Azura-Edo Independent Power Plant Environmental Impact ... - IFC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

concentration in the soils sampled during the wet season (7.0000 – 15.000 mg/kg in topsoil and 2.0500 – 8.5000 mg/kg in the subsoil). Of the heavy metals detected copper, lead and zinc had some of the lowest concentrations in both layers of the soil. Mercury was found to fall below the detection levels (
season and were observably lower during the wet season (20.800– 38.200 mg/kg). Nitrogen concentration generally increased with depth with concentrations ranging between 2,742.3 – 13, 645 mg/kg in the subsoil, and 2,289.8 – 7,105.0 mg/kg in the topsoil. The reverse was observed for phosphorus concentration (28.700 – 46,200 and 20.800 – 18, 700 mg/kg in the top and the subsoil respectively). Microbial Analysis. The total heterotrophic bacteria (THB) count ranged between 65.00 x 10 3 and 450.0 x 10 3 cfu/g during both seasons, with a mean count of 210.6 x 10 3 and 195.5 x 10 3 during the dry and wet seasons respectively. The THB was generally higher in the topsoil (80.00 – 450.0 mg/kg) compared to the subsoil (65.00 – 320.0 mg/kg). The total heterotrophic fungi count ranged between 4.000 x 10 3 and 150.0 x 10 3 cfu/g, which also demonstrated higher levels in the topsoil (20.00 -150.0 mg/kg) compared to the subsoil (2.000 – 60.00 mg/kg). Coliform was also identified in the soil samples (1.000 x 10 3 – 175.0 x 10 3 cfu/g) during the dry season (Annex B). Hydrocarbon-utilising bacteria and fungi were not detected at any depth intervals in the soil during the dry and wet season. Portion Directly West of the NIPP <strong>Plant</strong> The soil directly west of the NIPP plant does not show evidence of contamination and demonstrates physico-chemical properties similar to the other areas sampled. Heavy Metal Composition. Iron had the highest recorded concentration amongst the heavy metals analysed both during the dry (7,400.0 - 14,720 mg/kg) and wet season (6,300.0 – 10,500 mg/kg). The nitrogen did not vary substantially across measured depth intervals (6,300.0 – 14,720 and 7,000.0 – 12,800 mg/kg in the top and subsoil respectively). Nickel had the second highest concentration in the dry season; however similar to concentrations observed at the proposed site, nickel recorded one of the lowest concentrations in the wet season (< 0.15000 mg/kg). The concentration of nickel did not vary greatly from 0 - 30 cm (17.300 - 19.200 and 14.950 - 18.500 mg/kg in the top and subsoil respectively) Mercury was identified to be below the detection levels during both seasons and across all depth intervals sampled (0.05000 mg/kg). Anion and Cation Analysis. During the dry season, the concentration of nitrate ranged between 33,768 – 51,408 mg/kg (ranging between 33,768 – 45,528 and 36,288 – 51,408 mg/kg in the top and subsoil respectively). The nitrate concentrations were lower and also more consistent during the wet season (2,300.0 – 3,800.0 and 3,600.0 – 4,250.0 mg/kg in the top and subsoil respectively). Sulphate, phosphate, and chloride concentrations showed similar patterns to those observed at the proposed site during both seasons. During the dry season, sodium had the highest concentration levels particularly in the topsoil (1,625.0 – 2,450.0 mg/kg), however, during the wet season the concentration of potassium was the highest at 250.00 – 700.00 and 510.00 – 2,000.0 mg/kg in the topsoil and subsoil respectively. AZURA EDO IPP 4-10 DRAFT EIA REPORT
Page 1 and 2:
Public Disclosure Authorized Public
Page 3 and 4:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Azur
Page 5 and 6:
• Screening and scoping • Basel
Page 7 and 8:
In addition to predicted impacts fr
Page 9 and 10:
International Standards and Guideli
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 1 Layout of Proposed Power P
Page 13 and 14:
Type of Emission Solid waste All so
Page 15 and 16:
NIPP were used for NO 2. The result
Page 17 and 18:
analysis are both qualitative and q
Page 19 and 20:
other forms of salary jobs or servi
Page 21 and 22:
Table 4 Summary of Impacts, Mitigat
Page 23 and 24:
Impact Impact Description Phase Pre
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Box 2 Mitigation Hierarchy for Plan
Page 35 and 36:
safety impacts are reduced to minor
Page 37 and 38:
5.2 METHODOLOGY 5-2 5.3 DEMOGRAPHIC
Page 39 and 40:
Annex G - Unplanned Events and Emer
Page 41 and 42:
IAEA International Atomic Energy Ag
Page 43 and 44:
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND This
Page 45 and 46:
1.2.2 Project Context The Project w
Page 47 and 48:
Table 1.1 The EIA Team Name Organis
Page 49 and 50:
EIA, sampling has been completed fo
Page 51 and 52:
events is therefore assessed in ter
Page 53 and 54:
Federal Ministry of Environment Pri
Page 55 and 56:
Edo State Waste Management Board Th
Page 57 and 58:
The proposed Project requires an EI
Page 59 and 60:
as a building or irrigation system)
Page 61 and 62: instrument for monitoring and contr
Page 63 and 64: Convention Concerning the Protectio
Page 65 and 66: Box 1.2 World Bank Safeguard Polici
Page 67 and 68: • Step 5. Stakeholder Consultatio
Page 69 and 70: Chapter Title Description 8 Mitigat
Page 71 and 72: commensurate sums that will need to
Page 73 and 74: operation of the Project. The imple
Page 75 and 76: 2.4.3 Social Sustainability A detai
Page 77 and 78: signing of a Memorandum of Understa
Page 79 and 80: Key Component OCGT Associated Machi
Page 81 and 82: Gas Turbine Building The four gas t
Page 83 and 84: Government parastatal that has been
Page 85 and 86: 3.2.10 Fire Protection The gas turb
Page 87 and 88: foundations and is associated with
Page 89 and 90: SI. No Waste Water 3. Water Based S
Page 91 and 92: 3.3.4 Administration Buildings The
Page 93 and 94: the area reserved for the HRSG and
Page 95 and 96: 3.6 OPERATION 3.6.1 Maintenance It
Page 97 and 98: Job title Level of Skill Business M
Page 99 and 100: Figure 3.2 Staff Organogram Plant M
Page 101 and 102: 3.8.2 Alternative Site Location Sev
Page 103 and 104: the next 20 years, the vast bulk of
Page 105 and 106: climate but straddles the Tropical
Page 107 and 108: The relative humidity of Nigeria is
Page 109 and 110: 4.4 GEOLOGY The Study Area is locat
Page 111: 4.5.1 Soil Types 4.5.2 Soil Quality
Page 115 and 116: increased with depth, showing a sig
Page 117 and 118: subsoil (15.00 - 35.00 x 10 3 cfu/g
Page 119 and 120: higher heterotrophic fungi concentr
Page 121 and 122: The results of the inorganic and or
Page 123 and 124: cfu/100ml at Orior-Osemwende during
Page 125 and 126: Air quality measurements were taken
Page 127 and 128: Figure 4.6 Sampling Locations for N
Page 129 and 130: Sample Code Noise Level - dB (A) A7
Page 131 and 132: Figure 4.7 Sampling Points ((Flora)
Page 133 and 134: All flora habitats surveyed were fo
Page 135 and 136: Figure 4.12 Fallow Land with Guinea
Page 137 and 138: Figure 4.16 A view of re-growing se
Page 139 and 140: Figure 4.19 Plant Species Discorea
Page 141 and 142: Conservation Status Scientific Name
Page 143 and 144: Species identified in the project a
Page 145 and 146: Urho-Nisen-Urho-Nisen, which will b
Page 147 and 148: • Participation of those with acc
Page 149 and 150: Table 5.2 Key Socio-Economic Indica
Page 151 and 152: Figure 5.3 Age Distribution, Edo St
Page 153 and 154: were classed as vulnerable by virtu
Page 155 and 156: Orior-Osemwende Orior-Osemwende is
Page 157 and 158: the communities within the Project
Page 159 and 160: Figure 5.6 Traditional Leadership S
Page 161 and 162: conflict could be a problem in the
Page 163 and 164:
There are distinct gender divisions
Page 165 and 166:
Petty Trading According to FGDs som
Page 167 and 168:
the house. Almost a quarter of hous
Page 169 and 170:
have no formal schooling; while app
Page 171 and 172:
Name of sacred site worshipped in c
Page 173 and 174:
Figure 5.11 Map showing the locatio
Page 175 and 176:
stretches of the walls and moats re
Page 177 and 178:
Figure 5.14 The Location of Moats S
Page 179 and 180:
native doctors or herbalists. With
Page 181 and 182:
project and its potential impacts (
Page 183 and 184:
The Project identified the Nigerian
Page 185 and 186:
Figure 6.2 Community Engagement in
Page 187 and 188:
Figure 6.6 Consultation with the Ed
Page 189 and 190:
Details of the asset census survey
Page 191 and 192:
Stakeholder Engagement Engagement A
Page 193 and 194:
6.5 KEY ISSUES RAISED This section
Page 195 and 196:
6.6 PROJECT GRIEVANCE MECHANISM Gri
Page 197 and 198:
to ensure that projects can proceed
Page 199 and 200:
7 BIOPHYSICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IM
Page 201 and 202:
2. Evaluation of the importance (or
Page 203 and 204:
In addition to predicted impacts, t
Page 205 and 206:
Significance for Socio-economic Imp
Page 207 and 208:
Table 7.2 Species Value / Sensitivi
Page 209 and 210:
Box 7.4 Mitigation Hierarchy for Pl
Page 211 and 212:
AERMOD is considered to be appropri
Page 213 and 214:
Figure 7.2 Wind Roses for Bohicon,
Page 215 and 216:
Country Averaging period Recommende
Page 217 and 218:
The WHO guidelines are particularly
Page 219 and 220:
7.3.5 Receptors per year for a sing
Page 221 and 222:
7.3.6 Impact Description and Signif
Page 223 and 224:
Process Emissions: NO x and CO The
Page 225 and 226:
Figure 7.5 1 h maximum NO 2, the Pr
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
The values in Table 7.13 will there
Page 231 and 232:
impacts exactly or take account of
Page 233 and 234:
Figure 7.6 Operational noise levels
Page 235 and 236:
also be required for the burial of
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
The impact of the Project on water
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Artanema longifolium (a flowering p
Page 245 and 246:
Table 7.18 Summary of Impact Signif
Page 247 and 248:
The site will also generate general
Page 249 and 250:
include estimates for the physical
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
7.10.2 Impact Description and Signi
Page 255 and 256:
for impacts to demographics during
Page 257 and 258:
As discussed above, and due to the
Page 259 and 260:
Project’s construction phase will
Page 261 and 262:
during decommissioning is expected
Page 263 and 264:
Due to the high unemployment rate i
Page 265 and 266:
contract workers. An additional num
Page 267 and 268:
enefit the local communities. These
Page 269 and 270:
impact on a small number of inhabit
Page 271 and 272:
Besides the construction of the pla
Page 273 and 274:
• Psychological impacts associate
Page 275 and 276:
7.15.4 Impact Description and Signi
Page 277 and 278:
Impact Significance The extent of t
Page 279 and 280:
• Bitumen shall not be overheated
Page 281 and 282:
8.2.2 Operation With the implementa
Page 283 and 284:
• Oil interceptors and silt traps
Page 285 and 286:
• All surface water or other cont
Page 287 and 288:
• Reduce or prevent off-site sedi
Page 289 and 290:
8.5.2 Operation • After construct
Page 291 and 292:
8.6.2 Operation • Waste shall be
Page 293 and 294:
8.8 ECONOMIC RESETTLEMENT As noted
Page 295 and 296:
impacts over the operations period.
Page 297 and 298:
Effective and ongoing implementatio
Page 299 and 300:
• Frequent and regular disclosure
Page 301 and 302:
8.12.2 Operational The mitigation m
Page 303 and 304:
8.13.2 Operation reduce the potenti
Page 305 and 306:
• Personal Protective Equipment (
Page 307 and 308:
8.14.3 Decommissioning The health a
Page 309 and 310:
Figure 9.1 Annual mean NO 2, cumula
Page 311 and 312:
Table 9.1 Summary of cumulative imp
Page 313 and 314:
impact is not due to the operation
Page 315 and 316:
9.3 SOILS AND GEOLOGY The implement
Page 317 and 318:
9.10 EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY The Pro
Page 319 and 320:
10 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEM
Page 321 and 322:
Table 10.1 Environmental Management
Page 323 and 324:
10.2.2 Communication Azura Power wi
Page 325 and 326:
The management of change procedure
Page 327 and 328:
Impacts Management Plans Impacts to
Page 329 and 330:
frequency of this reporting will be
Page 331 and 332:
Ref # Potential impact Desired Outc
Page 333 and 334:
Table 10.4 Construction Phase: Envi
Page 335 and 336:
Ref # Potential impact contaminatio
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Ref # Potential impact applied work
Page 341 and 342:
Ref # Potential impact safety impac
Page 343 and 344:
Table 10.5 Operational Phase: Envir
Page 345 and 346:
Ref # Potential impact 3.4 Water Re
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Ref # Potential impact 3.10 Impacts
Page 351 and 352:
Ref # Potential impact 3.12 Potenti
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
impacts were considered to be negli
Page 365 and 366:
Federal Environmental Protection Ag
Page 367:
World Health Organization (2007) pH
show all

Azura-Edo Independent Power Plant Environmental Impact ... - IFC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?