrounding the site, and ,specially along the primary haulage route. These communities areconsidered likely to be affected, directly and indire by the project proposals.

_ . Most of the population hit the ,irea fall under the low-income group and.some households relyin whole or in part on waste picking activities and in tilling the land.

' Other than these lsettlements and the neighboring integrated farm, the. surrounding area is- . classified as agricultural land where tobacco is grown dyring the dry months and rice during

the wet season.

_s , . ;,,,, ~- , ,,;.,. , ,l-:. ' .

6.13 Sumniary of Key Observations A a '

- The descriplion of the existing environment is based on tie results of a compreliensive baselinedata collection p 6o The ?lata collectioni covered the proposed site and its immediale

' vicinity. .Vhere app priate, some of [he baseline data *ere collected beyond this locale. Inparticular, data collection focused on the physical, biological and human (social) en-ironmentalcharacteristics as they influence or are potentially influenced by the proposed lanudfill

- ~ t development. A summary description of the existing site environment is presented below.

Topography: The existing dump site slopes iowards the northeast at an approximate grade of 55it.The adjacent properFy slopes towards the south at an approximale grade of 80. The highe¶t

XT ; . .. ),-.G As.c.t

- ; -~~ Golder AssocIates

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -' ,- -/' '' I'',

-- ,,, .--5".--'-- -l1. ,'''

@ ! Oc~~~~~0tober 1999 6 - 71 981-2730B

.ctober ~999 SWEEP, San Fernapdo La Onion Sanitary Landfill L49

point is at the squthwest corner of the existing dumpsite, which is the same as the northwest

corner of the adjacent property.

'_~~~~~~1

Operafions: The City is presently using the dumpsitel? dispose of garbage. The predominant

site operations pomprise earth moving, garbage pliacemnt .and daily (temporary) cover

placement. In additiop, about 15 waste pickers collect recyclable materials from the freshly

disposed garbage; the collected material is stored on site and subsequently sold to outside

L ~~~~~~recycling businessies;`,-. j'

Meteorology: San Fernando City is characterizqd by a Type I climate of the Modified Coronas

system of climate classification, with two pronounced seasons, being generally 'dry' :from

December to.May and 'wet' from June to November. The strongly seasonal nature of the climate

is dictated by the NE and SW monsoons. The mean annual rainfall recorded in the San Fernando

r ; .',City area. is 2430 mm and the monthly evaporation rate ranges from 140 mm to 217 mm. The

. project-area is affected by the north wind from October to May, the south wind flow from June to

September, and the trade ,winds in between monsbons. The annual prevailing, wind direction! in

the area is northward. Other synoptic systems or hazards affectipg the teniporal and s'patial

distributioin of rainfalli in these areas and in the country as a whole include thunderstonns, cold

r: ~. .. fjroot, int rtropical cdcnvergence zone (ITCZ), easterly wave, tornado (Buhawi), and the northeast

(A.mihan) and .iouth%est (Habagat).monsoons.

Geodogyc:dThageologic setting of -the San Fernando areWais dominated by the presence of upland

' bedrock-dominated't-eraii,lgwith alluvial sediments in the lowlands along the coast and in majorI I.- 0 .,I

r'.iver vatleys. The results of a subsurface investigation indicate that the natural subsurface

profile on the study site appears to be fairly uniform and consists essentially of a weathered

bedrock sequence, with the upper portion being complet6ly weathered to clay soil and the degree

of weathering decreasing with depth until intact fresh bfdro6k is encountered.' On th existing

dumpsite there has been waste placed over much of the property,' by dumping, spreading it

and/or in excavatod holes and trenches.

Golder AssociatesL.~~~~~~~~

U -i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

, _ | ,, !~~~~~~C

October 1999 6 - 72 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EM4,

, Soil: There are se.en ¶7) types of soil found in the area. Thses are Bauang Clay, the BarcelonaClay, the Bolinao Clay, the Sjn Manuel Silt Loam, Annam Clay Loam, Hydrosol and SanManuel Sand. The deposits likely comprise weathered bedrock materials. The soil type in thearea'f the sile is identifie d'as'Bauang clay.

Land Use: The lan,d use within the study area is predominantly agricultural. The areas along the

roads are predominantly residential

Swtface Water Drainage: Surface water drainage in the study area is influenced by the terraces ofthe farm: lands in the area. There are no distinct drainage courses located within the area, e4 enthough. temporary, channels appear to form during major storn events. The nearest drainagecourses are indicated t?obe seasonal and are located about I km north and 1 km south of the site.Any significant runff from the Study Area (e.g. during major stormn events) flows overlandthrough the terTaces an4d temporary and/or intermittent ditches/swales towards Creek .1 to thesouth and Creek .2 to thl, north, and eventually drains into San Fernando Bay via Carlatan

Lagoon. Surface water drainage at the existing site flows mainly as overland (sheet) flow.During significant rainfall (storn) events intermittent streams develop at the site in some of thegullies and along the existing pathways and roads. The North Parcel drains predominately in a'', '. - . jle e.anortheasi direction to the lower northeast corner of the property where' it flows offsite asoverland flow'onto the adjacent agricultural-fields. Thp, South Parcel drains mainly southwardand continues to flow offsite as overland flow onto the adjacent agricultural fields.

Stuface iJ'ater Qiualiiy; As there are no perennial surface water courses present within the studyarea, it X%as not possible to assess the surface water quality within the study area during the

baseline 1ata. collection program.

Giy, undwater Use: In the immediate vicinity of the site, water for both domestic (potable)

-' l purpo,ses and irrigation, is obtained from dug or drilled wells that are typically completed atdepths of about I 0 to 20,metres belosm ground surface. A number of these wells are located

-- ithin boLh the agricultural and housing areas that surround the existing and proposed landfill

site properties.

I . ! Golder Associates

, Pr s October 1999 6-73 981-2730B

.- , , t t '.: , ,, . SWEEP, San lFernandoLa!UnIonSanltaryLandflU E4 '

Groundwater Flow: There may be a groundwater divide prescnt that is somewhat to the north of

tlte ;topographic divide that exists approximately along the boundary between the North and

South Parcels. Groundwater flow directions art froto this divide northeastward across the North

Parcel and generally, southward across the South Parcel. Existing water supply wells located to

the north, south.and east of the existing and proposed landfill site Parcels are considered to be

potentially do aigradient from the landfill cells in terms of groundwater flow. Wells to the west

,of the South arcel are, not. indicated to be directly downgradient, but rather cross-gradient in

> -> r terms of groundwater flow.

Groundwater Quality: The groundwater monitorihg results demonstrate that the groundwater

quality has already been altered by leachate from the-waste disposal for a distance of greater than

20 'metres off-site onto the agricultural lands to the.north. These results demonstrate the need for

, the 'nplenientation of an engineered bottom liner and leachate collection' syste*m to- prevent

ongoing contanmination of the off-sjte.groundvater. There is no,potential for the current or

". ,', : proposed landfill actiyities to affect the main water supplies of the urban area of San Fernando.

Ecology: The.study.area includes the immediate;vicinity of the existing duppsite and-the South

Parcel of land. There will be no impact to aquatic resources, as there are no waterbodies within

in , .,,' the study area. jlhe majority of te vegetation present within the project area is introduced Ind

consists of non-endemic species of little natural heritage value.' Altogether, i7 species of pla.nts

were identified in the existing landfill site, the expansion area and the surrounding vicinity.

However, only S species were common to all these three sites. No threatened,'endangered or rare

species were identiried within the project site and in the surrounding vicinity. '

Noise: Although during sampling time there were activities at the existing dump, site, still the

- . j .T , obser,ed noise -evels; throughout the sampling day were very much lower than the applicable

DEttR standard.' I

r';; , |! lt .' , .

Air: . Thesurvey of air quality was carried out for the concentrations of the following parameters:

t ' ' - '. ' Methane Gas (CH articulate Matter (PM-10), Total Suspended Particulate (TSP), and SuIp ur

"Dioxide'(SO4),Thei results indicated that the measured concentrations were either below the

respective detection level or the applicable DENR standard.

,:! '- Golder Associates

I.

-~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ I -*- I- - L

October1999 6-74' 981-2730BSWEEP, San FernandoqLa Uniion SanUaiy LandflllEL4

Traffic: Categonzed [counts of vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements were conducted

manually at two locations along Dalangayan Qeste Road leading to the project site. The onlytraffic entering te'dupipsite comprises pedestrians, dump trucks and private vehicles; the lattertwo categones are responsible for the delivery of MSW to the site. Larger vehicle caccounts for about 14% of the total traffic flow on the concrete municipal access road in front ofthe site, of which about hal f is involved in the delivery of solid waste to the existing landfill. Atthe times of the teys,-no traffi cproblems wererep.orted or observed.

'Soclo-economics: For the 'ppse of identifying impacts, the study area has been classified into

a Primary Impact Zone, a Secondary Impact Zone, an Additional Secondary Impact.Zone, andGeneral Area (City of San Fernando, La Union),. bitsd on the likely degree of socio-economicirnpact of the projject pr,posals. The data collection included a baseline survey, RAP survey, aSocio-conomic and Perception Survey of Waste Pickers,'Land Owners/Occupants Households

'and Cther..Households 'wjthin ;the hrnpact Zone, Focused Group Discussions. and publicconsultations. A number of,key observations have been noted as a consequence of the collecti nof baseline data of the environmebt surrounding the pro'ct site. In brief, ihe principidlobservations are considered ;as follows: i) Residential settlements occur in the periphery of the

-.I -.4; eexisting dunrpsite and within the ate proposed for expansion; and ii) Residential structures arelocaied in all 4 of tbe barangays surrounding the site, and especially alohg the p-.imary haulageroute., These conrunies Lle .considered likely.to be;affected, directly and indir' ctly to varyingdegree, bj.tlie project'proposal;. .MaIst of the population in the area could be considered to fall

i under the low-income group and some households rely, in whole or in part on waste pickingactivities and in filling4tle land.'

. J

* ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ I,

_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Gle A.s ite

'II~~~~~~~~~~~~~

l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ F . . - - -..

; i' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i' I *1 i '.

, ,, , , - ,- ; i- , , , , - ,~,TABLE 6.1 , , . .,

- --- - - - C-i o'''''Clim'iaolofcaI NMo 4 ' - ' ' --STATION 222- Vigan, Iloilo Sur - . ' .

LATITUDE ;17°34' N ! -. ,, j.. ... j -

LONGITUDE -i20°23'E --- ---' ELEVATION 33.0 m -' , ' .*, ';

PERIOD 196l -1995--

RANFL -,'TEMPERATUREDEG.C ' -'.WNV D- *_-

:MONTH 'OFr40 -% -DR--E- PEW. '2LD :DYSSPDl.-. ~ ~ ~ ~~t;'LX .IA -_D

._

Jan 3.0 I 29.9 20.9 25.4 25.4 22.1 20.7 24.3 75 1013.8 N 3 2 0 0

Feb 2.4 ° 30.3 21.2 25.7 25.7 22.4 21.1 24.8 75 1013.6 N 3 2 0 0

Mar , 2.1 0 31.4 22.8 27.1 27.0 23.7 225 27.0 76 1013.0 ,, 3 2 - 0

Apr 15.0 1 32.8 24.3 28.6 28.6 25.1 23.9 29.4 75 1011.5 N 3 2 2 4

May 169.5 9 33.0 24.8.. 28.9 28.9 525.8 24.8. 31.1 78 1009.7. N. -3 4,.- -8 1

June - -409.4 17 31.6 24.2. 27.9 28.0 25.7 24.9 31A 83 1008.7 S 3 5 10 11

July . 556.9 19 30.8 A3.8- 27.3 27.4 25.4 24.7 31.0 85 1008.1 S 3 6 9 _9

Aug , 697.9 21 30.1 ~23.5 26.8 27.0 25.1 24.4, 30.5 86 1007.8 S 3 6 6 6

Sept - 411.7 T16 30.6 .23.6 27.1 *27.3 25.2 24.5 -30.6 -84 1008.9 S 2 5 . 7

Oct 130.8 7. 31.2 23.3 27.3 27.4 24.8 23.9 29.5 81 1009.9 N 2 4 3 5

Nov 22.0 3 31.2 22.9 27.0 27.2 24.2 23.1 2_l 78 10113 N-- 2 3 -_I

Dec 9.5 1 30.5 21.9 26.2 26.2 23.0 21.8 25.9 76 1013.0 N 3 0 0

ANNUAL 2430.2 95 31.1 23.1 27.1 272 24.4 23.3 286 79 1010.8 N 3 4 46 54-

Source. PAGASA/CABICDS .

Golder Associates

-. ..,- - . .. . __ _TABLE-6.2--Climatological Extremes--

STATION: = 222- Vigan, noib Suir .-PERIOD. = 1`961 -1995

,..*--

- ~ TEMPER.4TURE DEG;C*. Cj .AVJ~~fl ITI LTNGMbNTH ______ ______

. ~ ~ ~ ~~: DAYSTSTh~~ow te~ J 1'a. gi *'.'.j.rj L- -~~~~~~ - -~~~~ -.-.... &...r..., ,..-f4-V-High ~J~nze LotQ.DAte. A6n: Dt: ~pe-D.e~o~ Dt~.Ib ~Dl o ae½Jan 35.6 21-67 13.5 4-86 3. 13-29 is/ NNE 27-93 10272.8 18-59 097.9 30-90Feb .35.3 - 20.12 14.0 -10-86 36.7 16-83 -19/ NNE, 10488. 11022.6 -A -62 1004.6 28-72

Mar 36.4 29 16.0 .2-F .32.6 31-60 20/ N 9-88 .1022.8 30-58 1004.9 291-94Ar. 38.8 28-94 20.0 23-60 .130.6 13-92 261w NN 8-67 1019.6 1-58 998.4 8-67May 38.2 5-51 196 22-84 A-23. 9-13 25/ S -21-96 162 75 98. :;376

Jue 38.2 2.87 16.8 22 339.4 -28-67 36/ ., SSE 15-71 . 1016.2 ,6-66 986.5 26,93,* July "35.4 4-21 17.8 3-84" 5S94.1 18-20 60/ .SSWN 9-8 064 16-65 976.0 16Auig -36.9 13.87 17.0 30-84 529.6 30-68 34/ . SSE 14-71 . -1015.7 12-58 977.5 7,-64Sept 35 1 24.38 19.0 2-86 393. ' -13 44/ -SSW 2-68 1085 -20-87 986.4 2-5

Oct 39.3 17-51 17.2 21-94 .261.9 8-73 42/ W 24-87 1017.8 30-61 963.0 110-71Nov 36.7L.; 3.21 154 2-84 29.. 2-38 26/ N1-93 12Ž 4-57 948 7-53 Dee 35.0 2.51 14.5 9-86 99 1670 20/ - NNW ~ 10-67 1021.5 70 920 12-49

ANNUAL 39.3 10-17-51 13.5 I1-4-86 594.1 7-18-20 60/ SSW 7-9-6 1022.8 3-30-58 963.0 10-10-71

Source. FAGASAICAB/CDS

der. oci.

* - . Sunima~~~ry orFeutc or'Number of Days Per

Annum withRal fall Exceeding a Speefled Magnitude

~~ :~~~ ~~ - '~~~~ A.~ ~ O,.PNordysuthNo. of days~~!. ~ ~ ~ ~ .4~~~~j4j:~~~~~ un 00.p I 6catrn'

1973 274 . 00

* '-i'~~~r 328 *I~-* t 0 0

__197 3198 -0 0 ' ~ 0 .0

1975. 190 0 0 0 0

19IT r156 5 -

1984 245 0~~~~~40

1986. 323 51 0 0 0

7 :82 i156_ _ _ _ 0 _ _ 0

_ _ 0 _~~~~~2

=1934 ~207 2 39~~2 - ~26740 0 _

i-C- .1~~~~-9937 9246 0 0 _ 0

3994 281 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 000

_199 248_ __ __ __ _ 0 0 . 0

1996 320741

IW3 195 4 0 - -O- ~*3~~aI 6216 4I 0 0 ___

231 34 0 0'___ 0

Nuna. 3 23 02 (3 C' ____

r c C.IC~~~~~~GlerAsohie

~~ a

t14

L- C.CO@ 0, C, O -M IkD& O. -CCGtL. LkC.

C:Pt

ll 0 1 +w ;t t |a ai ,| at||=- I, |u ;C|- Li iSe - ' ''

t X X d 4 | l M .| 0 t -~~aC, a 2 E ii a_5Si:25E 52C|-5222S a s~C°T| --

e$ ~~ I J IJ'JF L3 LM Ib CO&IJL,CtGOO'LAOX 1.N

-.

I , ~6 iD c fi ,c o-I b.-og. -. t* W (1-

f, r e ,oa ~ _ E ua _n_h,bo _ LjoL _ b _ k.I, E_Lf l.j.\I;,9

l~~~~~~~ Sf 2 _ _ £ 5. 2 _ _ E _ . £ _ T. 2 _ 2 _2' 5

*~~~~~- 11jts.z '~vS

4;

jl(�DC ULW% 'JI-YOL N%I I AI-M .01-K

orm -Ark= micki 'bixt'r Dl:-C (01 pm 'OpmIm .1 WI pq- p. V. I" -VI t- (41 (AL 1. (..I I

lit 1,-% .11, W L-1. I I..; c- �p r '.k. a OZI. Ix k Ivj;.I Vfr- Jj

cil 111161 a .1�u .1.01 �U-a U111 ?�Il itilo I pi d I., 0 .. r,. V of i't 0r E 999 L PireD '-7 A. 0 i-:0 -44--

mr v'.e .1, It 71.1 .. th. U th fw-

�Z 0 OM--- mnig% .In D.- 0.0-

i 1rill ce ..... 7-�,q A, k- I., v lut u ZC, q �e. I "A 11 "q Z7011 MWD _E-a it �l W-1. t

U--- .00 -,f- 'AVG. -Al fb- PFZI a �qp inb I r- a -:"a .. w

Irn'D ... J t., 0.11 fb Cv. (L- kV I� "M". I'll Ir- t.V O. _357-

K�-Cv PLOI-7 :.,ldl m -4 floill- I--- F, .I ffr --- =

lmm - 1,0(h tri, - thl- U..D. ut- a. I mp - - =

.:D (w ... Lot p ro, or- Fog f. Vn. Z -^h KCP -?V Pi Z., ' flt tiP 6:11L! Zr. I4wt I -IJ IV -

iM A �f 1111110.17 1.0 KA lih C' P POEAR I-VJ ',,I I Ito I.C.Cl (W t:- Ifo wtr I"LL WI.- Mo =.z 1-m(w toG IdA 1.4 (". -. ,A I w

KI .1crIt- on-q Om r. ;r.u W-1 tot 1. Lqkl N, IOD Vr 10f, VQC rXo 101 UWJ tOC CIE Ok. KE4 " CS RVIft rLLN

IOT WNW uni v - AVL- to t- " L, -Lv. 9 WC, WX r I1%_C -In I 7r.

1.41Z.:01 (VaTr cxqu It I* 's -. am cwm k--" I.V k.1 I.m WI --10 LS a, DE -I

sr, 0 0 0 O'DkI, ULDO ollt. I-wk. -. 10 "lot- aw Er. ..Lo 0. .. Lom '111.

Pe?] PIE Nk-ZZNI 101. R. WI -z -. � U.-A (,*-m ft� -L.% fa.hb tqq -1 -. I, 519z;

C-4.0 1, I--- on, m- ILWO Iklo 0 -gg fKI D 1 tmT _jd.r A:c I l/A. d 1-�i

toi gx 15F__ M *,DJ

tri, CinrZ n,. It-n

0 V,- 0 (4vv wao (0111 ii-e oiio 014 t 0.00 thoo ikn 0: �co 0 cod 1P.

Ell I 9111 (C.

O&I a D%t In ZC fAmi, Log a LrA. 0 VA) 0 low

ywttm w*mR DIZ446- "rz (v 106� VW " COD ru OMOIF .4k: Kt- C% fetil Tt.L.06 !CC UDCII WV pup I ID E;X Ite,

RO 94 144 Cul (41AROk fft W. (OV1114 "X W& 1%wrlyl k*Qav MWOO M-rou-I w*019 it-tztl (ON I.VWAI W OUE (v. I-Eb

I.V,3&c WOT"f OW"i. ttinim Om %I` Joniq fougm Ewsu'L lvoqm 09P Om "K "MOM (OfIA4119 sou

mvu- -eteez "I kvE froi I I P-1gZ kAm, 11mr.. Mir CWDML muuz OK Pozwtz oon 01 ton K lp4d

i-tv 1, rtwi cm I f1k* I (M I OM. DW Pe ?W -v; 1-0 tic- DWZ40 14-De- - tw Is "a, �jj Ifi-

94 lqml -2ml 0"" to., a MP not Ite Z - [WU L i f-tg I Woe mr, .- da-z Il$,W ka

cl S VIL, 9 I'd-; 01-1 1; PMR WD001 ukLu cl tne ZZ L

$11 - ig WI 9 ODL L ODI 9 owt ON I out S IAL-9 Zs pot 4 1O'm 5.

14 ft] k.W L I "ObDu avi-su "AAL -da L-0140 .6-ato SS4L-f '-LWQ 64-.Gtl f= m�6wimil

.1% mg I�Ikl. fla -4 no PI. HR Llkn simam avA

VfWLUID a z

OHM - vv nvio I 1-mo I -nknAhvs jo 31vci 7s-cmno�,

of

lp 519 alqvl

- - ~~~~~~~~~TABLE 6.6:

- ~~~~~GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS'

*.,~ ~ .-Ground __T.TN..l~~r5~9V 4.Ar.I9 . ay 17i99.._. ! rf.

. . I:~ D~p~h .~. . ~EIev De' eV

_ 99-1 413.l 43.85 10.16 24.o9 19.51 -4.34 19.73 24.1299-2 24.25 25.20 9.13 16.07 9.26 15.94 9.55 15.65

99-3 30.96 31.96 7.43 24.53 6.38 25.58 7.05 24.9199-4 32.02 33.00 6.91 26.09 6.83 . 26.17 7.40 25.60_ _ _.I _ _ _ _ _ __

99-5 34.36 1 35.33 9.48 25.85 9.46 25.87 9.65 25.68

Note: All depths are measured from top of casing

981 273OB/ReptorvTab-S c6.doc

L

r G

-,.

r~~~~~~~~~~~Gle A-oiae

C I

I~~T r fi' -,' ' 1 n

TABLE 6.7 -

GROUNDWATER CHEM[STRY SUMMARY '

SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION SANITARY LANDFILL

Selected Parameter -Units.. Natural Off-site .-- On-Site Unaffected :..:t:,LeachateAfR'ected.:: .: ,.:Affected Off-Site

BOD mg/L 1-6 - 94 - 377 89 -487 1-6

TDS mg/L 491 - 747 470 - 530 1100 - 2500 1600

Hardness (as CaCo3 ) mg/L 48 -301 357 - 408 418 - 1020 890

Nitrate mg/L 1.1 - 3.3 0.02 - 0.05 c0.02 0.2

Chloride mg/L .. 19 - 67 17 - 46 182 - 470 426 - 490

Sulphate mg/L 30-62 26 - 53 18 -191 32 - 44

Conductivity gmhos/cm 456 - 1195 876 - 990 1600 - 3500 2100 - 2300

Iron mg/L <0.02 - 0.01 3 - 6.9 2.8 - 13 c0,02

Manganese mg/L ' 0.015 - 0.033 0.24 - 0.61 . 0.34 - 2.46 - <0.04

(1) Includes Samples GW-I to GW-4

(2) Includes BH99-1, 99-2

(3) Includes BH99-3, 99-4, 99-5

(4) Includes GW-5, GW-6 -

Note: For complete groundwater chemical analyses, refer to Table 6.5.

Golder Associates

. , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ii

TABLE 6.8

REFERENC[ OR BIOLOGICAL BASELINE SURVEY$

Barnes, B.V., D.R. Zak, S.R Den'. and S.H. Spurr. 1998. Forest ecology. (Pourth Edition). JohnWiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Coronel, RE. and,J.C. Zuno. 198i. Fruit crops in the Philippines: a systematic list. University'of the-- Philippines at Los Ballos Colle, I aguna, Philippines.

De Guwnan, E.D. and E.S. Fern.- i t. 1986. Philippine palms. /n: Guide to Philippine flora and fauna,volume IV. Ministry of Natural . oiturces and University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

De Laufenbels, D.J. 1978. T . taxonomy of Philippine Coniferae and Taxaceac. Kalikasan, Philippinel Journal of Biology 7(2): 117- 52.

Herrera, C.L., E.V. Ramos e: id R.A. Villanueva. 1984. Philippine plants as possible sources ofl - antifertility agents. 1hilip. ieJournal of Science 113 (1-2):91-129.

r Macabenta, J.P. and R.O. C; tpina. 1984. The Maranthaceae of the National Botanic i3arden. Philippinel, - 'Journal of Science 113 (1-: 47-65.

Madulid, D.A. 1981 Am. mnograph of Plectocomia (Palmae: Lepidocaryoideae). Philippine Journal of[: -- Biology 10 (1): 1-94.

Merrill, E.D. 1926. Enu, acdation of the Philippine flowering plants. Bureau of Printing, Manila.

Moody, K., C.E. Munroe , ..-T. Lubigan and E.C. Pallor. 1984. Major weeds of the Philippines. WeedScience Society of the P; ,i!;Vpinei. University of the Philippines at Los Baflos College, Laguna,. Philippines.

FPancho, J.V. 1983a. Plants poisonous to livestock in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Biology12(3): 193-284.

' r Pancho, J.V. 1983b. Vascular flora of Mt. MAkiling and vicinity (Luzon, Philippines), part 1. PhilippineJournal of Biology, Supplement 1, 476 pp.

Price, G.R. 1974. Cultivated Mussaendas in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Biology 3(1): 37-55.

Richards, P.W. 1996. The tropical rain forest (Second Edition). Cambridge University Press, NewYork.

Vera Santos, J. 1986a. Philippine bamboos. pp. 1-43 In: Guide to Philippine flora and fauna, volume .IV. Ministry of Natural Resources and University of the Philippines, Quezon'City.

Vera Santos, J. 1986b. Philippine grasses. pp. 45-144 in: Guide to Philippine flora and fauna, volumie- IV. Ministry of NaturalResdurces and University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Widjaja, E.A. and S. Dransfield. 1989. Bamboos of Southeast Asia. In: Plant resources of SoutheastAsia (PROSEA). Proceedings of 1' PROSEA International Symposium, 12-25 May 1989.

r - j 1 Golder Associates

.r.'' . ' ,

.~I I

TABLE 6.9

VEGETATION SURVEY (EXISTING LANDFILL SITE)

|~~ ---- -. 1 giN<.''com'ini*f.jme S ~ ~~~ *'. ,Cco,rmicIm I *c.e

NON-DIPTEROCARPS

r Swetenia macrophyla Mahogany Wood is highly valued for fimiture, interiorfinishing of houses, musical' L struments and

.________________________ _________________ ship building materials; shade tree

Terhninallacatappa lJmbrella Tree Wood used for light construction; seeds areedible; bark produces brown dye; omamentaltree

Pterocarpus r;s Narra Wood is excellent for furniture, cebinets and

_ other decorative work; flowers lhave some

' l _ _ _medicinal value

Annona muricaia Guyabano Fruit is edible; -wood used for lightconstruction I

Morrnga ole ffera Malunggay Flowers, leaves and young fruits are used asfood; leaves and bark have medicinal values;useful as fencing material or supports forpeppen vines; wood contains chemicals for

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ dyeing

L Leucaena leucocephala .Ipil-ipil Wood used as' firewood and charcoal; barkproduces brown dye; leaves can be used asanimal feed; seeds used as substitute for

r C -I . coffee -Acacia mangum Yellow acacia Wood used for light construction; leaves

used as sources of pulp

Pithecelloblum dulce ' Darnortis/ Fruit is edible; wood used for light

___________________________ Kamachile construction/firewood

ScienflJc Name Common Narne Ecoinomic Irportance

Tamarindus inedca Tarnarind Young leaves, flowers and pods are used asseasoning for foods; fruit used in the,manufacture of jams, sweets and drinks; barkis source of inl-: seed is source of oil'vniish.omamental plant

Pru ria oainp-,chIu' Chesa'Atiesa Fruit is edible. %,ood uid f)r It6iconstrieJ4a

.41sr.o;m rdio!ard - Daiipa%an Db:u Wood used fur liiAt consrruction. .e- andcr5tes; eline pat; o the pl3nt ha %ercdicn l.alje

*i.Uqgi'ea in.i.a Nlano ilic Iruiu is ediLile and hlijhlh s%3lucdl a

t .-v4, $ :i* . *lece l.en rhe root is a diureti; b!rk jr.-edw u:ed a; an wirineent; lea3es pvrpired

ls ea

Golder Associates

Ir

IhIr

T.-BLE 6.9 (contined) 'u '

.~~~~ i0tIaI A,, _s-t oolcnpoflance -*:*^Chr 7il;im caij,i,o Kalnio Fr4hs are edible; le.aw aJnd barl; hi%

medcicinal valtie; woo0d can be used for ligt

i)eio~~~'lxregia ~Fire/Flamie Tree igl vaudorriarniental tree; wood'us.r__________________ _ I.)! !u u ctionI'h'r' ionSpoimhosprirpurva .I.b.anelas Fruit is ediblk; %.ood usd t r 1 di7

constructionGfiricid.i sepwin .sq.1:le Onmamrentai, %ern good fencine mater-ial;

br3nc6ii used :s rirel ood; iuic. *-. iheIr3v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ esi s k ui ed 10 curre irc .e; sand 'ro Llfli:1 " 'P.n ilora .; ., . !Molave , , , W.oodv used,, for ; construction work thiat_ Molave .. -.: e .,,rengtih and dJr,abifity espeiI - a;

. mil~~~roafi ties. bridge p'osts etc., ap jeintr,. 8.inanaJ Fruit is used as food; [lie inner corrr, uni.and flowers are used as vegetables

G.wdIiDiaarbor.xi I C~nGincr Reroreswurin specici; scurcevrpLlp'prp r

; re- iflcName Common Name Economic Importance*~. ..-... , . .,.., .: .. -....Annonaso,n u , squ Atis , , .,. Fryit is. ed4,e; .wood used for, ight.

_ . coristructionPJLLOpSlTIGMA Alibangbang . Leaves are, edible and cgn be used asAiL41B.WCU,I , . condimtents; bark and leaves have medicinal

. :, ,. , ., . , propbrties;'wood can be used for temporary. . t . Sm .- . . . .-: .-constrltioti, lire.;,cd :dad charcoalB. aboo,-,..

.Schj4otac)&n b.rachyclad , ~.., Xawayng , china .... Spfit ciuLms are used for handicraufs.Bambusaanm naced,, .. I, iKawayan, ' .Youngshootsareedible,.-

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ijC. grasses

Impe yra cyhm*/ca Kogon Tender shoots are used for grdzing; source of. - . . , paper pulp; decoction of fresh roots used as

.. ~a a , . 1 ,diuretics and for treatment of dysentery;effective for soil erosion control

!raiihiaria rqutams .,.r . m oofodder for stockanimals

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. , . . _I

.u;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .AE

I . , :; jGoldrs: AssociatesL. ~ ~ ' 'X''l" ' '' ' ' ' - -

TA1RLE 6.10

I ,*. \W ~~- * .. . ... . . ...... - .. . . .. ., .. .. .

-' V.-(C ETATION SURVEY (LANDFILL EXTENSION AREA)

v, . =~ $~ oniniA E Cy- . 1 iDeMity -1 ihiyIC~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,

L NON-DIPTEROC. 'S ,,

rPt*ellobiumdulce Kanachile 6 0.029 0.200

Leubaea leucocaphac _ Ipil-ipil 11 0.053 0.366

M ahfera bica Mango 8 0.038 0.266

AIf.da saplentum Banana 8 0.038 0.266

Bougalm'ellaspectablli Boganvilla 4 0.019 0.133

Artarpwu blanco l Antipolo 5 0.024 0.166

|4sxyIuni altssmuni Kubling baboy 2 0.009 0.067

Anrionasquamosa . Atis 5 0.024 0.166

VitwxpatSfloba Molave 6 O- 29 0.200

FJcJsvarlegafa, . Tangisangbayawak 2 0.009 0.067

AgI4i dfOusa Malasaging 2 . 0.009 0.067

, . ~~~Ne&nxlea bartlirtgh. Li,sk 30.014 0.100

We4Wandla luzon1dnr . Ladko 4 0.019 0.133

Capp4rh micrantia . | Taraptap 3 0.014 . 0.100

_ CJfrysophyltum cafnito Kaimito 6 d 0.029 0.200

Cyanomelta negnj"oIia Balitbitan 5 0.024 0.166

Psidium guajava Linn. Bayabas 12 0.05S 0.400

Can .aa Ihag-ilaag 9 0.043 0.300

. .Anl ibcephalus,ehtfufs iBangkal .9 0.043 0.300

. ncaipus cunelformis i, Ligas 7 0:034 0.233

Gl.rc sephwr Kakawate 13 0.063 OA33

rTa T rindus indica _Tamarind I1 0.053 0.366

.B Bamboo __ __ __ _ . -_,,_,_& - SFkEotachyum .n , Kawayang china 8 0.038 0.267

} ~~~~brtpcJlcadum i, _. ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ __ _ _

_^ _ ~~~~~WlIa-uho -ae 7 0.03S 0.233

. igbntochloa levis . Buhong china 6 0.029 0-200

Bddibusa arwidinacea Kawayan 3 0.014 0.100

C. Grasses _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

rIn;prata cyllndrlca' ogon 16 0.077 0.533

L. lElef,ine indica Paiangis 12 r 0.058 0.400

Heteropogon contort u. Sibait-sibatan . 7 0.034 0.233

Brachiaria reptans Makauayan 8 I 0.038 0.267\ !, v ' ' I .

\~~~ ~~~ ~~~ '* .~ GoIerAs .:~

\j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~,

TABLE 6.11

P.ESULTS OF' 'EGETATION SURVEY/ECONOMC-IPORTANCE OFPLAN tTS WITHIN TIE PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

Plant species ob4prved in the Prima, !Impact Zone (Sanitary L"idfill Exteision Area) and theireconomic imporiance.

{~~- I -- .

x~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MO ''i 'oar IMFNON-DIPIEROCARPS

Puireellobhim dLkle .,moni,i/ Fruit is edible; wood used for liKainachile constriction/firewoodLeulscew ephaa .* Ipil-ipil Wood used as firewood. and charcoal; bar.

produces brown dye; leaves can be used. . E . .. : !animal feed; seeds used as substitute for coffee

Maagife-a mndica Mango The fruit is edible and highly valued; a deeoction'of the root is a diuretic; bark and seeds used as a - .! i .: E _ ; astringent; leaves preparedas tea

Musasapfen tu Banana Fruit is used as food; tfle inner core, trunk andtlowers are used as vegetables

Bcgaton MOs. sjvc rat. Bogpnvilla Omnanental plantAjrtocarpus rbfano Antipolo A deeoction of the bark is good for strangulariaL aDysoywn altfssimum Kubling baboy Wood used for light constructionAnnona squa,aosa Atis Fruit is edible, * ood used for light constructionvitexpareLiflora Molave Wood.,used for cqnstruction work that requires,

I i 1. F t .. strangtli and durability especially as railroad ties,._____. ____- __________._ bridge posts, etc.Fious variegata i Tangisang bayawak Fruits are edible; young leaves eate-n as

I - ~~~~~vegetablesAgIiadria s1. V Malasaging Wood used for light constructionNeomcleabartflngfl Lisak Wood can be used for light constructiothWendlandialluroniewss Ladko 'Wood used for light eonstruction

. ' Cappari nmcrkr=tha Taraptap Wood used for light construction;yChryophyllum ca/nito Kaimito Fruits ate edible; leaves and bark have medicinal,. . ri J i .r :,: a. l31ue, 'v,:.JLJnh kurd nrlightsInitru.l .nCyanometra intiegrfolia Balitbitan Wood used for tool handles, woodcraft and.. ___________________ .__.__._.__.__._-omamental purposesPsidium guaJava Linn. Bayabas t'c.din of leaves is good for stomach aches(A{4riacetd:) and as vernifuge; tea can be made from leaves;

fruit is bsed to manufacture jellies; wood usedr___________________ _ . :for light corintructionCananga odorata llang-ilang Flowersyield l13re-iling oil; bast fibers used for

making coarse ropes; wood good for clogs

.4'ui)ho.phaIutrs Chiljel.sif B3ngk3l Wo'd is goo3d for pulp manufacture, carvings,m udrelisicks, pencdl slats and wooden shoes

Senmwiiarp:us cr.mtfZw1rlisT Ligas Fru!t; 3re edibleGirirc.diasepium Kakawate Omamental and very good fencing material;I1 * . ! Golder Associates

L.'.'.

.4 TABLE 6.11 (continued)

%*

.lranri,ei a tsed ;: nreGcod: we oft the leav,____.,______k__n_ is i;eij to tcea t itlch i and '4ound;Tamarinnd i,sj,.ca I arnar,nd YoruIng lea es, d& -s r- and. pod& are used 'as-'

seasoning for foods; fruit.used i the manufactureof ins, sweels aed drinks; bark is source of ink;r____-____________ seed is source of oiVvarnish4 omamental plantr~~~~~

, Bt Bamlboo '

r o(acl"m Kawayang china Split culms are used for handicraftsbra;hycladwnm Dfnoc oa luconiaeho Young shoots are edibler Coga ffcrJaloa 1o . . Buhong china * . ~Culms are usied for building construction-;ouc. ..c. ca , . . .of edible young shoots JVBam:u sa und7ticea. Kawayan Young shoots are edibleImperata cIn a . Kogon . Tender shoots :gdbd for grazing;. source of paper

pylp; decoction of fresh roots is diuretic and also. v: . '. . . ~~~~~~~~~~used 'in dysentery; effective fior sbil erosion. ;. s : . :. . _____: ~~~~~~control; - :. . > . .lemixsin indtica, Parangis As soil bind*; can be used as ground cover to:_____.___,_._. ;ldenuded areasiH.eteropogon contortus . Sibat-sibatan Good pasture grass,_,_._._Brachiaria _______ns Marakauayan Good fodder for stock animalsi -.4:. ...

.: .,, . ; . derssrines

r

TABLE 6.12

, -. : .- - Jr JrLTS OF VEGETATION SURVEYIECONOMIC* IMllWORTAIN OtF PLANTS OUTSIDE THE PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

Plant species o6served - ntside the landfill site and their economic importance,. . . .. , .j . :,- .

'~ -~,:'- :9Econom lemporanci-'-

0 ,Non-dipterocarp

Tamar,dir indica - Tamarind Young leaves, flowers and pods are used asr seasoning for foods; fruit used in the manufactureof jams, sweets and drinks; bark is source of ink;seed is source of oiYvarrish; ormamental plant

Mangifera indka Mango The fruit is edible and highly valued; a decoctioni ______ of the root is a diuretic; bark and seeds used as ani__,_,_,_,____- astringent; leaves prepared as teaMusa saplentum Banana Fruit is used as food; the inner core, trunk and

flowers are used as vegetablest Pidweeiolum dtulc- Kanachile Fruit is edible; wood used for lighti ,; -i, :, , . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~construction/firewoodLencaeea klneco., a.b Ipil-ipil Wood used as firewood and charcoal; bark

produces brown dye; leaves can be used asanmial feed; seeds used as substitute for coffee

Bougainvellia spec abilis Boganvilla Omnamental plantr: Chuysopnil/U.m Ca P1.w1 Kaimito Fruits are edible; I&ves and bark have medicinal

l E l , ,, , , ,, value; wood can be used for light constrhction *-I4cacla nangium Yellow Mangium Wood used for light constructionAl*Iangifera i,.i L. n.lr1igg The fruii is edible and highl *1ued .l -,.kLi.r.

I'. rhe r.'ot is a dtiureuc; bark 5nd eeJ. ued dJ.i inastringent; leavesprepared as tea

t Man! gia. calabura L Ratiles B Bark is used for making rope; fleshy ,fruits areedible; wood used for light construction

\ r ~~~~~~Psldlu* guajarva Linn, ,Bayabas Decioction of leaves is good for stomachi achesi i , , (Myrtkeae) and as vermi e; tea can be made from leaves;

fruit is used to manufacturejellies; wood used for: ! , , X ~~~~~~~~~~~~light construction

I l , Artocarpus blaricol (Elmler) Antipolo A decOction of the bark is good for strangulariaI | , l~~~~(err.) (Moracreae) ,

| l : 'Gliricidla :ephiM Oacq.) :Kakawate Omamental and very good fencing material; theI Steud (ieg6ttninoseae) t ffi , branches are used as firewood; juice of the leaves

* |n 1: ! - o:. C ',a e:'_o.of is used lstiiches 3ndgtoonds| | l SJrzgiurwi s~~OMMal.S.Wse fl3I h lsitkopa mi-ris -ire edible. basrk. is i1sd j-, a:pr- iger a r.,

I I bl~~~~~Nerr. (M5Tzae;eae) nial;p nœoultim a liI _ - P.ll~~~AleeelobXlum df.1lve K;mnwhile r~ru~: s rdjble; %%,.)zd uscd iur ltghl ton -iru-Aio)

Colocasia.escslentum G .Gabi Fruit/root is used as foodI l __ ': iMatdelhtesctdenta, -. , gKanioteng kahoy Fruit/root is edible

I rI .T l Golder Associates

TABLE 6.12 (continued)

Dinochloa Iuconiae I Kawayan Young shoots are edible

Bambwa arundinacea Kawaya Young shoots are edible

. SchIzoiAchyum backadurn Kawayang china Split culms are used for handicrafts

C. GraSSes

Imp-ata cylindrica Kogon Tender shoots good for grazing; source of paper

I .r. . pulp; decoction of fresh roots is diuretic and alsoused in dysentery; effective for soil erosion

I___________. __________ controlL~. Brachkjria replans Marakauayan Good fodder for stock animals

I GI.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

r

Ir

TABLE 6.13LIS -!NG OF BIRDS SIGEITED IN TllE PROPOSID

SAN F RNANDO LANDFILL SITi

phili,nines is ¢ lzark lfhelps control population of insectson .,h, . . andr somful weedharmful to crops of.igOrlat4rchiner sis Keeae metainlyofrsandinsects i

X . .~~hieni and is an important factor in the'

. . ~~~~~~~~~~~dispersal of seeds of many plants;. , . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~helps control the population of manyl . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~insects, including those that are

gokiier ;bulbul Hway, also helps in the control ofinsect P'.Pulations

l; - i ~~Cisticola exilis semiruf Pipit cogon Helps, in the control of insect |a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a1-lder A,populations

that destroy rice plants!- _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and other crops of humans

1~~~~~~~~~~Gle AssociatI

r - rc

TAB LE 6.i4P'ARTIAL, LIST OF PRIORITY SPECIES OFPHILIP,'INE WILD BIRDS, MAMMALS AND REPTILES

Common Name Scientific Name

StatusWILD BIRDS

| , Spot-billed Pelican/Philippine Pelican Pelecanus philippinensis IUCN (I)

Serpent Eagle i Spilosnis holorpilus CITES (11)Philippine Ea eI6nI:ey-Eii Eagle Piltlecnph3gzjefteryi

IUCN (E); CITES (IT)Philippine Hawk Eagld', Spizactus philipensis

CITES (11)Philippine Megapode/lncubator Bird Magapodium freycinet CITES (11)

Palawan Peacock Pheasant Polyplectron emphanwn IUCN (V); CITES (11)Negros FruitDove. ., Ptilinopus arcan IUCNsC (I)

| Luzon Bl,eeding Heart Pigeon Gallicolumnba luzonica. IUCN,(I); CITES a1)Nicobar ige r Pigeon Caloenas nicobarica CITES (11)Mt. Apo Lorikeet/Mindanao Lrikeet Trichoglosusjohnstoniae

" CITES (II)Phili.'r;ne Cocl:ato-vRed Vent d Kakatoe haematuropygia IUCN (K); CITES (11)Cockatoo

Philippine Hanging Parakeet Loriculus philippinensis

CITES (II)Oriental AawkO' l 3Philippi- Horned Ninox scutulata

CITES (II)Owl ,I *~~~~~Mindanao Parrotflnch

Eryhura colorta IUCN (I)J%IAI%II*IA..S

Tamaraw 1: .Bubalus mindorensis

CITESCalamnian Deer Cervus porcinus ITWCN (V); CITES (II)

Mouse Deer/Luzon Sambar Deer Tragalus napu IUCN (V)Palawan Bear-Cat

Arctictis binturong whitei CITES (111)Luzon torest Rat

Batomys grantii CITES (11)

Philippine M nnike)!Long Tailed Macaca fascicularis IUCN (I)

MacaquePhilippine Tarsier

Tarsius syrichta CITES (ll)Philippine Tree Shrew or Mindanao Orogale everetti IUCN (E)

Slender-tailed ShrewL. 7Palawan Scaly Anteater Manisjavanica CITES (11)| ~~~REPTILES

__ Philippine FreshwaterCrocodile Crocadylus mindorensis

CITES| f , Gray Monitor Lizard

Varanus grayi IUCN (R); CITES (11)Leyte Freshwater Turtle Heosemys leytensis IUCN (1)| - Source: Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, 1996

L Legend: IUCN (R) -RareIUCN (E) - EndangeredIUCN (T) - ThreatenedIUCN (V)- VulnerableIfUCN (I) - IndetermninateIUCN (K) - Insufficiently Known

Golder Associates

7

TABLE 6.14 (continued)

CITES (I) - Appendix }- Trade of species and subspecies of wildlife listed under this Appendix is strictlyprohibited except for educational, scientific or research and ftudy purposes.

CITES (11) - Appendix 11 - Trmde of species and subspecies of wildlife listed under this Appendix is strictlymrohibiied.

CITES (QII' A,- :nI _ III -Populations of species and subspecies of wildlife listed under this appendix highly-n isdlocf p,rotection set under national policies as determined by the country's CITES

I~ I .I

f

, Associates

L.~:': ':;

\

1-~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r

I

TABLE 6.15

PART I lL LUST OF RARE, ENDEMIC AND ENDANGEREII I PLANTS OF TIE PEHIlPINES

Partial list of rare, en&i ic and endangered plants of the Philippines;

t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IRaifiesiamanillana TtA.s ohem (Rafflesiacea)

J . Cinnamomum cebuen re osterm (Lauraceae)r - wCycs chamberlainii H3! And Kienh (Cycadaceae)L

Rosa transmonrrisone Hayata (Rosaceac)

Calamus spp. (Palm ;e)

Tectonaphilippiensev Benth. And Hook. F. (Verbenaceae)

Vanda sanderlan;, Reicho. F. (Orchidaceae)

Paphiopedilum n ?p. (Orchidaceae)

L Taxus sumatrena (Mig). De Laub. (Taxaceae)

Nepenthes spp. (Nepenthaceae)

Source: Philippine National Museum, Botany Division

L.,

Lj

I U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l

TABLE 6.16

RESULTS OF EIOISE SURVEYtodoa~ ~ u-dr.~'Sata1T. i -Noise!LeeA).

.jeB ~ -Suc or-, ~'.Olher Source.

;) .in. Na1u 1. Nleanla Mar. 5 4:4 PM 39 50 45 30.6 children

chicken withplaying . chicks

2 Mar. 9 12:05 PM 39 48 44 30.8 barking dog people working

3 1l~ . 9 2:46 PM 40 44 42 31I.0.. people working

lb hfar. 9 7:40PM ; i - 41 28.0 people working

Ic b . 10 i_:15 Al ; 25.1 _Id lar. 10i o:5Ar P 3. _ -i .25.0 people

birds andtalking chicken

4, Mar. 40 9:1pAM 38 46 42 27.4 birds

J - 5 Mar.10 i :05o PNf 40 46 43 31.0 barking dog radio and

_ _____

-_. :

-people talking

- Mar. 10 3:15PrM 40 52 46 31.1 children jeep andplaying ~ chicken_________ I _______ ________Plaing w/chicks

Golder Assoclates

Gold or Associates~l

| NOISE TABLE 6.17F

ENVIR(NMENTAL QUALM STANDARDS FORNOISE IN GENERAL AREXS

l t K3ZW~~~ati0 DW ytiffe dBc4)D fiMowaine'ein BA i) ~;: .ighdne dB(Ay s

. AA . . 50 45 40

| .~ . _ A _55 50 45B 65 60 55

C 70 65 60

D 75 70 65

Note:

Class AA - A section or contiguous area which requires quietness such as area within 100 metres

from school sites, nursery schools, hospitals and.special home for the aged

Class A - A section or contiguous area which is primarily used for residential purposes.

- ClassB - A section or contiguous area which is primarily a commercial area.

Class C -A section or contiguous -area which is primariy reserved as a light industrial rrea.

Class D A section or contiguous area which is primarily reserved as a heavy industrial area.

! !G

I-

l rI

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r- --. I, . I .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

TABLE 6.18

Results of Total Suspended Particulate Sampling

Station ate Wand - .i -W,ind o Filter. |'Dae . . -~Nca.No. : - . pDperar.etsDle 7 tinhl: ' jnal Nin;.|- oi. D(g |Ve;'C

'I a 3.9,99 PNI-9W I 1110 ANI I 3410 A3 0NE . 30 32 54.08 20 7 0700 3S22 3/9/99 PM-9)002 1:30PM 230PM NNE- _ 30 28 _ 29 _ 49.01 7.2: 7200;: 1463 - 3/9/99 PM-9903 4:15 PM -5:15 PM N _ -- 28 26 .27 45.63 8.3- 8300 - 81-

*lb 3/9/99 PM-99Oib_ 9:00 PM 10 :OOPM_ CALM 34 _ 32 54.0S 17.1 17100- 316Ic 3/10/99 PM-9901o 1:47AM 2:47AM CALM 30 28 29 : 49.01 1.5 1500 30Id 3/10/99 PM-9901d 7.30 AM 8:30 AM CALM _ 32 -29 30.5 51.54 . 3.0 3000 584 - 3/10/99 PM-9904 9:35AM 10:35AM N 32 30 31 52.39- 5,5 5500 1055 3/10/99 PM-9905 2:27 PM 3:27 PM N 34 32 33 55.77 5.4 5400 - 97

*6 3/1/99 PM-9906 5:07 PM 6:07 PM NNE 34 30 - 32 54.08 30.5 30500 564

Note: DENR Standards 300 ug3Ncm

H Higher values this is due to smoke comingfrom the tabacco d'yer (Station nos. la and lb) and vehicIes (Station No. 6) whlichpessedby during sampling time.

Golder Associates

TABLE 6.19

- , Results of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Sampling

7 Fe~~~~ .?iMO Cdnoentration._ ~ ~ ~~~ !.

. ____ ^ . - .c

r 2 3/9/99 FLUS-02 12:20 PM 1:20 PM <7 <.0026L 3 319/99 FLUS-03 3:00 PM 4:00 PM <7 <.0026

lb 3/9/99 FLUS-9901B 7:55 PM 8:55 PM 13.8 .0052'cI 3/10/99, FLUS-IC 12:35 AM 1:35 AM 13.8 .0052I'd 3/10/99 FLUS-ld 6:20 AM 7:20 AM <7 <.0026

3/10/99 FLUS-04 9:25 AM 10:25 AM <7 <.0026I l * 5 3/10/99 FLUS-05 1:20 PM 2:20 PM <7 <0026

- 6 7 FLUS-06 4:30 PM 4:30 PM C0026

Although measurement was taken, result was not evaluated because loose sampling bottle cap ruined theintegrity of the sample

I o s

re

I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_~~~~~~~ A

I~~~~~~~~~

a .. ' I, ; i Ia_ r -

L [l, u3_t 1 L t

'1| ' ; |F -- -4 -- °° - °°° -° ° - 2.

rz~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I; ; Z W; - Si-; ;o __ -X t

X _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 lII a

Ir~ 9ce 8 8 P,0 Pr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r

i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. , - ;^- r-) ;~ - -

TABLE 6.21

_~ - ~ Smminary of Trafic Flows Location TI Existing access road to the dmnp siteTraffic Flow Two-way, houy summaly

- _ ,_ . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D31C. hfarch 9- I . 1999g

u ..

pJ..

._

_

Golder Associates

TABLE6.22

Summni~ of Traffic FlowsLocation T2 Along Dallanpayan Qeste Road cornerDallangayan Este Road (uncton)Trafflc Flow Tw.o-way, houirbi summary (BarangigyRoad - Dallangayna Oeste

Wmie March 9-10, 19t)9

- ... -.~~~~ri . ' 1

1-~kryc.;. oriie M6 .an ow

- ~~~~~~ ~Time PLrJ Vale:r.~:~rc.

an &rm~ ire1j

* ub w'ju9.") Iv 3 4 4It 4

so ~ * *

179AL- ItU 8 20I 3 42 1 3 4 I o 0.8 65

lVI.NI.l Ith, it' 14 ~~~~~~12 39 ___6 4 *1

9i 8

* IIAi::"ti

6.. ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~4

u 2 0 886-

___________________ ~ ~ ~ ~ 31 48 _ 1 ~ 2 3 1. 70 66

D.uu-L4;uO __ 8 10 5 43 _ 0 0- 2 2 70 66

14:00-15:00 3

10" 13 _ 3 2 - 3 0 57 54

15:DO-16:00 4 5 337

4 2 5 6 66 K- 5

* 16:00-17:.00 I 11 6 1 6 * 3 ~ 4 0 2 93..9

17:00-1&800 9 17- 2 lo1t _ 3 4

150IS -136~

18:00-19.00 9 12 268

_ 2 5 7 108 96

19:00-20:00 6 5 2 ~ 47 I_ 1 05

5 71 . 61.

20:00-21:00 __9___22 0

29

21:00-22:00 4 2 2 - 0 .. __0

- 3 -1 22 18 -

22:00-23:00 2 I 0 9- 0- 0 0 - 1 - 13 12

23:00-24:00 3 2 3 4 0 I 0o 6 13 ___ 13

00:00-010DO I 1 I S 0 0 0O~~ 0, 8

01:00-02.00 0 O4000

-7

4

02:00-03:00 0 0- 0 30

- 0 0 0 3 3

03:00-04.00 0 I 0 -3 0 - 0 0 0 4.4

04:00-05:00 1 * 0 0 8 a1 0 0 0 9 9

05:00-06:00 4 0o a 15 -0 6o 1 5 25 19

06:00-07:0O 5 8 ~ 2 _ 32, 0 6O 5

- 847~

Ttoal miovements i3T 16J 5 795 * W Zs ST 78 1339 n210

Percentage - totai 10. 1W.2 4.2 59.4 L7 1.7 3.8

Per-centage - vehicle I11. 13.5 4.6 65.'7 3.0 1.9 ______

_____ ______

Maximium per hour i8 25 12 101 6 f 4 8 12150 ~ 136

a nmuzm pethour 0 0 .0 0 0 [0 00

00

TABLE 6.23

Samary of Traffic FlowsLocation T2 A lJone DWllangIyan Road comer Dallangayan Este Road (unction)Trafflc Flow T"%o-%3y houlysumman (Dallangavan L -L an Oeste}

Daie Nlarch 9-10. 1999

-' . -. -~~~~~ ~ .~~ Teuelz Ian ~~~~~, or P~euapi rm -~Moiorled~

[me.

ril Me -4-X D,l .r.. '>'Tus_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .1: 2 - Ir ^;

L,h tifJ-ostWA .

w U 4 .3 5

.wli'-Ii II O

O 0 0 2 2 . 4

I I Ike- I 2_ __, _ 7 1 1 2 _ .:;S11e-12:U ()

0 - 0 . 1 7 . 5 i

1_ __ _ _ __ _ _2___ I' I. . 0 7-__________________ i-'l-' -w

0 0 r - 216:00-17:00 0 O6 Oo O 0 I

7 6 - -

17:00-18:00 _ O 4 - -o 4O I _ . 4.18:00-19:00

0 0 ' O '2

3 .

19:00-20:00 O O O_ O O O O _ 0-

20:00-21:00 . 0 .O 0 -00 I .17 O

- 21:00-22.00 I - I 0 0 0 2 2

22-00-23:00 0 0 O 1. 0 0

23:00-24:00 O O _O O - O I

00:0041:00 0 0 0-0 OO0 0

O 0

01:0002:00 a 0 O 0 0 0 0

:0

02:00-03:00 0 .0 __O 0 0 . -0 0 O O 0

03:00404:00 . O -O -

.0 0 004:00v5:00 0

0 0 0 0 O 0 e

0

05:00"6.00 O

0 3 ...

06;00 07:00 . O - O - 6 . _O I ~ 2 9 C

Total movementh 4 444

Q - .9 _ 62

Percent g-toh _ 6.5 _ 0.0 71 - 1.6 0.0 14.5 0.0 .

erceilta evehiCle _- 7.5 f0.0 83.0 1.9 7-0 _oi

Mcimum per hour 3 1 0 I_ 0 4 8Midmum per hour 0 O ° OO tO O 0 . . O O.

C-oueer Az0.5:ciSte

'

TABLE 6.24

- .~ Summary of Traffic FlowsLocation 72 Alon&Dallangayan Road corner Dallangayan Esie Road ,junction)Traffic Flow T%% o-wo%, hourly sunimary (Dallangayan -Este -Bamrngay Road)

DMte: f'iar,h 9-I. 10999.1 Ou.p Molor

- 8ure '. -PtIde; t.- -. T tr s 4 {--o risd.

I S -.Kl. 1

Triejcle -i'

.,'~

.J -'P tdi ab. - P ' TrA;i

_ IP. . .- L e 1 _r_V_ __________ __I-,, ___ P

I35

u 1 65 5929 tjl.'i Io vC 6)

.1_

) ' 6 .W

I *~ v "'1 n I1 b ___t____ 6 39 II I:vO-12' j r U

24 u 003{.W-14 ',J

Si

_ U5

Nu(j-1! '~~~~~~~~ -- 2~~~-3 0 ~ 0 0 3 34 3

If ., I _ . . 3 3 0 24 1_ ° 0 2 3 36 31

16:00-17:00 3 5 -0 15 I 0 0 2 26 24

17:00-18:00 10 4 0 37 2

1 S7 53

- 18:00-19.00 4 3 ' 19 0 0 1 0- 27 - 26 .

19:00-20:00 3 O .-18

0 0 21 21

20.00-21:00 2 0

- 21- ° ' 2. 26 23

21:00-22:00 -2 -2 0 7 - '

2 3 17 12

22:00-23:00 -3 ° 0 7 0 --

0 ° - -

11

23:00-24:00 - 0- -

0 0 0 10 10

- - 00:00-03:00 . - 0 ~~ 0 8 - ~ 0 - 0 1~e a- -1 11 9

01:00-02:00 I 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 3

02:00-03:00

____0 ______ __

D- 0 0

03:00404:00 0 i - 0 -

0 0 0 . i

04:00-05:00 1 0

0 - 0 0

05:0046:00 1 0 - 0

.O 0 S 4 1 8- 11

06:00-07:00 6 0 O 18s 0 _

25 24

Total movements - 94 -_- 3419 14 _

-132 617 S66

Percentage - tothl 15,2 62 - .U ,. 0.2 3. - 5.2 .

Perceatagc - vehicle 16.6 6.' u' n - 0.z2 02 . _ _ __ . _. _ ._ . ___

Maximum per hour 6 0 46 4 1 4 6 65 r

Minlmum per hour 0 0 0 .f 0 0 0. 0 0. 0

Golder Associates

~~- -r- r~ § F- ,r I( t

TABLE5 6.25

- . - ~ Summary-of Traffic FlowsLocation T2 : Infront of existing Landfill Site along Dallangayan Oeste RoadTraffic Flow : Two-way, hourly summaly

-D3me: NTrch 13-14. 1999

N.-; U _ . 3 8

1 2 24lW-..-Iv.()L l l u

3. .0 .. 1 1 2 0. 25- 2011:00-12.00 6 4 0 - 4 012:00-13:00 8 - I 0 4

IS13-14:0 8 3 O 44 - 4 ___ 0 6 - 2314:00-15:00 2 4 2 5

-16

15:0-16:00 3 *4 1 2 2 20 1 . ;

16:00-17-00 5 70 7_2__

2 24 2017:00-18:00 8 - 4 0 4 2 220__1S:00-19:00 10 5 0 7 -I 1 0 -I _ 25 24

19:00-20:00 __2___2_

2 O

F .220:00-21:00 4 2 - S ---- 0- 5 17 -12

21:00-22:00 4 4 O 7 O _ - T5 30 s15 -22:00-23:00 1

0 4 - 0 _ - 6 11 523:00-24:00 0 0 4 0 2 0 7 6

§

00:00-01:00 0 O -0 0 17 22 5-

-01:0042:00- . 0 0 3 0 0 0 O3 6 3

02:00-03:00 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 103:00-04:00 0 0 0 -

.- -0

04:00-05:00 - 21- - 0 ° _3 0 :

05:00-06:00 4 0 -0 I 0 0 0 2 7 2_5. 0~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~6:UR7.00 104

7 O O O _._3 - = _2

Totil movements IIS 61 2 IN - 214 - 23 - 79 422 320-

Percentage - total 27.3 14.5 24.9 53 3.3 5.5 -- lS.7 _

Percenbge - vehicle _35.9 19.1 .6 32. 7.2 4A I

.Mtximum per hour IS 6 21 30 25i

IMinumui per hour 0 0 i ______I I1' I ' I I ' I0 0

Gol#qr Associates

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

S - -

,-~~~~~

i. T. '1

.. , - I.Z... 11T

o~ W .d4;;t--S4if

-

3 Ca Z ; C r

z 4 -r 4 e _ Ar Q 4 4~~~~~~~I~I-

1 ~ I . 1.L, i I r o .- i'.n.s . . . .1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

TABLE 627

. ~ - ~ Summary of Traffic FlowsLocation T2 : Along Dallangayan Oeste cornerDallangayan Este Road (unction)Traffic Flow Tw*o-% ay, hourly summry (Baranpay Road- Dallangaya Ocs.e)

Date: Ntarch 13-14,1999f m

puj~~~~~~~~~~- :rT C an ..---or~,~. 1 eara,.*. ,,~ .,

MoIocy~- - - ~ J1k~Ie.

- .. - To

_~~~ W. , - . Timey~ - .1. .ZP,Wa-. | ..4.. PHiflow .| :. e. -r | lc1:-i ; ||-__.__.__.W4JS tP_ _ 7 1 7 . 6 4 *o'Is j4J IAil

w C1 og

I __________ o~~~

~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~3 16

02u ~ 9

_ ___f _^°i __146 u ____I __4U_ ___SIIahi iSl@-lt.12U 7u 8 ,6,_ _ _ __-l| S _ _5

E t04

uA ~~ ~ ~~12 2 3 3 .1 6

- __________________,_ 3 3 __-_ __4____ _ 2j 2 6 68

s 4o 5 0 7

54_____________ - 4 tS - 0 39 3 ---- - 76 64

17:001800 A_- ,i__O 22 _ 63.

118 96

__O17 6 1 -:-- . 66 - 83 _0 4 4 114 10619:00-20:00, _ 3_ _ 17 -L.. 51 2 0 7 8 19 7420:00-21;00

2- 3 . -=-.40 - 2 68 58

|- 21:0O~00 .- ...._ 4; ; -2 35~40 26 61 53

22:0 o TT 0-733M '- 2 i 0

1 25 2323:0024-0 0

_ _ .1_ 6 I -13 0 0- 0 .25 45 - 20

; :.0 0 0t: 3, ' 6 0 0 0 4 13Max0mu 2e00r 0 :r12 7 q3 0 7 3 0 211 0

Minlmumperu02 r00 00 4 0 0 0 0 4 003:00-V4.'00 0 X -20 "~~; 0: - 0 0oc .0 I _=

t . o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~5:00-06:0i , 3-\4 3 0 12 '0 0- . 3 '22 l1

i ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~06:00-07:00 .,-T 3 1 .32 _ 02.59

55 !

Total movements 110 L 16 _---39 - 4 88126 - 1496 12S

.lrcet4age-total- -1-6.47 - 2.6- 56.7 -2.5 0;5 5.4 8A 4 Fer-cC len - vcic c i 5 _ 19.1- 3.0 66.8- 2.9 0.6 _ .'Maium perchouir $12 22 83 7- 3 10 25 1t8 106 Minimum per bour O O O- I .- O O O O O O

GoddeFAssoc:12tes

rr r- , orrr- -

I Irn

_."~ac~~~ooOOO '

!oo e

U E0

10~~~~

1 0-';|il-glit';;..

0

sk.~~~~~~I

- c E " i!" _ ::1 C c o o o c o s, _c _ c c s o c I IuI5I II

j~~~~~ , 4. i' moo 0S

1\1~~~~~~~~~~~o ' X k~.aP

02~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- TABLE6.29

72 - ~~~~~~~Summary ofTraffic Flow

Location 72A1oni Dallangpyan Oeste comner Dal.angayan Este Road (junction)

Traffic Flow :Two-way, hourlN sum m3n (DalIan-ayan Road -Da1langayan Oeste)~ .Date: March 13-14, 1999

- ~~taZoreyclr -- .' .-. ~~~~: Bicycic ~~.. Total .. Total .

-Tim PUJ Pritite''. lor ..~~~~~Truck P.. Ya MeH ~ r Y li& tin .rfl . Ito1rl4,fd

- . .,. .. - . - . ~~~~~~~'"-... -~~~~ Trlcipcie n ~cIa ...:.fow .;Trmfrnc -

08.00-09313 S 0 .48 3 0 6I 7 64 68

09.-OD-10.00 ~~~~~l I ~~7 ~~O 34 1 0_ 4 3 -a- 53.

11:00-12:00 7 -11 0 39. I 0 2 2 62 S

12:00-13:00 4 to 0 si I 5820 --- s

13:0-W4O-I 6 11L 0 26 3 0- 31

14:00-15:00 1 5 0 34 t 0 ~ 2 o 3

.15:OD-16:00 5 s - 0- 25 0 05 1 4438

16.:OD-17:0 . ~ 5 .. n 4.. o 0 ~ 6 ~ 4 4535

17:00-1:00' 4 W 0 ~ I 9._ so 40

18:00-19:00. . ~ 8 0 3 0 0. 8 0 54 -46

19:00-20.00. 4 8 5 T.2 0 024-70 64

20:00-21:000 6 0 28 0 02 36 34

22:00-2300 - 0 ~ 2 T 0 0 is 9

23:00-24:00 0 0O 5 0 0 0 5 10 5

D:00.01:66 I 0 3 0 005

04:00-0:00 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ 4 - 0 -0 0

06:00-07-00 3 I 0 19 0O 0 ~ 2 0 ~ 25 .23

Total movements 94 1 1 0 556 13 . 2 . -49 - - 1- 861 769

- i . - 0 .I I a

Maximum per hour 13 1 1 a 52 I 3 I - _____ 74 6

Mlinimum per bour 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 00

Golder Associates

fig6-1.dwg

- STUDYAREAVICINTY MAPROPOSED-SANITARY LANDFILL - .FIGURE -.- SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION --

Prjc , ~ iZD. Ch. d 4

*-|IGED - t -8 ,

@1n>, i_, J - *J +v_ g / i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E=0~~~uutnt 3t' (i[k) , :?. ot~~~~~~~~~~v

EDKRF%tWAU"{ Er8s WY ./E *. * . E031C>STrWw E3Wl1_rfs#tOELtt i a - iazSX * / ;*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7

- e tCO 100 JOD 4110 LO: - i ,.tK 5 . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dste Ail;lJST ....... SS^°3

Project .9.a) ... Z7DD13. .Golder Associotes Drown ir.HQ~oc u m m.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 0

I i I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

. _ __ .-,

. '!

MODIFIED CORONAS SYSTEM OF CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 6.2

LE G E N D.,1 _~~~~~ e -.___ d RIuu- ; June b

_ j , , , ~ I X ___rf o OLrkW I

L f ' *, %FK z

t. f ~~~~~~~, I):' '

KICILOhlETRES' or{

L 4~~~~~~~,44" L - '

. ~~~SOURCE: rASU'RMEYWr>ORs j ^

ProJect 9...l1-.Z73.Q.4l Drawn ... r . ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Chkd

L

L I~~~~~~~~~.

i, . I~~

.. ®. .,.__.. . .

GENERA ED GROUNDWATER FLOW =RNSA_ -ERNANDO SANITARy LANDFILL FIGURE 6.

NOIerg~~G LROUNDWATER DMDE

z X | lb ~~~~~~~SURFACCO1U,mres .SCALEt 1:2500

MNfROA-i=<7@N PIN PLWI

|S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - Ms 17 f... 1|]9

DalemL &!§3jo. . .YTh? ..... *PrF*1d manmpk.

Dkawn: WM

.__ _-' " ' ' 'S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Chd..f-'..jl

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E S M~w S

E if '.X

J M ___@ _.JrX

~~~~ 4 -~~~~~~I U

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Lj ,i C L >--J ,

I- , -~~ /

Pfe as,*e X '' 1"-,~~~~~~~~~

4,,,~~~~~~~ '

L . s ' U ; ] - 3 J LI LI L I 3 'I t . L.. L- :. LI L_ .I.

October 1999 7-1 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

7.0' ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 Methodology of Impact Assessment

As a result of the comprehensive scoping process, a clear understanding of the importance of

environmental/social concerns (impacts, effects, etc.) related to the proposed landfill

development was developed and the critical information required to address those concerns was

identified (refer to Appendix B) . Based on this understanding, a list of issues arid potential

impacts and the studies to be undertaken to address those issues/poteptiai impacts for thisLi Jspecific EIA were prepared for discussion during the fuist level scoping meeting and the formal

scoping session. As noted above, these were presented in the Scoping Report that also outlined

the-studies to be undertaken together with proposed methodology. In particular, the DENRScope and Coverage form presents the details of the Agreed Upon -Muse, Criteria for the

j l proposed rnethodology for the impact assessment.

The 'descriptions of the issues/potential impacts and the study methodologies undertaken are

presented below' under the respective issues. It is noted that the studies and documentation also

satisfy the detailed World Bank Terms of Reference for Component 3 (EIA and FS) of the 0

F project.

t r In carrying out this impact assessment, the Rotential impacts of the pzroposed proiect have been

identified by comparing the current baseline conditions (the existing dumpsite in operation on

the North Parcel and 'undeveloped/developed land on the South Parcel) described in Section 6 tothe impacts that might be expected to arise from the construction and operation of the engineered

landfill described in Section 5. Potential impacts were generally evaluated as to their potential

significance in a qualitative manner-(although quantitative analyses were done where possible)

using the followng descriptors:

High: proposed project causes a substantial change to the environment

* Moderate: proposed project causes a moderate change to the environment

* Minimal (Low): proposed project causes a minimal change to the previronment

* None: proposed project has negligible identifiable change to the environment

Golder Associates

1.

U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

lr

October 1999 7 -2 1-2730B

STEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EMI

The alternative approach is a quantitative or numerical impact assessment; i relative

importance of each of the impacts is assigned a weight, which is multiplied by UI ,oring of the

significance and then totalled. The quantitative assessment is considered most useful when

comparing, for example, two sites or two different site development proposals. In this case,

where the impact of the preferred waste management system and proposed site development

proposal is being evaluated, a quantitative evaluation is appropriate and most easily understood.

Impacts have also been assessed as to whether they are of short-term or longer-term duration and

whether they are irreversible (pernanent) or reversible (temporary).

The following definitions have been used in the assessment of the significance of the potential

impacts:

* Baseline Conditions: existing dumpsite in operation on the North Parcel and

undeveloped/developed land on the South Parcel (i.e., dwellings, agricultural land,

NAPOCOR tower, etc.).

* lhe Project: development of an engineered sanitary landfill at the preferred site for the

management of municipal solid waste generated and collected within the City of San

Fernando, La Union; the preferred site is the existing controlled dumpsite in Barangay

Mameltac and an adjacent parcel of land to the south, located in Barangay Dalangayan

Oeste. The project includes a number of engineered components and measures (design

features) such as bottom liners, final covers, leachate collection/treatment system, gas

management system, surface water management system, operational controls (i.e., daily

L - cover), etc. (refer to Section 5). It is noted that some of the design features are essentially

components/measures that will effectively reduce/minimize or eliminate many of the

t ~~~~~~potential impacts to the environrnent (i.e., the proposed liner., will significantly reduce

groundwater contamination by leachate).

\ k"' * impact. a project-derived consequence on the physical, biological and/or human

environment. The impact can be a direct or ipdirect consequence; either positive or

negative; either reversible or irreversible; and either short-term or long-term.

LGolder Assotlates

October 1999 79-83 19S-2730BSfWEP, Sait Fernntlo La Union Sanitary Landfill EJA

* Mitigation: an Iaction that prevents, eliminates, reduces, or compensates for a negative

impact It is noted that the project components/measures, which by design will

reduce/minimize the potential for environmental impact, are not considered mitigation

measures for the purposes of this impact assessment. Where required, additional rneasures

-have been proppsed to mitigate potential impacts that may not be adequately addressed by

the project components/measures. For example, implementation of a mutually acceptable

rehabilitation plan (RAP) has been included as a mitigation measure to address loss of

physical assets and/or livelihood for the occupants of the dwellings presently located in, the

-_ South Parcel of land (refer to Section 8).

* Reversible impacts: the impact will not cause a net change in the environment in the vicinity

of the project site and the change will not last beyond the project duration (i.e. 10 yrs) -

short-term.

j Irreversible impacts: the impact will cause a net change in the environment in tlle vicinity of

the project site and the change will last beyond the project duration (i.e. 10 yrs) -- long-termn.

* Short-term impacts: impacts that are expected not to last beyond the design operating life of

the proposed landfill (i.e. 10 years). This definition is considered appropriate for the

following reasons: i) engineered landfills behave as 'treatment systems' with an extremely

slow process rate in stabilizing the solid wastes (i.e. the duration for complete stabilization,

i.e. landfill life, is typically several decades); ii) the potential for impact on groundwater,

widely accepted as the most sigrificant of all landfill environmental impacts, typically exists

well beyond (a few decades) the operating life of the landfill; and iii) most other landfill

environmental impacts are of concern only during the operating period (e.g. surface water

contamination, excessive noise, unacceptable odour, etc.) and are of extremely short-

duration (a few hours to a few days), temporary in nature and/or occur infrequently (once a| I r month/year). Therefore, it is appropriate to define the duration of the potential impact for

the purposes of this assessment (short-term vs. long-term) on the basis of the overall 'process

life' of the landfill (commonly referred to as the "contaminating life span" of the landfill)r j F - and not on the occurrence of the potential impacts of temporary /infrequent nature. This

definition was used as general guidance to assess the severity/ significance of the potential

Golder Associates

Ur-

l

October 1999 7 - 4 981-??30B

SWF'EEP, San Fernandotl La Irnion Saniiarmy Landfill ELI

impact on each environment, together withl other appropriate environment/issue specific

factors (e.g. stakeholder concerns).

* Long-term impacts: impacts that are expected to last beyond the design operating life of the

proposed landfill (i.e. 10 years). As noted above, the duration of the potential impact has

been defined based on the overal 'process life' of the landfill and this definition for "Long-

GT term" impacts was used as general guidance to assess the significance of tbe potential impact

on each environment, togetber with otber appropriate environmentfissue-specific factors.

It is not considered necessary to assess positive impacts with regard to whether they are or are

not reversible: Ihpacts of potential significance are identified as key issues to be addressed

|rt through monitoring and mitigation measures. Ilt this regard, it is reiterated that the primary

purpose of the various design and operational components/features of the proposed engineered

landfill (refer to Secticon 5) is to minimize most, if not all, of the potential environmental impacts

associated with the operation of the open/controlled dumpsite (baseline coniditions). The purpose

of the impact analysis presented in- this section is to assess the effectiveness of these

components/features in reducing the significance of those potential environmental impacts frorp

the present high levels (due to the presence of the dumpsite) to minimalUinsignificant levels.

S L Therefore, the overall environmentatl impact of the proposed engineerea landfill is expected to be

positive relative to existing (bas6line) conditions.

r!L Physical Environment

The issues and potential impacts related to the physical environment at the site and its vicinity

due to the proposed landfill development are presented iti Matrix I in Appendix B. In this

regard, the following should be noted:

* Air Quality: As municipal landfills generate landfill gas (i.e. methane) it is important to

address its impact on ambient air quality. In addition, dust and/or odour may impact ambient

air during the construction and operation phases.

* Groundwater: As municipal landfills generate leachate that could potentially enter the

subsurface, if adequate containment is not provided, it is important to address this impact in

1,-l orAssociates

I

L I : October1999 7- 5 . 981-273GB-f E ; S1J'fEP, Sa,, Ferinaido La Union SanltatQ Landfill EL-!

I the BIA. This was done through a c9 mprohensivo hydrogeological and geotechnical

-' 'assessment. Also, it is kno tn from this assessment that ibe existing open dump has

inipa4ted the groundwvater quality beneath and in the immediale vicinity to the north of the

sire4 nd the'construction of an engiinecred landrill (i.em. ithh appropfiate containment such as

an' nineered linier, combined with the erfecis of natural degradation processes) is expected

' . ' ~to.uiiprove Lhis situation.

-*.Si@ace waler draialnje anid. qualily: As municipal landrilis generate jeachate "that 66uld

potentially irnpacl the surface runoff, if adeguatc contninment.protection is not provided, it is

L -. imitant to address this impact in lhe ELAI. This wVa3 done through a comprehensive! hydIogical assessment.

.Condiio,s and Noise. As the s;te is 3n existing active landfill (controlled dump) and

n( irlcant increase in traffic is expect-d due to ihe construction/operation of the

x prop*sed landfill, incremental impacfs due to traffic and noise are not considered significant

angjhereforewere nor assessed quanitarki ely.

BiolaCal Enwironment I '

Biologtca. environment is only a potential issue in t!e South Parcel thatJforms about forty

perceni,I the proposed sito, since thle landfill (p.e. open dup) alady exists on the remainder.

Of this forty,percent, about half 'as been clekrd and is used for housing and farming purposes.

An, appropriate level of imipact assessment was carried out to address the biological issues that

are ronsidered relevant to the proposed site.

* . I *. . : - . . .':

- I Human (Soci meconomic Environment

As noted above, the impact on the socio-economic environment was addressed in accordance

7vith the World Bank and DENR requirements. The assessment and mitigation of impacts on thePAPs was addressed through the preparation of the com6prehensive RAP, in accordance with the

World Bank requirements.

Li m Golder Assoclates

Lr

1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. -.October 1999 7-6 981-2730B

A- I ~ . $WE UP, San Fernando La Union Saniary Landfil ETA

A perception survey oi' residents in the area regarding the .project was also conducted to

determine community att itudes towards the project, and further identify any issues of concern to

local residents.

L_ As part of this activity, xtensive public consultation was carried olt

,7.21 Potential Socia-. conorric also Cit ',ril m r . . . ,,-.

7.2.1 | General

As a consequence of e(t-la'- 1 lie sitar" liandfil (Sl.F), all of the potential socioeconomic

' impacts for the Cityl of San Fernando a're ._n3iderel tt be positive, given tht Cir 's growth rate

and the current ,status ofthe landfil!Il The posii. e impacts for'the City aJe identified as:

* Improved city infrastructure;

* Growth capacity in solid waste nianhgement assured j

* Wider economic and employment benefits;

* Increase in propeity, values; and

* Imnproved quality of life for residents.

The directly affected population is the resident* who live in the primary and secondary impact

L ! areas, as identified in Chapter 6. The group that ' ill c%pcrience the most siiniaric'ant impacts, the

PAPs, are -tbpse wha pick waste ,rom lie dUmp and hOe Who live on or own the land to be

acquired for tlae propojcud evpansion stite. the impacts to this group.will be mixed both positive

aTnd negative depending on the person or,family and the issue. A lesser degree of impact will be

experienced by those residents whd live ilround the proposed expansior. or

L along the access roads. '

f !. i- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 -1 i .11

The potential socioeconomic impacts on PAPsfPAFs are identi 'ied as:

' * [mproved environmental and health condilions for those living near the current landfill;

LJ' * Itmpactson livelihoodofwaster.ekersdependent on existingdumpsite;

¢^ | * Improved sanitary and health conditions for waste pickers, site workers, and immediate

neighbours; I

Golder Associates

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

October 1999 7- 7 981-2730B|WEk'P, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfdil ElA

,, * Loss of land, crops, improvements, and structures on expansion area;

* Loss of livelihood from the land to be acquired'

* Loss of access road. ia r :- land to be acquired; I

Impacts on local property values;

* " ' Potential for' increased settlement in the neighboring barangays due to improved

envoroanial and socioeconomic conditions

*b *, ; , IExpanded social and ecological benefits

* ' Creation of local employment opportunities (low/semi-skilled as well as skilled)

7.2.2 Impacts on the City of San Ferniando I

The construction of the SLF will assist the City in managing the solid wastes currently produced,

a' well as assuring that the City's ufrrenl groL%.h rate may be maintaine4i without solid waste

* having a significant negative impact on tiIo e'vironment. Th City *ill be seen 3j a clean dnd

_ well-planned municipality, which may rosult in improved. land dalues over lime. The impacts on

the City are deemed to be positive and moderate.

_ . I 'I ' ' ¢ f t I g

7.23 Impacts on Livelihood from the Existing Dumpsite

There are 13 waste picker,households ,' ,ih 76 frarri : members, Ihio ,reth on the present dumpsite A

as their primary source of income. U'hile the degree of,dependence on this income source varies

somewhat amongst the families, the, loss of' %-ste picking income, e,en iempor3ril), would

o, constitute a signiflc*nt negative impact In order to tivoid,this impact,4specific measures have

been integrated"into the project design. Rehabiliiation work on ifii current disposal site will be

done in phases so that waste picking actieiics s"ill not be disrupted; W,asie pickers will be

allowed to continue to pick recyclables ,rom ihe pr es.nc,dispqsal site, lmproQed .condiiiens for

recovery of recyclables and a coniposfing area has been'designed for the ne%w SLF, which will

provide the waste pickers with a cleaner, more controlled, and organized 'environment within

whiph to work (refer to Section 8). There uill be no negative impact on the .incomes of waste

pickers1 fiom the implementation or the SLF project, and benerats' ari ahnti6ipated frim the

implementation of proposed changes tq their activities (see the RAP, Appendix M and the

Training Program, Appendix P for additional details). This represents a positive short-ternm

impact of moderate sjgnificance.

Golder Associates

t'

Octoher 1999 ' 7-8 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL

7.2.4 Loss ofLand and Improvements

The project design rehabilitates the current dumpsite as well as requiring the acquisition of an

L additional 2.4 ha. of land td increase the:capacit vinp to aboui 10 l The' expansion will also

require the closure of an access pathway to residents of Baran,ay Dalangavan Oeste. The loss of

this access is a potential negative ihniact to the re:eniits blong the east and,west sideq of the'

propose, SLF.. In response to requests from the-: residerts, a 3 m access corridor has been

designed around the propotsd facility, Residents, along the west side wilf have access similar to

their current situation. These access orriors will b better constructed than the present access

pathay. Residents long the east side mill have a small increase in distance to reach their

t , residences via the access corridor along'the ptorth and east sides of the current facility. As the

proposed access corridlor will better serve tlie residents than the existing path%, ay, the residents

are in support of this change. This represents a nepgative inipact of'a long-termn, irreversible

nature but of minimal significance for a small number of families , I

L - - Extending the existing landfill will affect both private and publicly owned infrastructure

inclu ir | houses, toilets, tobacco ovens and communal deep and shallow wells.! il 1s *1, ; ns ; '

A field survey undertaken March I 2'4,1999)identified 7 dwelling units-'2 tobacco curing

r l~ -- ovens, 2 rest sheds, 4 toilets, 4 bathing stalls, 2 working sheds and 1 rest house. The 7 dwelling '

units collectively hoTe 29 people. the developmrent of the site will require the acquisition of

the land and d*nolition of all associated structures erected within the site. -The affected

hquseholds will need 'to be relocated. The impact on' the affected households is assessed to be

negative of long-term, irreversible naiure and of high significance for a limited population. The

: proposed mitigation measures for this irnpact are desilned to'reduce the residial impacts to the

- lowest possible level, and are described iii Sec'tion 8 and in the"RAP (Appenjic Nl).

7.2.5 Loss ofLivelihood from theLand Earmarked for Acquisilion I

Among ithe parcels of lanl that will be acquired by the government, only one parcel of land is

agricultural. land. The expansion of tl4et eXisting site' to Baringay Dallangayan. Oeste will

negatively impact the tenants and the owners of land and struL turc, who will lose the' livelihood

associated with thes. properties, including all improvements ge.g*"standing crops and trees).

Since tobacco curing oyens are an imperlant compone'r.t of the tobacco farmihg business, the loss

1%I;Golder Associates ¶

-' -!

October 1999, 7 - 9 981-273(i,1SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EM

of ovens will also negatively affects the livelihood of the 13 households. The impact on ten; ts

and land/structure owners is assessed to be negative of long-term, irreversible nature and of nigh

significance to a limited population. The proposed mitigation measures for this impact are

designed to reduce the residual impacts to the lowest possible level, and are described in S' ;ion

8 and. in the RAP (Appendix M).

7.2.6 Attraction of New Settlement to the Surrounding Area

.The proposed improvements in site engineenng, operation and managenment allied hi,h the

implementation of cological "a sife managicm.iit projects at tie site' will proiec" and enl, nce the

quality of the ehvironment in the immmed ialeciniy o,f theprojectite. In particular, s' i ½.3 n

improvements are anticipated on the siteze%iih respeel io the f3llo"ing aspects:

* reduced visual impacts of site operations including IinerA,low and dust;';I

_~ -- -. reduced impacts on air quality, srnoke,'particulate odor, etc.;

* reduced presence of vermin anI pests; and

a creation of employment opportunities arising from site construcion and operation

I;- ' - e i'!: ................:.'.

Improved environmental quality 'lay " encourage people to migrate to' Barangay. M'aeltac, 4

Dalangayan Oeste, Dalangayan Este and SaoayJ As 'mentioned' in Section 6, the ongoing

construction of a residential subdivision'neiar 'the'siteindicatesthatm6re im'migrans, are settling11 ,, 'I[; S i .

in the Barangay. Although population growth implies increased pressure on infrastructure, landbase and existing services (negat'ive impacts),grot was not identifiedi:a a fear by local

residents in the perception survey. ;-On the c.ontrary, improved services, infrastructure, and

industrialization of the Barangay weie identified as potential positike impacts of ihe project by

local residents. The impact of populatio; r, w1h therefore is likely tob e positive oIf long-term

nature and of moderate significance.

7.2.7 Impacts on Local Property Values

The City of San Femandi plans to showcase ihe proposed project as one: ofj its model

environmental projects. This may result in- positive prestige for' the Barangays hosting the

project and therijfore attract private investors to the area. Since research began, the construction

of a new residential subdivision has commenced, which suggests'that improvements in the site

Golder Assocliates

'Otober 1999 7-10 981-2730BSWEF, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfliEL I

have indeed made the Bai'ai tgays more appealing to private invest?rs. No reduction in local

property values is anticipated is a result of the project proposals. This is considered a short-term

positive impact of mihimal sig;. ificaEnce.

7.2.8 'Reduction of Impacts fi *um the Existine Dump Site

Baseline surveys (see Section 6) indicate that the current dumpsite operations have begun to

impa¢t adversely th environme- of the residential areas"adjacent to thh site. Significant

impacts have been noticed with. -ct to air pollution from smoke and odours, surface and

groundwater contamination in the immediate vicinity, and noise pollution.

The City Mayor has implemented several activities designed to minimize the impacts of the

r City's garbage disposal at the existing landfill. Since the SWEEP pject was initiated, the City

Mayor has ordere4 the personnel in charge of the landfill to cover the garbage daily with dirt to

minimize the odor coming from the wast' . .Beautification prdjects (e.g., plantin;g trees'and

flowering plant;) have been initiated in an Jaround the dispona' site

r To limit the extent of impacts of the expansion plan, the City has decided tn ac *re land in a

sparsely populated arXa Although there are still a number of families that will be a; ,ected by the

land acquisition, 'the number is few. Pu'lrc consuitation has also been conducted to solicit the

support of the communities involved |

This is considered a long-term positive impact of high significance.

:72.9 Creation: JocalEmployment Opportuoit.esl L ' . rd i;-A.

There;may be some opportunity for the' creation of emp1oyment opportunities during both site

construction and operatioti depetididg,4po Cal, ility of required skilts. As a

minimum, it is anticipated that 12 to 13 people x il, be emplo ed al the project site for landfill

operations of which approJimastely wo-tlhirds ceuld be classiried aS iosnl-skilled. The

L number of on-sits operalional stafe may he samekhvt larger, than th)is, depending on final staffing

requirements as decided by the City or by. the needs' ef the facility once it is in operation. In

addition, the composting facility and resource recovery facility-will require manning, generallyr IAGolder Associates

October 1999 7-11 II 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

by, low/semi-skih rl operatives, and the required number will depend on the throughput of each

facility.

Civil construction- *rks will be intensive over each phase of the project construction. Thnere

will be a need foi cinstruction workers and laborers during the construction work.

The majority of he adults in the immediate vicinity of the project site are in the low-semi Akilled

labor category. It is envisaged'that the contractor(s) awarded the site developmrent works wruld

prioritize reer; ', the local workforce from the immediate vicinity' of the 'site.- Hence,

substantial er, !o; ment opportunities would aripe for local labor during site construction works,

albeit of a tenrporary (short-term) nature. ' -

There will be some limited short-term Opportunities. for employment in the skitled labor

category. The impact of the site devplopmeAt on the creation of local skilled ernployment

opportunities, therefore, is anticipated to be positive of minimal to moderate significance.I~ ..7.2.10 WVider Economic and Employment Benefit -s ,aI'

It is anticipated that the' demonstration sub-projects. eeveloped in participating' LGUs under ,

SWEEP will raise the profile and the' appreciation; for the need for sanittry waste disposal

services across the waste management sector, both regionally and nationl' -.' They are intended

to assist in making future projects less costly to permnit as well. These are significant long-term

positive impacts of the proposed ecologically oriented landfills promoted under SWEEP.

I ~ .. . j .

In countries with developed waste management $ysteins, thewaste management service sector is

one of the most entrepreneurial and. prefta3ble sectors in the economy, as it is responsible for

large and growing levels of employment and commercial turnovers. Spin-off benefits from the

project proposals'will be the development of:local skills and expertise in sanitary landfill

management that can be spread, subsequently, throughou ile Philippines.

This positive impact is considered to be'of minimal to muderate sienificance' ! -

Golder Associates

.Octoq v-r 1999 7 - 12 981-2730B'r - f WEEPtnSal Fernando La Union SanitaryLandfdlEU

. 7.2.1. 3ummary of Potential Socio-Economic and Cultural Impacts

A sun, nrary of the significance of the potential s6cio-economic and cultural impacts arising from

the pl Ji.ct proposals is present .d in the table below.

Significance of 'olential Socio-Economic and Cultural Imp-.ets

. dill I :Ret ,s :i t ei,,L o 8 bIe. Tglecatt4-;'

lmpro? I :nnirg and W n *cnire Poiitive Shon-term lioderaefor City -

Impact on livelihood for wci v picker Positive Long-tenn Moderateas a result of changes in site *peratingpractices I - I

Loss of Land and inprovr mints Negative Long-term Irreversible HighLoss of livelihood/standF ig crops and Negative Long-term Irreversible Hightrees for tenants in the si tq earmarkedfor acquisition. i ,Change in access route ;c residents oni Negative Long-term ITreversible Minimaleast side of proposed fm.c;ity t i :

I I ~~~~~~~~~PositiveIn-migration to the, project sitei & Positive Long-terM _ Moderatesurrounding area ' i_____.,Impact on Local P aperty, Values . Positive Short-tenn i MinimalReduction *f ,a. xcts from the. ?ositive Long-t rm , . HighExisting DutnpSte X' , Creation of L*'C81 Employment Positive Short-term Mininal toOpportunities (Low/Semi-Skilled and M . ModerateSkilled) :_-_L__ _I!Wider Econo' .l: and EinplI.jrient Positiie Lo,ng-lerrn Nil. imn3lBenefits , ,__,___j___ Moderate

7.3 ; Ieailt1 and Safety Impacts;

The principal health and safety issues associated with the -proposed project are improvements in

the conditions currently existing in the controlled. dumping- operation. The controlled dump,

although an improvement over uncontrolled dumping,, supports the growth cf vennin and pest

populations, as wellhas leading to increases in; unm-ined insect populations. Along with birds,

tlhese poprl:dions exist ad lnssibl "ectta.s Fro the Cransmi sion ofdisease from waste materials

into the adjacent areas. In -addiiion, diist from 'he reurrent dump represents a potential health risk

L.; for site workers, residents, and %.aste pickers. Current operations lia% e :. aste pickers working

without any protective clothing or equipment, and in areas in which heavy equipment is being

l. , operated and moving around the site. These are the safety prohiems identified at the current site.

Golder Associates

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PmI

Oct( ier 1999 7 - 13 981-2730B

I SWEE., San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EJA

7.3.; Health Impacts

Alth.iugh concem was eapressed in the public consultations about the inipact of the current

durro on water quality ,nd local health, no potential health'impact was identified from the

-curn. *,' contamination of surface water or groundwater as they are not used by local households.

City, ,aalth records 4lo not indicate iany anomalous lieaih patterns' in the surrounding Barangays.

The ;Ioalth survey corducted as part of the baseline 'research provides a lirmited health profile of

rtle hlo residents bi it is not !-:,,e ,nough to be ;bl'to dra1v starisliicaliv signilient conclusions

regardin ^ the heali'. of the interviewe,d population ItA i- iovti noting that'levels of respiratory

illness are high in the immediate oarea f the 'ump, but tiiey are equally as high within the

general population. Waste pickers indicated a 19/o incidence of astha :which is extremely high

while the City data does not record the incidence 'of asthm

The proposed pn. ject will minimize health risks by mneaswres that reduce exposure of waste and

therefore the ha%itat for vermin and transmissioh of disease. Sever4l key design measures will

control potentiaz health risks, including:

* Controlled ,iccess to the site;

* TheuseoF ail) covertodeterverminandinsects;

* Cellular filling techniques to minimize actual area of active waste disposal;L * Control of !eachate and runoff to prevent surfaie'or'grounduuaier contamination;

* Use of protective clothing and equ pment for site worke,rs nd * LAe pickers;

* Regular monitoring and inspectioz ofrhe SLF, ;L * Provision of saniiLryprocedures and organized area for waste picking and recycling.

l The health impacts of the proposed project are determined to be positive (in comparison to

existing conditions>, of long-term duration and of fojderate to high significance.

73.2 Safety Impacts . ,, i,

r The proposed project will have dir-cl and posiihe impact on the snafety of workers and waste

pickers. The management of the SLF will coordinate the presence of site workers and heavy

equipment, and safety procedures will be in place, such that their, risk of injury will also be

reduced. Both groups will be supplied with protective clothing.

Golder Associates

L~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ .

r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 7-14 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandflU ELI

All garbage truck ar-vers and on-site equipment operators, as well as the waste,pickers, will be

instructed in the *i per and safe procedures to be followed during the dumping, recovery of

recyclables and final disposal sequence of activities (as described in Section 5.5). A site safety

officer will also oe. appointed to monitor these activities and ensure that all parties involved

properly cary flein out. All trucks and on-site,equipment will-be equipped with a backup

warning device.

In terms of the potential for safety concerns associated ;: ilti the waste mound itself, the overall

stability of the sideslopes will beiensured by detailed analyses during the final design (refer to

m ~~~~~~Section 7.5-2). * . .

The safety impacts lof the proposed.project are deternirnedto bbe positive (in comparison to

L -~ *~i -'I existing cc=nditions), of generally short-term duration 'and of moderate to high significance

733 ' . rnary of Potential IHeaith ard $afety Impcts

'PaLier i S,hwilz -i'," -ReversibIel1*Pu rnal-,. > , pe s s s R pow !n l lgT. ? '9

Red, lion of vectors and polenii3l Posilive Long- erT N.,odentetransmission of disease w ! l_____:_: to HighControl of surface and groundwater Positive! Long-term Moderatecontarnination __!_____ to HighReduction in dust and air contamination Positive Long-term Moderate

toHigh

r Protection of workers and waste jpickers Positive Short-term Moderate

L; through proper clothing and equipmnqnt . to HighControl of heavy equipmenthuman Positive. Short-term Moderateinteraction ' to HighOverall imp"ct on health and safety Positve, Long-term - . Moderate

, to High

r ! 7.4 Potential Aesthetic Impacts

7.4.1 Visual'Effects from Site Constriction * c '

One of the first activities in the proposed landfill si-e construction wilf be' the construction of a

solid 2 to 2.5 metre high fence arouind;the site perimeler. Tlhe construction, of the South Yell,

both Phases I and 2, will involve activities ilat are essentiaIll at or below ihe existing ground

surface, and as such will not be visiblo frQm oflSite. '

L: , .II * * *Golder Associates

I

October 1999 7- 15 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EJ

The construction of the North Cell will also similarly involve at grade or below ground works in

the north portion, however the relocation of the mixed wastes and soil to the final landfill

conflguration in the south part of the North Cell will rise to some 15 m above ground surface and

be visible to some of the residents in the vicinity of the site. This visual effect is seen to be

negative since it wilf. involve the view of wasten'material, however it will be temporary (short-

term) and last for onl . as long as it takes to reloc8te and shape the waste (less than a month; i.e.

reversible). Thel'relo.-ated waste will thei immediately have!he final cover soi layer placed on

it,, wvhich will then be revegetated ald retinmed to ainaturtil appearaqce. Even these temporary

visual iffects can be minimized by first placing the relocated waste such that it forms a screening

benn on the south, west and east perimeter of the area for each layer; the remainder of the waste

relocation can'then be carried out within the berm, such that it would only be visible from the

north side which is prfmarily farm fields.

Wiih the use of the above measures, the potentially' negative visual effect from construction of

the site are coasidered to be initniial o 'none for residents adjacen't to the site, and only

temporary (short-term) at worst.I I ~ . . .

7.4.2 Visual -f(ects from Site Operations

The proposed engineered landfill *site deveiopment iicorporates specific construction and

operational components to mitigate visual impacts, as follows;

* Confinement of waste disposal operations into cells bf limited area;

* Placement of waste and soil cover initialliy around the,perimeter of the disposal area to

rC screep the remainder of the filling in that lift from view;:

L.,> * Compaction and coveriig of the 'waste following placement;

* Installation of a solid fence to 2,to 2.5 m height around the entirJ site perimeter, which will

effectively block the view of ihe site from persons/residents when they are at ground level.

The fence will also help to control litter blowing;'

* Use of portable litter fences ar~ound the active dispoial; area to reduce blow'ing litter,

* Progressive placement of the soil final cover layer as W final grades are reached.

Golder Associates

L~~~~~~.

I. ..... _ _

October 1999 7-16 981-273,0BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfll EL4

At present the waste disposal activities are at or below ground surface level on the North Parcel,

and Ias such are virtually not v'isible from off-site with the exception of from the low lying

agricultural fields to the north. The proposed landfill development involves placement and

shaping of waste in a sloped mound to an average height of about 20 to 25 m above the ground

surface.

In the South Cell, filling operations will be screened from the view of the adjacent residents for11 ' tnost of its operating period, with the exception. of die upper; portion of Phase 2 which is the

highest part of the proposed cell.j More of the ;i.lir.; wi'l w be isible fromra-distance to the sotth,E east and west (mostly agricultural lands) since the p'rimiter fence will not be effecti'.e from that

perspective, alfi.2ilgh the presence of off-site natural trees and xegefation will partially screen the

South Cell when viewed from a distance.,

' Fill ,ng acei*X.s in the North CellIwill 'hav c limrinad visibility to residents that live adjacent to the

South Cell. They will however continut to be -kible from the low lying agricultural lands to the

north, and the upper portion of the fill p!acemrent will also be visible to the houses to the

immediate northwest and east of the North Parcel. 'However, the appearance will be much

improved compared to'the present situation jy th4 inmproved use of diily and finalgcover soil.

On-site operations will not be visible 'from the concrete municipal road due to the preseneq of

tree cover between the road and the west'side of the sito.'

With the use of the operational piocedures proposed, the ptential negative visual effects of site

operations are expected fto be minimal and short term/reversible. The final appearance of the

clo'sed landfill areas will actually be an improvement compared to the curreht conditions on the

North Parcel. l .'

7.4.3 Change in Landscape Charnmter frornSite Davelbpment

The South Parcel of the project iite -cirrently consifts of undeveloped sloping land in its north

vi portion and relatively flat residentialh anid agricltaral 'lan'd in the south. The North Parcel

consisted of gradually sloping land, although since 1997 Lit has been used as the open' to

l ,J controlled dumpsite.for the City of San Fernando.

Golder Associates

L

I _!ii

r i *1999 7-17 II 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando.La Union Sanitary Lartdflll ElM

As ii' ±strated by the cross-sections on Figure5.5, the proposal engineered landfill site

devlc. i ment includes significant changes to the landscape of the site. On the South Parcel there

will b: a disitinct mound rising to about 5 to 10 m above the adjacent land. On the North Parcel,

the n;d iral ridge of the existing high ground along the west side, of the site will be shifted

eastwti r.i and raised in height by about 10 to 15 m, sloping off gradually towards the north and

eastu .iieslopes will be not ,e overly steep, at about 18 degrees (3 horizontal:1 vertical).

Alth l' the proposed landfill development will alter the landscape of the site, it will be similar

to the ge ;ral rolling to hilly topography of this portion of San Fernando which is transitional

between the coastal r lain an the mountainous areas further inland. Once the site is closed and

the final cover layer is placed and vegetated, the disposal areas will resemble natural hills. The

significance of the visual impact from development of the site as proposed is considered to be

j irreversible and loa.g-term but minimal in terms of potential negative effects, and a moderate

improvement ove: the current situation on the North Parcel as a Controlled Dumpsite.

7.4.4 Summary of Impacts

A summary of the significance of the potential visual/landscape impa9ts associated with the

proposed project is presented below'

e I l, S; ; , 'i 'ndill' .h. ' -fia

J ;i 1 ,1YCt1 -4 n-erm1 . -Jrrerible:..-" $gn1rwiae 3i..c:

.Visual F.feets from Site t4egati'.e Short-temi Re%qrsible Nliniinul-None

ConsructionVisual Effect from Site, Negative Short terp Reversible Minimal

Operations i .

Change in Landscape Ch#racter, Positive Long-term Moderatefrom Site Development (discontinuation.9 . ,, ofControlled

Dumping)

:______________________ ,Negative Long-term Irreversible Minimal

7.5 Potential Geological and Geotechnical Impacts

7.5.1 Erosion Associated t ith Consitriction Aciiiities..;

Site preparation, construction and operuiions'will involve the following works:

Clearing of vegetation in the north portion of the South Parcel;

Golder Associates

. .,

I i-- - - - - - - ' I '-

October 1999 t-18 981-273bB.IVEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfillELI

* Construction o. access roads, surface water drainage systems;

* Excavation of c l1dy from the landfill cell areas, re-use of a portion of it for construction of the

|I low permeabili y bottom liner and stockpiling of the remainder for subsequent re-use on the

* Construction of th e leachate treatment facilities;

iU ' * Relocation of the mixed waste and soil from the current dumpsite to the south portion of the

North Cell;*,

* Placement of laily, intermediate and final soil cover layers; and

* Incorporation of benches into the final 3H:IV slopes with a network of swales and spillways

to control a nd direct surface runoff to the stormwater management facilities.

At present the,re is little potential for erosion on the South Parcel (with the possible exception of

the clay surf3ced Balangay road ailowance); there is some potential from the dumpsite on the

North Parcel, although tihere- is little evidence that any significant erosion is occurring. All of

r these activi'ies may potentially increase the atnqunt of surface erosion on the site and transport

of the sedi, . .?i ofT-site.

l.< The potential for erosion is highest during the site preparation and construction works, but will

remain greater than the present situation throughout the operational period. Because there are no

surface water courses on or adjacent to the site where inicreased suspended solids loading would

be undesirable, the potential adverse effects of increased erosibn from the site is minimal to none

r save from the loss of usable soil and washing of sediments onto adjacent land.

i'>- The proposed site development includes several features to control erosion and the loss of

sedinients frbni the site:

r . Stormwater ditches to shorten runoff flow paths and reduce runoff velocity, thereby reducingerosion;

* The use of solid, perimeter fences, which %kiil prevent transporned sef iments from being

l. -- washed off-site but rather direct them to the surf.'ce drainage system;

* The use of a coarse granular leachate colleetion layer which, is inherently erosion resistant;1

r -- . Development of the site in Phases, to reduce the length of time when soils will be exposed;

: ~~~~~~ , l ~~~~Golder Associates

L

GodrAscae

October 1999 7- 19 981-2-30Bt ' SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll ElA

* Construction of the stormwater detention and swale/wetland areas at the start of constrtiction

such that, together with appropriate silt traps and silt fences, they are ion place and

operational prior to the majority of the on-site works; and

* Excavation, and placement of the clay will only be practical during t,he drier summer period,

therefore potential erosion from precipitation will also be reduced.

These design measures and construction sequencing will assist in reducing the potential for

! erosion and the off-site transport of sediments. Their efieetiheness will, however, depend on a

high degree of planning and proper installation and maintenance. The potential impact is

l con,sidered to be tiegative but reversible and short-term and of minimal environmental

significance in this setting.

7.5.2 Slope and Foundation Instability

The, proposed landffll development contemplates the placement of a significant thickness of

waste and daily cover soil, within an air space volume that is a combination of excavation to near

the base of the stiff weathered clay and grade raise above the ground surface.

K The on-site soils are quite stiff and can support significant' load without undergoing excessive

deformation. Furthermore, the landfill cell areas will be excavated! 'aown to near the weathered

bedrock, which together with the remnant clay will form the subgrade for the landfill areas.

Altnough detailed stabiljty analyses should be completed for the final configuration during the

final design; the available geotechnical information indicates that a landflll configuration at the

heights and sideslopes proposed should belstablel

l The other significant geotechnical feature on the site is the approximately 50 m high Napocor

high voltage tower. In the conceptuai design; a minimnum setback of 25 m1hps been provided on

a1l sides of the tower. For final design:purposes.it will benecessary to confirm the details of the

tower foundations (type, allo%vable design bearing pressure, founding level) with'Napocor and

possibly by means of site specific investigalions, to ensure that ihe de% elopmeni of the site takes

whatever measures are necessary to ensure adequate support for the tower foundations.

L.G L ~~~~~~~~~~~Golder Associates

October 1999 7-20 l 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Saniar-y Landfill ELA

Provided the above two 'itemns are cafried out during the site final design and site devel9pmeni,

the potential impacts, although negative, are considered to be reversible and short-term an 1

therefore, minimal.

7.5.3 Enviroumental Effects from Sources of Imported Materials

Dlevelopment of the r -oposed landfill will require quantities of several types of natural soi; n.d

rock material to be iniported from off-site sources. The' excavation and operation of the soI! rnes

of these materials could have potential adverse enviromnental effects at their source loc tion.

The conceptual design has attempted to maximize the use of on-site tihaterials by utilizing t!: on-

site excavated clay for bottom liner, daily cover and final cover construction and for constrl ion

of the leachate i e,ntrnent and drainage facilities and other site grading. The typte and

approxirnate qu2 tihy of imported m aterials are as follows:

* Granular materials for access roads: 650 cubic metres

* Granular materiaq for leachate collection layer and gas venting: 12,600 cubic metres

* Clay soil for a portion of the daily cover and final cover for Phase 3: 422,500 cubic metres

*, Possible granular material to use for the construction of temporary all weather access roads

for collection vehicles over the landfill areas during rainy weather conditions (qc in.u;

unknown)

It is assumed that the granular material sources will be existing or future DENR- approved

quarry sites as close as possible to the site. In this way, the environmental impacts associated

with the quarrying or aggregate exiraction and processing should have been already addressed in

the conditions of approval for the quarry deve!lopment. This potentially negative impact is

L considered to be of minimal significance. . *

Calculations indicate that that there will not be enough clay on the site,, and that it will be

necessary to import the above quantity of this materig from an off-site source. Locating suitable

clay in the San Fernando area should not present 'a problem since it is so plentiful, but it will

mean that a new borrow area may b -required to be opened for the project. te City-could either

acquire a clay borrow source, or alternatively purchase the clay-from a privately owned source.

In either case it will1 or may be necessary to obtain the approval of DENR to cany this out.

Golder Assoclates

r

* . October 1999 7-21 ii 9S1-2730B

SWFEEP, San Fe nando La Union Sanitary Landfill C4I

I Provided the site is adequately si ed, operated and closed in accordance with acceptable

zoniditions of approval, the environ! ntal impacts associated with the clay borrow source should

U be addressed in the conditions of apr oval for the source development. This potentially negative

impact is considered reversible and sl1,ort-term and to be of minimal significance.

7.5.0 Summary of Impacts

A; sunmary of the significance of the potential geological and geotechnical impacts associ :-

with the proposed project is present X'i belowv:

-

4 1V3 _______'His !v.II ' '3

|~~~~~~W U. ' rei -J ^ $ >|PlgiSn >ErRsion Associated with Negative Short-term Peversible Miinimal 1e Coitsti;tion Activitici . . .Slope and Foundation Instability NegaLive Short-term Reversible Mtinimalfro*n Silt Operations 'I I.Environmental Effects or tNegmzive Short-term Reversible Mlinimal t31 Sources ol Imported Iaterials _ _

7.6 Potential Pedological and Land Use Impacts X

* *7.6.1 Change in Land Use

* The North Parcel consists of the existihng Controlled Dunipsite. As such, th, proposcJ size lk

developmeni will not change the status of the land use designition. .:

* : , . : . ,. ,,; '. . . 1, 4

-The A hectare South Parcel currently consists of undeveloped land in thle north portion and a

mix of residential and agnicultural land (tobacco) and trees in its soith porti'on (for 'details, refer

to the RAP inventory in Appendix hi). The RAP calls for the relocation and compensation of the

project-affected panies, including trees, land and structures. In lermns of land use there is

actually only about 2,500 square metres or 10 pe!cent of the land in actual agricultural

production. The,agricultural and residential lands in South Parcel will bN changed permanently

(i.e. long-term, irreveisible). The predominant land use in the general area of the site is largely

* used for a variety of agricultural purposes and, as such, the overall impact on current land use is'

I ' consideredtobenegativebutofnminimal significance.

I ~ ~ ~~~ ~ '-; - 1 ''

!~~ . I , j Ctd.^s JDiLei - -IX -S

0~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ .. 1, ! -*~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j . . .. ;. .4 .......

October 1999 7-22 981-2730BIIWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandflulEI

7.6.2. Loss of PM xductive Land

As noted above, the loss of productive land use due to the development of a landfill on the South

Parcel is minima, !'ut is of long-term irreversible nature. The RAP inciudes provision for

compensation of feumilies who will lose the productive benefit of the land. The environmental

r benefits associated 1-vith the provision of an engineered landfill are considered tp far outweigh

any issues in regard to the loss of a small area of productive land. As such, the loss of

productive land is considered to be negative but of minimal significance..~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I .

7.6.3 Removal of TopsoilI I . . . .

There will be no loss of topsoil on. the North Parcel, since it has all virtually been already

removed for th.e existing dumpsite. The site works to prepare the South Parcel for landfill

development will involve the removal of topsoil. The topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled and

subsequently re-used on the site as a medium to promote vegetative growth in ditches, in the

detention areas and/or the final cover.

The removal of topsoil from a portion of the site is a short-term/reversible nepaiive effect of

minimal significance.

7.6.4 Reinstatement of Sbil Profile and Productive Land Use

The proposed site development involves the construction of a final cover over bothjthe North and

South Cells, which will include a layer of clay, topped with an organic, medium capable of

supporting vegetative root growth, The organic: medium could consist of a 'dcmbination of

compost from the on-site facility that is worked into the clay as a soil conditioqeier-and imported

topsoil. This is similar to the current sitoalicn o, ihe Soulh Parcel, while on ahe orth Parcel it

will represent a positive improvement of modlerate significance.

Theiclosed landfill will not be suitsble tar lsuilding d,e1lpanea For rnany:years, possib,!y 30 to

50 years afterwards, due so 1hecngoing deconiposition 3nd significant settlemnim of the waste

and the production of leachate and Isndfill gadu This will require! long-term operation of the

leachate treatment system and monitoring of the site and maintenance by the City. The most

.appropriate use(s) of the site after closure are either passive recreational (open space, parkland)

L, Golder Associates

L

October 1999 . 7- 2 3 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Unlon Sanitary Landfill EL4

or lowy intensity agriculture (such as for grazing). Although a passive venting gystem is

proposed, it should be rebognized that a portion of the methane will likely vent through the cover

(which will develop some cracks as the waste settles and will need to be repaired), which can

have an adverse effect on vegetation growth.

The lack of ability to use the site will be negative of long-term irreversible nature but of minim al

-7 significance on the South Parcel, while on the North Parcel the proposed site development will

have a positive lmpact of moderate significance compt,td to the baseline condition of a

controlled dump site.

7.6.5 Summary of Impacts

A: surmmary of the significance of the potential pedological and land use impacts associated wvith

the proposed project is presented below:

_g__ .F gVee r '1rtrsIble ,'Sig' d6 |

Change in Land ULse (South Negative Long-term Irreversible M^1in; I

,Parcel) ,_ ._.. _..

Loss of Productive Land Negative Long-term Irreversible Minimal

(South Parcel) l a

_ Removal of Topsoil (South Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

Parcel)

Reinstatement of Soil Profile South Parcel- Long-term Irreversible -Mininal

and Productive Laid Use !None to

Negative;LN orth Parcel- Long-term -Moderate

Positive X

7.7 Potential Hydrological and Hydrogeological Impacts

7.7.1 Predicted Leachate Generation'Rates

The predominant source of potential hydroiogical and hydrogeological impacts from the

proposed landfill development is due tio the gener. tion ot le3chate. Leachate ist

liquid generated from landfilled wastes. -It LS enerared as some of the iandfilledl waste constituents- i,; l :l .1 ': ;-: , X - ;1 ; ; t

leach or dissolve into initially clean rainwater infiltrted through ,he.site surface.,

Golder Associates

October; _______ 7-24 9l-273OBS,, 51 E, 5 Fernando La Uniiont Seritiary Landfill ELl

T-ie qualii- 'f leachate and its ate of generation in a site may be highly variable, and will reflectthe thick,. s and area of the w, - ste, age and type of the wastesl and the residence time of water! inthe landfill. -a result, landi ill leachate is potentially harmful to humans and the surroundingnatural envirot iat. It shouk however, be noted that as the.proposed landfill will receive onlynon-hazardous muniqipal sc i waste, the concentration of the various leachate constituer.ts,L including some Ahc toxic a,i otentially harmful compounds, would be expected to be relativelylow due to nn.ur. '.egra. ' * processes prevalent in the landfill enviromnent

: '. l .' . '

In order to properly managi aachate, it is important to determine the quantity and quality of theleachate. The leachate gen -.. ,ion rate for the proposed San Fernando engineered landfill waspredicted as presented bel X w and the data related to leachate quality is discussed in Section7.7.2.

Methodology.F .. ' '.' ' 'sEi~, '~ hc

U Thlie leachate gene: on rates Were estimated using the HELP Model (US EPA 1994), whichaccounts for daily variations in rainfall, temperature, evapotranspiration, runoff, ahd moisturec :. storage within cot er soils and waste components of a landfill.

Ti ipuE Paroni, . and .s suimlitios.-

r Input parame ers used for the modelling are 'discussed and -presented in:deail in'A,pendki G.i, Both closure and operational periods were modelled. The primary assumption for the closure

model was that the initial moisture content of the 'cover 'nd waste was, at stead) state asestimated i / he HELP Model. The primary assunipiion for the operalionai period %'.ould be.thatthe moisture content of the cover and waste was on tWe dry side occurring halfwAy l,ietv een the

C - wilting point and field capacity (i.e. between the minimum amount of moisture uivailable forplant uptake and the maximum arnount of capillary water).'.

Gode A. t.s . .i

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

Ui Golder Associates I

.'I

l'F

l' ~ - -l ~ -. l l .-- , - -.- |

October 1999 7 - 25 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll EIA

Results

The modeling for the closure period resulted in an average yearly leachate generation of

approximately 560 mm per square metre of landfill (corresponding to about 23 percent of the

average annual precipitation) of which approximately 450 mm would be collected through the

leachate collection blanket. The remaining 110 mm (about 4.5 percent of ihe average annual

precipitation) would leak through the compacted clay liner. The closure conditions represent the

worst case scenario for leachate generation since all landfilled areas are contributing.

Furthermore, the presence of vegetation on the final cover, which is essential for stability and

erosion resistance of the cover soil, increases the potential for infiltration, the main component in

leachate generation. Considering that the landfill phases will only be open for a limited number

of years, it is not expected that the waste would have reached its steady state moisture content at

the time of closure; is such the above results gives conservative values.

The modeling of leachate generation during the operational period resulted in a.yearly leachate

generation of approximately 8 mm per square metre of landfill (less' than j j1percent! of

precipitation), of which approximately 3 mm would be collected through the leachate collection

blanket. The remaining 5 mm would leak through the compacted clay linef. Theinignificant

difference between tlhe operationali and closure conditions is- attributed tohilgh3r non-inpacLted

runoff during operation due to a lack of vegetatioii on the :clayey daily cover and the high

potentifal for storage of w5ter in the waste due to the relatively low initial moisture content of the

waste during placement. Additionally, the volume of leachate generated would be lower since

there will only be portions of the landfill contributing at any given time.

* ! ; .*

High variations are expected in the leachate generation rates during the operational -period that

will be the result of the landfilling practices, such as the area of exposed waste, actual

precipitation conditions and daily covering practices -herefore, it is recommended tfiat,- , ,-- -#, ,

significant effort be taken to divert non-impacted runoff water througlh the use of temporary

berms, ditches, sumps and mechanical transportation to rurther reduce leachaie generalion during

the operational period. ''. .

perati , .

Golder Associates

October 1999 7 -26 . ol-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EJA

For both the closure and operational periods there will be considerable seasonal lifferencesranging from less than 10 mm of leachate generation per month during the .3ry season

-, (November to April) to a high of approximately 80 mm per month near the end of the, wet season

(May to October). The actual volumes and leachate generation rates were estimated I y applying

C the relevant contribdting areas to the rates of leachate generation expressed in depth .above.

7.7.2 Expected Leachate Quality

As engineered landfill facilities are not common in the Philippines, infobrr stion regardingleachate quality thit is representative of landfill conditions there is limi. Ad. Therefor:,information available on representative leachate quality in the Philippines and sr milar count- ieswas reviewed. Among the inorganic leachate constituents that are important regarding potc ntialgroundwater and surface water impacts are BOD, TSS, inorganic nitrogen cow ?outzds(particularly ammonia), chloride and iron. There can also be certain organic compound. (such as

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~hydrocarbons or constituents of solvents) present.

The chemical composition of leachate will vary greatly depending on the age ce landfill, thecomposition of waste input and climatic conditions. Published data for typical I adfill leachatequality indicates that the concentrations of the! leachate parameters of coneei could vary byr orders of magnitude. However, these data represent conditions in developed cour tries where the

L waste composition is known to differ considerably from that in the developing ,ountries. Thelimited available data for countries with conditions comparable to those expt rienced in thePhilippines (e.g. climatic conditions, waste stream) indicate that the leachate r uality in thesecountries would be at the low end of the range provided in p lished typical data.

The results of the leachate quality review are presented in Table 7.1. It shoN. the physico-

chemical characterization of leachate at seven sanitary landfills serving small to,-vns in theF *.,1,.* coastal areas of Spain Which indicates that the average value of BODs was 233 rig/lL and themaximum measured value was 1,920 mg/L (Gomez, et.al., 1995). Similar BOLP5 levels wereencountered in a study at a landfill in China (Youcai, 1997) and for the San Matec' Landfill in thePhilippines (that serves a portion of Metro Manila) based on the limited data ava ilable on qualityof leachate influent to the lagoon treatmnent facility. Therefore, a conservative leachate influent

L 'L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Golder Assoclates

L I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L.

October 19W' 7-^7 , 981-2730B

S*EEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll EL4

BOD5 of 2,71 01 ig/L was used in tie design of the leachate lagoon systein for the proposed San

Fernando landfill (refer to Section 5).

It rhoula be noted that the concentrations presented in Table 7r

1 are considered. conservative (ike.

high) bem-use the composition o mninicipal solid waste in San lernando and the proposed

landfill dt ' i concept are not expected to promote the generation of leachates of such stre: .th.

As noted in Section 5, the leach..te.quality values presented in Table 7.1 were used in the design

of the leachate management sys zm.

7.7.3 Leachate Contaminue-on of Groundwater Resources

One of ihe fundareqigal obje *. es, of implementing an engineered sanitary landfill is to prevent

* lepchatV, generated by the waste from having an adverse effect on groundwater resources. It is

recognized that the landfil' may have an adverse effect on groundwater beneath the landfill itself,

howe'rer the owner (in this case the City) is in control of the' use of groundwater beneath their

site and can ensure that ,wells are not drilled on the site. It is essenti'al that the landfill does not

have an adverse e;ffec on groundwater resources off-site; however, if such adA erse effects do

occur, the owner o thq landfill must be prepared to provide the affected Parties with an

alternative supply c. v kiter of acce'ptable quality. Furthermore, once polluted it is difficult and

expensive to reme rte contaminated groundwater, it is therefore very important that it not

become polluted in the fist place.

The establishmen' oG baseline conditions in the vicinity of the site, as described in Section 6.7,

indicates the follovw,ing key points:

* Groundwater is generally available for both irrigation and domestic use from wells drilled to

typical deptlhs of 10 to 20 m. Natural background water is generally favourable, however

sampling results ilndicate significant bacteriological colifoffn counts in all wells sampled;

. The disposal of waste on the North Parcel since 1997 has had an adverse effect on

groundwater beneath the disposal area and for a distance of at least 20 m off-site into the low 4

lying agricultural lands to the north;

Golder Associates

October,1 ?9 7-28 981-273 13. ~~~SWEEIP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll EIA

* There i, the potential for off-site wells to the north of the current disposal area to be . me

affec v or more affected by the ongoing waste disposal until such time as the engil t sred

faci' i are implemented, after which the degree of impact will lessen over time;

* Ther. Is no potential for the current or proposed landfill activities to affect the mai . vaterrl supf 'e of the urban awea of San Fernando.

The potential adverse imrrpacts on groundwater from landfill leachate depend on the follc Ning:

* The rate at whicnl leachate is generated, which depends mainly on the mete.rological

.conditions and the footprint area of the waste disposal area;

* The leachate source stzength, which depends knostly on the thickn:ess of the waste;

. The potential lea hate attenuation or retardation properties of the hydrogeologica conditions

that underlie the site;

* The natural qua.. y otthe groundwater.

In the site design, it is recognized that an engineered bottom liner and les ' a collectioi system

is a basic requirement to control potential impacts on groundwater to ac. ritcble le' els. The

proposed engineered features include: * ;

L ' * A bottom and sideslope liner, consisting of recompacted on-site clay soils o forrm a 0.6

metre thick low permeability linier (permneability less than IxlO-'cm/s);

* A highly permeable granular leachate collection blanket with a significant b, t om slope to

effectively transmit the leachate to sumps for removal, from the: landfill cell. "'his is very

important in order to minimize the leachate depth (or head) above the liner, since it is the

sustained head of leachate that causes leachate to eventually seep through, the li ler;

* Leachate tre,atment, facilities such that the infrequent discharge of treated lea h te will not

have adverse effects on surface water that could recharge the groundwater;

- Relatively short active lives of,the landfill Phases; ". , '.

r Use of clayey daily cover and shaping of the waste disposal area to contro nc minimize

leachate generation by promoting runoff.

r 'o,.x .GBolder Associates

October 1999 7-29 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Feri: 2ndo La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

As described in' Section 7.7.1, the pr oduction of leachate is typically qu'ite variable over the life

(i.e. operation and post-closi ire periods) of the landfill, depending on a number of factors. The

analyses carried out indica that d tring the operational period of the South and North Cell the

potential leakage through th, liner whrill be minimal (less than ,1 percent of prec?ipitation), and will

potentially increase to a fev. percent post- closure.' It should be recognized that it would take a

number-of years (greater tha i the operating period or tbe proposed landfill) beform the leachate

front (as indicated by conser ative constituents such s-chlo0ride) would actually advance (leak)

through to the underside of he liner. These constituents would then have to migrate down

through the natural moderate rmeabilitr clay and weathered bedrock to reach the groundwater

table, and would then dissolve c ithe groundwater and travel at the rate of and in the direction of

groundwater flow. It should be Jiiderstood that the migration of landfill leachate contaminants

through a low tperneability linee is by the mechanism of diffusion of cqncentration gradient

(constituents move from areas of high conceritrations, i.e., in the leachate above the liner, to

zones of lower concentration, i.e., natural groundwater below the liner); the quantity of actual

flow of water carrying contaninants with it throug the iiner is very'small. I;

Although ,cqnsemvativa leachate constituents such as chloride will be transmitted fastest throughI - V

the liner, clay soils have significant ability to retard (slow down) the transpott of metals and

many organic constituents. At this specific site where the clay has a significant organic fraction

of 2 to 4 percent, th'eretirdation effects will al4o have a significant positive effect by reducing

the rate of passage of certain leachate constituents through the liner.

The construction of Fhe landfill will include a high degree of quality control on the construction

of the engineered containment components. Leachate levels within the ceils can be monitored-, ;,I, . *t. ..|

regularly as part of operations. ' 1

The hydrogeological conditions in the general vicinity of the: San Fernando landfill site are

- indicated to be geneally favourable for locaa,ng\u aier suipplies for domestic and irrigation uses.

In the unexpected event that off-site water wells become adversely affected by the landfill, it will

be possible to abandon theuse of the well, drill a new.replacement well at a more distant location

and provide a small diameter overland pipe to carry water to the desired location.

Golder Assoclates

October 1999 7-,30 -2730BS f i EP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfdl ELI

In view of these fac.o :s, the potential leakage of leachate constituents through the bottom liner

proposed for Phases 1 to 3 will control the leachate leakage and contaminant rate to anacceptably low valu . -(d as such the potential negative impact on groundwater is considered tobe of long-tern' btl, r veriible nature and is expected to be minimal compared to the baseline

conditions ofthe coiit ied dumn--;te. Although the relocated.mixed waste and soil will not beprovided with a botti { liner, it will have a leachate collection layer, lhe off-site effects from this

r potential source of l i;hate generation are also expected to be minimal.

L ! .~,. , .7.7A:. Leachate Ca 4mination of Surface Water Resources

During the. opera, ion of the proposed landfill, leachate has the potential to contarainate surfacerunoff at the site. The following points outline various ways in which leachate can affect surfacewater: ,

* Rainwate.' may wash;exposed waste onto adjacent agricultural and residential lands, aspresently is 'the case.,

* Prior to h . insiallation of the proposed final cover system, rainfall during the wet season could

infiltrats through the site surfaces and cause leachate to build up1An the waste. The resulting

hydrosta & pressgye may force the leachate to break-out from the platform, side slopes andareas with thin (daily) soil cover and then run down the slopes of the landfill onto adjacent

agric- ltural lands.'

* During the re-location of the landfilled wastes at the existing dump site, the waste may beL | exposedi In the .event. of a rainfall, rainwater which runs over the exposed waste will becontam'inatd resulting inimnpacts on the surface runoff at the site.

Ai described in 'Section 5.0, the 'proposed engineered facil9ties for surface water management at the

landfill are designed to address the above potential impacts,, which are quite prevalent at the

,e'itkng duiinp site. In particular, the proposed ditches/swales and lagoon/pond system would! (.F '§ ' ;,;,,, ,: , . .,,.: *,~ ' 'U.: v z .41|minimlze,the pf_tentiall for surface runoff to. come in contact,with waste.material by providing

appropriate dive'rsion.i . ..

Golder Associates

L .', ..

Oo; S99 7-31 981-2730B

- - , SWEEP, San F},rnando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL

Ahny runofl that may coAie into c ontact with waste mateial (e.g. in the operating face of the

landfill) a-ad generate potential leachate runoff will be captured by the leachate collection system

'i'* arad m .i ,e in-th'e proiov: ler -hale management system (lagoons, etc.) as described in Section

5.0. 'Nrrefore, the potential for leachate impacts on surface water during landfill :oeratib!i is:

9 onside *-d mininmal, and if At do 3s occur due to unforeseen operational problems the,jit wil be of

short-teoi, rtuversible nature.

Dur- ;ie pos -closure (aftem are) period of the proposed landfill, leachate has minimal potential to

contaminate stu ,.ce runoff aW the site because the entire landfilled area will be covered by an

engi. eered landfill cover A. lso, the post-closure leachate management operation would maintain

leach iat leVels within the a Adfilr below levels that would otherwise cause any leachate seeps.

This is considered a short-te'. m, reversible negative impact of minimal to no significance.

rLU A summary of potential l-e.hate impacts on surface water quality at the site and vicinity is

presented belowv. It is re-icerated that the impacts of the proposed project have been assessed in

comkparison to baseline 1,existing dumpsite) conditions and, therefore, reflect the improvements

(positive changes) to present surface water quality as a result of the implementation of jan

engineered sanitary indfill.

Waste material wazshc it onto adjacent Negaii e Shon-e-nm Re%ersible Mlinim3l

(e.g. - agricultural) lan67 duringopetionLeachate seeps imr,acting surface Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

water runoff from site onto adjacentlands during operationt .

I

Waste material wsbhout and/or Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

leachate impacted surface runoffimpacting adjacent lands during

telocation of wastes at the existing

* dump siteWaste material washout and/or Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal to

leachate impact-d surface runoff None

impacting adjacent (e.g.. agricultural)

l*nds during post-closure period . _ I

Reduction/elimination of leachate Positive Long-termn High

itpacts on quality of surface runoffonto adjacent lands dimng operationdue to cessation of open dumping

Golder Associates

U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

OCtab -1999 7 3-2 981-2780B_ L ' SWE± 1,San Fernando La UionSSani., YLaindJlUlE -

el ' eIiminfaki;i orv. L':-- Positive - -. Log-teim -High

mate. ''I washout onto adjace,t landsduri -ration due io cessa,ion of * . .ope! I ing. . .Red is .elimination ot * 3atntial Positive Long-.irr _ Highfor c na ,orfacp runoff t;: ne intocontact i ';th waste mnate i,&t1"achalteduring op nion and post-cre re_

7.7.5 Cnntamination of Water Resonrces by Potential Fuel Spillage

As noted in Section 5.0, the proposed landfili developrnent will require operat- t f machinbry

r using j6 It is likely that, for ease of operation, on-sit fuel'storage may be f rovided. Jn thisevent, tfie potehtial *- sts for the stored fuel tolspill duning handling, whic h may result in

contamination of s5 rface water runoaff tihe site. - HowCver. because of the: rnall number of* pieces of machinery required to operate the proposed landfill, the amount of f. : that has to be

-stored vuld be elarively small. Therefore, any potential fuel spill from the sr r ge is unlikely

to migivie off-s!;te and c'ould easily be contained iri;in the site, particularly in I fuei storage

area. In this re,,;ard, any fuel storige tanks shall be abovrgroiind tanks (not burie. ) and lbe placed

withih second r, coritairment that is sized to h.ild ,ti- full capacit) or the stor. 'ge tank in the

event that the tahk leaks or ruptures. '

_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . !' i I I' - The subsurf :,conditions (i.e. predominantly clay) are not conducive for any ;Filled fuel ,ko

cause signil-i.nt impact on the groundwater in the immediate vicinity.

In view.of the above, ¶he potential for conlamination oF sater r isources b) potcntid fuel spillage

.is of short-term, reversible nature and is considered minimal.4,

r ,, i . . ............. l - . , .............. '

7.7.6 Risk of Flooding in the'Site Vi'idiby

* The available information on flood prone areas in the City indicates that the proposud site area is

not prone to flooding (refer taAppendix C). li1r-riorc ftlooding under elisting co nditions (e.g.

during operation) is not considered a risk. I

'G .: s.: a

-. ; ! ' *al l Assoclates

I.-

H

October 1999 7 - 33 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ELI

There exists a potential for downstream lands to be flooded during the poft-closure period

because the existing'sile top igraphy and drainage conditions Will be changedo'. i tO the presence

of the proposed landfill. i.ks noted in Section 5.0, the proposed surface ww er management

system (ditches/swales and ponds) has been designed to prevent such flood:. g by providing

adequate attenuation'detent.In/ retention) during high runoffperiods (i.e. storm. ' ents). This is

achieved by carrying out s. iple, but comprehensive, hydrological modeling i: mulate post-

development (i.e. post-closur s) conditions and using the results of this assessmk; i- to design the

management system (refer to Appendix G, for hydrological, modeling details). As a result, the

storm runoff conditions relate. to the potential for flooding in downstream lands luring the post-

closure period is expected to e approximately 'the same as currently prevaiis (;.e. temporary

flooding occurs duriitg major storm events). Therefore, relative to existing c- 2oi s, the risk

of flooding in the site vicinity due to the presence of the proposed landfill s of short-term,

reversible nature and is considered minimal.

7.7.7 Modification of Water Storage Capacity

The subject site is located mainly on the upper to sloping portion of top6graphically high land,

and is underlain by modlrate to lo v permeability %"eatliared cla3. soils., Precipitatioti that fall son

the site under its natural condition would be expected td largely run off, especially considering

that much of the annual rainfall is in the form of heavy stormns.a As such, the site does represent a

groundwater recharge area. Also, the site does not provide flood storige c3pac iL. for itself or the

adjacent lands that are-low lying.

The proposed site development is therefore not expected to have any impacts with regard to

water storage capacity.

7.8 , Potential Ecqlogical Impacts

7.8.1 Ecological Effects on Vegetation -

With the proposed development and expansion of the sanitary landfill, the existing biodiversity

of grasses, weeds and non-dipterocarp trees are likely to remain the same, although their overall

abundance will likely decrease as patches or stands of these plants will be removed. Planting of

trees will take place in available areas, especially ornamental ones that are locally available,

Golder Associates

X~. . .I

K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 7 -34 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Saniftr' Landfill EL4

within the project site. These plants. are expected to increase the aesthetic Mai te of the project

site and of nearby-siteS ;tHMill beI re sied .ii'.lace dwsuoyedjuvenile., and wildlifehabitat. As indicated by the mayor of San Fernando City, the city goveniment nui r, il ll likely

' J provide the necessary trees required by the sanitary landfill project.

Most of the identified plant species in the study area are considered economic ti'ly important.

However, only small patches of vegetation will be affected. It is estimated that the; iative cover

in the existing landfill site it'only about 15% of the,area and in the landfill extensio site, vegetative

cover is about 30%. No significant negative impacts are expected in terms of vei atative cover asonly a small section o Ithe project site is covered with low density plant populatiot . Most of these

plant species are grasses, weeds and non-dipterocarp trees considered secondary grc wth vegetation.

Mpst of these plants are situated along the perimeter fence of the existing lan, fil, as yvell as

adjacent to the road in the landfill extension area. Therefore only negligible effects are expected to

juvenile birds and insects inhabiting this vegetation. The existing road around LTAd within tie

landfill area has already resulted in disturbance of the secondary vegeta1ion within. e piojpct site.

As humus is rapidly dlestroyed by exposure to the sun and the ground in the stuo area receives

little cultivatioti and no frerltlizai!oh, Vee -Sil has b.ecbr'me impoverished 'anfd infortile. Weeds

have become increasingly difficult to conitrol. i

Forest clearance causpes drastic changes in microclimate, which has important effects on the soil.

- - The soil surface temperature rises, and exposure to sun and rain quickly changes the physicaland

chemical properties of its superficial horizons. Much of its reserves of organic matter are

destroyed and large amounts of nutrients are released in soluble forms,' especially whenr: clearance is followed by burning. Within the proposed laidfill site, people often bring their

animals for grazing and cultivate plants for local use. E'.entui!ly. these practices will lead to

some forrn of slash and burn activity that will degrade soil conditions -in the vicinity of the

project site. It is expectpd that slash and burn cultivation at the landfill expansion site will be1* _stopped and therefore improvements to the microclimate of the area are expected.

a r : g :, ;,., .Golder AssoclatesV5-V'V !. ; , . 'I.,I~~~~~~~~~~ ,,;5+0f f;";r, .............,'. t; S\ ;w

October 1999 7-35 Sl'!1-2730B

SEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landg ll ELM

During the operational stage of the landfill, it is anticipated that dust restsuspen-icai will not

significantly affect the vegetation. Visual inspection 'of plants withir the existin g landfill site,

!where operational activities are on going, indicated that there were no significa>it impacts from

dust.

For reasons cited above, the potential ecological effects'on vegetation are co- sidered short-term,

reversible and of minimal significance.

7.8.2 Ecological Effects ou Wildlife

The changes in the terran of the proposed landfill site expansion will likely affect wildlife in the

area. However, based on interviews with local residents and the results of the field investigation

a very limited number of birds, insects and mammals inhabit the area. Due to the low iiversity

and abundance of animals, it is expected that the proJect will have no significant ecologicall

impact on wildlife species. The project will not affect wildlife foraging areas locited beyond the

landfill area. Therefore, the potential ecological effects on wildlife' are considered short-t -nn,

reversible and of minimal significance.*} ~~I . L

7.9- Potential Air Quality Impact

7.9.1 Increase in Odour Levels Arising from Site Activities

Odour impacts may be generated as part of project proposals from the followin g on-site

activities: -

' excavation, transport and re-location of existing waste on site;

* continued disposal of MSW; "

* composting of organic waste; and

* operation of leachate treatment facilities and leachate management practices.,

Project proposals include the excavation of an estimated 55,000 mS of mixed v, aste and soil

existing at the site to be relocated into the southern portion of the North Cell ( e 3). This

activity is part of the measures proposed to remediate the existing waste on site. .Xcavation of

wastes that are only partly decomposed will give rise to odours, at least temporari l. However,

Golder Associates

- . - ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3a : Eav~<

October 1999 7-36 Jl 981-2730BI WEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ELA

this negative impa.. considered to be of mininal significance, given that the ex; :ting durnpsite

has only bcen in ol rion since 1997 with daily cover placed over the thin la ers of v aste sincer tmid-1998 and asir I theextent of anaerobic condhtinns, required fi r odour Sen.. ration, may be

limited. ,Dwg : aroussite visits, inciuding the sample collection visit i.N March 1999,odour was not p p *jitibli at the sitew .,even i-- the_downwvind direction, twepi duringdumping/spreading )I 'ne reflis.-. ieasurable-conctnLrations re' methanre wvere iuoi encountered

a' the sampling loe i ons- yithin the existing'durnp'ara (refer'to Section 6.10.3).

As noted in Eect; a n'.yroposed procedurea fc- iatary landfill operation include measuresto p ovjdeliecti e 4ontrol'oFsodours during iaste depos'tton, prima'rily the dispos3l orMsw insma.l, lell'-.s .. d tle-appi6ctiton of daily cover tI pre-vent proloni d exposure of_ astesAirecU o the stmncsnhere Both mewaere. :ill be implemented on-silt as operational

practice. W- n effective pontrol, odours can. be minimized, even though occasional periods ofodour wvould6eeNpeted.'' ' be ie :';

The nt ar. , residtnccr to l'; engineered land6lil are located'adjacent to the noruh, east, south and_ west blo lusaies'of the site. These settlements are located approximately 25 m to 150 m beyond

CM > the lim: the filling area (refer to Figure 5.2). T%vo predorminant whid regimes prevail over theproject - e e during:the year (refer to Figure 6.2) 4:pietcally,.the. project area is affectedi bywind ton tie norh firom October to May, andihewwc to' te south from June 1o September (referto Sectii.:i 6.3). nTe settlements adjacent to the' north of the landfill lie do' n% hind of the fillingactivities during the October to May period of the year and, based on the *%ind speed andproximity to the'landfilled area, may be regarded, therefore, as polentially sensitive receptors(worst ca .e scenario)

Because of the limited site area, project proposals allow for the pro% ision of % egetated buffer- zones or' I along c4 tatn boundaries beh.een adjacent residences and rhe rilling area. However,

the bolindaries t4fqtc ethe: east and west of the esuisling dump and part of the easternbounr iry of thr ly .ave signifieanf tree cover. A combination of fast-grow: tg trees eia s p lieeeaproposed alqngrihereniaining site boundaries aspart c. the propo r o nd lbufrers are expected to screen site

Golder Associates

U,

October 1999 7-37 351-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Saniary Landfjll Elt

,- ,,, bperations from adjacent settlements and will assist ip the attenuation and reducti. of odours

generated at the site.

, . _ .~~ .{.:; *;- ; .,- *- --. I -*Due to the limited ,eeriod of exposure of the waste. in thel''iorkiig face of tho ' .:'iI during

operatiok and.ih lotively siairfareaof jaw solid wvasle that will be expe4 any odour

impac p aurevr'ble-and(ionsho-durtion.:. It is not. at the odour

im p a ~afiin 'and the fill 'arieaii| -i within the

landfi jf, lgi8eit f at.ithe;ieo-$our' impact froa , iste disposal

activt a Si rope operator I nanagement

The cqq ete~ehte northt and icf jaidfihl cells (reFer 1 igure 5.2) or

the eng s~~ il~ 4aI e east and w r- cfl the site and

w ithini ),,b,iFi:e i1Ig,. OiT t,tI-;:H losvever, at t.lv "I gect siue thepreval;8;,tlisJherh,sgrcu culral lar,ds) T:hereFore, the

potential o4%,q,ur wa,fo cQmp'isting activities is. considered to be short,-terni, reversible and

* -~~~ of minimial significance. . . *- . *. Treatment of landfill leachafe alsn 'ta,s LIhe potential to 4;eterate odour imrpacts, p?rl; :ularly from

the first (anaerobic) lagoon and lhe re-circulation andi spraying ofr leachate bacl; to the land lul.

The treatmient lagoons are located wvithin the northeast section or the site (refer o Figure 5.21.

The anaworSb,ic:ig,, lies approximately 60 1o 70 ro west owf the two residentces to ihe~ east of ite

This ~ ~ I5UAI zi c neraU ri fl dion au~ leaLhate re-

circulti'ii'n rnd l,,, u.e.>,whbob<ranca>;oa,din,P;-n Sth.e treiitncent lagoons,

th r b l f'o eeaton^Mose ¶pyi!S91e baclk to thelandftli'5sa,r,,,h b,.$ ,m stbosrcedl'ins vs sndirectiopsij.pn8~ipstoe ep ,¢tV ^d lils l

~~~~~~, - . . -,-' 1,F;.;

Gopdrr Associates

Ireval I a

21. T:terefore, ilic~~~~

l~ ~ ~ ~~~~plnilopR,i .sigciiisicniee,obs

October 1999 7- 8 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfilEL4

[ The odour impacts associated with 'eachate management are of short-term, reversible nature andcan be controlled effectively as part of proper landfill operation. Therefore, the potential odourr- impact from leachate management activities is considered to be of minimal to moderate

os | ~~~~~sign irhcance.

; ~~ . ';: ' .I I ' ' - -,I

Continued. dbp,mUr 1 hof waste haulage rebicles on' the ha'ulage routes :o the site are notantiLipatedtbpr- a -. ayditio'naodou-coincerns. '

L } 7.9.2 Eniee; ! hOR'wissIoa4¶rm Stle ConWtrtnichion and O tieratuon.

As noted 'p'rr ?nousb:,.'rsidnres nre. located adjacent to the project site. 'A.. significant, eanhworcs$' e r4quJ;ed.for the pprapra:ion and constntclnn or the engirieered lindrill, such

activities,' ithcerite dust that may be carried olf-site by %.ind. Such dust coui I potentially* impact the E d'ac6entseasitivJe receptors, depending on the wind speed and wind direce lion.

W%'hile i pacts may occur ai all iesidences located in close proximitv to constructon activities,

the maj rity of impacts %ill be temporary in nature and are anticipated to last for only a few

.ionths after the startofconistriucaioia hdeiviies. i Of ing'eatthworks for preparation of the

lpndfill base will occur in a phased manner, occurring in different sections of the site for sh?rtperiods of time. Measures to reduce dust impacts from construction activities are included in the

I 1' - project nroposals and include:- - - < -

W* wetia ggor stocklpiles fduring dry weather to reduce the potential For dust generat ion:IL~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~.&w_,".%~ ".A

w*erting of site wads to control dust'generation, particularlyin dry weather,* avoidd generating aivities (e.g. carthworVs) during windy periods; and

mit* ma `naigmkg the cxisting vegetation along the property boundaries and/or planting of

additional't.reei(#s Kconibinatiou with fences, if required), to provide a ph3sical barrier

ber.cepiaeflve receivers and the.site and to reduce wvind erosion.

L I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

q -- Site opemrtatons. will also generate dust during the placement and compaction of %%aste, the1 L. placemeni and grading or cover mate6riak and the movement orvehicles along the sen ice road.s Dust impa4tsab;e minimized through appropriate operation and nmintenancepraciccS. With

P r the applionlion of these *mersores Ilte dLI, t ir.--ts are likely to be mininmal: hov%e%er, dust

l . , .3.Goldeir .As-ii,-te*

,~~~~~~ Golder Associates

l -U

October 1999. 7 -39 t''81-2730B

., EP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EM

impacts may still be ,xperienced during the operating lifetime of the site due to the prt ximity of

dwellings near the sit e boundaries.

., . . i. : * - - :. -- '. !- - .

As noted aboye ir ion 7.9.1, the boundaries of the site to the east and w"est r it existingv9- .F-. . ..-

dump t -1temboundary of the South Patcal.currently have signifi. t _ e co er.

P.~.

..Also, 1 j ast vrowing-trees (e.g.ipi!-ipil)aid fences has beenpror along the

rema ai ies aIpart of the. p,rop;osed igineered landfill develc ' - t. These

b ffars^,'arc>4pl to sreen site.o fooo -aitd,jacent setflements and Pi . assist in

ni.oderatgin&ddr -kto asonm extent 1 Tis will-assist in the attenuation of the .tiu generated

at t ie siieand, itXd * r, minirnize off-slte dust impicts.

_ Due so the limi e J eriod of excavation activitiets related to construction and the'--latively small

area ot exca' t ; at any point of time, dust generati6n is anticipated to be to ., and of short-

durarion. It: X ted that the off-site dust impacts will vary in relatioif cm the X re%ailing wind

direction and tl,a .:c_vation aren location wilhin the landrill. :

In view o the above, it;is anticipated thatrthe dust impact fPrtm prop6sed construction activities

are of shod-term, reversible nature and will be of minimal to modeiAte significance when proper

management procedures are followed. 4

i - .e .. .;ej

7.9.3 IL. rease in Vebiele Exhaust Emissions frownUse of !Tobile Plant

atid Equipment nnd Construction TraMfic . ,

The site is cHirrently used as a conlrolled dump. The sources of vehicle emissions .re from waste

haulage vahicles and the on-site excavation and spreading equipment. Project pr.. pos3as include

provision for the daily use of mobile equipment, includingi do2er, compactor and dtump truck, as

wvell as a small increase in traffic volumes over time associated with more %kraste haulage

vehicles accessing the site- Thus, vehicle exhaust emissions emitted on-site will increase to a

limited.degree.overpresent levels;. i

.t -*9 - -' r

The immJrr'idiata stirToundmgs of the project area are rural 'with no industrial areas. The existing

air quality pertainin to potentiA exhaust emAsions from diesel opeirated equipment (e.g., SO2 -

refer to S'ection 6.10.3) i W,lwithin DEI '' S71 I_rd;

I Golder Associates

r^, ~ ~ ..

i l_. , Octol.- 999 7 - 40 981-2730BSWEEP, So i Fernando La Union Santary La diii ELI

The a, a age number of garaa ge trucks and other waste delivery vehicles currently deliveringwaste o) ;he site is around 24 *,er day. At the maximum anticipated level of construction traffic

fl to tl. i 7trin- each of ' -ee conin -t:i. ph:- . ;tec number of truc! s i%ill increase forlimir lodsprimnarily v .port granulzr materials. HoL-e-er, there will be an increase in on-

r , site .riting equiprmen c 'er to con siruct the prcpo;ed %%orks.

The e hI ust ernisstons these vehicles, combined 'viih vehicle emission. from mobileequipmin on-site are iticipated to signififantly affect the ambient air qualikN in the sitevicinit. ' hus, the pot! i impact of projecl proposals wvih'respect to vehicle rmissions from

0 r ~~~~~~on-site it7, i..f s ofrsho. f r:, revertMbe nahire and is consiaered to be ofrminim31lsignific;ince.

7.9.4 Chartp,c in 1' n . ie Emissionss

An increase i' IiiidF' g8s emissions,(e.g., CH4, CO,) is anticipated as a result of. te constrctionof the i~i)eW r. ifl jue to changes in the conditions under %vhih waste dec poses at thesite. Anae!obic ndiiisin t Jroll ivl replace thsi'erobi1 cconditions that likelypredominate at the. eZistini1 ope,n dumpsi(e. Fo example, increases in the generation andemissiti, ofNmei i, (6-fJ anid ca;rbo, dfkild'si(C1,: the maior gaseous products of thedecomposition of nimicipal solid waste imi.nr anaerobic conditions (landfill gas - LFG), willoccur during the operating and post closure phases of the life of the engineered landfill.

The project propo;,: include the insballation of passive tents, installed through the %%aste and upthroug6the landftll cover, in order to veni the landtill gas to atmosphere. In additioni, the project

tpropo4$,includ:;-provisions.Ifor the composting of organic wastes, (i.e.,' under aerobicg .conditloPS- ft, omle,.g.nactivity would remove a significant portiontof ihe primary

source a ti thiandfill it is espected to

proportibnally reduce the LFP generfing potential of.tla S3isposed in the landfill.

) lUlethane Ernirsoi uti:taHon and DlisnesiGon lln,nel"g Rlethodolon

'Methain' is a ioouriess, odourless, flanmable gas at concentrations between 5R. and 15 % [on a

. olumcper volum <sba s-'(v/v)I in ;air. Mesth'ane ession and air dispersion modeling )vas

- .perf-ttim . the-concentia-ion of C. im air at the. property line and at sensitivereceplors a's a resuilt of incre3sed CHi, enmi-sions lo atm'osphere fron the engineered Iindfill

. .o; .. . Associates

f~~~~ ~~~ , , Golder Associates

Kr

October 1999 7 - 41 981-2730B

'WEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill I A

facility during operation and post-closure phases of the life of the fat. liiy. CH4 emission

estimates and dispersion modeling methodology details, including documenitation of ernission

estimation and air d-spersion modelinig in.:olIdcl in Append;x Q.j- .' * -

Resulls of Methar.r Dispersion IHodeling ..

The data and'resifts of dispersion modeling aro presented in detail in Appendix ). Typically, a

level of'2.5 Wof tli io ver exiposive limit (LEL) isused as a trigger level [i.e., 1. '5 % CH, (v/v)]

to identify a -b!entia rnethane (explosion) risk. It was estimated that the -. aw.'mum CH4

concentration at the closest sensitive receptor (the residence located nea. the w ster i boundary

of the South C.ell) would be 0.9 %1e CH4 in air (v/v) (2.9 x 10' ug/mr), ;-ell bel the 25 % of

LEL (i.e. I .2-tS% v/v) trigger level for CH4 in air.

- ~ ~~~ e . . :_. .-There wibU .'aOpoLential increase inr the emission of landfijl.gas (CHJ)as a: rep It of the project

propos;l bui tvit.i'rniniitr.l risk orh3rrm to senitive'receptors witl respect to CH coiic atrations

above 5% (v/v).LEL in air. Therefore,.the potential.impact of project proposals witl respect to

an increase in methane emissions from consttuction of the engineered landfill, ev n though of

long-term (but reversible) nature, is not considered to be significant.

7.9.5 Elimination of Smoke from Cessation of Current Dumpirig Operatiou i

No fire or smoke was visible at the existing dumpsite during the site visits.

1, ,.. . .

Howve%er, fires are a prevalent feature at many open dumping sites across th. ;i :ppines as a

result of.thi.$e ii tion-(from the anaerobic decompbsition or waste) and loa. .emperature

burning of methanle gas and waste materials. The buming result. in emisuions;oF smo,e. ash and

other particulate nratfer 'with impacts.beyond the-property line ofiisuch dun- ing siites .here

burning is,carried but . ' . .-

1 -b., ,, !- -

More viaste 'iterials will continue to be disposed at increasing thickness at the ci.rrent dumpsite

until the i rof operationofthe engtn-er d-landfill in 2001 Some of this d,spc,-ed %%aste may

become suliciently anaerobic to generate enlilrrh TnzthLnne to allow ror fires in the v. aite

Golder Associates

October 1999 I ,-42 981-2730BSWEE P, San Fernando 4* Union Sanitarjy Itndfill EL

Under the project proposal, the burning of wast? materials on site will be prohit> -d. Any fires

originating on-site will be strictly controlled. The control of site conditions to s cumin ete fires

and the associated genc.ation Of snioke 'nd narticulate Tnaner Wron, such buiri' g a jvities is

consid*red to be a positive, long-term impact, but of minimal significinee in vie . urrent site

operatiOns.

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'

7.9.6 Reduction in Odour from Cessation of CurrentDumpi g Ope, ors

During theosite visats, including the collection:of.baseline data in MArch 1 )9, perc- r -e odour

was noted 'at lbe'sdowvnwiid diiection of the existing open dump only dt ingth c. n ping a.d

spreading'of waste Nearby residents expressed no'concem regarding od tur du cc th, current

_ '',.,-li',jdumpi*atides

Waste 'materils w vill c"iinue to be disposedsat increasin- thickness at rFe umil lb start of

opera ir ered landfillin L00 ,Omceof,this di,... waste nm become

sufficienily anaerohic'to generate enough odour to impoci d"-ellings adja'cen; I '; -

Under the project proposal, specified procedures for sanitary landfill operation ii. Jude measuresto provide effective control of odours during waste deposition, primarily the disp i1l of MSW inEnill, well-deflaed cellh and the a,-pli;ktion of da-ll eoxer to prvzeni prolong exposure of

L ' w asles.directly to the atmosphere. The use of such procedures to control odour i .onsidered to

be a positive lobg-term impact 'of moderale sigaiFicance, nonvitbstanding the t -r potential

c,dour imrracts arising'rom proposed site activities a2 noted in Section 7.9.1.

7.9.7 'Reduction in Dust Emissions from Cessation of Current Dumping OpL. rtions

Baseline dust levels recorded in the vicinity of thesite were well below DENR Stahnd irds.

Waste mnaterials will continue to be diseosad at Ihe sile until the start of open.tion of the

enginee-ed landfill in 2001. Under dry conditions, Aufficient dust may be generat.ed to impact.

dwellints adjacent io the site. , I ,

Nleasures to reduce''du,t impacts frio on-si e actiilties rieite'd o the 'propo. -J engineered

landfill 'air'iiicluded i tlie'proje1t proposals (refer to1 !ectio'n 7.9.2)_ The use of such measures

Golder Associates

October 1999 7 - 43 9' ° I-2730B

.'WEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EIA

'J to control dust is cc, i.sidered to be a short-term positive impadt of minimal significance compared

with current condit ( as of the dumpsite (which is operated essentially as a Controlled Elumpsite),

nonvithstanding 'ner potential du5.t ir-' ''' m iThr! Dm prcpr ped site activities as ntoted in

Section 7.9.2. :

7.9.8 Reductior. 'i Iehlcle Exhaust Emissions from Cessation of Current!."

Dumping I -ajions

! rhe immediate su; q idings of the project area are rural with no industrial areas. BEscline air

quality data per a. airf totoential exhaust emission5 from diesel operated equipinent (e.g. SO2 -

refer to Section .- (J) isxvell within DENR Standards.

The project p iposals will not diminish'or significant'y increase the volume of mtojtized traffic

entering the s'ie -l'herfref , the quantity of exhaust emissions williot be affected nignificantly

b) the cessar r, of open dumping. No sigr,ificant impact is anticipated in this regar;i.

7.9.?!. su Si ;rary of Impacts

A summary of the potential air quality impacts arising from the project proposals is presented

below:

Summary of Potential Air Quality Impacts

Po, .PA\ltivA WOKM~ Reversible/.- Potenttil

Increase in odour levels arising Negative , Short-termn, Reversible NIinimal to

Erom projefctproposal . .; *. Ntoder:ie

Increasd in dust 'emissionis from Negative' Short-term Reversible M1iniimal to

site constitZtin andoperations .: ; :Odcr.ie

increaseW u.t; viiclp exhaust. Negative Short-term Re%trsible NlInim3l

emissions fro use oor raobifeequipment and eonstruction traffic

Change iii methane emissions Negative Long-lerm Reversible None

EliminaIioa1pj;ol.: .smoke from Positive Long-ien ; I n iniil

cessatio<1':-.of 'cureift -damping

l operatiorr ', -r. : . , ___ _.

Reduction-iaoodour frTn cessation Posiii.e Long-terrn Nlon. Nlorateofcurrent dunping op&rations ,_._.

Reduction in dust emiMsions from Positive Shon-term M.in imal

cessation "or, cI&rent. dumpingoperations _ _

Golder Associates

'K

OcI ol '-r 1999 7-44 981-2730BSWEET, Van Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfll E4

Vt~ 1i!or N1 eesll; Jnldc. ReductiG in exih: t . -- Neurral _ * -; ;-: ! Nonefrom cesi nion of = i Ioperation, 'l

7.10 Pitential Noise I ,-

7.10.1 r'aise Arising fr m Construction

Consrruction activities VI takle place across the entire site r. |)rLh 'and Souff P:ecels) at so*me

stage during Lte liretirr of the project. In general ilie impact of construction vill be dependenton: I

* The proxinmity construction activities to noise sensilive ree.vers (NSRs)'

* The specific he y plant and equipment deployed, and* The length of h-over which construction works is unden3!ken adjacen ao any particular[ r ~~~~~NSR .The nearest NSRs snd lheir approxiinate distance from'projeFt ctivi'ics are s immarized in the

Table below.

Noise Sensitive Receivers .

L .. . Y~Daytime Nighlien., _ ~~~~~~~~~~~dB (A) 'dB (A), =

STA - 1 Residenrtial houises, 55 _ 45 - 45 " 70i nea~~~~~~~~~~~wr West site

boundarySTA -4 Residential houses 55 45 , 1 4 *-5.,STA - 5 Residential houses, c . 45 231

near north northwvest. site boundary _

r STA -6 Residential house, SS 44 4,6 4. , o-5, , ~~~~~~~~~~near. northwest-site ,i

,,___, margmn __ _ _ _______ ________ __ _ _

r~~ . . - '-I: . -M'a' '-'nGolder Associates

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 7-45 981-2730B

I SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EIA

Of the above-tabuluted NSR, only those located near the periphery of the prioect site will be in

close proximity to c )nstruction works.

Typical noise emissio.s from various key type of construction equipment that may be used at the

project site are presen d in the Table below.

I 'ical Noise Ern-ssions of Construction Equipment

A ir Compre . or 75-87 6-1 3-7 57-69 51 -62

Backhoe' 71-92 65-G7 59-81 53-75 47-69

Compacto- 72 66 60 54D 43

Concrete t ixer 75-88 69-82 63-76 57-70 51-64

Front Loao *.r 72-81 66-75 60-69 54-63 148- 5&

GetneratrJ:' 72-82_ 66-76 60 70) 54-641 4 8 -5>

Grader ,50-93 74-9'8 68-8 I, ' 62-75s 56 69

Pumnpsg'6" "''' 7ff-90 ' -. ,.'64,-'8 ,56'7 ' 50-72 44-66

Tractors, Bulldozers, 78-95 72-89 66-83 60-77 54-74

Trucks_________ ____________83-93 77-87 71-81 65-75 59-69

Vi,brator 68-81 62-75 56-69 50-63 44-57

..Source 1U' Comer

Activilies envisiaged to be undertaken during the initial site infrastructure works are the

folloving '

cl earun of th. So;th -Pairel;

* cornisiction of the peiiinet'er fence and access roadi around the proposed project site:

* excavation and preparation orthefPhase I landfin area;

* construction of the leachate treatment ponds;

* contrucfionrofti' stormvaler nianagem ent %%orl:s;

a * delivery of constrticti6n materials; and

* ins.aliation of noise and visual screening measures

* .... . A6a..c-.¶..-" .....-- t''

S ;|* *'v*' z : . ] t ............. J* , r ... ..... . t

Golder Associates

-I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 7 - 46 981-2730BS,.vFEP, San F rnando La Union San itaryLandflU, iiL

Construction activities will also cc .,tinue throughout the first year of lan, fill i e, as the Phase 2

of the engineered la. dfill is d -veloped progressively (and ecolo,ri "I w ate managementfacilities are insmalk and Ihen jijn i-. 'v:d and fourth year -di Cell (Phase 3)

.J area is prepared to, * .ve vast Cell closu. will nccur progr- i 4y a e final waste

conlours Ae iwcheL , ,

For a lir-rlted period da i ng the proposed wvorl:s, constn: :tion *or' !I be u.icj rtaken on theKmargin of the pro er r I tmediately adjace:nt to NSRs. Effective -. managen rr t protocols

will be inpFlemeited as yiart of the project proposals, to include:.

* plintingoftrees ,dZ/o'rshrubalong tesite boundaries.where pos iI rthesewr 41 alsoactas dust and odo r barriers, as noted in previous sections];

* placing of temn ! Ziy buffer %alls around an)y heav) noise getner&iat waile in e-peration. Itshould be npe 4hatthe proposed works include a fence (with trees, if approprate) along the

site boundari-; - - - I --- * locating statir- .iay noisy equipment as far as possib e from the NSRs,

* orienting eqt pment with high directivity to emit noise mainly away from N .Rs;

* switching of ! unnecessary or idle equipment; ,

* preventative maintenance of equipment to minimize noise generation; and! installat&or e niainlen5nce of effectie mufflers on equipment

i v . . , :~

During constr Tjfion, the noise level at the dwellings adjacent to the South.Parc (closest located

at about 30 r from a landfilling area) i anticipwted to range from 56 dB (A) to 89 dB (A)

coinpared DENR (daytime) standard of 55 d7 (A). Therefore, not%yithnt-r. Ig the above* r noted iena .res, ;hilc construction work will be limited to daytime periods ., avoiding the

night-time h:ich is the most noise-sensitive, it is inevitable that noiseAes ;.' at NSRs on the

margins c tlhe site will e;ceed DENR prescribed standards and also e.: .ng baseline noise

levels recorded during the study.

G ;

t _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

Golder Associates

r!

OctctA-r 1999 7 -47 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Unlon Sanitary Landfill EL 7

The a Ier noise sensitive receivers, such as an ElementazY School, are k cated about 1 kin

dista n e north frori thte site such that there will be no noise impact fro;i site construction

act; :' s. Noise barriers locaiid between the noisy site ileni.n and :h, 'R can provide

sut- L alnoise atteniition [5-10dB(A)1.

In t7 nit of the-p- railing low ambient noise levels in the area surroundint L;e project site, it

is in-e a ble tfiat's; C,e noise disturbatiec will be experienced, particularly dur ':;ie construction

pha uch uimpac' .lthough temporay (short-term) -and, therefore, rever - are assessed to

beofr.io -rate si n1flcance.

7.10.2 ", ofie Ars sg rom Site Operations

Sourcisofror .i:!nal noise from the landrilling activities %%ill include:

.4I

* mot'erent , ;%;asie haulage vehicles on the service roads, primarily alor. t west side of

the site an.: !..st sido ofthe tJorth Cell; :

* depcsilim levelling and compaction of waste'throughout the'footprint o01 le engineered

landfill;

* placem:unt and grading of daily and intermediate cover in each sub-area, ir association with

waste filling activities;

* placement of capping layer and cover system following completion of tlAing in any one

Phase, towards the end of each phase of the landfill;

* Mai,- r- "nce activities throughout the site;

On the whole, operatiortal noise will be at a lower level than consiruction nr se and, therefore,

will have less impact on,NSRs for the following principal reasons:

* items of mobile plant tend to be used singly, with multiple uses of mobil plant restricted to

short time periioxs unlike construction activi ies;

* ladrifilling Cli'vAfies'are rnobile and not fI'ed in that th-ey move ecr6ss fhe landfill footprint.

iTherefore, ne area ass subjected to the operation. Of the dozer and/or comlo).ctor for long

_ ~~~~~~cto1tinoios:lj,qiiods of time;and7 '; ''.

* a screeni0n iures *sii be irplace in ad% ance of lte starl cf sile operauions.

Golder Associates

October 1999 48 981-2730BSW.EEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfll EL4

Compared to current operations the equipment will be similar, however, the noise levels may besbmewhat higher f'nce the equipmenit will be operating at higher elevations on top of the waste.l , It is estimated ihat ,ha South Cell wtll be in use for appro-i-,.tely thre.,L years. During operation,the noise level at tlie d,vellings adjsceti lo the SoLth Pare'fl (ck'sest kocated at about 30 m firom alandfilling are&L i; ?nticiplated to range from 56 dB (A) to 89 dB (A) compared to DENR(daytime) siandar I rS' 55 JR:'s Once site operations shift to the Nonh Cell, potential noiseimpacts on residen. es adjacent to th'e aouth Cerl ivwhch comprise the majority of residences inthe vicinity of thb site), will be greatly reduced.

In view of thi ove, the negat'.e imp3cls of operalional noise is assessed to be short-term,reversible and of moderiie significane'.

7.10.3 Su imar' of Impacls

A summar m.the significance of the potential noise impacts arising front ihe projecI acrit ities I presented ie!ow .

Suimmury of Potenlia; ioise Impacts

PFotlent 1 .5 abLo4.- ~~I;~'st I' Shrift-I&EW/ I Rleversible/ PotentialJ A, i

5 i -9-'g| rr°biSiti!}gil**trf=4t 'ilrreversible' SigniricanceNoise arisiig from construction of Negative Siort-ter n Reversible Moderate/_l the engineered landfill INoise arisbig firomi site operations . ,,lil-tcrm Reversible Moderate

r! 7.11 Potektilal Off-Site Traffic linptitcts

7.11.1 Trafc Loading and Tralfic Congestion

The current dump site is accesweJl along Dalanga, an Oeste Road and %% ill contirue to serve as theprimary access road to the project sie for the foreseeable futture.

The importing or matenals will inerease the smenint of truck traffc duripg the constructionperiods. It is not expected that this will hai'e any meaningfiil e ffct on traFfie'along the main

l highway, however there *vill be a notliceable temporary increase in truck 6la'ffic along theconcrete access road from San Femando to the in'dfill site.

L.; .G. . I!i!L.

Golder Associates

:-

I n

October 1999 7 -49 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La lUnion Sanitary Landfill EU

Of the average traffic count along the access road and junction with Dalangayan Este Road,

motorised vehicles (PUJ, Private Vehicle, Dump Truck, Motorcycle/Tricycle, l'ruck and V'an)

comprised al-out 87%A, whilUe irk fiont of the entiance to tle siie, rnotorized vehicles comprised

about 730 'rafffic 'etering and exiting the s-te i. abo-t 27% of motorized vehicles.

_ I ,.

Based on two-24 hr traflic counts conducted on March 9-10, 1999 and March 13-14, 1999, there

were about 51 and 58 vehicles, respectively, that entered inIto the dump site. Only 50% of these

vehicles were loaded with solid waile, the rther half .ere hauling the recyclable/sotted materials

for end us*rs. '

Presently,'waste delivery traffic to the sile involves 13 vehicles of various capacities and

ownership. Five are government-o-nei vehicles of "hch t%%o are compactor trucls (5 and 8m'

capacity), while the rest are privately o%trned. These vehki les which,have, varying capacities, are

transporting an esti,mated solid waste ol about 45 mo/d. It is proposed that te.future waste

collection vehicles increise by one.packer t ".1 l .....

On this basis, the estimated (increase' in) irafic- fIow's arising from the project'proposal is

assessed to be of no significance.

This estimate is believed, however, to be a signific;nt understatement asl it 'fails to take into

account the following factors:

* any growth in traffic flows resulting from on-going and'planned developments. Assuming a

_, conservative growvth rate of 1.59 percent per annum for, population, total motorized traffic

t1o.v on the Dalangayan Oeste Road i'ould increase by approxiuiately the same growth rate

as Lhe population iricreases, which 'voild approximaie about 57 motorized iehilc1i of all

types, of which only asmall number are waste hauling vehicles.:,.,

_ the magnitude of any increase in traffic flows resulting from construction traffic will be

temporary. jButl. n the operation starts it cin be said that as far at the collection vehicles

are concerned, it will not cause an increase in traffic volume. Any3 .eetage of traffic

increase will comefrom the private and pt'blk celiicles 1tp ass in front of the landfill site.

GolderAssoci s , 1

Golder Assoctates

October i99§ 7- 50 , il-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

With or without fthe project, therefore, there will be no significant change in traffe flows onDalangayan Road. Cin the basis of projected traffic flows, it is'concluded that the irn.l act of theproject proposal i: f. short-term, re e. sibl nature at, I.is of no significance._-

7.11.2 'AirQualityI pacis from V'ehicle Emissious ,

The projected grow I *f,traffio would hardly t'ffect I%e volumi of exlausi emis'si- .n w3stedeliverj vehiclesi ing nmaterials ta the site. On the basis Ihat the project pro, .al resulti invery similar total .e ,xsent traFfic flows, compared ;o .hos. resulting from other Clopr?ents,it is concluded tii :he impacl of tb- projesl proposal on off-site a'r qualit, althou h nega'tive, isof short-term, r :versible nature and is of min;mal or no significaace. In che s, - *tern, at thesinrt of sile c. nstruction works, any negative impact could be minimized.ihrv j-lh the use ofmodem,.we;- maintiined and regularly seniced vahicles, scheduled to opera%p, as far as ispracuicable. ut.side of peak traffic periods.

7.11.3 Tra .cNoise

The projected increase of traffiT nQted aboYe wuWd geneirate ad itional noise along the principalL haulage routes. On the basis that the project proposals does not result in an increase in totaltraffic flows, compared to those resulting from other developments, it is concluded that theimpact of the projscL. proposal on off:site noi&'. r 10 ovuzli negative, is of short.terin, reversiblenature and is of minimal or no significance. As a natTer of routine it is considered Lood practiceto use only modem, ivell-n aint3ined and re-ularis, serviced vehicles in order to nfinimi7e the

, potential negative impacts of incmeased traffic flo%vs.

7.11.4 Littering and Cleanliress durting Wa3te Transit '

At present, a combmation of.compactor trucks, dunp trucks and a varietB ofprivate vehiclesdeliver waste to the site.: The compactor trucks are enclosed and tarps cre used oter the dumptruck box. These rneasures serve to minimize the potential for spillage of rv.aste durir,g transitfroin the collection points to the site.

r. . .G -! G~~~~~~~~~~older Assoclates

October 1999 7 - Sl L 981-2730BS San .S a rnando La Union Sanitary Land EIA

Theproposed operation of the colt ;.ior and transportation component of the wa5 . management

system wvill include instruction/ti, ninl .f the collection staff in this rega, and periodic

inspections by waste r.anagemett :par nenl personnel. Similar instruction car. provided to

the public atilarge, as %k 1l as spec. 'all to those non-City haulers who regula. 'ring waste to

twhe site. Proper transportation t tic : would 'be a condition of a;llowing - c haulers to

continue lo utilize the d'sposal si When the collection vehicle arrives at the 'for inspection

and wveighing, the prfstnce of 1. cage from the compactor box and the integi , of the covers

will be checked by the gatebou! staff. These pr3ctices will serve to enforce I, mandatory use

of devices to minimize polentia pillage of wv-ste during transpon.* .1. .-

The proposed project will ha"r ; rt-lerm positive inmpactlinthis regard, all;-. :gh its overall

significkace, comnpared to the prt erlt situ-14on is cbfisidered to be miuinmal. :

* j..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7.11.5 Summary of Impacts

A summary of the significahce of the potential off-site traffic.impacts arising fror. the project

proposals is presented below. I

Summ r, of Potential Off-site Trafric Impacts

;~~Pot~htia1: jj ' "ilti - ~~~' i ~ tR~eve1sibIe/ ~~ ~. rtial * - egaf| - ir.9 if.,. th =rri eIbi ; ifiance.

Increased traffic loading and Negative Short-term Re ersible I ne

tralfic congestion . IAir quality impacts CIIom v- ,ic:e Nesfti..e Short-tel-n Rc%ersible t. inimal to

emissions . _ 'Traffic noise 'Negative S'ort-term Reiersible ..ifnimal t.m

Littering and Cleanliness C ring -asitive 1 Short-term -- .linimal

W%'aste Transit _ J _ _ __

7.12 Summary of Potential n'ironmenuml Impacts

Potential positive/negative impac %%ere generally evaluated as to their potential significance in

a qualitative ni,nnei based on qJantitative analyses wvhere possible, using the following

descriptors: High, lVDoderate, N: inil .nd None. The analysis also considered the short-

terin/long-term and reversible/ irr~ : .ible nature ofthe imp3cts.

G .. * I A.sscit

Golder Associaltes

October 1999!, 7- 52 981-2730BSWEEP, Son Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll EL4

Impacts of potential significance are identified as key issues to be addressed through monitoringand mitigation measures. The following environmental aspecets/factors were considered:

* Physical Environment: Air quality, groundwater quality; surface water drainage and quality,iraeffc conditi: ,i: and noise.

|i61 0* Biologc41l Eirfronirnent. Bioloki-al r niriment is a polential issue only in thl South Parcelthat forms abotut forty percent of t,e proposed site, as the landfill (i.e. openi dtimp) already

Cexists on the rsmainder. Of this fotr, perment, about half hias been cleared and is used for5 ~~~~~~~~~housing and f irhiing, purposes.:

* iunnt (Soc;i!-economic) Environnett

It is important to note that the proposed enGirieered landfill in'corporates most of the propdsedmitigation mneasures in its design and oper;ions in order to minimize most, if not alt, of thepotential environ'mental impacts. Ihe impact analyeis indicates that the pro%iWion of thesemeasures 'is p sitive arnd will reduce the significance of ihose environmental inipacs from thepreseut high.levels.(dueto the,presence of dhe dlump;ite) to minimal/insignificant levels.I . -

In carrying out this impact assessment, the potential impacts have been identified by comparingthe current baseline conditions (the existing dunpsite in operation on the North Parcel and

L undeveloped/developed land on the South Pa cel) to the ConceptUai engineered iandfill designand operations. Potential impacts were generally evaluated as to their potential si-nificance in aqualitalive manncr, based on quantitati% c anal3ses -,%hre possible.

A summary or the potential sign,ificance of the potential nagative and positis;e impicts associatedwith the pr6posei4engineered sanitary landfill'projelc., together idiIan indication of the impactduration(short-eorIo?g- term) andits reversibility, is'preseritect below:

1 ,G Associates

Golder Associates

I .'

October 1999 7- 53 981-2730B

SWEEP, Sqn Fernando La Union $anitary Landfill EA

I~~~~~~~~~~

Soclo-Economics and Culturei

Improyed Planning and Positivc Long-lern - Nh derate

In frastFucture for City

Impact on livelihood for PosiLive. Short-term - oderare

waste picker isaa result of r

changtes in site operating

oractices' __.__

i ass - of ,LEtd and Negative Long-term ible H'2h

h. orovements' I _ -ILo. . of iivelihooiistanding Negative Long-t:rm I rre%r 're !crop - and trees for. tenants

in th- site e;- isiked for ,

acquliItion. Chan * in accer .oute to NegaLive C Long-term l,rre%ersible Iinimalresid. s- on- cist .ide- of Positive

propc Ad facilit. .

In-m±gwtionr tc La. project Positive Long-term . -- roderate

site tu re'otmdii - rea - .Impact on Loca: Property Positive Shon-temi -- linimal

Values ;< / A_ 1e ,, ;

Reduction of Tr. -is from Positive Long-term - High

the Existing Dump SiteCreation of I Local Positive Short-term Minimal

Employment. C; .rtunities <-.. ..- to(Low/Semi-SI ILd and i Moderate

Skilled)L: _- _ _ ,_ _ _

Wider. Ecc iomic and Positive Long-term - [ NFlinimr.

Employment.enefils .:_'_. _, lode__ _e

Health un4! fty: ,

Reduction ..f vectors and Positive Long-ierm -- Mloderire n,

potential' trrismistion or High

disease, ,Control of surface and Posifive Long-tenn -- 10oderate IO

groundwater contamination _ High

Reduction in dust and air Positive Long-tefm - .loderate ti-

contartrination _ _ _High

Protection of workers and Positive Short-term -i .loderale to

%%aste pickers Ithrough Hi,h

proper clolhing and

equipment. . ., .Golder Associates

~~~~~' ' I ~-

October 1999 7 - 54 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ELA

^-t ~ ~~~~~~Polieti:iAj tFi''S fPS f"eNt a tivej,l Sh6Hr-_,te!r WJ Reversiblel Pl Poleatn fi l-J ;

._ Uf , ong-teb:'. *rFeiera e, '|Sngrm:U ireaeeeConlrol of heavy Positire Shon-term MocLerate tot1 ~~~~~~~equipmrneVthilrm i , hinteraction Overall impas. * ealth Positive Long-tennrm - . ,derate toand safety . .. . ,_ __ __,H hV 'isual 'I

Visual Elfects ,r, Site Negative Short-term Reversible l' n',na3-NoneConstruction

I.'isual Effect .;i Site Negalive Shon-lern Revqrsible -ir'imnialO( perations _

Cliange in Landsiepe Po3itive, Long-turm A A'oderaieChamcter : rom Site (discontinuatpon ofDevelopment Controllod Duinmpng)

Negative . Long-term rreversible *'Minimal

Geolo0ir. and Gentechniaol: . j

Erosion Associated. with Negative Short-term Reversible MinimalConstruction Ativitie.. .r Slope and Foundation I iyetive i Short-term Reversible MinimalU . Instabh'it from Site2mr.a Ins ._. _._,,Enviroiunenta1_,.,ffects. of Negitic Sih: t-lerm Reer.;ible Nlininial.Sources of ImportedMaterials . . .pedoloqjca! jnd Land Use:

Change in Land Use Neg'itve Long-teri- Irreversible liinimalLoss ofeProductive Land I aegale Long-term lfreversible hunlim31RemovEl of Topsoil NegmLke Shon-term Reversible NlinimalReinstatement of Soil Sautd Parcel- Long-term Irrerersible MlininialProfile ,and Prbductive Non to Negative,Land Use * . 1lorl Parcel-

I Posive Long-termf . -oderate

I lSydrokjical and Hvdro?enlot4il:

faste material ashout Niative Short-term Reversible M 1ninim3l, onto adjacent (e.g.,^ agricula I) lands during2; ~~~~~~~operation_

79-

Golder Associates

K,'

October 1999 7-55 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EIA

- WOBl '-sOA 4P0 ;jjjjA.~iti~E/li~AIieW Shd-lri~ 'Rvr v S. 4, . , 4 . X ~~~~~~~K' -I

.- Lead t seeps impactinzg I' egative Short-term Re% ers i Miinimal

surra.: ster ru'nqfh frola.

site nb 'adjacent lands

durin operation IWas material washo' c N.gath'e Shor-term Re'. linimal

and/- leachate . impactv J

surface: ioff 'impacti g1

adjacen: lands- - urir relor ,f:wastes 'at t t' .exis(tng dfrnp'site _ _.

Wast? -r at!rial r ,out Negalive Shon-term Re, I ' linimL to

and/or lea:hatc iP acted None

surface runtff irn alingadjacent (e.g. agri. aolural)

lands during- por -:Iosure :

periodReduction/elimit it5n of Positive Long-term _igh

leachateixnpa6- -:i sLuIiyof surface rz; afil nto

adjacent 1:: s - * .

operation due. .o cessatioti. . . ..

of open dump- , .Reduction/el; ti,i.tion of Positive Long-temi i-ligh

waste mate..ial washoutonto adjaceri lands during Ioperation due to cessation Iof open dut -.!g. -i .g....., .' .....

Reduction. l; ination of P . sitive Long-termi h gh

the poient' 'for, clefnsurface.rnmoffto come into

contait;with wVaste,matenialand leachate, during

operation and post-closure. .-,LeachaTe Cont"minption of Negative Long-Terrn Revetsible ! lininial

Groundwater Resources i

Reductionlelimination in Posirive Lo..g-terrn '

Leachate'Contamination ofgroundwater Resources . . j

Contamination of Water Negative Short-term Reversible I Klinima

Resources by Potential Fuel . .

Spillage ' . .

Risk of. Floodipg in Negative Shorl-term Reversib- i'l ininml

V'icinityof Site. _

INlodirication" of Mater Posiri:e I ; __ None* e. .A s .ct . . .

Golder Associates

October 1999 7 - 56 981-2730BSWEEP, SVan Fernando La Union SanJlary Landfill El4. t 3| 61- = | Sign .cjc

,Stoge Capacity 1 -egative 1111_,Ecologicsl

Ecological effects on V salive Short-lerm Re%ersil Mlinimalvegetation ' ._ .I ,Ecological effects "on N gative' Short-terrm Reversibl - Ilinimalwildliie . - _ . , _^reation c f new habitats Po)s tie . ong-trrn Moderatei luring and post operation)

: ~~~~A r Oua1itk,: - I

In.rease in odour levels Negntive LSehort-terrn Reversible Nliri l oari ing frorr project . ,|!I2d lepro losals _1T-.nci -se-in dus' emissions Negative Short-renn Reversible Mlini Itfron zite construcion and Mode. .op-r:sions .Increase in ve l ia:' e"iusr Ncgati'e Shon-r-rr Reversihlkl Nlir, iemirssions- . from. use ofmobile equipment' 'adl .construction traffic

L Change in landfill gas Negative Long-term teversible None(methane) emissions _

E I im ination of smoke fromn Positive Long-term.' -,. Minirmr.lcess4tion of j currentdumping oert -.ns ___ _

Reduction in o)dour from Positike Long-erm I., erateE cessation cf currentdumping op-rations :Reduction in dust Positive . S:Ion-ierm hMi, iinalemissions from cesiation ofcurrent durmping operationsReduction in , exhaust Neutral -- -e

em issions from cessation ofcurreh dutping operations ._ ' _ . .. |

Noise:- .. .':,.......1

Noise arising from Negatrie |hor'-ierr -Reversible |hderateconstruction of the..engineered landfill _ '_____,

uoise 'arising * fron she Negative |orior-term oeer&ir | eoperations I I

Kg' - Golder Associates

Nfl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

L

October 1999 7 - 57 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL

_o ___te _______ **.*,.I :m .t ) IJt',erm .iiWe ibl :signi mnce';

Traffic:

Increased traffic loading blegative Short-term Reversible 7:.| Noneand t'affic congestion I ||

Air qu.i-ity impacts from Negative | Short-term Reversible Mlinimal to

vehicle!missions . | NoneTrafrica.oise Negaive Short-term Reversible Mlinimal to

. 1 ' | . ffi 8 . * ~~~~ | NoneLirterin3 and. Cleanliness Positive Short-tern -- - MinimalDuring Wa.ste Trnnsit : . .

The potentilal neg2tive impacts identi(ied in thii assessment cre addressed throuih nc'niLorinm

and miLigatiion'rneasures. ' '

.9 ~ ~ ~ : 21.. , * ,. ,,

As the impact assessmcnt has assumed that these engineeredmineasures will be irnrlernenied as

designed, approptiaI'c lrior.toring bAtlw 'ccnstrlttiol and op'eration of the ptoposed landrlIl,

includinga'i contiiigenc plan, is'sesien;ial for iis environmental acceptibility. 'This aspect is

discussed in the Environmental Management Plan.

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Golder Associates;...~~~~~~ ! .~.

* . .:

1}4 ~ ~~~~ 1.'

'1''l''' ' ,8;!-,. ,> '7 i1l p

. ' ; 1

k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Gle AsscIte

* '~~~TA $, - '~ - -;

TAb .AMUNCEPAL SOLID WASTE UYF~ iLYACaATE QL*

. ~~~~~ . Ij~l OJef ~ ml a*~ * -

..... y. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'JIAp~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AA2e~~~~.... 4

~,,.- : i ' .j ; ! -* - s - - = e. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-1 n - j I ' I ;; _ _ . '1-BOp - | Inof < 2 r -*CZw-wCOD -6- | .000 < 159:0 1...,- _ - --Toal Orpanuc Carbon ( lO| 6.000 32 757 I S _ _Toral Suspended Solidd (TSS) 50C - -53 .Organic Nitopen .200 -Antitnia Nitogen . it .,4.1I 2|; - < W .inuate 2i <0.1 194 21 - ,Totai Phosphcrou - 3u _- - .Onn5pnosphorow; 20 :0.03 17 l:a.riniri as CaCG, 3,00_ -

vH 6 6 9 S 8_._4 -8 6 I6Totn Han.ss as CLCO, 3.00 _ - _La1cium ,- I.CW0 9 61 130lgne,ium 250 _ i Is

300 - -. C3D 240 -Sodium - ~ 500 7 16.- 565 - _ ___300 <04 712 87 _bllondet -. 500 12 5,0___ 84 3,000 1 __ __

*nn .- : ".- - 60 <01. 176 _ 14 _

- * >. ~Notes: *-. --: xIlcoqcensraii:n; repared in g/L(approxirnately parts per million) except pH (no units)

- not available

* Tchobanoglous, eLal, 1993; for New Lanfills (less than 2 yrs old)Gomez Martin, et.al, 1995

t Youcai, et.al., 1997< DENR (EMB), the Philippines (1995 to 1997)

Golder Associates

F.

Octoba. 1999 8- I 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernanido La Union Sanitary Landfill Ell

8.0 1 v[RONMEo Z rA.LR MTIGA7nON MEASURES

8.1 I .oductlon.

As ol -d to infrastru%. ire 'evelopmencs in seetors sucl as high.y3! a nd pp wier, solid waste

ma3n.- enent is ari essentin. .avironmental management component of any urba i area. In other

words, inadequate solid a-.e management results in direct environmental de: adation and the

provis:r of an e'rgineei: d wvaste management facility such as a landfill wiP ritinimize such

degra' it in while at thP "? !ini providing an essential infrastructre to the cs.inLinitq(s) it

serves. F rthcr, theen, seared landfill proposedfoithoCityofSan1Fernandow; 11' I at the same

time rehab'litjre the ex; t. j dump and provide a planned, enlvironmentalib sak c i'sy.

In Section 7, ;he PLO, j1was defined as the developmneu of anengineefedsanitat ;t iandfillatthe

preferred sit; ror the nanagement of municipal solid wasteagenerated and col' tcd, within the

City of San F mand Union, wvhere the preferred site is the existing conitroi: I dumpsite and

an adjacent parcel *f land to the south. The way in %%hich the compenenal: easures of the

project have be- M.signed to effectively reduce/minimize or eliniinate many i the potential

impacts to the er rnnient vvere described.

Also, mitigation was defined in Section--7.as.an'actiqn-;hat,.prevents, eliminate-, reduces, or

compensates fot. a negative impact. It was noted that the.project componentsrmeawsures, which

by destgwili rducef"inimnize&the poteastial for cn%ironmenial impact, Wermnot considered to

be mitigatiorn t wasuies'for thb purposes of this itnpIct assessment. Terebfore, the mitigation

rnisures prr ented in ibis section are !ssentially additionitl mnasures proposed for e mitigation

of potential - vironmental impacts :o faither reduce th-'significance of ihose ,pot t,al impacts

or where t sose impacts may not be adequately addressed by the de'si'iJ project

components/r,easures. .- ..

A detailed list of the potential:envitonmental impacts, together with their significance, duration

>and nature,' was presented in Section 7.. A summsary of the negative impacts frb.m this list isK r presented below to serve as a basis for consideration of appropriate mitigation measures.

Golder Associates

r

October 19. 9 S 981-2730B' I , SWEEP, San Fernando LA Union Sanitary Landfil ELI

-Poti,a tatie/j?;S nt:iRveaiIIlT.oedi

* Sodl-Economies and Culture: l

Loss of Land and Negative Long-term Irreversible HighImprovements _

Loss of live.ihood/,tanding Negative Long-term Irreversible High* crops and trees for tenants in

the site eannarked foracquisition; , . ,.Change in' access route to Negative I Long-term Irreversible Minimalresidents on east side of Positiveproposed; '.ih . .

Health n,tLI Ss ir: 9

--No negative impacts-

Visual:

Visual Effects from Site Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal-Construction NoneVisual Effect from Site Negative Short-term Reversible MinimalOperations

; Change in Landscape Positive Long-term Moderate8 X,. Character from Site (discontinuationbevelopment of Controlled I

Durnping)

Negative Long-term Irreversible. Minimal

Geological and Geotechnical:

r Erosion Associated with Negative Short-term Reversible MinimalConstruction Activities . __., _.._.. r Slope and Foundation Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

Instability from Site . I

Operationsr Environmental Effects of Negative Short-term Reversible MinimalSources; of ImportedMaterials . . .

Pedological'and Land Use'. I

Change in Land Use Negative Long-term lrreversible MinimalLoss of Productive Land Negative Long-term Irreversible Minimal

Golder AssoclatesjL.i

October 1999 8 - 3 981-273qB

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitday Landfill EL

Removal of Topsoil tlegative Short ienl Rex ersihle Mininial

Reinsiatement of Soil Profile Soulh l'arcel- Long-tena lrre'ersible liniwilml

and Productive Land Use None toNegative

Hydrological and H_ydrogeological

Waste material washout onto Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

adjacent (e.g. agricultural)lands during operationLeachate seeps impacting Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal i

surface water runoff from siteonto adjacent lands duringoperationWVaste material washout Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

and/or leachate jmpactedsurface runoff impactingadjacent. lands duringrelocation of wastes at theexisting dump siteWaste material washout Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal to

and/or leachate impacted None

surface runoff iinpactingadjacent (e.g. ;.agricultual)lands during post-closure

periodleachate Contamination of Negative Long-Term Reversible Minimal

Ciroundwater Resources

Contamination; of Water Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

Resources by Potential FuelSpillage _

Risk of Flooding in Vicinity Negative Short-terrn Reversible Minimal

of Site

Eeologlca:I'. Ecological effects on Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

L ~~~~~~vegetationlEcologikal effects on wildlife Negative Short-term Reversible Minimal

Air Oualltv:

Increase in odour levels J Negative | Short-tenn Reversible Minimal to

., arising from project Moderate

rm ! Golder Associates

L .

October 1? )99 8-4 S l-2730BSW ,San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfIll EL

L , Xt 1 {.X~~&43 U 'irr,',,_ proposals1-Increr in duis e,. .;s 'fizaid-e Short-termfrom vite constructioni and ; . ,oderate

W ~~~~~operaf rns_ _ _ _ _ .___ _ . _ _ __ _ _ .,____....2p . sn__,rInre.: i vehicle' e 1 it' i -alive Short-term Re'ersmible Ii n ll3emissions ' am use of n'.rbile.:equipmeiut and constric.rion. ..traffi __ .:_.'Change in landfill gas Negative Long-tern Reversible-' None(methane) emissions

r ~~~~~~~Noise-,. , l .'". L Noise arising I from Negative .; Short-terni Reversible Moderate

construction ,f e .t enginecredjLon&l Noise 1 prising from site Negative Short-fern Reversible Moderateoperations _ ____________.

Increased trafft loading and Negative Short-term 1: Reversible Nn_trafic congesti r. 'Air . qiuality impacts from Negative Short-termn Rceversible Minimal tovehicle emiss; iis one

__ _ __ g1Traffic noise Negativeo Short-term. I Reversible'. Minimal to. . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~None

It is quite apparent from Sections' 6 and 7' that the proposed 'landfill development will

significantly improve the environme,ntal conditions at ihz site and its vicinity-ovir and above the

* present (baseline) conditions. The sections below provides a brief description 'of the proposedmitigation measures (i.e. additional zbeasures, a; noted above) that will reduce/minimize the

significance of the impact and result in minimal/insignificant residual impacts. Where

appropriate, the relevant measures incorporated in the proposed landfill design and development

plan (refer to Section .5)'are also presented. Even though'the mitigation measures (beyond the

project components/measur.s) were considered to be required only for those negative residualr impacts with moderate or high significance, some measures have been- proposed for thoseL potential residual impacts of minimal significance in order to further 'ninimize the significance

of any residual impacts.'

L

Golder Associates

October 1999 8 - 5 981-2730B

MWEEP, San FernandoLa Union SanitaryLandfdIEL4

8.2 Sh,- a Improx ements to San Fernando Disposal Operations

The San Fernand, dumpsite has progressed in 1999 towards a Controlled Dun i ;ite, from the

Open, Dumping ti; i.7 ,was carrid out in the previous two years since in commc r ed receipt of

wastes from the'' *.. In viev' of the proposed engineered landfill deVelopmn:; there are a

number of issues i can be ad, ressed by the City and improvements to operat 3n 3 made in the

interim before th * oject is impl mented, as follows:

* Commence tbv separation of o, J,anic wastes from the market, and select a -unverient, soil-

covered loc. tion on the current disposal site where a pilot composting c ):ration can be

implementt d;

* Commenc;. public education in atives in regard to solid waste;

* Try to ini lernent more hygien. approaches to waste picking, in terms of pr. tective clothing

and picki ..g on top of a cov,. red waste area outside of the disposal area;

* Avoid fP tire deep excavations to dispose of solid waste all over the site, ince these will

r' create .n more irregular'ties in the subsurface that will have to be addres. d and waste to

, be relocated during futur-, construction of the Phase 3 cell. It is recomti ended that the

approximate limits of the )roposed south portion of the Phase 3 cell be sur. - !d and marked

out on the site, and that .vaste placement is carried out within the proposec; final contours

during the interim period. This will minimize the quantity of iniixed waste inc soil to be

relocated. It should be p ssible to place the waste in areas of limited size an-1 in 'ayers of I

to 1.5 m thick, and begi. to place regular layers of cover soil. This shoctid reduce the

r amount of cover soil neede 1; it should be possible to locate an area on the s, w}:ere cover

soil can be obtained and hau;ed for daily coveIr to the working area;

* Consider the excavation of a ihallow (I to 1.5 m deep) trench along the low eastern portion

L: at the north end of the site in which a pump could be placed to tempo.arily intercept

contaminated' water during p riods of high rainfal/runoff and minimize lie amount that

'flows onto the adjacent agricultural lands to the north. The water would he pumped back

upgradient to a temporary holding area in the uphill portion of the fill arez. where garbage

has already been placed, created by a combination of excavating into the waste and berming

the excavated material up around the perimeter of the temporary discharge/holding area;

* Implement the baseline groundwater and surface water monitoring programs described in

C' Section 9.4;

Golder Assoclates

!r .r.

r : October 1999 8- 6 981-2730B4iWEPRP, Son Fernando La Union SantaryLandfdlEL 4

Properly ab s;don the exislirig dug well.in tho northeast corner of theixisttiig'duiiripsite, sothat there can be no ongoing use of this contaminated water. This would involve emptying

the standing water oa _fflieWvll wish a submersible pump; filling ihe lom-er portion.o? the

well with a gral lulart soil-to provide adequate support for the futuire.facililes' that'wil go

above it; removiz:g the top concrete well tile, and; placement of clay p.oiI in the upper 0.75 to

I m ofthe hole to provide a surface seal. :....

r 8.3 Potentlal Sod-Economic Mitigatio8stfi 1-k2t. s '.Section 7.2 identifies and discusses the potential socio-economic and cuitural (ir: human

environment) impacts couid'-arise out f the construction and operation of the engineered

landfill at Bsra piy Marneltan and- Dalangayan Oeste. It is rtcim'menued. that m,Aigaiiknmeasures be inmplemented for the negative impacts considered being of moderate or highsignificance. This is necefsary iii orde'to hminimiz the immediate socio-economic impact and

potential nuisance of site activities upon PAP/PAFs and surrounding'resid-nrs. The rkAP'wasprepared to providelthe required mitigation measures for the remaining negative impacts. It

lH should be understood that the RAP is not a project component/measure in typical engineeredlItndfill de; el ,liieiis and, therefore, was considered as a mitigation measure for the purposes ofthis EIA. , !

r . 83.1 Resettlement Action 'Plan

LbThe most significant!negative impact of the project proposals concems the effects upon persons

residing within the project site and/or deriving a living from the site (Section 7.2). TheL developnient of the project' site will require the forced relocation of 7 households from the site as

well as affecting productive assets of other households.

In order to consider fully the impact of the proposed development on thd land owners and waste

pickers and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to minimize or prevent the impact, aResettlement Action Plari (RAP) has been completed, in accordance with WB OD 4.30, as pprt

of the present study. The RAP is reproduced in full as Appendix M.

Golder AssocIates

October 1999 8 7 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Uni6nWSanUdojanl4fdflIEL4

A family-level survey was conducted for the RAP to identify all Project Affected Persons

(PAPs)lProject Affected Families (PAFs). The RAP also has proposed a series of principles to

govern appropriate levels of compensation and rehabilitation assistance for the PAPs and PAFs

(by the LGU as the Project Proponent) as follows:

r, For the loss of productive land, the compensation for any easement or temporary acquisition

will be at replac ent cost. '

* For the loss of agricultural land, the compensation would be in the form of a replacement

land of equivalent quality and productive capacity at a location acceptable -to the

PAFs/PAPs. In case the suitable replacement land is not available, or at the informed request

of the PAPs, cash compensation equivalent to the replacement cost will be given.

* Replacement of klamaged or lost crops at market value will be incorporated in determining

the replacement cost of land and its improvement.

* For the loss of means of livelihood and income, financial assistance will be given and

rehabilitation measures and income restoration programs implemented. These inclu'de

alternative livelihood training, other job opportunities and other assistance for self-

employment as determined suitable for the FA;FsPAPs and will be given especially to those

who will be seveiely affected. l

4

* In.case the whole structure is affected, the PAP household will be compensated in cash for

the entire affected strqcture and other fixed assets at replacement cost, without depreciation

L } regardless of absence of legal right to the lot where the structure is situated.

* Transportation allowance or transportation assistance will be provided to those who will be

L_, relocated.* PAPs/PAFs whose land is temporarily taken by the works under the Project, will be

compensated at replacement cost for their net loss of, income and damaged assets, as the case

l_ . may be.

K, The mitigation measures are itemized in Table 8.1 together with. an assessment of any residual

impacts that may remain even with the mitigation measures in place. -

Golder Associates

C .

K r-

October 1999 8- 8 981-2730BSWEEP, San Ferizardo La Union Sankiary Landfill EiA

.3.2 Resettleatent Action Plan: Principal Measnres

The RAP provids for the mitigation of the negative impacts on the PAPs, which whenimplemented sha uld completely eliminate thie negative impacts. The RAP provides for

--grievance and coplpaint procedures, monitoring, and reporting to ensure that affected people

and! families do no suffer from the implementation of the program. Additional assistance1] programs and . nienditions for the restructuring of the waste picking system offer thepotential to improve the economic base of waste pickers. In sum, the residual iegative impactsshould be minimal, and the various positive impacts should be widely shared although not high

for any particular group.

8.4 Potential Aesthetic (Visual) Impacts

The aesthetic conditions at the site presently reflect conditions typically found at dump sites

(even thotsgh the San Femando site is essentially operated as a Controlled Dumpsite) and are notconsidered acceptable by modem standards. The development plan for the proposed engineeredlandfili will include measures that would address these deficiencies so that the aesthetic

conditions at the site will be significantly improved. As noted in Sections 5 and 6, these

measures will include: daily cover, vegetative coyer on closed portions of the landfill, vegetativescreen (i.e., trees) around some parts of the landfill site, engineered site facilities such as service

roads, ditches/swales, ponds and wetlands and a designated procedure for waste picking.

The change is landscape character is assessed as a moderately significant environmental impact.The significaince of this impact is dependent on the perception/acceptability of the residents in

the site vicinity. It is noted that these residents are highly supportive!'of the proposed

development because it will significantly improve the present situation (i.e. dumpsite) and, as

discu-sed in Section 7, the post-closure landscape would be compatible with the surrounding

area landscape. Therefore, provision of mitigation measures that would promote beneficial landuse.is; expected to minimize the negative effects of the change in landscape character. Thesemitigation measures will include, but not be limited to, provision in the closure plan for after-r uses such as parkland, agricultural land, etc. This will assist in making the landscape more

acceptable to the residents in the area, thus reducing the significance of the residual impact.

G

C Golder Associates

October 1999 8-9 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanfiary Lan dJl1,E

It is important t. note that the measures included in the proposed landfill development will

significantly imp y ve the aesthetic conditions at the site and its vicinity from that encountered

under present cor( 'tions and the overall residual visual impaets are not considered to be an issue

L compared to prez v conditions.

-L 8.5 Potentiz. i ;,'eological and Geotechnjcal Impacts

Af described i :' -lions 5.3.4 and 6.4.3, the site is underlain by weathered clay soil deposits to a

depth of about' 6 m below original ground, overlying shale bedrock. The development plan

for the site will involve earthworks within these subsurface conditions, essentially the excavation

r of soil to crcate the fandfill disposal cell and re-use of the excavated material for the engineered

containmenit components, for the daily and final cover and other site grading works. Potential

geological and geotechnical impacts described in Section 7.5 include:

Erosion during construction and operational periods. Proposed mitigation measures include

the, uase of temporary silt fencing and ditching in addition to the design features such as the

use of solid perii eter fencing; the construction of the stormwater management and treatment

rJ sysfem at the start of construction, and; the benching and vegetation of final cover slopes;

* Slope and foundation stability, both for the proposed landfill development features and the

waste mounds, and to ensure that the proposed site works do not have an adverse effect on

the foundations for the Napocor tower. These aspects have been considered in the design

concept, and will be studied in additional detail during the final design phase; and

r Environmental effects on sources of imported materials needed for coaistruction, whichLJ I include both granular aggregate and clay soil. These required materials would come from

currently licensed or future licensed sources, whose potential environmental effects will be

L taken into account by the conditions of issuance of their permit to operate by the DENR.

The potential negative effects of these aspects are seen to bo minimal and will- be adequately

mitigated as part of the development as proposed. Therefore, the residual impacts are considered

insignificant.

Golder Assoclates

OctoJ'tr 1999 8- 10 981-2730B

SWEEIP, San Fern.ando La Union SanwtaryLasdflllEMA

8.6 otential Pedol glcal and Land Use Impacts

As described in Sectihn .6, there will be no change in land use on the North Parcel that is

already the City du-. ipsite. The change in land use on the South Parcel from

residentia agriculturat ill be mifigr d by the requirements of the RAP. The loss of

agricultura land on the ;juth Parcel is minimal. On completion of the waste placement in the

disposal cell areas, the haped waste areas will be revegetated and the. land can be returned to

appropriate uses such a s passive recreation or low intensity agriculture.

The positive enviror. mental benefits associated with the provision of an engineered landfill are

seen to far outweith any potentially negative issues associated yyith changes in land or soil

usage. Therefore, the overall residual impacts are not considered to be an issue compared to

prepent conditions J -

8.7 Potentil Impacts on Water Resources

_ ! 8.7.1 Grount lwater Resources

As shown in Iectidn 7.7.3, the potential for landfill leachate impacts on off-site groundwater

resources dur , the operational and post closure periods is assessed to be minimal in view of the

pAoposed engineered containment systems and collected leachate treatment and handling.

Compared to the present situation. of the dumpsite, which, is known to be having an adverse

effect on groundwater quality in the low lying agricultural lands just to the north, the proposed

development will have a significant positive effect. As described in Section 5.0, the following

natural and engineeTd components of the proposed site development will reduce/minimize the

potential leakage of leadhate to the groundwater regimne during the operational and post closure

r life of the landfill site:

The natural hydrogeological conditions are suited to the siting and development of an

engineered landfill;

* Provision of a low permeability compacted clay liner and highly permeable leachate

, collection system; :

* Use of a leachate collection system below the proposed area for relocation of the mixed

waste and soil as part of the rehabilitation of the existing dumpsite; and

G

: ! G~~~~~~~~~~~older AssodIates

.K,

October 1999 8- 11 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Lan dfdl ELA

* Use of clayey soil daily and final cover.

In addition, the hydrogeologic conditions in the general vicinity of the San Fernando landfill site

are indicated to be generally favourable for locating water supplies for domestic and irrigation

uses. In the unexpected event that off-site water wells become adversely affected by the landfill,

fl as a contingency measure it will be possible to abandon the use of the well, drill a new

replacement well at a more distant location and provide a small diameter overland pipe to carry

water to the desired location. Therefore, the overall residual impacts on groutidwater resources

are not considered to be an issue compared to present conditions.

The proposed measures will significantly improve the protection of the quality of groundwater

resources in the vicinity of the site compared tb the present conditions.

8.7.2 Surface Water Resources

As.noted in Section 7.7.4, the potential for leachate impacts on surface water during landfill

operation and post closurepri consitered ltinimai because of the' proposed surface water

r management structures. In fact, the proposed landfill development will have a significant

V, positive impact on the surface water runoff in the area; partcularly the downstream agricultural

lands to 'the north which presently receive leachate impacted runoff from, the existing dump

during storm events. As noted in Section 5, these structures comprise the foliowing measures

that would prevent clean storm runoff from coming into contact with solid waste and/or leachate

(except in the operating phase of the landfill), dtring the post-closure phases (refer to Figure

5.2): M

r Perimeter ditches/swales, which will collect runoff from closed portions of the landfill and

the runoff onto the landfill'site from off-site drainage areas;

* A system of stormwater retentioni ponds aid %'etdand. (hat will collect the runoff from the

above ditches/swales. in order to attenuate the flow conditions to pre-development (i.e.

current) conditioris. This is important u ith regard to the prevention of flooding in the

downstream lands during storm events. The ponds will also remove typical storrnwater

pollutants such as suspended solids, if present in the runoff. Particularly, the proposed

CG -Is .iv . ~~~~~~~~~~Golder Assoclates1 .

I,

October 1999 8 -12 981h2730B

X SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sc. nitary Landfill ELI

wetlands an-1 I-vales provide more effective attenual ion/ removal of most of the stormwater

constituents thnun conventional stormwater ponds;

* Separate Ar, U S-offthat would come into contact wi' solid waste/leachate from clean runoff

and treat it as leachate in the leachate treatment faf. ty during the operational period of the

landfill; and

* * Vegetated final ( over an Id benching kt'prescribed intervals on the slopes of the landfill will

limit erosion potfntial, thus minimWing solids in the storm runoff.

L It is important to iote that the proposed measures *ill significantly improve the surface water

conditions (iu'e1 ' as well as drainage) in the vicinity of the site from the present conditions.

Therefore, mhii- t; , measures beyond jthe project components/ measures are not connidered

necessary and the overall residual iinpacts on surface water resources are not considered so be an

issuelcompared so present conditions.

8.8 Potential Ecological,Impacts

During site preparation and road development on the landfill site, the following measures Are

recommended to mitigate disturbance of vegetation and wildlife:

* W4ere space allows, in order. to protect larger trees (with a diameter >20 cm) the final

position of the roads 'will be planned, if possible, to be away from each tree by at least 2 m.

If th.e road is to be constructed of concrete, all roots that will be covered should be cut

without killing the tree. This can be done by cutting the end sections of the roots (about 20

percent) to allow for growth in other sections. Pruning of branches may be done to reduce

the requirements for water from the roots.'

* For any tree with a diameter <20 cm, transplantation is recommended. This can be

accomplished by digging at least -1.5mi around the tree to expose the roots. Soil will remain

on the roots to facilitate successful transplantation. The tree should be planted in a nearby

area wvith similar environmental conditions. ;

* As described previously, the vegetative planting proposed around the site perimeter and

lagoon/composting' areas for mitigation of air, dust and noise impacts will compensate

adequately for the loss of vegetation associated with site development. The revegetation will

utilize indigenous plant species wherever possible.

Golder Associates

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 8- 13 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La lYnion Sanitary Landfill EL!

The overall residual impacts on ecology are not considered to be an issue compared to present

conditions.

8.9 Potential Air Quality Impacts

Section 7.9 identified potential air quality impacts that could arise from the project proposals and

disc'issed project components! measures that would. b impleinented to minimize the

signi .Icance of these potential impacts. The table below presents these measures along wirh an,, assessment of any residual impacts.

t R;7'-a~k ., 0 Residual, lFeidunpsIncre .e in odo ir Operations i ill hleaeure; as presented in Ncoi all Jouirslevels arising fromi involve re-location,of SectionT7.9.1:as part of generated can beproject proposals existing waste, the landfill development- controlled, but

composting of proponent. mnost odour impactsorganic wastes and would be for shortoperation of leachate * time durations,treatment facilities , vying with wind

________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~coriditions.Increase in dust Operations will Measures as presented in Not all dusts * -

emissibns from site involve earthworks Section 7.9.1 ' as.'part of generated can beconstruction and , during initial :the landfill development controlled, butoperations ; construction as well proponent. most dust impacts

as' on-going, waste , would be for short'delivery; and waste time durations,

, placement & l varying with windcompaction conditions and

_____ ____ ____ __ __ ____ ____ _____ _ __ ____ _____ ____ ____ season of the year.

It is noted that the present air quality in the site vicinity doesn't appear to be measurably

impacted due to the presence of the Controlled Dump; the proposed measures for landfill gas

management and odour control will improve the air quality in the vicinity of the site from thepresent conditions. i'

8.10 Potential Noise Impacts

The previous section on Assessr'ient of Potential Environmental Impacts (Section 7) identifies

and discusses the potential noise impacts that could arise out of the construction and operation of

the proposed engineered landfill. It is recommended that the proposed mitigation measures be

Golder Associates

i <. ~~~~~~~Oclobeir 10999 8 -14 981-2'730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La U*ion Sanitar Landfljl EL

properly implemented with respect to the negative impacts identified in order to minimize noise

impacis on the surroubding residences during the proposed site activities. These measures are

r listed in the table below, together with an assessment of any residual impact.

It should be noted that a number of significant measures have been incorporated in the project.

This section therefore identifies additional (mitigation) measures deemed necessary to ensure

that the project has the least impact on the site and adjacent areas due to noise.

Proposed Noise Level Mitigation Measures

- ,iI~-~ ~ ~ nj~ i~jmpv ;o .ResiduAlIwO4pci

_ Noise fioni The. landfilling * Ai oid nighkt.inie *'ork Not all

site operations operation will as far as possible; operational noise

and waste involve the extensive * Install noise fencing at can be mitigated;

. . haulage traffic use of heavy and criticaVsensitive site noise from sitelarge mobile boundaries,.particularly operations will be

equipment, including alqng the periphery lower than during

landfill , compactors, * use mobile ' noise site construction

bulldozers, dump barriers as necessary at,| and will be for

trucks, excavators periphery of site where limited durations

and front-end loaders activities are on going; only within any

l l and particular area ofuse modern, well- the landfill

maintained mobile footprint.plant fitted with noise Overall, residualsuppressors (mufflers) noise impacts

from siteoperaLion, are not

copsidered to be

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ significant.

8.11 Potential Off-Site Traffic Impacts

At present, no traffic problem is being experienced with regard 'to traffic along the access road to

the site. During the project period, it is unlikely that the volume of traffic will increase due to

the proposed landfill development, even though an overall increase of motorized vehicles (public

and private) servicing the residents in the site area is anticipated. ln spite of this, it may be

necessary to assign a City traffic enforcer to direct traffic at the entrance to the project site,i ,.

L

. ~~~Golder Associates

.

,,

October 1999 8 -15' 981-2730B,J EEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EI

particularly during heavy traffic periods. Therefore, the overall residual traffic impacts areconsidered to be insignificant compared to present conditions.

8.12 Summary ef Environmental Mitigation Measures

As described in this Section, the proposed landfill development will significantly improve theenvironmental cot- .' at the site and its vicinity over and above the present conditions (i.e.dumpsite). Also, the engineered landfill would at the same,time rehabilitate the existing du!mpand provide a planned, environmentally safe facility. TherefOre, as opposed to typicalinfrastructure projects, most of the project components/measures in this case are designed toreduce/ minimize the potential impacts and will upgrade the existing Controlled Dump to anEn- neered Sanitary Liandfill. In addition to the project components/measures, mitigation

-7 measures havce been proposed as additional measures to further reduce the significance of thepotential resie,ual environmental iimpacts, or where the potential impacts may not be adequatelyaddressed by the project components/measures.

This section presents a summary of the proposed mitigation measures, together with measuresincorporated in the design of the proposed landfill,'to address the potential environmentalimpacts associated with landfilling of municipal solid wastes. The physical, biological andhuman (socio-economic) environments were considered in the formulation of the mitigationmeasures. A sunimary of the project components (design features) and mitigation measures ispresented below: I

..Polential N teljpct e Poet ' - . RsdaImct4. ~ ~ ~ ~ -.- . . .

.J g~~~~~~~~~~~~' u fi i , ,4 X~

Loss oF Land and n. iplenientaiion of iMinjmlImprovements RAPrecommendations lLoss of livelihood/standing Implementation of Minimalcrops and trees for tenants in RAP .1!

the site earmarked for recommendations_ acquisition. _ _l

Golder Associates

5r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Octob:' 1999 '. 8-16 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernan o La Union Sanitary Landfill EIA

.~~~~.~ .m,r. _~- i

Changt * access route ; _ Pro% ision oF a Minim3i

residents cn east Mide of better quality

proposed i. c.lity (constructed)alternate access

j i*J . . road, as :r-t of the.I proposed , landfilli * _ ____ _ 1. .. development _

; u .2 @ . * :@ . , * , .; .~~4 , - * ,-----,¢;, TP' is l. Visual F fis fromn ( i -ro, ision of dad!y Provision of The \korling face

Constru.- n and Operation cover, vegetative cover measures to of the landfill

i nd Change in Landscape on closed portions of minimize the may be visible

Character the landfill, vegetative negative effects of from offsite

screen (e.g. trees) the change in points during

I J. ^around some parts of landscape u landfilling in

the landfill site, character, certain areas of

engineered site including: the site; however,

facilities such as Afteruse such as this exposure is

service roads, parkland, not expected to

ditches/swales, ponds agricultural land, last for more than

-r and wetlands tnd a etc. This will a day because of

designated procedure assist in 'making the placement of-

for waste picking the landscape daily cover. No

more acceptable to overall residual

the residents in-the impacts are

area, thus, anticipated.reducing thesignificance of theresidual impact _

F 2I

Erosion Assoc iated 0iih Thle use of s2lid Use of temporar) ResiJiajl imp3cis

Construction Activities perimeter fencing; the silt fencing and are not

construction of the ditching. considered. to be

stormwater significant

management andtreatm6nt system at thestart of construction,and; the %zei.'ation (ifinal cover slopes .

r Golder Associates

I .

*iI

October 1999 1 8-17 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EZ4

I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~d;~. .~ . eNsu.e, I

Slope and. m :ndation These aspects ha3e None Residiial imp3cisIistability frorr Site been considered in the are not

EOperations design concept, and considered to bewill be studied in significantadditional detail duringthe final design phase

Environmental ' ,ects of These required None Residual impactsSources of Imported materials would come are notMaterials from currently licensed considered to be. \ or future licensed significant

sources, whosepotential environmentaleffects will be takeninto account by theconditions of issuance

l l of their permit to,_____________ operat by the DENR .

*Pedologic ! ittan'se < >-:_. ^ rF '"':..t<-+' _____ - 4 4 i ; ,.. -.* >*r

. P

Change i' Land Us: None The change in The posici'eland use on the environmentalSouth Parcel from benefitsresidentialUagricult associated with

,Il l . ural will be the provision ofmitigated by the an engineeredrequirements of landfill are seenthe RAP to far outweigh

any potentiallynegative issuesassociated withchanges in land.

. . or soil usage. Noresidual impactsare anticipated

, Golder Associates

October 1999 8 -18 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union &anitary Landfdl ELM

I~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ In .4 i....l..& .. . 1,.J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~

Loss of Productive Land, On corrpletion of the In addition to the The posiLie

! . Rerno%l ,of Topsoil and wvaste placernent in the tiesign Ftetures, environnmental

!_ . Reisisiaiement of Soil Profile disposal cell areas, the these impacts will benefits

and Productive Land Use shaped waste ateas will be mitigated by associated with

be revegetated'and the the requirements the provision of

land can be returned to of the RAP. an engineered

I , | appropriate 'uses such landfill are seen

as passive recreation or . to far outweigh

low intensity any potentially

agriculture negative issues

associated withchanges in I soilprofile/

, productive landuse. No residualimpacts are

l1 _______________ 1______________ r -nticipated

Waste material washout onto Pro%iiion of daily None The proposed

adjacent (e.g. agricuitural) cover material; measures will

lands during operation, Minimize areas of significantly

including waste relocation exposed waste . improve the 1

material; and existing runoff

Provision of surface quality with

water drainage control regard to waste

measures material washout.

(ditches/swales and No residual

L pbonds) X impacts areanticipated

Leachate seeps impacting Provision of final cover None No residual

surface water runoff from site material to minimize . impacts are

onto adjacent lands during leachate generation; anticipated

operation Collection andtreatment of leachate tominimize leachatemounding/seeps; andProvision of surfacewater drainage controlmeasures to minimize

l__________________________ off-site im pact

Golder Associates

L

r

October 1999 8-19 981-2730B.'WEP, San Fernando LI Union Sanitary Landfill EU

WYaste mater I .%ashoui Prov-ision of final cover None hlo residualand/or leachatt- impacted material to minimize impacts aresurface runoff impacting leachate generation; anticipated:adjacent (e.g. gricultural) Collection andlands during ,ost-closure treatment of leachate toperiod minimize leachate

mounding/seeps; andProvision of surface

I : water drainage controlmeasures to minimizeoff-site impact

Leachate 2 ontamination of Provision of final cover Implementation of The proposedGroundwa: er Resources material to minimize contingency measures willleachate generation; measures (e.g. significantlyCollection and provision of improve thetreatment of leachate to alternate , water existingminimize leachate supply for potable groundwaterleakage through the use) in the quality withbottom of the landfill; unexpected event regard to leachateand of off-site water constituents! NoProvision of tight well residual impacts(compacted clay) contamipation by are anticipatedbottom liner to the landfill.minimize leakage of 4l

, leachate into thesubsurface epvironment(groundwater)

Contamination of Water If on-site fuel storage is None Any residual fuelResources by Potential Fuel required, appropriate spill impactsSpillage secondary containment from proposedwill be provided. works are not

. . considered to besignificant

Golder Associates

O ~~~~~~~~~~~~.<.

. ictober 1999 8 - 20 981-2730B

r$'EEP, San Fernando La Union Sanita,iyLand,fl/l EMI!1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' h 1. . .Risk of Flood , Vicinily PrGA ision of llone Potential eNkists

;,iof Site' t ! 4 stornmwater for off-site

,:. :: , management s~tructures discharge of

(ditcheslswales, ponds, stormwater

vegetative cover) to during major

minimize the potential stormn events, but

for flooding . the extent of any

. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~downstreamnflooding due tothis will be lesssevere than that ispresentlyencountered (i.e.pre-development

6, .J .! . : . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~conditions). No! . . l . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~residual impacts

are anticipated

Loss of vegetation nnd Provide vegetative Protect larye No residual

wildli.' habitats cover on landfilled nees as far a, impinets are

areas at closure. possible, anticipated

, K , , Transplant

. I smaller trees,where possible;Provide

.. indigenousvegetation along

. : ' . site boundaries,

'IL, . . - swales/ 'wetlands

, '.! and any availableopen areas

Golder Associates0-

, October 1999 8 -21 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union SanitaryLandfll EIA'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~ -1&~ , >t'a; .

Increase in, oJour lecls Prcvision of daily None Not all odoursarising from pr,ject cover, generated can beproposals Minimize the presence controlled, but

of exposed waste most odourmaterial; and impacts would beProvision of perimeter for short timefencing' trees. durations,

varying withwind conditions.Residual impactsare notconsidered to be

l_________ _ lsignificantIncrease in dust emissions Keep exposed None Not all dustsfrom site construction and excavated areas wetted; generated can beoperations I Minimize the presence controlled, but

of uncompacted soil most dust impactsand exposed waste would be formaterial; and i short timeProvision of perimeter durations,fencing/ trees. varying with

! , .t wind conditions.Residual impactsare notconsidered to besignificant

Golder Associates !

October 1999 8 - 22 981-2730B

.SWEEP,SanernandoLanionSan}iary LandfilE

11~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .-. ,-,4

______

r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.2Noise arising from Install noise fencing at Use modem, well-

construction of the criticaVsensitiA,e site maintained mobile Not I all

engineered landfill and site boundaries, particularly equipment fitted operational noise

operations . along the periphery; with noise can be mitigated;

suppressors noise from site

(mufflers); operations will be

Avoid night-time lower than during

work as far as site conistruction

!: .possible; and and will be for

Use mobile noise limited durations

barriers as only within any

necessary at particular area of

I- . , , periphery of site the landfill

where actiyities footprint.are on going. Overall, residual

noise impactsfrom siteoperations arq not

considered to besignificantcompared to ~present

, l t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~conditions.. ' ,41~~~~vv S.S, - ,...-.,i ,

Increased traflc loading and Mone Assign a trafric Residual traftic

traffic congestion enforcer to direct impacts from

, I traffic . at the proposed works are

entrance to the not considered to be

project site, significantparticularly duringheavy traffic

L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ petiods .

In addition to the above noted mitigation measures, a number of sho4 termn measures have been

recommended for imniediate implementation in order to minimize further environmental

degradation due to th6 continued operation of the existing dumpsite.

Golder Associates

L.'1

October 1999 8-23 981-2730BSWEEP, San FernandoLa Union San9tary2Landfill7EL4

Appropriate monitoring of the construction and operation of the proposed landfill, including thecontingency plan, which is essential for its environmental accepiability, is discussed in theEnviromnental r.t-nle nentPlan (refer to Section 9).

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Golder Assoclate, I

I U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Golder Associates~~~~~!

TABLE 8.1

Summary of a y Potential Negative EnvironmentalImpacts anti Proposed Mitigation Measures

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t , 19_S_DAEP-PC

Loss of live ihood ror itary ic to- ;of I .lnerials wasie recover) There wil 1i.e no

waste picker as a I. tlfilling g. ne -ally preclude facility 9 qnstructed within the residual impacts if

result of changes in v -"te picking irn the waste waste reception area. This will the provisions of the

site operating practices d., osal area. I -wever, 15 permit waste picldng activities RAP compensation :

w -,te pickers i im 12 to be diverted from the landfill package ire

households cu. i -ntly retrieve into a more controlled and implemented in full.

waste smaterik' u rom the site organized environment.

on a regular bis is. A small- ' Preferential employment of

: _ - icalt junlk zi teralor is people affected by the project

also operatin in ne site. proposals at the landfill site,l subject to possessing

appropriate skill for theemployment opportunitiesoffered

. Social and ecological programs

will be implemented; lnd¢ Compensation package for

people suffering a loss ofincome and livelihood, in

accordance with the RAP

Loss of livelihood/ One par .;el of land is used as ' Compensation package for There will no

standing crops and an agr Aultural land. The people suffering a loss of residual impacts if

trees for tenants in the expp. sion of the existing site livelihood and income from the provisions of the

site earmarked for to B rangay Dallangayan agricultural Land, in RAP compensation,

acquisition. Oe-- e will deprive the tenants accordance with the RAP package are

r . . whu. depend on the'land and implemented in full.

stn ctures for their livelihoodas xvell as supplementaryfou d supply from standingcrnaps and trees.

l Compulsory. The project proposal requires ¢ Compensation package for There will be no

i m - Acquisition of Land . nother 2.4 ha. for the people suffering a loss of land residual impacts if

and Private t Xpan ion of the current and private and public the provisions of the

Infrastruictures pmpsike and the closure of infrastructure, in accordance RAP compensation

on access road to residents of with the RAP package are

Barangays Dallangayan imnplemented in full.

Oeste and Dallangayan Este.

Extending the existing I

landfill will affect bothprivately owned and publicinfrastructures includinghouses, toilets, tobaccoovens, and communal deepand shallow wells.

I L Golder As,oclates

TABLE 8.1 (continued)

_~f~OTEALIftiPA?ZtJ~t ,1tE~I A~ -~ GGr.~r5IWURF.ToMrlGAT4E) 'RESIDUAL ,IMFPAMS.h In-migrat ion to tc The pl j I. propos31s are Highest priority for The poienLi3I scalesurrounding area of aimedI making significant employment on the project of immigration isthe project site impro einents to the methods given to PAPs identified under not cunrentlyandlf ndards of current site the RAP; and quantifiable.

operai o .s and, as a ¢ Delineation of the site of the Acoordingly, it isconsew uence, to the quality of proposed site for expansion to' not possible tothe en i, onnent in the ensure that no structure will be assess ifresidualvicini a of the project site 'built in the area. impacts will arise.This o.,y lead to immigrationto th. i immediate environs ofthe ,ite, particularly withple. med preferentialde, elopment of a new

a.. . is ioni in Dallangayan.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C este.

Golder/Assocllatei3

Odder~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Asoiae

-l .* TABLE 8.2

COMPENSATION MATRIX

A comibr~phieo' ~o pensation",-:..~ -ZL-

.J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d , ,. 1 , -q; '

1. Loss of Less than 20%t of lnd Landowner (0) Mlarginal Cssh compens3tion for lo-l I3nd

Privately- holding lost and the holding at replacement cost and the

owned rest Is still land owner retains the rest of the land

Agricultural economically viable nio included in the delineated area.

Land

More than 20% of the Landowner (6) Severe I. Land-for-land. Land to be given

land holding lost or should be equivalent in size and o

less than 20%fo but the be developed to approximate the

rest becomes no I same or better productivity at

longer economically location acceptable to PAP. Land

viable transfer will be at no cost to PAP.

Or cash compensation. The

landbwner will be compensated at

replacement cost for the entire land

holding at the inforrned request of

the PAP.

2. Rehabilitation assistance in the

form of farming assistance like

fertilizer subsidy and extension

services.Or one member of each household

is eligible for alternative livelihood

L . . training with allowance.

2. Loss of Structures partially Owner (M) Marginal Compensation in cash for affected

Privately-owned affected but the portion of the structure and other

l x 4 structures remaining structure is . fixed assets, and assistance in

viable fqr continued restoration of the remaining structure.

use.Entire structure Owner/ Severe Compensatjon in cash for entire

l J affected OR where Occupant affected stricture and other fixed

structures partially (8) assets (wedls, electric and water

affected such thit the connections etc.) at replacement cost,

remaining structure is without depreciation.

not viable for Transfer/shifting allowance.

X continued use. * Eligible for rehabilitation assistance.

LG s,.

r Golder Associates

; ,

TABLE 8.2 (continued) l

I S ry, t rL- s ; Applicuhion;i X PAP and Number .^Degr*e otfl , . RCompensation ,.* . :

.oss ofl Los, of livelihood Tenant (1) Severe 1. Disturbance CpnmpensaiOnLivelihood upon acquisition of equivalent to the value of the gross

the land , harvest for one year based on theaverage annual gross harvest forthe last tlhree (3) preceding cropyears but not less ta.; P15, 000/ha.

s One member of each household iseligible for alternative livelihoodtining with allowance.

r employment at the SLF.

4. Loss of Standing crops Crop-owner:. Severe 1. Cash compensation for affectedstanding crops affected by land Landowner (6) crops at farrngate value or at

acquisition Tenant (1) mandated cr. a valuation set byconcerned govL rment agency,like the DA, whi,, ver is higher.

. . 2. PAP will be allowe,, o harvest.__________ ¢crops prior to start of F oject.

I .' ~ __ . _,__._ ._ l__ _

5. Loss of trees Fruit ant hardwood Tree-owner: Severe I. Cash compensation for affectedtrees affecfAd by land Landowner (6) trees based on a negotiated price oracquisition Tenant (1) at mandated valuation set by

Ji : . concerned,government agency,like the DA, which ever is higher.

. - 2. PAP will be allowed to harvestfru its & lumnber prior to start o4

.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ project.

Golder Assoclates

rPIgU. r &8: Schedule of limpkme of RAP;

._____________ ?HASE/ACFIVITIS Pbel I Phase 2 Plase3

$ I~~~~~~~~HE/AC 23 r EMX 2 3 4 5 6t 12 512637 i 7 .

L Finalization and ,\pproval c fRAP

1. Creation of R: mplemei. ir- Organizationt

2. Compensatlo.2.A. Landowner TI enanta. Re-evaluation ol Compensation for Land RON

b. Payment of Com Jensation

Payment for c Replacement of Land an4

Improveme. JPayment o I sturbance Compensation for

Tenant

| c. Transfer of ritles

2.2. Resettle aent of Structure-owners

L ~~~~~~a. Re-evaluw. dion of Cpmpensation for StructureII

b. Payment af Compensation for Affected Structures

3. Rehabilit,tion3.1. Shon ! iing of Qualified PAPs for Employment

at SLF

3.2. Organizing Wofk with Waste Pickers

; t. ~~~~~a. Skills Inventory of Waste Pickers l

. ~~~~~~~b. Inventory of Existing Livelihlood Opportunities l |ll

r in the areas other than Waste Pickingc. Validation/Finalization of Bonafide Beneficiaries

d. Formalization the Waste Pickers Cooperative

3.3. Finalization of Alternative Livelihood Training

3.4. C'. aify PAPs according to skills and interestin .'feparation for creation cooperative and

ad Jlkional livelihood training

315;Actual'Tihining3.6. Transistion from wastepicking to improved l

procedures gt new'SLF

Im. Civil Works IProvide Employment During Construction

for Qualitifed PAPs

IV. Actual Operation of SLF/Rehab of Existing

- ~~~~~~~LandfillProvide Employment at SLF for Qualified PAPs

,V. Monitoring

L;-

October 1999 9 - 1 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll ELA

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

9.1 Introduction

The DENR Procedural Manual for EIS preparation outlines the requirements of anEnvironmental Management Plan (EMP). It indicates that the EMP should be based on theidentified impacts and mitigation/enhancement measures and, at the minimum, the EMP shouldinclude the following for each project activity per project phase (pre-construction, construction,operation and post closure):

* project impact and corresponding mitigation and/or enhancement measures:* cost estimates which may be in the form of a program or equipment purchase;* the institutional mechanisms for implementing the proposed measures or programs; and* the type of agreenients or guarantees that will ensure the realization of such programs.

The mitigation measures and the implementation plan are combined to form an environmentalmanagement program. The proposed mitigation measures are discussed in Section 8.0 and theproposed implementation plan is discussed in Section 5.0.

As part of the EMP, a Monitoring,Plan has been developed. This Plan is discussed in detail in thesubsequent sections and iincludes the following information as it relates to the proposeddevelopment:

r parameters of the affected envirorimental condition(s) to be monitored;a location of m9nitoring activity;

* frequency of monitoring activity-,

* cost of monitoring activity; and

* implementing or responsible group

Due to the environmental significance of landfill developments and the potential implications offailure to implement any of the proposed mitigation mneasures and implementation plancomponents as . designed/planned, an EMP for a landfill project should also include aContingency Plan. A Contingency Plan sets out a sequence of actions to be taken in the event

Golder Associates

Lo

r

r

Octobet 99 9-2 981-2730B

SWEEP, .Zzn Fernando La Union Sanirry Landfill EL4

that ong .g monitoring and observations indicate that the site is not performing as designed or

expecteo . This Plan for the ch i6seJ landfill development is presented below in Section 9.5.

Also, r. .mmendations ricga.ding the establishment of an Environmental Monitoritig and

Guamant, tund has been info.porated in the 1 IP. in Section 9.6.

_ ~.- 9.2 - hial Develqj;r,ert , rclal

The DENR Pr. ceduroal Manual for the EIS requires that the Environmental Management Plan

incluces a Social Develcpment Program (SDP), which discusses all programs or components of

the roposed project which are related to social development. These usually address the

mitigation of potential negative impacts, especially those associated with resettlement,

relocation, income los-, etc.

The SDP for the S3in Fernando SLF project has focused on two main populations that are those

most directly impt cted by, the project. These are the waste pickers, who depend on their

0 activities in the cu, rent dump for family income, and the landowners or tenants of the additional

land required for the expansion of the current site. These two groups constitute the Project

Affected People (PAOs). The intent of these measures is to ensure that those groups potentially

negatively impacted by the project will maintain or improve their standards of living and

economic opportunities. This policy is consistent with World Bank, Government of the

Philippines, and international best practice standards.

Specific design features of the project, or mitigation measures for remaining impacts, have been

developed to address both of these groups. Those measures incorporated into project design are

identified in Sections S and 7. Section 8 describes the additional measures taken to mitigate

those impacts that can not be addressed by the project design, in particular the direct impacts on

the PAPs. Extensive detail on the compensation measures and various entitlements for this

population is provided in the Resettlement Action Plan (Appendix M).

9.2.1 Social Development Measures for Waste Pickers

The principal concern for the waste pickers is to be able to continue or improve their current

activities of waste diversion and collection of recyclables. This project design has incorporated

l - this consideration into the planning by a staged development process which will allow the waste

Golder Associates

r

C:

October 1999 9 - 3 981-2730BShEEP, San Fernando La Union SanUiary Landfill ELA

pickers to continue their activities on part of the site while other parts are being transformed intoa SLF. At no point does design of the construction require that waste picking activities would bedisrupted.

Further consideration has been given to the work conditions of the waste pickers, and theprovision of more saritary conditions under which to work. A principal waste management areawill be provided in the middle of the proposed site. It will provide a site for temporary storageof recyclables, and a conrposting area., and training of the waste pickers in the improvedmanagement of their activities.

The baseline resparch on the waste pickers identified a generalized povqrty, and a higher thanaverage dependency ratio within these families. The RAP includes a numnber of potential stepsthat can be taken to improvo the income of waste pickers, restructure their activities to retainmore of the profit, and provide additional training to waste pickers to enhance family incornethrough other activities, whether associated with waste picking or not.

9.2.2 Social Development Measures for, Families Affected by Land Acquisition

The. landowners, residents, and tenants of the land to be acquired by the City will be the most ,severely affected by the project. Although the City plans to acquire all of the land throughmarket transactions rather than forced acquisition, the residents and owners will lose bothincome and subsistence opportunities, and a number of facilities and structures will also be lost.In the absence of mitigating programs, this population could experiencelconsiderable negativeimpacts from the project.

The social development and quality of life of this group'has been addressed through thepreparation of the RAP, a requirement of the World Bank for all projects involving involuntaryresettlement or the loss of livelihood from project implementation. The RAP provides forcompensation for all economic assets, structures, and houses on the basis of replacement valuewithout depreciation, restoration of' livelihoods affected by the project, restoration of resettledpeople to an equivalent or improved standard oe lihing. full compensation for lost crops, lostincome and disturbance compensation, as well as assistance to relocate. The full details of theRAP compensation patkage are provided in Appendix M.

Golder Associates

October 1999 9 - 4 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfail EM

In summary, the RAP is designed to ensure that the population directly affected by the project

are provided with the means, and the procedures, to ensure that their quality of life after the

project's implementation, is as good or better than previously. The plan is to be implemented by

the City, the project proponent, and defines and describes both the monitoring program to be

followed, as well, as grievance procedures for the affected parties should they wish to contest the

implementation.

9.3 Monitoring Requirements and Monitoring Plan

93.1 Introduction !'

Poor standards of sitq operation and/or inadequate site management have the potential to cause

unacceptable nuisance to, or significant impacts on, the environment around the site.. It is

essential, if the landfill is, to function as an en ineered sanitary landfill, that the mitigation

measures incorporated in project design are implemented in full.. This requires not only proper

and adequate site management (i.e. an experienced contractor/operator) but also a system of

inspection to ensure compliance to the conditions specified in the ECC for,the project.

The World Banlk's Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (1999) sets out the following

basic principles to assist in the design of an environmental monitoring system: I

Vp t4nOhlplles~Y. .- * . * .. Pracflcal Concerns

Clear objeci% es The syslem should be designed 1o supon spcci R;m3nagenient objectitc Tlere

_ should be clear and simply understood questions which need to be answered.

Appropriateness Tbe. level of sophistication of the sampling and analysis should be matched to the

L lv . skills and resources available, as well as to the objectives. This may involve

trade, lff between extent of coverage, level of detail and quality of information

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ en er t dI I Institutional support The incentives for collection of data and maintenance of the systems must be

U clearly understood. Agreements must be made up front about the sharing of data

and publication of results.

I . Quality control The level of accuracy required of the data must be appropriate to the use and must

be explicit. A quality control system must be established, with sufficient outside

l Imvolvement to ensure confidence in the results. I

Flexibility The system should be set up at the ,minimum scale necessary, which can be

expanded when the benefits of better information become clear. There should le

I_______________ _sufficient flexibility to adjust the system in the light of initial results.

l _ Sustainability The system must be designed within a realistic assessment of the long-term

financial and human resources. that are likely to be ivailable. In this context it is

I- oessential to be able to demonstrate to decision makers that the system produces

useful and relevant infonMation.

Golder Associates

L.

ir

October 1999 9 - 5 * 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando 1a Union Sanitary Landflf EZ4

Accordingly, it is anticipated that two fundamental tylpes of inspection and monitoring will beundertaken on-site:

* Monitoring of compliance of site development to, any specified conditions, includingadherence of site operations and management to the principles incorporated in projectdesign; sid

* Environmental monitoring to assess the imphcts arising from on-going site development andoperation.

9.3.2 Minimum Monitoring Provisions

The site operations should comply, at all times, with relevant National and Local Regulations.The objective cf good sanitary landfill design and operating practice is to minimize the impacte of[_ -- * project activities on the surrounding environment. It is necessary, therefore,, to undertakemonitoring on a regular basis during all phases of site development, and upon completion of siteactivities. l

Environmental clearance will be required annually from the DENR for operating the facility.Landfill construction and operations will be monitored by the DENR, independently of anyinspection and supervision of the service contract performed by the LGU, in order to ensurecompliance with prevailing environmental legislation. It is envisaged, tl1erefore, that two levelsof monitoring/inspection will be undertaken to oversee site construction and operation, the scoper of which is set out in the mitigation and monitoring plai} as presented below. The Operator will

L be required to fulfill the obligations set out under the plan thrqughout the period under which theservice contract with the LOU is in operation.

The implementation of the mitigation and monitoring plan will fall to both the LGU and ther DENR. This places considerable emphasis upon the need for institutional strengthening ofLGU's SWM organization and the DENR, in terms of staffing, training and availability ofequipment and resources, in order to enable thern to provide the required degree of monitoringand control respectively.

Golder Associates

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

r <

October 1999 9 - 6 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EM

9.3.3 Multi-Partite Monitoring Team (MNMI)

Article IV of DAO 96-37, Section 10-12 provides for the monitoring of the Environmental

Management Plan (EMP) as part of the EIS System. The EMP shall be monitored by the Multi-

Partite Monitoring Team (MMT) composed of representatives from the:

* project proponent (LGU);

* affected communities and women;

* relevant local government units (barangay); and

* PENRO and/or CENRO in the project area.

The functions of the MMT as identified in DAO 96-37 are as follows:

* monitor project compliance with the EMP and condition in the EqC;

* gather information if damage occurs or public complaints are raised about the project;

* prepare and disseminate monitoring reports and submit recommendations to the DENR; and

* conduct relevant convmunity information and education campaigns regarding the project and

its impact on the environment.

The EMP includes the RAP, and according to DAO 96-37, the RAP shall also be monitored by

the MMT.

The DEMR Regional office and the EMB will provide support to the MMT in technical aspects

or evaluation and policy monitoring.

93.4 Monitoring RAP Implementation

The staff of the MMT! will be responsible for monitoring activities. They will collect

information every month from all concerned LGUs (barangay, city or provincial), the PAPs, and

the DENR PENRO/CENRO. Based on the data collected, they will maintain a database of

resettlement monitoring information in the MMT, which will be successively updated every

month. A 'ronthly' report will be prepared and submitted to the CSDC Head of RAP

implementation.

Golder Associates

L

K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1999 9 - 7 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitay Landfill EIM

The main indicators' that will be monitored regularly are:

1. Payment of compensation to PAPs in thb various categories according to the level ofcompensation described in the RAP;

2. Public information and consultation;

3. Grievance procedures;

4. House demolition and transport and shifting assistance;5. The provision of buffer trees;

6. Employment of appropriate PAPs at the SLF;7. Provision of training and allowances;

8. The linkage of compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation with the commencement ofcivil works.'

A monitoring report will be submitted by the MfT to the World Banlk every three months.

DAO No. 96-37 Art;icle V, Section 1-3 provides for an Environmental Monitoring Fund (EMF)that will be used forthe activities of the MMT and other assessment, monitoring and informationprograms that are part of ensuring compliance to the ECC and EMP. This fund shall beestablished by the LOU being the project proponent.

'Golder Associates

October 1999 0 981-2730B

SWEEP, .an Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

Below is the proposed functional organization that will implement the RAP.

RAP Implementing Organization

! -

t < . , , ~~~~~~~~~~~SWEEP Project,t .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Managenment Office

, ~~~~~~~~~~~(SWEEP-mmo) _

~~~~' !

W _ ~~~~~~~~~~Lmnd Aequlxidonu Coixultati a

X .. 1 . ~~~~~~~ ~~Committ= Paricfpatsin Commite .

9.4 Environmental Monitoring

9.4.1 Introduction il

Environmental monitoring provides the mechanism to:

.. :nZ::::~:nv' :: pacts of site development;

0 issess!the overall enironmentaltmat fstedvlpet

* identify,'at an early stage, pollution emanating| from the site;

* identify any deviations from acceptable standards of site operation; and

* formulate proposals for site remediation or contingency measures, as necessary.

The purpose of environmental monitoring is, therefore, not just to meet standards, but to provide

information to allow improved environmental management at the site, including the assessmertt

of the need for the implementation of the contingency plan, if required. The Site Operator will

be responsible for carrying out the routine monitoring program, with the documented results

forwarded to the LGU and the MMT on a monthly basis for inspection and review. In addition,

Golder Associates

October 1999 9 - 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EIA

the LGU and MMT should also carry out their own independent enviionmental monitoring toverify the monitoring results.

9.4.2 Applicable Environmental Standards

i N5t~~~ater'''

The Philippines en4ironmental standards which are currently prescribed with respect to water

qualirv ar&'presented in Appendix R. Also presented are drinking water quality standards

recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for purpos¶s of comparison.

As some of the prqposed on-site water bodies (e.g. leachate treatment lagoons) are potentialreceptors of landfill leachate, effluent quality standards for landfill development recommended

by the World Bank (1999) are also presented in Appendix R.

It should be noted that the various standards noted above apply to groundwatei and surface water

quality and their applicability is dependent on the nature of water usa (e.g. drinking, recreational,

etc.).

! I

The Philippines environmental standard,s which are currently prescribed with respect to noise

levels are presented in Appendix R. Also presented are noise level standards tecommended by

the World Ban1k (1999) for purposes,of comparison.

Air

The Philippines environmental standards which are currently prrecribed with respect to air

quality are presented in Appendix R. Also presented are air quality standards recommended by

the IWorld Bank (1999) for purpbses of comparison.r

Golder Assoclates

r

October 1999 9- 1r0 981-2730B

SiWEE:P, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EM

9.43 Envir6nmental Monitoring Programs

Groundwater

In the development of a groundwater monitoring program, it is important to recognize the

fundamental difference between groundwater flow and surface water flow: Surface water moves

through open channels at a relatively fast rate, depending on the volume of water it is carrying

and the bottom grade and dimensions of the channel. On the other hand, groundwater travels

through the pores of the soil or the fractures in soil and bedrock, and therefore at a much slower

rate than surface water. The rate depends mostly on the type of soii or rock and the hydraulic

gradient (slope of the water table). Considering that the contaminants travel in dissolved form in

the gIoundwater, tho potential effects when contaminated water mixes with natural groundwater

quiality *-:ouid take place at a very griidual rate. In terms of moniitoring for the potential effects

L of a contaminant source -(such as ;a landfill) Ion groundwater quality, the frequency of

groundwater monitoring can be much less thait that required to check on potential changes to

F surface water. It is alpo appropriate to plan the frequency of groundwater monitoring to reflect

the annual precipitation conditions, in this case to reflect the dry and wet seasqns of the year.

l. As part of the baseline studies, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the site. Of

these, monitor 99-2 will havp to be properly abandoned during the development of Phase I of the

r F landfill, jand similarly for monitors 99-4 and 99-5 during the devel'opment of Phase 3. It will

however be possibe t continue use these three monitors to collect baseline data until they

have to be abandoned.! Monitors 99-1 and 99-3 are located outside of the proposed landfill areas, !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, I

and canIbe maintained intact and incorporated, together with additional new monitors and

existing off-site water wells, into the groundwater,monitoring program. Baseline data collection

L ; in monitor 99-3 and the off-site wells to the north will also serve to monitor the environmental

effects of the present tdnengineered disposal site operations on off-site groundwater quality. The

fl rexisting dug well, GW-6, at the northeast corner of the existing dumpsite should be properly

l t ' abandoned.

! L The proposed groundwater monitoring program locations are shown on Figure 9.1, and the

program is described below:

Golder Associates

Lu

October 1999 9 l 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfJll EI

Groundwater Levels and Monitor Development: The first task in monitoring is the measurementof the static water level relative to the top of the monitor well casing, or a similar reference pointon a water supply well. The elevation of a reference point at each groundwater monitoringlocation be surveyed to geodetic datum. After measuring the water level, and pripr to sampling,the monitor must be developed by the removal of at least three standing volumes of water. Afterthe water recovers, sampling can be carried out.

Baseline Monitoring: Groundwater monitors 99-1 to 99-5, off-site wells GW-l to GW-5 and thenext closest existing Bell (in the low lying agricultural lands to the north) that is north of GW-5(referred to as Gt1Y-7 on Figure 9.1)

Operations MonitorJng:Groundwater monitors 99-1 to 99-5 as long as they can remain in servicp;off-site wells GW-1 to GW-5 and GW-7; and four new 'roundwater monitor locations asdesignated by M-6 to M-9 on Figure 9.1. The new groundwater m'bnitors should be installedwith their screen to intercept the upper portion of the water, table zone, and be monitored at leasttwd times prior to the'commencennent of engineered landfill implementation.

Monitoring Frequency. Two times per year, once in the dry period (April-June) and once in thewet season (October-November).

Parameters: It is proposed that the groundwater samples should be anaiyse d for the followingparameters, which includes leachate indicator parameters as well as those' regulated by theDENR standards applicable here, ie. Class AA Water! Usage/Water Quality Criteria- PublicWater Supply Class I (refer to Section 6.7.3): pH, temperature, conductivity, chloride, sodium,hardness, iron, manganese, boron, colour, dissolved oxygen, BOD,S TDS, N0 3-N, chromium(IV), Oil and Grease, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury and total and fecal coliforms.

In order to have meaningful monitoring results, it is essential that a repeatable protocol formonitor development, sampling and sample preparation be developed and rigorously followed bythe field personnel.

Golder Associates

rr

October 1999 9-12 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL9

The monitoring parameters and frequency sh6uld be modified based on an assessment of the

baseline data and tho results of the two years of operational monitoring. If the water quality

meets the applicable criteria, then the monitoring frequency could be reduced accordingly. Also,

if the leachate quality indicates that some of the parameters are not present in the leachate, then

those parameters could be dropped from the monitoring program. For example, it is not

expected that the heavy metals listed above will be encountered in the leachate.

Post-Closure Monitoring: The above described monitoring parameters and frequency should be

modified for the post-closure period based on an assessment of the results of the monitoring

during operation. It is anticipated that the post-closure monitoring requirements can be

significantly reduced at some point as the leachate so'urce strength declines over time. A detailed

monitoring plan should be included in the landfill closure plan that would be prepared towards

the end ofthe landfill life.

Surfsice Water

As noted in the previous sections, thete are no perennial (flowing, permanent) water bodies

located within about one kilometre of the proposed site and surface water drains from the site

oveiland via the downstream agricultural lands to both north and south following no defined k

pathways. Therefir, it is rot possible to establish baseline locations for surface water

monitoring within this area that could be monitored during the proposed lazwdfill development.

However, it will be possible and necessary to monitor surface water at strategic locations on the

Li site (e.g. the outlets of the proposed leachate and surface water management struCtures). The

monitoring program proposed in this regard is summarized below.

If possible, during the period prior to implementation it is recommended that some general

baseline data be collected, recognizing that this will only likely be possible during the wet

(rainy) season. Three locations are identified - one in each.of the surface water courses about

one km north and south of the site (i.e. Creek I and Creek 2; refer to Figure 6.2), and the third to

the north of the northeast corner of the existing dump site when contaminated runoff occurs onto

the agricultural lands.

Golder Associates

Li

October 1999 9-13 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EJA

it is proposed that surfac e water should be monitored at the following locations to assess qualitvof the stormwater runoff;

* Out'et structure of the pond at the southeast corner, adjacent to the South Cell; and* Outlet structure of the pond at the northeast corner, adjacent to the North Cell.

It is proposed that surface water (i.e. effluent) should be monitored at the following locations tomonitor/assess the qualii ' of the influent leachate and the treated leachate effluent:

r . Inlet structure of e first (anaerobic) leachate lagoon;

*Outlet structure 5 t!ie wetland (downstream of the leachate lagoons) at the northeast corner,a4jagent to the 16rti Celi; and[ l * (Optional) Outlet stpuctures of the first rnd second leachate lagoons for purposes ofassessing treatrnent facility operation.

The proposed mornitoring locations are shown on Figure 9. 1.

Parameters: It is proposed that all the water samples described above should be monitored forthe following parameters, includes leachate indicator parameters as well as those regulated Iythe DENR standards applicable here, i.e. Class SA and/or Class D (reer to Sections 6.6 and 7.7):pH, temperature, conductivity, chloride, sodium, hardness, iron, colour, dissolved oxygen, BODS,TSSL TDS, N0 3-N, chromium (IV), oil and grease, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury and totalcoliformn It should be iAoted ;liat ihe Class D criteria (applicable to agricultural use) requiresmonitoring for only BOD5, TSS, TDS and total coliform.

Frequency: The following frequency is proposed for the site development and operation periods:

* Stormwater Pond Discharge: on a quarterly basis (once every three months, including atleast once during the wet season);

* Raw leachate influent on a monthly basis;

* Treated Leachate Effluent: on a monthly basis; and

Golder Associates

r

October 1999 1 - 14 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfll EJA

The monitoring parameters and frequency should be modified based on an assessment of the

results of the first year monitoring. If the water quality meets the applicable DENR criteria, then

the monitoring frequency should be reduced (e.g. from monthly to quarterly). Also, if the

leachate quality indicates that some of the parameters are not present in the leachate, then those

parameters could be dropped frpmithe monitoring program. For example, it is tiot expected that

the heavy metals listed above will be found in leachate.

Post-Closure Monitoring The above d'scribed monitoring parameters and frequency should be

modified for the post-closure period based on an assessment of the results of the monitoring

during operation. it is anticipated that the post-closure monitoring requirements for the

L. stormwater pond discharge can be significantly reduced during this period because the entire

landfill would have been covered and landscaped and the.potential for leachate to impact storm

runoff during this period would be significantly less than that expected during the landfill

operation period. A detailed monitoring plan should be included in the landflll closure plan that

-* would be prepared towards the end of the landfill life.

rNoise

It is proposed that a program of regular monitoring and inspection be adopted to ensure that any j

potential negative impacts are minimized within practicable limits.

It is recommended that one of the key parameters to be monitored regularly is the level of noise,

at the periphery of the project site and the closest sensitive areas to the project.

An overview of the proposed monitoring program is presented below and the proposed locations

for monitoring are illustrated on Figure 9.1.

rr

Golder Assiociates

October 1999 ,9 15 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando L Union Sanitary LandfdlEL4

Proposed Nolse Monitoring Plan

_,~~~~~~~~~$e 4, 'iiC TW- oNoise* Construction Mobile To be L.. sources of noise Weekly

and Operations determined and source,L09, Lie,

* Ambient 7 (including See L.,,, sources of noise Weekly.one at the Figure 9.1 and source,Lg, Llo, Subject toperiphery of L5., L9 changethe site depending onnearest the findings aftersource of the first monthnoise) of full operation

The number and location of monitoring station; is shown on Figure 9.1 and have been selectedfromn a consideratioir of the following factors:

* the location and proximity of sensitive rece. tors to the site boundary;* the nature of the site activities in the proxit ity of sensitive receptors;* the location of baseline measurements made for this report; and* the desire to establish baseline levels throughout the site in advance of commencing site

works in any parl of the site.

It is recommended that the monitoting program be established around the existing dump site atleast one month prior to commencing any new works on site in order to confirm baselineconditions.

If the site operator receives specific complaints, additional monitoring shotild be carried out toidentify more accurately the scale of the impact at the particular location. Additional mitigationmeasures should be considered for application on the basis of these measurements.

G . .,

Golder Assoclates

_

October 1999 9-16 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union SanitaryLandfllEL4

Air

It is proposed that a program of regular monitoring be adopted to ensure that any potential

negative impacts are minimised within practicable limits.

It isrecommended that two of the key parameters to be monitored regularly are Total Suspended

Particulate (TSP) and.methane concentrations, at ihe periphery of the project site and at the

closest sensitive areas to the project. Air quality monitoring for TSP is recommepded to be taken

at the 'same sampling stations used for noise level monitoring, and the methane concentrations in

the areas of waste filling and at the TSP monitoring locations.

An overview of the proposed monitoring program is presented below and the proposed locations

for monitoring illustrated on Figure 9.1.

Proposed Air Quality Monitoring Plan

Eq 1irqtnuentql,. |-is-No. of * ' Pr e .- Parameterstfo Be -. Frequency.of.-

Air Quallt r 4.zAl* Construction 7 (including one See Total Suspended Quarterly

apd at the periphery of Figure 9.1 Particulate (TSP)

Operations the site nearest theconstruction area)

Methane (CH4)

Various Locations Quarterly

within site. where waste

has beenplaced to dateand at theabove 7

! locations

I Post Closure Various Locations Methane (CH4 ) Quarterly

within sitewhere wastehas beenplaced to date,at site

l , . boundary andat the above 7

locations.

Golder Associates

iKW

October 1999 9 - 17 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ELI

The number and location of monitoring stations are shown on Figure 9.1 and have been selectedfrom a consideration of the following factors:

* the location and proximity of sensitive receptors to the site boundary;

* the nature of the site activities in the proximity of sensitive receptors;

. the location of baseline measurements made for this report; and E

the desire to establish baseline levels throughout the site in advance of commencing siteworks in any part of the site.

l Although there are no basements in houses/settlements adjacent to the proposed landfil), it isrecommended that methane concentration should be monitored in the airspace of any enclosedbuilding/structures at and adjacent to the site and in the airspace of any nearby groundwaterextraction wells as part of the above proposed monitoring program.

It is recommended that the monitoring program be established around the existing dumpsite atleast one month prior to commencing any new works, on site in order to confirm baselineconditions.

If the site operator receives specific complaints, additional monitoring should be carried out to 4identify more accurately the scale of the impact at the particular location. Additional mitigationmeasures should be corksidered for application on the basis of these measurements.

Traffic

Monitoring will be dode to determine air quality and noise levels due to vehicle movement. Thiswill initially be carried out at least, monthly, then adjusted based on findings after the first 3months of full operation. The proposed monitoring point is at the entrance area to the landfill asshown on Figure 9.1.

Golder Associates

J

October 1999 9-18 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ElA

9.4.4 Estimated Cost of the Environmental Monitoring Program

:_ It is assumed that the monitoring of the various environments will be carried out at the same time

as much as possible, Also, the results of the monitoring will be presented in a single annual

monitoring report. The site operations staff (e.g. site foreman) should assist in conducting the

monitoring after some training by appropriate specialists (e.g. staff from the DENR Regional

Offico, outside monitoring consultant) during the first round of monitoring. For example, the

site staffcan-carry c.i 'ia noise level monitoring with a noise level meter dedicated to the site.

Groundwater

The estirrated annnal cost of groundwater monitoring program is of the order of P260,000

inclusive of staffing, equipment rental, chemical analysis and other associated disbursements

l - * (e.g. per diem, vehicle rental, etc.).

Surface Water.

The estimated annual cost of surface water monitoring program is of the order of P240,000

inclusive of staffing, equipment rental, chemical analysis and other associated disbursements.

L Noise

1r The estimated annual cost of the. enviromnental monitoring program is. of the order of

P150,000.00 inclusive of staffing, equipment rental and other associated disbursements.

Air

The estimated annual cost of the air quality monitoring program is of the order of P150,000

inclusive of staffing, equipment rental and other associated disbursements

[older Associates

: G~~~~~~~~~~older Assoclates

1.

October 1999 9-19 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EIA

Reporting

As noted above, the results of the monitoring will be presented in a factual report on an annualbasis. The estimated annual cost of the preparation of this report. is estimated to beapproximately P200,000, including staffing and materials (copying, printing, etc.).

Surnmar

Based on the above1 estimates, the. annual cost of environmental monitoring is anticipated to beapproximately P 1,000,000. It should be noted, based on the results of the first year monitoring,it may be possible to reduce the extent of monitoring which in turn would reduce the annualmonitoring cost

9.5' Contingency Plan

A detailed contingency plan would be prepared as part of the detailed design in order to address thepotential environmental impacts in the event of possible inadequate performance or failure of alandfill component(s). The potential impacts that would be considered are as follows:

* Potential leachate impacts on downgradient groundwater: this may occur as a result of ,;

inadequate bottom containment (due to improper construction quality control, unanticipatedgeological features, etc.);

* Potential impacts of air quality: this may occur as a result of inadequate gas venting practices((due to improper construction quality control, disposal of unanticipated types of wastes in thelandfill, etc.); and

* Potential surface water impacts on downstream lands: this may occur,as a result of inadequatesurface water conveyance/retention (due to improper construction quality control, unanticipatedstorm events, etc.) or inadequate treatment of the collected leachate (malfunction of thelagoon).

The Contingency Plan would be reviewed on a regular basis during the implementation period and,if necessary, modified to incorporate the results of new monitoring inforiiiation. Therefore, ifenvironmental. conditiong change (for example, the locations or water extraction rates of thegroundwater wells are altered) or if new infornation is available (for example, more representative

Golder Associates

October 1999 9 - 10 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfjdi EU

waste composition data, more accurate information on surface water drainage in the landfill area),

the Contingency Plan could be modified to provide an appropriate response to new information.

The Contingency Plan would specify trigger mechanisms to activate the appropriate components of

the contingency remedial measures.

9.5.1 Contingency Measures

Preliminary suggestions regarding contingency measures are presehted in this section. It is

suggested that the use of trigger mechanisms based on comprehensive assessment of monitoring

data would determine the "compliance" status. These assessments would be performed at regular

L intervals using the results of the Monitoring Programn. The assessment and reporting intervals

would be tied to site-specific conditions, and has teen specified in the Monitoring Program. This

suggested approach recognizes the lack of information regarding the hydrologic and hydrogeologic

regime in the site vicinity, allows for assessment of variability inherent in the chemical analytical

data obtained from the monitoring program, and also provides for "early warning!' of a potential

i "out-of-compliance" status. This approach is preferred over a less comprehensivo approach which

identifies compliance based solely on trigger (i.e. maximum allowable) concentrations of chemical

r . parameters at specific monitoring points. The less comprehensive approach generally fails to

Ls adequately account for the variability of laboratory chemical data obtained in similar environments,

and generally necessitates complex, time-consuming and inefficient reporting and re-

: l sampling/analysis protocols in the event that a trigger concentration is detected during groundwater

monitoring.

. C The existing situation regarding groundwater and surface water in the site vicinity is as follows:

1. Groundwater - A hydrogeologic assessment of available data indicates that groundwater in the

shallow aquifer at or beyond the boundary of the existing dump contains one or more landfill-

* , related contaminants at eleyated concentrations.

2. Surace water - A hydrologic assessment of available data indicates that surface water in the

area is impacted by landfill-related contaminants during storm events.

L ,, . Golder Associates

.L.

October 1999 9-21 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfdlEIA

A phased set of contingency remedial measures, tied to the above noted trigger mechanisms, isproposed, based on the presently available information.

For groundwater, the proposed contingency measures are:

* Expand the Assessment Area by the installation of a, ditionl groundwater monitors andsanpling, including the provision for an alternate domestic water supply to the affected areas asnecessary; !

* If the leachate collection system is not effectively removing leachate, install wells withsubmersible pumps through the waste to remove the leachate from the disposal areas; and/or

* Institute a more stringent engineered control on the landfill (e.g. tighter cover, such as, ageomembrane).

For surface water, the proposed contingency measures are:

* Institute an engineered control Don the landfill (e.g. remediatelrectify areas of the source ofsurface water impacts, provide more extensive surface water management structures, such asadditional/deeper ditches/ponds, etc.), then

* Re-evaluate the pdtential for landfill-related impacts on the surface runoff to eventually impairthe receiving waters (e.g. Carlatan Lagoon).

It is proposed that the contingency implementation plan should comprise a phased approach, tied tothe trigger mechanism.

9.5.2 Trigger Mec4anism

The Tri ger Mechanism is based upon a three-tier process, with each tier establishing a triggerfor the initiation of further action. The Trigger Mechanism is based initially upon the results ofthe groundwater quality monitoring program because of the significance of potentialgroundwater impacts in the area over the potential impacts on other environments (e.g. surfacewater, air).

Golder Associates

Octet 1t999 9 -22 931-2730B

SWEEP, S. n Fer wando La Union Sanitary Lan1dfill ELA

Tie, i

Tier I -onsis.li o Lhe assessment of :e results of the proposed regular monitoring program. Any

three consecutive increases in n anientration of the Trigger Parameters in groundwater collected

__ from .my monitoring locatit: vill initiate activities to confirm the nature and degree of the

trend. This will inclde the fol *wing:

* collect a repeat sample o' groundwater from the same well location within four weeks of

initial detec*ion;

* review the results of al' Compliance Evaluation Parameters and other leachate indicator

paraineters at thav well 1 ,cation and nearby well locations to evaluate the presence of similar

trends; and I

* review sample col .,cti ,n and analytical protocols to establish any systematic errors.

If the results of this an- ,ysis do not confirm the presence of landfill leachate related impacts,

then inonitoring remair .under Tier I; otherwise, the tnonitoring proceeds to Tier II.

In sddition to the aoove noted groundwater monitoring, the following!monitoring will be

included in the Tier i surveillance monitoring program: r

* Surface wa, r quality: to be monitored at the designated locatikps (refer to Section 9.4) for

the Compli. nce Evaluation Parameters and the field monitoring parameters, pH, temperature

and condr! :tivity. Conductivity is a good indicator of leachate and could be readily

measured ii the field. Therefore, conductivity measurements will facilitate the assessment of

r dispersion of any leachate impacts.

L * lThe air quality: to be monitored at the designated locations for the Compliance Evaluation

Parameters.

I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

Golder Assoclates

L

October1999 9-23 981-2730B1SWEEP, San Fernando La Union San iay Landfill EJ

I . rIms of infrastructure, it has _ km of road network of which _ are national andare provincial, municipal and Barangay roads. It has _ telecommunicationfacilities. Barili l?as other means of communications also, such as ._..Tier II comprises the surveillance monitoring program as above, but includes an increase in the

j *thli-and M PJvater monitoring locationsto'f ur tiupfaer year (quarterly frequency).

If munici t of Gen. Trirs is whem the Gen Trias Water Corporation (GWTC)Iis

, ste~lfw Zl4 uptijaie }Ii~he a~d;hcomposed bf _barangays, of which* . 14#ptalitl1 leachate generation rates;

* ~ djv{fisy & i jifip* i*djker construction and the constructiondetails;

Lite acy rae in Gen. Trias is and the!municipality has elementary and* s &YaZW88D~! '9fi8'AsKstitutions for higher education such as. review groundwater level data and corresponding Qstimates of groundwater flow velocity.Gen. Trias also has _ rural health centers and _ hospitals.

- riiges liEsg5tsfi6 5Q giEi &=t hhO*9 6sessed using the aboveteciniqjy. oPfl'ddg * btd(q6 f 9i Xi2tjW et Mut§*bility for fituieunaceibip Wwllhip W9ll; b . (Ib \R&WUS M sessnent will assist in re-a c .nd rotected/nin oved ( 5 private sources),evaluat! 2"eSne&t f yre anc /or may prompt the consideration of

-~ other, _dtre"sinii$rnAprosuea )nimproved (3 public source)

In;teris bf infastructure, it has _ km of road network of which __ are nationai andtIstl ls r nr8ki~9a fii#abiw i 3thtuer Iflts rate aiin xKgeowal* taT ioinki1 0tocolibute todovW dfAwA . t ovM &til et nter eiB baseline survey, then thefollowing should be initiated:

Ubav

(W ce of tolo .hes ...mctXcuniafieal'i f.Ubais a 4 cl as municipality of #iewlligawrn-siremrtjn ancrliea'c a e imp'a 'IT'nranroce o o as ato pop a on651 MdW 5 c6omposed of 442. , *eoPWfin w n b nrkdo] WirWf the landfill, and install additional

wells as required to allow a reasonable delineation o the landful eachate pac d|The main sources of livelihood in the community are hsh g, agrcIture ande T1es ckapm rp 8 pY new wells in the monitoring program._ 3. Upgrade the monitoring to Tier I11.

Golder Assoclates' 4

October 1999 9 -24 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EA

-r, 6rir y of - popUlI3Ii.)n is literate and practically I elementary school in every

barmngay, 6 plrivate and public high schools. There are also institutions for higher

eMincaiion s ci as Bohol North Eastern Colleges.Tier In enail, -L upgrade of the monitoring program, including an increase in samnpling

fae4cJann ':; .s -2h4 AJ aJ:IllTht ifQlh2 W Wlu lude the following modification to the

T er& romn%, bay Water and Sanitation Cooperative (UWASCO), the municipality

has alhemati- v ater supply facilities or sources. These include the following:

he groundw- tYr cmonitorinvMfCucY s± selected critical monitocs could be modified with

'a)oper. uisi-ls, unprtceo pu lec soil.re5

-reqgW 1R,C OMA UY 9$deTr di1hhR%dMiPba neters will'remain

unchanged at 'he Tier II level (ie., duartrly); rad n oel iO,44try, and_

In tirms of l,.:i. r asteuWrei, 496.5 __f_ road network of which` are national

and _ ari- provincial, municipal and Barangay roads. It has 4 telecommunication

o :II T 3tio: I ir,mtelnW 1 iJhim

; ietrrasse L. e distrnution of leachate impacts within the pot6ntial area of leachate

r . lxj4j<,rgAJ~. titn:ld- >adtrdal banks and_ rural banks.

N. Vire .a

TIhe resulls . the above Tier. I1 monitoring will be evaluated immediately after every

located. The mm plof N. O I ca yom ou rwr s

i lhe a6fl_ LA. eompos2d of_ barangays, of which _ are urban and _ are rual.

'The nain sources of livelihood in the community are crop production, poultry and

- _ If th1blcfWitik g.III monitoring confirm that significant (e.g. 95YO) probability exists for

K I landfzjl leachate relatf i cpats on the do rem lf efolJogkegd aRuld

Procvbondary schools. There are also institutions for higher education such as

i E N. Vizraya also has rural health centers and hospitals.

1. Construct the leachate and/or groundwater control system designed as a result of Tier II

| kiiliArk2Q l the N. Vizcaya Provincial Waterworks, the municipality has alternative

watertsupply facilities or sources. These include the following:

| 2. Review tle requirements of the monitoring program based upon the effectiveness of the

cO)ith*pspups on bore wells (5 public sources and 100 private sources without

drainage)

9.5.3 In _rigg ddI.fUtebe i road network of which are national and

| -- _ tare provincial, municipal and Barangay roads. It has _ teleconmmunication

Tri4wiixmieab p 1*k4k** W dMlJlachate, are not

typicallyound b% elgated concaecntmktioni

rs and that travel at

approximately the same speed as the groundwater. When elevated concentrations of these

I

i ~~~~~~~~~~~~Golder Associates' 5

4...

October 1999 9-25 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

parameters are observed through monitoring, they therefore provide the first indication thatlandfill leachate is having an adverse effect on groundwater quality. By setting a TriggerConcentration below the applicable criteria, in this case the Class AA criteria for groundwater,

J ' monitoring will indicate that some action should be taken before the criteria is actually exceeded.

With reference to Figure 9.1, the primary Trigger Monitoring Locations are the perimetergroundwater monitors 99-3, M-8, M-6 and M-7 and off-site water wells PW-5, GW-2 andGW-3. These are located at downgradient positions near the landfill site boundary in terrns ofgroundwater flow.

One of the problems rith using this approach for the North Cell is that the historic placement ofwaste on the site has already degraded the water quality in excess of what would be a desirabletrigger concentration. For those trigger locations, i.e.,. 99-3 and GW-5, all that can be done is tocarry out the baseline monitoring to establish the concentrations of the parar,peters up until theengineered landfill is implemented in the North Cell, and then observe their concentrationpatterns over time as' operations continue. the main concem off-site to the north is thereforeinterference due to leachate effects on water well use, therefore the continued monitoring ofwells GW-5 and GW-7 will be the deciding factors as to the need for contingency actions.

t ,

Although not all of the following meet the above criteria for selection of groundwater triggerparameters, the suggested parameters and concentrations, relevant mainly to the South Cell, areas follows:

.,.;';roposedTrigger Conrtntration.ChPloride

175 nig&LNitrate

5 mg/LLead

0.02 ing/LCadmium 0.003 mg/L

9.6 Site Closure and Restoration

The whole project can be a showcase of environmental protection if proper measures to safeguardthe ecological condition of the area are given primary consideration. As sections become filledover time, they should be covered with vegetation to prevent soil erosion and dust resuspension.

Golder Associates'

Octobsl 1999 9-26 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill RIA

The "En Aironmental Management PlanI for the proposed San Fernando Landfill expansion should

consideer long range planning to mitigate both the short-term and long-termn impacts of the projecI

.As the ndfill site will not be suitable for residential/comrnercial use, it could be used for

passiv, ireawion or low intensity agriculture once it is capped. As such, carabao grass may be

the suiftable surface cover to prevent soil erosion and dust resuspension. In such a case, very

minima} use of fertilizers, pesticide and herbicides should be allowed for the maintenance of the

proje4 t site. This is to prevent pollution of waterbodies and groundwater with fertilizers and

pestici.ies.

9.7 Proposal For an Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF)

L , The Enviromnental Guarantee Fund (EGF) is a fund that project proponents are expected to commit

to establish when an ECC is issued for projects or undertakings determined by DENR to pose

significant risk to answer for damage to life, health, property, and the environment caused by such

risk, or requiring rehabilitation or restoration measures. It shall also be used to implement damage

prevention measures, environmental education, scientific or research studies, IEC, and training

l, including social equity programs.- The DENR Procedural Manual (1998) outlines the protocol and

requiremenis for setting up an EGF.

The purpose of the establishment and use of the EGF is as follows:

* the immediate rehabilitation of areas affected by damage to the environment and the resulting

deterioration of environmental quality as a direct consequence of project construction,

operation, and abandonment; :

* the just compensation of parties and communities affected by the negative impacts of the

I project;* the conduct of scientific or research studies that will aid in the prevention or rehabilitation of

-accidents and/or environmental damages; or

* for contingency clean-14p activities, environmental enhancement measures, damage prevention

r program and social equity measures (e.g. livelihood, social development programs) including

the necessary IEC and capability building activities.

Golder Associates

iL '.,

V.

October 1999 9-27 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflg ELI

The need and requirements of the EGF should be discussed between the City of San Fernandoand the DENR prior to the implementation of the proposed landfill project. As part of theapplication fot- an ECC, the City should prepare a Draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOA)on EGF in consultation with the DENR.

9.8 Summary

An Environmental Management Plan (UMP) was prepared in accordance with the requirementsof the DENR Procedural Manual for EIS. The EMP was based on the identified impacts andmitigation/enhancement measures and addresses project impacts and corresponding mitigationmeasures, cost estimates, the iristitutional mechanisms for implementation and associatedagreenents/guarantees. The mitigation measures and the implementation plan were combined toform an environmental management program, which included a Monitoring Plan. Due to the

* environmental significance of landfill developments and the potential implications of failure toproperly implement any of the proposed mitigation measures and implementation plancomponents as designed/planned, the EMP also included a Contingency Plan. This Plan sets outa sequence of actions to be taken in the event that ongoing monitoring and observations indicatethat the site is not performning as designed or expected. Also, recommendations regarding theestablishment of an Environmental Monitoring and Guarantee Fund has been incorporated in theEMP.

Social Development Prograrn

The EMP includes a Social Development Program (SDP), which discusses the programs orcomponents of the proposed project which are related to social development and addresses themitigation of potential negative impacts, especially those associated with resettlement,relocation, income loss, etc. The SDP focuses on two main populations that are most directlyimpacted by the project, the waste pickers and the landowners or tenants of the additional landrequired for the expansion of the current site [i.e. the Project Affected People (PAPs)].Extensive detail on the SDP (i.e. compensation measures) is provided in the Resettlement ActionPlan (RAP). In summary, the RAP is designed to ensure that the popuiation directly affected bythe project are provided with the means, and the procedures, to ensure that their quality of lifeafter the project's implementation, is as good as or better than previously. The plan is to be-

- Golder Associates'

October 1999. 9-28 981-2730B

SWEEP, .YSan Fernando La Union Sanltary LandfllU EI

implemented by the City, (the project proponent), and defines and describes the monitoring

progra,m to be followel, as well as grievance procedures for the affected parties should they wish

fl to contest the implementation.

Monitoring Requirements and Monitoring Plan

The basic principles to assist in the design of an environmental monitoring system are clear

objectives, appropriateness, institutional support, quality control, flexibility and sustainability. It

is anticipated that Iwo fundamental types of inspection and monitoring will be undertaken on-

site:.

* Monitoring of compliance of site development to any specified conditions, including

adherence of site operations and management to the principles incorporated in project

design; an, i

* ,Environrtmntal monitoring to assess the impacts arising from on-going site development and

' F operation.

The site operations should comply, at all times, with relevant Nation'al and Local Regulations.

Environmental clearance will be required annually from the DENR for operating the facility.

Landfill construction and operations will be monitored by the DENR, independently of any

inspection and supervision of the service contract performed by the LGU, in order to ensure

r compliance with prevailing environmental legislation. The implementation of the mitigation and

monitoring plan will be the responsibility of both the LGU and the DENR.

A Multi-Partite Monitoring Team (MMT) will oversee the monitoring of the project, including

RAP, and will be composed of representatives from the project proponent (LGU), affected

C communities and women, relevant local government units (barangay), and PENRO and/or

CENRO in the project area. The functions of the MMT will include: monitoring the project for

compliance, gathering information if dainage occurs or public complaints are raised, preparing

and disseminating mopitoring reports and submitting recommendations to the DENR, and

conducting relevant community information and education campaigns. The DENR Regional

Golder Associates

:KW

October 1999 9 -29 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandfillEIA

office and the EMB will provide support to the MMT in technical aspects or evaluation andpolicy monitoring.

Environmental Monitoring

The environmental monitoring provides the mechanism to assess th'e overall environmentalimpacts, identify any environmentat pollution due -to site operation, identify any deviations fromacceptable standards of site operation, and formulate proposals for site remediation orcontingency measures, as necessary. The Site Operator will be responsible for carrying out the

Lk. routine monitoring program, with the documented results forwarded to the LGU and the MMTon a monthly basis'for inspection and review.

The appropriate Philippines (DENR) environmental standards which are currently prescribedwith respect to surface water quality, groundwater levels and quality, air quality and noise levelswill be used to assess the monitoring results. It is also suggested that, where applicable,available World Bank and World Health Organization (WHO) standards should be used, forpurposes of comparison.

The proposed monitoring program includes monitoring locations, frequency and paramete,rs at'dwould require that the monitoring resiults are presented in an annual report. The monitoringprogram will have to be continued into the post-closure period, with appropriate modificationsbased on the res'ults of the 1xonitoring during the operational period. The duration of the post-closure period monitoring should be determined based on these results and through discussionsL among the stakeholders.

The annual cost of the implementation of the proposed environmental monitoring program isanticipated to be approximately P 1,000,000, excluding the cost of RAP related monitoringwhich is included in the cost of RAP implementation. It should be noted, based on the results ofthe first year monitoring, it may be possible to reduce the extent of monitoring which in turnwould reduce the annual monitoring cost.

Golder Associates

Octob 199 l9 --30 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ELJ

* i ContiL I.ency Plan

A detr I d contingency plan would be prepared as part of the detailed design in order to address the

potent; i environmental impacts in the event of possible inadequate performance or failure of a

landfi` omponent(s). The potential impacts that would be considered ares leachate impacts on

downL.s i ent groundwater, impacts on air quality, and surface water impacts on. downstream lands.

The Co. .ncy Plan would specify trigger mechanisms to activate the appropriate components of

a contin -ncy remedial measure(s). In order to address the uncertainties associated with the

exist' environmental conditions and the project proposals, it is proposed that the contingency

implei M atation plan should comprise a phased approach, tied to the trigger mechanism.

The nri ger Mechanism is based upon a three-tier process, with each tier establishing a trigger

for tlhe initiation of further action. The Trigger Mechanism is based initially upon the results of

the I ,ount er quality monitoring program because of the significance of potential

L groun.dwater impacts in the area over the potential impacts on other environments (e.g. surface

water, air). The Mechanism would include a number of trigger parameters, typically indicative

of leachate impact on groundwater, and trigger concentrations.

Site Closurti and Restoration

The proposed Environmental Management Plan' should consider long range planning to mitigate

both the short-term and long-term impacts of the project. As the landfill site will not be suitable

for residential/comntercial use, it could be used for passive recreation or low intensity agriculture

once it is capped. As such, carabao grass may be the suitable surfice cover to prevent soil

erosion and dust resuspension.

Golder Associates

L

October 1999 9-31 981-2730BI . SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill ELA

Proposal For an Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF1

The, DENR EIS Procedural Manual (1998) requires that an Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF)should be set up as part of ibe project and outlines the protocol and requirements for setting up anEGF. The EGF should be set up by the project proponents in order to cover the cost to implementdamage prevention rneasures, environmental education, scientific or research studies, IEC, andtraining including social equity programs in the event such a damage occurs. The need andrequirements of the EGF should be discussed between the City of San Fernando and the DENRprior to the implementation of the proposed landfill project in order to prepare a Memorandumof Understanding (MOU) on the EGF.

Golder Associates

Golder Assoc7ates

A [.=9SITE MONITORING PT.QR.;P S| GURE 9.1

,.~~~~~ -

i! I.-~~~~~~~~l1I *- 'I; +X

! i { { + "um'7 i ur wa.I\,jN

I -I, j'T>~'Y' ;,EXISTING ROU NIDWATERA * ~~~~~~MONITRS

LJ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C.r yas PROPOSED NEWOROUNDWATEII MONITOR

A~~~I~~~I ~~~~ ow-i 0~~~~~m OFF-SITE WATER WELL|V {e),1 MONITORNG LoCATION

ct oW' SURFACE WATER13 MONITORjp LOCATION

~~~~~~iJj r v .r .*-*' s PROPOSED AIPJNISE CUALT

MONITORING LOCATION

'~~~~~~ ~ ~~~L O C A T I O N

I~~~ ~ ~ ~~ .' . ' ' .K 0E rua --, FOR IDENTIFICATION. OF AFO

Data: AUG59

- -I ~~~~~~~Drawn: ~ )V.U

__ Project ~~981-2730B Cld

r~~~~~~~~~~

Ck: PAS

@..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----

October 1999 10-1 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Lanafll EIA

Q10.0 INSTlTUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

10.1 Current Institutional Arrangements -

10.1.1 National

Under Component I of SWEEP, the Consultants have suggested that a Waste ManagementAuthority (V/MA) be set up within an appropriate agency with the task of assisting all localauthorities in carrying out cost effective and efficient waste collection, trinsfer and disposal,while giving full consideration to alternative waste management technologies, including wastereduction, re-use/recycling and composting. While the review of the IConsultant's -

recommendations is on-going, the proposed role and functions of the V/MA resides with theProject Management Office of the Presidential Task Force on Waste Management (PMO-PTFWM), a unit attached to the Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR. It acts as thecentral controlling unit for SWM-related activities of the LGUs. It is also in charge ofpromoting and co-ordinating SWEEP and other related activities.

10.1.2 Local

Under the current set up in the City of San Fernando, SWM is the responsibility of the CityEngineer's office. The City Planning and Development Office provides assistance on an asrequired basis.

rA SMTECP-PMO was formed in San Fernando to assist the City in the implementation of theSWEEP activities, including the EIA/FS. This SWEEP-PMO is comprised of the representativesof the City (Mayor's office, Planning Officer and City Engineer), DENR (Regional Director,CENRO, PENiO) and a number of other stakeholders.

' 10.2 Contractual Arrangements

10.2.1 Alternative Arrangements

The nature of the relationship between the regulatory authority and the project developer isinfluenced by the contractual arrangements under which the project is implemented. In thisregard, although a large number of possibilities exist, three scenarios are considered to be mostsuitable:

Golder Associates

r

October 1999 io-2 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandlWiELI

* the LGU would act both as Project Proponent and as the Project Developer. The LGU would

design and construct the site and would underiake site operations;

* the LGU would be the Project Proponent but the design, construction, operations

maintenance, rest6oration and after-care, would be let out under contract to one or more

Private Sector Contractors (PSC), under one or a series of individual contracts; or

'an appropriate combination of the above two (e.g. design and construction and operation for

a number of years by a PSC and subsequent operation and aftercare by the LGU). It is

anticipated that the LGU personnel would receive training and hands-on experience in the

operation and maintenance of the engineered landfill during the design, construction and

operation period under the PSC.

The key design and operational aspects of the project proposals are discussed in Section 5. The

level of site engineering and site operations proposed -for the site has been fonnulated on the

basis of site specific considerations. In attempting to establish the appropriate level of

engineering and site operations, it was noted that the technical capacity required for site

construction and operation was not available within the LGU and, accordingly, there is a

requirement for access to specialist engineering works and skills at least during the construction

and operating lifetime of the site.

r m On the basis of this analysis, the third scenario is considered the most realistic solution if the

project is to be implemented successfully given the present level of experience and expertise

within. the LGU with respect to the design, construction and operation of engineered sanitary

landfills and the long-term cost implication of the involvement of a PSC. It is recommended,

therefore, that the private sector should be contracted to design, construct and operate for a pre-

determnined number of years the proposed engineered landfill facility. It should be recognized

that the conceptual design proposes the site development in three phases.. There is therefore the

potential to develop a contract for the entire project over an extended period of time, or

alternatively to divide the project into a series of two or more contracts. In view of an

anticipated site life of 10 or more years, the latter approach is considered to be the more

C appropriate in this situation.

Golder Associates

October 1999 1o!- 3 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Lan dfll EM

The 'PSC would be 'selected by the LGU on the basis of a competitive tender to provide therequisite services to execute the project proposals. Having selected the preferred PSC, thewLGU's role and responsibilities would center on supervising the contract and ensuring that the

J contractor conforms to the performance standards, requirements and warranties stipulated in theConditions of Contract. In addition, the City should ensure that the City's SWM personnelinvolved get adequate hands-on training during the period of the PSC's involvement.

102.2 Regulation of the Contracting Parties

)I the basis of a service contract as outlined above, the LGU would be the owner of the landfillfacility, while the PSC would be the occupier of the site. In this situation there are twoposs:ibilities for regulation of the contracting parties:e . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

V

-- e dr- regulatory authority licenses the Site Occupier to undertake specified works and'operations at the site according to any conditions attached to the license. Thie Site Owner is,

l*~~ '~ ' therefore, effectively excluded from any regulation of the environmental performance of the- *-facility operated on his behalf, other than under the Conditionsof Contract under which the

service contract is executed; or

* the regulatory atthority licenses or permits the Site Owner to undertake specified works and ,op.lru3ionis at the site according to any conditions attached to the pertnit or license. Since the

Site Owner and Site Occupier are not the same party, the Site Owner is obliged to ensure thatthe Site Occupier complies with the conditions of the permit or license granted to the Site'Owner. This is best achieved by incorporating the permits/license conditions into theConditions 6f Contract.

L The latter option is seen to be a more effective solutioni since it places greater responsibility onthe Site Owner to ensure the site is constructed, operated and managed to appropriate standardsand, in particular, the standards to which the site has been designebd. This will more directlyinvolve the LGU in the day-to-day operations at the site, which is key to ensuring that the site is

-' Mperforming as intended and responding in a timely fashion to any situation that may arise. Thus,E_ the onus would be on the LGU, as the Site Owner and Client, to take appropriate action if the

PSC is not able to satisfy the prescribed/stipulated requirements set out in the Contract. It must

r Golder Assoclates

.r% iU

,

r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

!..

October 1999 10 - 4 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landflll EL4

be recognized that the DENR may instigate regulatory action against the Site, Owner for ary

failure of the Site Occupier to conform to the requirements of prevailiQg legislation.

10.3 Proposed Organizational Structure

l, ' 103,1, Proposed LGU Set-Up

As Project Proponent, it is proposed that the c6uffent organizational set-up be expanded to

accommodate the various activities, related to the Implementation of the engineered landfill

development. These activities are divided into two components, namely:

* Resettlement Action Plan, as required by the World Bank, before,the construction and

development activities commence (,r.r :l1iX M); and

r n Coastrucli.n and Project Management during the project preparation, project development,

project operation and project closure/post-closure stages.

The proposed-organizational set-up in the engineered landfill development is presented in

Figure 10.1. It is anticipated that a Solid Waste Management Office, either as a separate

! t departnent or under the City's Engineering or Plaining Departments, -would be established and

be responsible for all activities (collection, diversion, disposal) associated with solid waste

management.

The'activities envisaged in respect ofthe RAP are as follows:

* assessment and payment of compensation;

* rehabilitation of PAPs/PAFs; and

* public participation and consultation.

The activities envisaged under design, construction and project management are as follows:

r technical review of detailed engineeting designs;

* supervision and commissioning;

* contract management;

* construction quality assurance and quality control (QAIQC);

Golder Associates

October 1999 10 - 5 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill E

* supervision of operation and maintenance;

* record keeping;

* restoration and closure; and

* aftercare.

10.3.2 Public Liaison and Monitoring

The ¶Consultants are presently under contract to provide technical assistance to the Project

Proponent during the preparation of FS and ETA studies for the proposed' landfill facility in San

Fernando to ensure that the facility is developed in full accordance with the requirements of the

DENR and other concerned agencies, including the World Bank. In this regard, the EMP and

associated Monitoring Plan establishes the framework for project implementation.

As noted in Section 9.3.3 and Figure 10.1, it is proposed that a Multipartite Monitoring Teamn

(MMT).be created. I~he intentions of setting up such a loeal monitoring committee is to ensure

that.the operator of the landfill, whether a private or public entity:

* at a minimum, fulfills their contractual obligations for environmental protection throughout

the lifetime of the,site; and

* takes all reasonable measures to protect the quality of the local environrhent throughout the

lifetime of the site.

It is recommended that the MMtT, in fulfilling its overseeing role, also has the authority to

identify and recommend further measures to the Project Proponent that they feel are required to

protect the quality of their local environment The Project Proponent can then balance these

concerns with other faictors (specifically the likely operational and cost implications) and decide

whether it is necessary to enter irito contractual discussions with the site operator on these

matters.

The full and satisfactoty development of the proposed landfill facility will represent a significant

step towards improving the environment and protecting public health in San Fernando, and

fulfills one of the goals of SWEEP by providing a successful demonstration project to the

country as a whole.

Golder Associates

r

October 1999 10 - 6 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfldl EL

10.4 Technical Assistance

While there is growing awareness in San Fernando of the pressing problems of waste collection

and waste disposal, there is, as of yet, limited comprehension amongst the various officials,

agencies and citizens of the immediate need to resolve the problem or of the most appropriate

solution. With respect to disposal of waste, there is limited knowledge and no experience of the

concept of engineered landfills. This holds true both for the Project Proponent (the LGU) and

the regulatory authority (the DENR), both of whom have very limited expertise and experience

with respect to the design an operation of engineered sanitary landfills.

As a minimum, it is necessary to have experienced and qualified personnel in key positions both

within the LGU and in the responsible section of the DENR. It is recommended that, with

respect to the LGU, the engineer(s) responsible for the engineered landfill (such as the person at

the head of the SWM1Office) should preferably be civil engineers with experience in the design,

construction and contract supervision of large engineering projects, preferably irrigation or civil

(earthworks and waterlwastewater treatment) projIects.

The absence of experience in engineered landfills in San Fernando or elsewhere in Philippines

places considerable emphasis upon the need to train all concerned parties on all aspects of the '

construction and operation of an engineered sanitary landfill. In this regard and in response to

the requirements of CIDA INC, a Training and Human Resources Development Programl has

been prepared (refer to Appendix P). Therefore, some forn of technical assistance is a pre-

requisite for successful implementation of the project.

i r Technical Assistance nteeds fall into two categories:

* the requirement to impact knowledge and expertise to key personnel (both supervisory and

regulatory) through training and the transfer of technology; and

* in, the short-term,,management and technical assistance during the initial stages of project

implementation.

GolderlAssociates

Golder Associates

I .

" f

October 1999 10 - 7 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EL4

It is recommended that relevant LOU and DENR personnel be trained in landfill construction

techniques and in sanitary landfill operational practices through a mixture of seminars,

workshops and site visits, allied with frequent 'hands-on' experience and training during the

various phases of the engineered landfill development.

The unit appointed by the LGU to undertake 'project and construction management should

encompass appropriate technical expertise in modem landfill design, construction supervision,

construction management, lining system installatiQn, drainage works, landfill operations, landfill

gas management, site remediation and contract managemeiit. This expertise, where it relates

specifically to landfill engineering, is available currentli, q6ly from intemational sources, from

either individual consultants or consulting engineers exr, renerf n' the design, construction and

operation of modem engineered landfills; On Figure 10. 1, this is indiketed by the inclusion of an

Independent Third Party Consultant in the proposed organizational structure, who could assist

and provide guidance to the LGU and interface on behalf of the LGU with the PSC and the

MMT.

10.5 Summary

ZCurrep$t Istitiitirmal ATanopm rafe :

National: Under SWEEP, it has been recommended that a Waste Management Authority (WMA)

be set up within an appropriate agency with the task of asisti'ng all local authorities in carrying

out cost effective and efficient waste management.- Thep`posed role and'functions of the

WMA reside with the Project Management Office of th,C PMTW'NM. It acts as the central

controlling unit for SWM-related activities of the LCUs.

Local: Under the current set up in the City of San ' ln'nd, SWM is the responsibility of the

City Engineer's office. A SWEEP-PMO was Frnrri in'San Fernando to assist the City in the

implementation of the SWEEP activities. This SV&EEP-PMO is comprised of the representatives

of the City, DENR and a number of other stakeholders.

Golder Associates

October 1999 10-9 981-2730B

SWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary LandJfl ElA

Technlical Assistance'

There is growing awareness in the A t- , in-It 1i.-ig the City of San Fernando, of the

pressing problems of solid waste management. However, the Project Proponent (the LGU) arld

the regulatory authority (the DENR) have very limited expertise and,experience with respect to

the design an operation of engineered sanitary landfills. It would be important to have

experienced and qualified personnel in key positions both within the LGU and in the responsible

section of the DENR in order for the proposed project to succeed. In view of this, it is

recommended that appropriate technical assistance be sought, at least during the initial stages of

the project implementation.

_ -- The absence of experience in engineered landfills in the Philippines places considerable

ernphasis upon the need to train all concerned parties on all aspects of the construction and

operation of an engineered sanitary landfill. In this regard and in response to the requirements of

CIDA INC, a Training and Human Resources Development Program has been prepared.

Therefore, sorne form of technical assistance is a pre-requisite for successful implementation of

the project.f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The unit appointed by the LGU to undertake project and construction management should '

encompass appropriate technical expertise in the design and operation of modern landfills. This

expertise is presently available only from international sources, from either individual

consultants or consulting engineers. This is indicated by the inclusion of an Independent ThirdL~~~~~~~~~Party Consultant in the proposed o;ganizational structure.

Rsectl4.doc/Rsect5-6.doc/Rsect7-10

rG

: ~~~~~~~~~~~Golder Assodt2tes

L

K..

V:

October 1999 10-8 981-2730BSWEEP, San Fernando La Union Sanitary Landfill EU

Contractual Arrangements

Alternative Arrangements: Three possible scenarios are considered to be most suitable for the

proposed contractual arrangement i) the LGU would act as both Project Proponent and Project

Developer; ii) the LGU would be the Project Proponent but the design, construction, operations,

maintenance, restoration and after-care, would be let out under contract to one or- more Private

Sector Contractors (PSC); or iii) an appropriate combipation of the above. On the basis of the

proposed project details, the third scenario is considered thd snost realistic solution if the project

is to be implemented successfully given the present level of experi¶,ce and expertise within the

LGU with respect to the design, construction and operation of engineered sanitary landfills and

the long-term cost inmiplication of the involvement of a DSC, \'Aio would be selected by the LGU.

Regulation of the Contracting Parties: On the basis of a service contract as suggested above, the

LGU would be the owner of the landfill facility, while the PSC would be the occupier of the site.

In t14is situation there are two possibilities for regulation of the contracting parties: the

regulatory authority licenses the Site Occupier to undertake specified wotks and operations at the

site according LU any conditio-rs attached to the license; or the regilatory umillorit- licenses or

permits the Site Owner to undertake specified works anl'oratlionRt the site - the Site Owner is

_ obliged to ensure that the Site Uccupier complies with thel6onditions of the permit or license

granted to the Site Owner. The latter option is seen to be a more effective solution as it places

greaterresponsibility on the Site Owner.

Proposed Organizational Structure

As Project Proponent, it is proposed that the current organizational set-up in the City be

expanded to accommodate the various activities related to the implementation of the engineered

landfill development. It is anticipated that a Solid Waste Managemient Office would be

established and be responsible for all activities associated with solid waste management.

As noted in Section 9, a Multipartite Monitoring Team (MMIT) will be created to oversee the

public liaison and monitoring activities.

Golder Aisoeiates

~i , .~ -

I - . ...... J

PR OPOS'ED r: ORSANIMA IT 10H! !;L STRUCTIJ-- FIG

CITY Ok SAN FE RN AlIt !; Sr`N'Ti7ARY LD'IL- .j D,R 1.

City of San F- IL 0 | ---_-i_

ONiZ_ of the . or- Team ( .T)

City S i San FemandoSolid Waste Independent Third

r ~~~~~~~~f~'Consultant

Resettlement Design, Construction,Action Plan and Operatlons.-

| lmp"ernect;izn |- Design c _ Opeirffons &Desi~~~~~~~~~n ~~Maintenance (OI1M)

* Assessment and Payment * Input to and Review of * Contract Management * Supervision of O/M

of Compensation Detailed Planning and Si

* Rehabilitation of' Engineering Design Commissioning * Record KeepingPAPsIPAFs Construction OA l &Pscour

* Pub: : Participation * Closure 8 Post-Closureand Consultation

Date: August1999 GolderAssociates Drawn ..By: THGProject: 981-2730B . _ Checked By: AV_

-w I

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

I . . w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i...is~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C' ! | 1 | i , g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

i ~~ ;-- r: r ; | ;4 -; | --

f, _2 L _0 ___] .. ) _ 2 _ _1 t__ j ._ 2 ,_ ) _) _] , j ___) _1 j __. '_~~41

., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i" V