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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Osemwende was measured at 27.2 mg/l (wet season), and was comparably higher than the TDS at both Ihovbor-Evboeka borehole. However, all values falls within the FMEnv limit of 500 mg/l, and the WHO drinking water guideline of 600 – 1,000mg/l (WHO, 2011). The TSS from the groundwater sample also fell within the 10.0 mg/l limit set by FMEnv (refer to Annex B), with values recorded at 9.0 mg/l at the Ihovbor-Evboeka borehole (Borehole 1, dry season) and 1.0 mg/l (Borehole 2, wet season). TSS was measured as 3.0 mg/l at Orior-Osemwende borehole during the wet season. • Nutrients. The nutrient load of the groundwater is identified in Table 4.2. The nitrate levels for the Ihovbor-Evboeka borehole was 19.0 mg/l (Borehole 1, dry season), which is above the FMEnv limit of 10.0 mg/l but which fell within the WHO guideline of 50.0 mg/l (WHO, 2011). According to WHO, in most countries, “nitrate levels in drinking water originating from surface water do not exceed 10.0 mg/l, however water derived from wells often is above 50 mg/l” (WHO, 2011: p 398). The high presence of nitrate in the groundwater sample maybe a result of leaching from natural vegetation and agricultural activity including excess application of inorganic nitrogenous fertiliser. The nitrate concentration at Ihovbor-Evboeka however also decreased significantly during the wet season (Borehole 2) and was measured as 1.30 mg/l, well within both FMEnv and WHO limits. The nitrate level at the Orior-Osemwende community demonstrated similarly low levels (4.00 mg/l). The phosphate and sulphate concentrations are within the indicated FMEnv levels (Table 4.2) and sulphate levels were recorded within the WHO and EU standards of 500 and 250 mg/l respectively (Lenntech, 2011). • Cations. The concentration levels of sodium, calcium and magnesium were within the FMEnv standards and WHO standard for sodium (less than 200 mg/l) (WHO, 2011). • Heavy Metals. The heavy metals (copper, zinc, iron and nickel) that were detected are provided in Table 4.2, and apart from nickel (sampled during the dry season - Borehole 1 - at the Ihovbor-Evboeka borehole) all were recorded below FMEnv levels (Annex B). Nickel concentrations were recorded at 0.060 mg/l or 0.010 mg/l above the FMEnv limit (0.050 mg/l) but within the WHO drinking water standards of 0.070 mg/l (WHO, 2011). • Total Hydrocarbon Content. The hydrocarbon parameters of oil and grease and THC for both boreholes during both wet and dry seasons, fell below the detection limit of 0.05 mg/l. • Microbiology. Of the heterotrophic organisms analysed, only heterotrophic bacteria were detected at the boreholes. Heterotrophic bacteria levels at Ihovbor-Evboeka were noticeably lower during the dry season (Borehole 1) (1.0 x10 3 cfu/100ml) compared wet season (Borehole 2) results of 10 x 10 3 cfu/100ml. The heterotrophic bacteria levels were recorded as 5.0 x10 3 AZURA EDO IPP 4-19 DRAFT EIA REPORT
cfu/100ml at Orior-Osemwende during the wet season. Heterotrophic fungi, hydrocarbon utilizing bacteria and hydrocarbon utilizing fungi as well as coliform bacteria were not detected in the samples. Table 4.2 Groundwater Analysis Results Parameter (mg/l) Ihovbor-Evboeka Orior-Osemwende Dry Season (Borehole 1) Wet Season (Borehole 2) Heavy Metals Copper 0.0010 0.060 0.030 Zinc 0.040 0.040 0.030 Iron 0.070 0.030 0.050 Nickel 0.070 < 0.0010 < 0.0010 Cations Sodium 25.2 0.0600 0.500 Potassium 0.900 0.400 6.40 Calcium 0.800 0.900 1.70 Magnesium 0.700 0.500 0.900 Anions Sulphate 1.00
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 and 112: 4.5.1 Soil Types 4.5.2 Soil Quality
Page 113 and 114: season and were observably lower du
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: The results of the inorganic and or
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?