GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Volume 2 Project Definition
Prepared for: GSE
SLR Ref:901.12.1 Version No: Rev#2 July 2019
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
BASIS OF REPORT
This document has been prepared by SLR Consulting Limited with reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the manpower, timescales and resources devoted to it by agreement with GSE (the Client) as part or all of the services it has been appointed by the Client to carry out. It is subject to the terms and conditions of that appointment.
SLR shall not be liable for the use of or reliance on any information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document for any purpose by any person other than the Client. Reliance may be granted to a third party only in the event that SLR and the third party have executed a reliance agreement or collateral warranty.
Information reported herein may be based on the interpretation of public domain data collected by SLR, and/or information supplied by the Client and/or its other advisors and associates. These data have been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.
The copyright and intellectual property in all drawings, reports, specifications, bills of quantities, calculations and other information set out in this report remain vested in SLR unless the terms of appointment state otherwise.
This document may contain information of a specialised and/or highly technical nature and the Client is advised to seek clarification on any elements which may be unclear to it.
Information, advice, recommendations and opinions in this document should only be relied upon in the context of the whole document and any documents referenced explicitly herein and should then only be used within the context of the appointment.
.
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS
PREAMBLE
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background to the Project ...... 1 1.2 Structure of this Volume ...... 3 1.3 ESIA Regulatory Framework ...... 3 1.4 Approach to ESIA ...... 16 1.5 Consultation and Engagement ...... 24
PROJECT NEED AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 26 2.1 Introduction ...... 26 2.2 Project Need ...... 26 2.3 Alternatives ...... 32
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 61 3.1 Introduction ...... 61 3.2 Project Design Status ...... 61 3.3 Project Summary ...... 62 3.4 Description of Project elements...... 62 3.5 Construction of the Project ...... 71 3.6 Operation and Maintenance of the Project ...... 80 3.7 Decommissioning of the Project ...... 81
PROJECT COMPONENT DESCRIPTIONS ...... 83 4.1 Introduction ...... 83 4.2 Component A - Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe and on to the Turkish border at Vale ...... 83 4.3 Component B - Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP and connection from Ozurgeti to the Paliastomi line ... 88 4.4 Component C1 - Nenskra to Mestia ...... 91 4.5 Component C2 - Lajanuri Connections to Kheledula HPP, Oni HPP and Tskaltubo ...... 94 4.6 Component D - Reinforcement of the transmission infrastructure in Kakheti ...... 100
REFERENCES ...... 112
.
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
DOCUMENT REFERENCES
TABLES Table 1.1 Project Components ...... 1 Table 1.2 EBRD Performance Requirements ...... 8 Table 1.3 Requirements of the EU directive on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment and where these are addressed in the ESIA Report ...... 11 Table 1.4 Associated Facilities Identified for the Cumulative Assessment ...... 20 Table 1.5 Projects Identified as Potentially Having a Cumulative Impact ...... 21 Table 2.1 Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework ...... 33 Table 2.2 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Sairme Line ...... 36 Table 2.3 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR THE Tao LINE ...... 39 Table 2.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Guria Line ...... 42 Table 2.5 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR THE mestia LINE ...... 47 Table 2.6 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Kheledula HPP Line ...... 50 Table 2.7 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Oni HPP Line ...... 52 Table 2.8 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Lechkhumi Line ...... 54 Table 2.9 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Akhmeta Line ...... 58 Table 3.1 Project Elements by Project Component ...... 62 Table 3.2 Tower Types and Dimensions ...... 64 Table 3.3 Typical and Maximum Spans Between Towers ...... 66 Table 3.4 Rights of Way ...... 68 Table 3.5 Clearance Requirements...... 69 Table 3.6 Estimated Number of Workers for Transmission Line Construction...... 78 Table 3.7 Project Component Programme ...... 79 Table 4.1 Project Elements in Component A ...... 83 Table 4.2 Project Elements in Component B ...... 88 Table 4.3 Project Elements in Component C1 ...... 91 Table 4.4 Project Elements in Component C2 ...... 94 Table 4.5 Project Elements in Component D ...... 100
.
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
FIGURES Figure 1.1 Project Components of the Georgia Electricity Transmission Development Project Figure 2.1 Framework Methodology for Review of Project Alternatives Figure 2.2 Alternative routes considered for the Sairme line Figure 2.3 Alternative routes considered for the Tao line Figure 2.4 Alternative locations considered for new plant within Akhaltsikhe Substation Figure 2.5 Alternative routes considered for the Guria line Figure 2.6 Alternative locations for the Nenskra Substation Figure 2.7 Alternative routes considered for the Mestia line Figure 2.8 Alternative routes considered for the Kheledula HPP line Figure 2.9 Alternative routes considered for the Oni HPP line Figure 2.10 Alternative routes considered for the Lechkhumi line Figure 2.11 Alternative locations considered for the Lajanuri Substation Figure 2.12 Route optimisation for the Akhmeta line and the Gurjaani line Figure 4.1 The Sairme Line Figure 4.2 The Tao Line Figure 4.3 Possible routes of the Turkey border to Tortum (was 4.11) Figure 4 4 The Guria line and Paliastomi Loop Figure 4.5 The Mestia line and Kavkasioni Loop Figure 4.6 The Oni HPP Line Figure 4.7 The Kheledula HPP Line Figure 4.8 The Lechkhumi line and New Derchi Line Figure 4.9 The Lajanuri HPP Line Figure 4.10 The Gurjaani Line, Mukuzani line and Tsinandali Line Figure 4.11 The Akhmeta Line Figure 4.12 Akhaltsikhe Substation Extension Location Figure 4.13 Ozurgeti Substation Location Figure 4.14 Nenskra Substation Location Figure 4.15 Lajanuri Substation Location Figure 4.16 Gurjaani Substation Figure 4.17 Mukuzani Substation Figure 4.18 Tsinandali Substation Figure 4.19 Telavi Substation Figure 4.20 Akhmeta Substation
.
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Acronyms Acronym Description
AA Appropriate Assessment AC/DC Alternating current/direct current AD Anno Domini (also known as Common Era) AMSL Above mean sea level AOP Protected Designation of Origin APA Agency of Protected Area AIS Air insulated switchgear ASL Above Sea Level BC Before Christ (also known as Before Common Era) BCoW Biodiversity Clark of Works BD Bird Directive [BIO-N] Measure number N committed in Volume 3 Biodiversity of the ESIA Report BP British Petroleum [CC] Environmental and social management actions under the responsibility of the Contractor relevant to both substations and transmission line CCTV Closed circuit Television CENN Caucasus Environmental Network CESMP Construction Environmental and Social Management Plan CH Critical Habitat CHS Community Health and Safety CLOs Community Liaison Officers [CO] Construction CSE Cable Sealing End dB(A) Decibels (A weighted) [DD] Detailed design EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EHS Environmental, Health and Safety ELF Extremely Low Frequency
Page i
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Acronym Description
EMF Electromagnetic Fields ENTSO European Network of Transmission System Operators’ for Electricity EPC Engineering-Procurement-Construction E&S Environmental & Social ERS External Relations Stakeholder ESHS Environment, Social, Health and Safety ESIA Environmental & Social Impact Assessment ESMP Environmental & Social Management Plan ESMS Environmental and Social Management System EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations [GC] Government of Georgia E&S management actions GE00000X Candidate Emerald Site identifier GEL Georgian Lari GEOSTAT National Statistics Office of Georgia GIP Good International Practice GIS Gas insulated switchgear GLAC Guide to Land Acquisition and Compensation GLVIA United Kingdom Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment GRC Grievance Resolution Committee GRM Grievance Resolution Mechanism GSE Georgian State Electrosystem GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating ha hectare HD Habitats Directive HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HPP Hydropower Project H&S/HS Health and Safety HSMS Health and Safety Management System
Page ii
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Acronym Description
HVDC High Voltage Direct Current [HYD-N] Measure number N committed in the Hydrology, Geology and Geohazards Assessment in Volume 5 Physical Environment of the ESIA Report Hz Hertz IAS Invasive Alien Species IBA Important Bird Area ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection IDP Internally Displaced Persons IFC International Finance Cooperation IFC PS IFC Performance Standards ILO International Labour Organization JSCNH Developer of Nenskra HPP KBA Key Biodiversity Area KfW KfW Development Bank kHz Kilohertz km Kilometre KM Kilometre markers along each proposed transmission line kV Kilovolt L&V Landscape and visual LARCF Land Acquisition and Resettlement Compensation Framework LNK Lower Namakhvani LVIA Landscape and visual impact assessment [LVIA-N] Measure number N committed in the Landscape and Visual Assessment in Volume 5 Physical Environment of the ESIA Report m Metre MEPA Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture mASL Metres above sea level MCP Management of Change Procedure MLARO Municipal Land Acquisition and Resettlement Office MoESD Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development MoF Ministry of Finance
Page iii
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Acronym Description
MVA Mega volt-ampere MW Megawatt NACHP National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia NACRES Centre for Biodiversity Conservation and Research NAPR National Agency of Public Registry NBSAP The 2nd National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NOI Noise ESMP action NOx Oxides of nitrogen NP National park NTS Non-Technical Summary [OC] Owner Construction ESMS management actions OHL Overhead line [OP] Operation PAH Project Affected Household PAP Project Affected Person(s) PBF Priority Biodiversity Feature PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PDO Protected Designation of Origin PPE Personal Protection Equipment PR EBRD Performance Requirement PRRC Property Rights Recognition Commission PS KfW Performance Standard RAP Resettlement Action Plan RMT Resettlement Management Team RoW Right of way SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan
SF6 Sulphur hexaflouride [SOC-N] measure number N committed in Volume 4 Social of the ESIA Report SPAB Special Protection Area for Birds
Page iv
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Acronym Description
TMP Traffic Management Plan TYNDP GSE’s Ten Year Network Development Plan of Georgia UK United Kingdom UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNK Upper Namakhvani VSC Valued Social Components WHO World Health Organisation WHS World Heritage Site
Page v
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Preamble This document is the Project Definition report of the Georgian Electricity Transmission Network Development projects (Project). It forms Volume 2 of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Report. Full details of the Project are outlined in this document - Volume 2 Project Definition. The Project being developed by the Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) comprises the construction of new and in some cases rehabilitation of existing transmission lines and substations. In summary, the Project is formed into 5 geographical component areas (Project Components), Components A, B, C1, C2 and D. Each new or rehabilitated line and substation is given a Project name which is used throughout the documents. The following table provides an overview of the Project Components and the Project names.
Component Line description Project name
A - Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe and on to Turkey border at Vale: Samtskhe- - 500kV Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe Substation Sairme line Javakheti - 400kV Akhaltsikhe to Turkey border (and on to Tortum in Turkey) Tao line & Imereti - Extension to the existing Akhaltsikhe Substation Akhaltsikhe extension B - Guria Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP and connection from Ozurgeti to the Paliastomi line: - 110kV Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP powerhouse - 220kV Ozurgeti to Paliastomi loop in connection Guria line - 110/220kV Ozurgeti Substation Paliastomi loop Ozurgeti Substation C1 - Nenskra to Mestia: Svaneti - 110/220/500kV Nenskra Substation Nenskra Substation - 110kV Nenskra Substation to Mestia HPPs Mestia line -500kV Kavkasioni loop in loop out to Nenskra Substation Kavkasioni loop C2 – Racha Lajanuri connections to Kheledula HPP, Oni HPP and Tskaltubo: Lechkhumi - 110/500kV Lajanuri Substation Lajanuri Substation & Imereti - 220kV Lajanuri to Oni HPP Oni HPP line - 220kV Lajanuri to Kheledula HPP Kheledula HPP line - 500kV Lajanuri to Tskaltubo Lechkhumi line - 220kV Rehabilitation of the existing 220kV Derchi line from Lajanuri to New Derchi line Tskaltubo, with new connections into Namakhvani Cascade HPP - 220kV Lajanuri Substation to Lajanuri HPP Lajanuri HPP line D - Kakheti Reinforcement of the transmission infrastructure in Kakheti: - 110/220kV line from Gurjaani to Telavi, constructed on 220kV towers Gurjaani line - 110kV line from Telavi to Akhmeta, constructed on 220kV towers Akhmeta line - 110kV loop to Tsinandali Tsinandali line - 110kV loop to Mukuzani Mukuzani line - Rehabilitation and extension of 110kV Akhmeta Substation Akhmeta Substation - Rehabilitation and extension of 110/220kV Telavi Substation Telavi Substation - Rehabilitation of 110kV Tsinandali Substation Tsinandali Substation
Page iii
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Component Line description Project name
- Rehabilitation and extension of 110kV Mukuzani Substation Mukuzani Substation - Rehabilitation and upgrade of 110/220kV Gurjaani substation Gurjaani Substation
The ESIA Report is formed of a number of volumes and documents, as follows: • Volume 1 – Non Technical Summary; • Volume 2 –Project Definition – including Project introduction, need and alternatives and project description (this Report); • Volume 3 – Biodiversity: o Document 3.1 Biodiversity Project-wide Assessment o Document 3.2 Biodiversity Project Component Specific Assessment o Document 3.3 Biodiversity Figures o Document 3.4 Biodiversity Appendices • Volume 4 – Social – including assessments on people, communities, the economy, cultural heritage and Electromagnetic Fields (EMF): o Document 4.1 Social Project-wide Assessment o Document 4.2 Social Project Component Specific Assessment • Volume 5 – Physical Environment– including assessments on landscape and visual, noise, air quality: o Document 5.1 Physical Environment Project-wide Assessment; o Document 5.2 Physical Environment Project Component Specific Assessment; • Volume 6 – Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP); • Volume 7 – Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Compensation Framework (LARCF); • Volume 8 – Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP): o Document 8.1 Project-wide ESMP; o Document 8.2 Transmission Lines ESMP; o Document 8.3 Substations ESMP.
Page iv
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Introduction
1.1 Background to the Project This report presents the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Georgia Electricity Transmission Network Development Project (Project) being implemented by the Georgian State Electrosystem JSC (GSE), which are to be funded by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the KfW Development Bank (KfW). The Project is part of a wider programme being implemented under a 10 year period by GSE to strengthen the power transmission grid in Georgia to improve cross border trade opportunities, to meet increased power demands and to connect existing and planned power projects, principally the growth of hydropower projects (HPP). The Project comprises the development of transmission lines, construction and/or extension of substations and development of associated infrastructure (e.g. access roads) and comprises five main components (Project Components): • Component A - Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe and on to Turkey border at Vale; • Component B - Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP and connection from Ozurgeti to the Paliastomi line; • Component C1 - Nenskra to Mestia; • Component C2 - Lajanuri connections to Kheledula HPP, Oni HPP and Tskaltubo; and • Component D - Reinforcement of the transmission infrastructure in Kakheti. All Project Components are planned to be commissioned during the course of 2021 and 2023 with contractors to be appointed in 2019. The transmission corridors of these components will cross seven regions: • Samtskhe-Javakheti (Component A) • Imereti (Component A and C2); • Guria (Component B); • Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti (Component C1); • Racha-Lechkhumi-Kvemo Svaneti (Component C2); and • Kakheti (Component D). Figure 1 shows the Project Components and the municipalities crossed by the Projects. Table 1.1 provides an overview of the Project Components and the terminology used in this ESIA Report for the transmission lines and substations being developed or rehabilitated by the Project.
Table 1.1 Project Components Component Line description Project name
A Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe and on to Turkey border at Vale: - 500kV Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe Substation Sairme line - 400kV Akhaltsikhe to Turkey border (and on to Tortum in Turkey) Tao line - Extension to the existing Akhaltsikhe Substation Akhaltsikhe extension
Page 1
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Component Line description Project name
B Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP and connection from Ozurgeti to the Paliastomi line: - 110kV Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP powerhouse Guria line - 220kV Ozurgeti to Paliastomi loop in connection Paliastomi loop - 110/220kV Ozurgeti Substation Ozurgeti Substation C1 Nenskra to Mestia: - 110/220/500kV Nenskra Substation Nenskra Substation - 110kV Nenskra Substation to Mestia HPPs Mestia line -500kV Kavkasioni loop in loop out to Nenskra Substation Kavkasioni loop C2 Lajanuri connections to Kheledula HPP, Oni HPP and Tskaltubo: - 110/220/500kV Lajanuri Substation Lajanuri Substation - 220kV Lajanuri to Oni HPP Oni HPP line - 220kV (operated at 110kV) Lajanuri to Kheledula HPP Kheledula HPP line - 500kV Lajanuri to Tskaltubo Lechkhumi line - 220kV Rehabilitation of the existing 220kV Derchi line from Lajanuri to New Derchi line Tskaltubo, with new connections into Namakhvani Cascade HPP - 220kV Lajanuri Substation to Lajanuri HPP Lajanuri HPP line D Reinforcement of the transmission infrastructure in Kakheti: - 110/220kV line from Gurjaani to Telavi, constructed on 220kV towers Gurjaani line - 110kV line from Telavi to Akhmeta, constructed on 220kV towers Akhmeta line - 110kV loop to Tsinandali Tsinandali line - 110kV loop to Mukuzani Mukuzani line - Rehabilitation and extension of 110kV Akhmeta Substation Akhmeta Substation - Rehabilitation and extension of 110/220kV Telavi Substation Telavi Substation - Rehabilitation of 110kV Tsinandali Substation Tsinandali Substation - Rehabilitation and extension of 110kV Mukuzani Substation Mukuzani Substation - Rehabilitation and upgrade of 110/220kV Gurjaani Substation Gurjaani Substation
The Project’s main funders (referred to here as the Lenders) are the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the KfW Development Bank (KfW). It is a requirement of the Lenders that developments such as this Project which could result in potentially significant adverse future environmental and/or social impacts which cannot readily be identified or assessed are subject to a comprehensive ESIA, in accordance with international standards. This Project is being assessed against the EBRD requirements which are set out in their Environment and Social Policy1. Appendix 2 of the EBRD Environmental and Social Policy sets out a list of project types which could result in potentially significant impacts and require an ESIA Report. Appendix 2 includes projects which involve the ‘Construction of high voltage overhead electrical power lines.’
______1 EBRD (May 2014) Environmental and Social Policy.
Page 2
250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 550000
LEGEND
COMPONENT A
¯ COMPONENT B 4800000
COMPONENT C1
Component C1 COMPONENT C2 Abkhazia
MESTIA Russia COMPONENT D
MUNICIPALITY 4750000
LENTEKHI
ONI Service Layer Credits: Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P TSAGERI Corp. AMBROLAURI Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Component C2 4700000 TKIBULI South Ossetia
TSKALTUBO
AKHMETA
KUTAISI CITY TELAVI Component D VANI Georgia
OZURGETI Component A 4650000 CHOKHATAURI
KOBULETI Component B TELAVI CITY ADIGENI
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW GURJAANI EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com AKHALTSIKHE 4600000 GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: Turkey PROJECT COMPONENTS OF THE GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETWORK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Azerbaijan 0 10 20 30 40 50 Figure 1.1
Scale Date Kilometres Armenia 1:1,000,000 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.1.1.1 Project Components of the Georgia Electricity Transmission Development Project © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. 4550000 Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
An ESIA Report is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EBRD requirements as well as in accordance with the provisions of KfW Development Bank’s Sustainability Guideline. Its purpose is to identify any potentially significant impacts, both adverse and beneficial, and to establish ways to avoid or mitigate any adverse impacts as well as to enhance positive impacts. With this information the Lenders can determine if the Project meets the Lenders’ environmental and social policies to enable the projects to be funded. This document is the ESIA Report prepared for the Project. In addition, the Lenders require and the Project must also comply with local Georgian requirements. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports which comply with Georgian regulations (see Section 1.3.1) are also being produced. This ESIA has been undertaken on behalf of GSE by SLR Consulting based in the UK and France. SLR Consulting has been supported by Georgian consultants, including: • ENVI Consulting (Georgia) for biodiversity and ornithology baseline survey and reporting support; and • WEG (Georgia) for social baseline survey and reporting support.
1.2 Structure of this Volume This volume (Volume 2 – Project Definition) is structured as follows:- • Section 1.0 - Introduction – this section, presents an overview of the Project; • Section 2.0 - Project Need and Alternatives – describes the need for each of the components, the main alternatives considered for each component and the key reasons for GSE’s choices; and • Section 3.0 - Project Description - provides a description of the physical characteristics of the Project and an overview of the construction methods during the construction and operational phases. • Section 4.0 – provides a description of each Project Component to be constructed.
1.3 ESIA Regulatory Framework This section sets out the regulatory framework providing a summary of the local Georgian framework for environmental protection and assessment and also the international guidelines.
1.3.1 Georgian Requirements Constitution of Georgia The Constitution of Georgia was adopted in 1995 and while the constitution does not directly address environmental matters, it does lay down the legal framework that guarantees environmental protection and public access to information with regard to environmental conditions. Article 37, Part 3 states that “any person has the right to live in a healthy environment, use the natural and cultural environment. Any person is obliged to take care of the natural and cultural environment.” Article 37, Part 5 states that “an individual has the right to obtain full, unbiased and timely information regarding his working and living environment.” Article 41, Part 1 states that “a citizen of Georgia is entitled to access information on such citizen as well as official documents available in State Institutions provided it does not contain confidential information of state, professional or commercial importance, in accordance with the applicable legal rules.”
Page 3
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Environmental Laws in Georgia The following environmental and social laws apply to the Project and have been considered in the assessment of the Project: • Law of Georgia on Protection of the Environment (Framework Law) 1996; • Law of the General Rules for the Protection of Wild Plants and Animals, 1997; • Law of Georgia on System of Protected Areas, 1997; • Law of Georgia on Wildlife, 1996; • Law of Georgia on Red List and Red Book 2003; • The Constitution of Georgia, 1995; • Law on Land Registration of 1996; • Law on Agricultural Ownership of 1996; • Law of Georgia on Payment of Substitute Land Reclamation Cost and Damages in Allocating Farm Land for Non-Farming Purposes, 1997; • The Civil Code of Georgia, 1997; • Law of Georgia on Rules for Expropriation of Ownership for Necessary Public Needs, 1999; • Law on Privatization of State-Owned Agricultural Lands of 2005; • The Law of Georgia on Protection of Cultural Heritage, 2006; • Law on Recognition of Ownership Rights on Land Plots being under the Usage of Natural Persons and Legal Persons of Private Law, 2007; • Law on Gender Equality, 2010; • The Law of Georgia on Protection of Ambient Air, 1999; • Order #398 on Regulations Of Acoustic Noise Standards in Residential Premises and Public Buildings, 2017; • Law of Georgia on Water, 1997; • Law of Georgia on Soil Protection, 1994; • Order #130 on Protection of Georgian Surface Water, 1996; and • Order #297 on Sanitary Rules and Standards on Prevention of Surface Water Pollution, 2001. International Conventions Adopted in Georgia The following environmental and social international conventions apply to the Project and have been considered in the assessment of the Project: • Nature and biodiversity protection (see Volume 3 Biodiversity): o Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Bern, 1982 o Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 1992; o Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Ramsar, 1971;
Page 4
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
o Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Washington, 1973; o Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, 1979; • Climate Change: o United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, New-York, 1994; o Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal, 1987; o Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 1985; o Kyoto Protocol, 1997; o United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Paris, 1994; • Pollution and Hazard (see Volume 8 Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP)): o EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement, 1987; • Landscape (see Volume 5 Physical Environment): o European Landscape Convention, Florence, 2000 • Cultural Heritage (see Volume 4 Social): o Paris Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; o European Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe; • Public Information (see Volume 6 Stakeholder Engagement Programme): o Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making Process and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Aarhus, 1998. The EIA Process in Georgia The Government of Georgia has recently issued a revised Code of Environmental Assessment2. This establishes the legal basis for regulating issues related to projects and strategic documents that have the potential to have significant impacts on the environment, human life and health. The code regulates the procedures related to environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment, transboundary environmental impact assessment, and public participation in decision-making. With respect to overhead/underground transmission lines, Annex 1 of the code states that EIA is a mandatory requirement for those with a voltage of 220kV or more and a length of more than 15km. While those with a voltage between 35kV and 220kV or a length less than 15km should be subject to a screening process, by which the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture (MEPA) determines the need for an EIA on a case by case basis (i.e. an Annex 2 project). Any substations with a voltage of greater than 110kV are also Annex 2 projects. Therefore, while EIA is only mandatory for Annex 2 projects when significant impacts are likely, GSE is also undertaking EIA for any Annex 2 Components i.e.: • Component B: 110/220kV Ozurgeti Substation, the 110kV Guria line, and 220kV Paliastomi loop (approx. 2.5km long); • Component C1: 110/220/500kV Nenskra Substation, the 500kV Kavkasioni loop (approx. 700m long);
______2 Code of Environmental Assessment, Parliament of Georgia, 01/06/2017
Page 5
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Component C2: 110/500kV Lajanuri Substation; 110kV Kheledula HPP line, 220kV Lajanuri HPP line (approx. 3.8km long); • Component D: all parts. Scoping and EIA Reports are being prepared separately for each Project Component. A Scoping Report is a preliminary document prepared by the developer, which sets out the type of information to be gathered and examined during EIA, in order to gain agreement from the interested parties as to how the EIA will be undertaken. MEPA will publicise the Scoping Reports after which they hold public hearings and then produce a Scoping Opinion. The Scoping Opinion will outline the content and scope of the EIA. Following receipt of the Scoping Opinion, the EIA Reports will then be prepared in accordance with the Code of Assessment. Following the Scoping phase, GSE will produce EIA Reports and these will be submitted to MEPA in the Spring of 2019. An Environmental Decision for each component would then be made by MEPA within 11 weeks of registration of the submission. An application would then be made to the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development (MoESD) to grant a Construction Permit for the Project. The requirements of Georgian legislation with respect to public participation and EIA and how these are to be or have been complied with are set out in Section 2.1 of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Volume 6). Alignment of the Georgian EIA process and the International ESIA Process Whilst the ESIA and EIA process are separate processes it will be important for the ESIA process to be aware of the findings and outcomes of the EIA process. Image 1.1 illustrates how the two processes will be aligned. Crucially there are important interactions between these two processes at the baseline information and assessment stage and then also when finalising the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP). This is the document that will be used to control the contractor’s activities.
Page 6
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
IMAGE 1.1 ALIGNMENT OF ESIA AND GEORGIAN EIA PROCESS
Page 7
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
1.3.2 International Requirements EBRD Environmental and Social Policy This Project is being assessed against the requirements of the EBRD Environmental and Social Policy. This policy sets out a series of Performance Requirements which provides clear guidance on the expectations of the EBRD in terms of project scope, assessment and environmental and social performance expectations. PR 1 sets out the general requirements for the provision of ESIA reports, which briefly comprises the following steps: • Scoping stage to identify the potential impacts of the project. Further details of the Scoping stage for this Project are set out in Section 1.4.1; • Examination of the technically and feasible alternatives, documenting the rationale for the selected alternative. The details of alternatives considered and the rationale for the selection of final choices is set out in Chapter 2, Need and Alternatives; • Identification of potential improvement opportunities and recommendations of measures needed to avoid, minimise and mitigate adverse impacts. PR 1 further states that the assessment of environmental and social impacts will consider the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts related to a project and should consider transboundary impacts where relevant. The assessment of impacts is found in Volume 3 (Biodiversity), Volume 4 (Social) and Volume 5 (Physical Environment). • Based on the findings of the environmental and social assessment, an Environmental and Social Management Plan will be produced. This will reflect the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance and prevention where possible, followed by minimisation, mitigation and finally compensation. The ESMP for this Project can be found in Volume 8. Further details regarding how this approach has been applied to this Project is outlined in Section 1.4. Table 1.2 outlines the Performance Requirements (PR) of the EBRD and sets out where in this ESIA Report each of these requirements are considered and how they are being applied.
Table 1.2 EBRD Performance Requirements Performance Requirement Document PR 1: Assessment and Management of This ESIA Report responds to PR 1 and sets out the Environmental and Social Impacts and Issues - likely significant impacts of the Project in Volumes 3 outlines the responsibilities of the client in the to 5. The ESMP (Volume 8) sets out how the process of assessing the potential environmental and mitigation and monitoring identified in the ESIA social impacts and issues associated with the project, Report will be implemented and confirms GSE’s and developing and implementing procedures for commitment to the mitigation hierarchy. The managing and monitoring these impacts and issues. Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Volume 7) outlines This PR notes the key role of engagement with the the consultation and engagement undertaken to-date project stakeholders. Developments should adopt the and describes that proposed for the remainder of the mitigation hierarchy i.e. take measures to avoid Project. creating environmental or social impacts from the outset of development activities, and where this is not possible, to implement additional measures that would minimise, mitigate and, as a last resort, offset and/or compensate any potential residual adverse impacts.
Page 8
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Performance Requirement Document PR 2: Labour and Working Conditions - recognises The ESMP (Volume 8) confirms that GSE will apply and that good human resources management and a sound require its Contractor (and subcontractors) to comply worker-management relationship based on respect with PR2. These requirements are set out in Section 5 for workers’ rights, including freedom of association of the Project-wide ESMP (Document 8.1, Volume 8). and right to collective bargaining, are key to the sustainability of business activities. PR 3: Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention The ESMP (Volume 8) confirms that GSE will apply, and Control – recognises that these are essential and require its Contractor (and subcontractors) to elements of environmental and social sustainability comply with GIP, best available techniques and the and projects must meet good international practice mitigation hierarchy while managing environmental, (GIP) and use best available techniques. Projects must social and safety issues. implement the mitigation hierarchy, rectify The construction of the Project would require a range environmental damage at its source, and the “polluter of materials and would generate a range of wastes. A pays” principle. The project-related impacts and issues strategy for the management of materials and wastes associated with resource use, and the generation of will be developed for the Project by the Contractor(s) waste and emissions need to be assessed in the in accordance with the ESMP (Volume 8) and also context of project location and local environmental separate Waste Management Plan(s), as required by conditions. Georgian regulations. This will consider the materials requirements and waste generation across the Project and will determine how GSE and the Contractor(s) manage these aspects. PR 4: Health and Safety - recognises the importance Section 5.3.3, Document 4.1, Volume 4 Social of avoiding or mitigating adverse health and safety addresses community health and safety impacts impacts and issues associated with project activities during the construction and operational phases of the on workers, project-affected communities and Project, including .the health effects of EMF. consumers. Occupational health and safety is addressed in Section 5.3.4, Document 4.1, Volume 4 Social. PR 5: Land Acquisition, Involuntary Resettlement and A Land Acquisition, Compensation and Resettlement Economic Displacement - recognizes the long-term Framework has been prepared (Volume 7). This hardship and impoverishment for persons and defines the principles that will be followed for land communities affected by involuntary resettlement, as acquisition and Right of Way easements for all Project well as the environmental damage, and adverse socio- components. economic impacts in areas to which they have been This Framework is compliant with the Georgian displaced. The PR requires that involuntary legislation and with the PR 5. resettlement should be avoided. However, where it is unavoidable, resettlement should be minimised and The Project will aim to minimise the impacts of land appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts on acquisition as far as practicable, by adjusting the final displaced persons and host communities should be alignment and technical design of the proposed carefully planned and implemented. infrastructure.
Page 9
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Performance Requirement Document PR 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable An assessment of the biodiversity baseline for each Management of Living Natural Resources - recognises route has been undertaken in Volume 3 Biodiversity. that the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable Route changes have been effected since project management of living natural resources are inception to avoid areas of conservation concern, fundamental to environmental and social through evaluation of alternatives. In line with PR 6, sustainability. The objective of biodiversity an assessment for critical habitat and priority conservation and sustainable management of living biodiversity features has also been undertaken. The resources must be balanced with the potential for impact assessment has then sought to assess if utilising the multiple economic, social and cultural significant impacts are likely to occur, and if they are, values of biodiversity and living natural resources in implement suitable mitigation, to reduce any negative an optimised manner. residual impacts to non-significant; with no net loss of biodiversity where possible. PR 7: Indigenous Peoples - recognises that indigenous There are no social groups in Georgia that correspond peoples are social groups with characteristics which to the PR7 definition of Indigenous People, therefore, are distinct from dominant groups in national PR 7 is not triggered for the Project. societies; their status often limits their capacity to defend their rights and interests and they may be particularly vulnerable to adverse impacts. PR 8: Cultural Heritage - recognises the importance of Volume 4 Social assesses potential impacts on cultural heritage for present and future generations. material cultural heritage and the sensitive areas The aim is to protect cultural heritage and to guide where known material cultural heritage elements are clients in avoiding or mitigating adverse impacts on found. cultural heritage in the course of their business No impact is anticipated on intangible cultural operations. The clients are expected to be heritage. precautionary in their approach to the management and sustainable use of cultural heritage. The Project will aim to avoid as far as practicable all impacts on material cultural heritage elements, by adjusting the final alignment and siting of towers during the final design stage for each Project component. PR 9: Financial Intermediaries– recognises that FIs There are no Financial Intermediaries involved in the assume delegated responsibility for the GSE Project and this PR is not therefore relevant. environmental and social assessment, risk management and monitoring of the activities funded by them.
Page 10
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Performance Requirement Document PR 10: Information Disclosure and Stakeholder The Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Volume 7) Engagement - recognises the importance of an open outlines the consultation and engagement undertaken and transparent engagement between a developer, its to-date, starting with Scoping meetings in early 2018 workers, the local communities directly affected by and describes that proposed for the remainder of the the project and, where appropriate, other Project. GSE recognise the importance and benefits of stakeholders. Such engagement is also a way of comprehensive stakeholder engagement which improving the environmental and social sustainability enables stakeholders, including government agencies, of projects and can lead to improved financial, social municipalities and locally affected people and and environmental outcomes, together with communities to engage with the decision making enhanced community benefits. Stakeholder process, express their views and influence mitigation engagement is central to building strong, constructive and technical solutions. and responsive relationships which are essential for This draft ESIA Report is being made available to the the successful management of a project’s stakeholders as part of the ongoing meaningful environmental and social impacts and issues. To be consultation. effective, stakeholder engagement should be initiated at an early stage of the project cycle.
EU Directive This ESIA Report has also been prepared in accordance with the European Union (EU) directive 2014/52/EU[3] (as amended) on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment. The approach to ESIA set out by the EU directive 2014 is closely aligned to the EBRD Environmental and Social Policy, insofar as there is a requirement to assess the likely direct, indirect, secondary, short, medium and long terms effects where likely significant effects are anticipated. Cumulative and transboundary effects must also be addressed. The assessment must also provide a description of the measures to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. Finally any difficulties encountered in compiling the required information should be clearly stated in the ESIA Report. The requirements of the EU directive and how this ESIA Report addresses these are set out in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3 Requirements of the EU directive on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment and where these are addressed in the ESIA Report Annex IV Requirement Document reference in ESIA Report 1. A description of the project, including in particular: Project Description Chapter 3, Volume 2 Project (a) a description of the location of the project; Definition and Volume 4 Social. (b) a description of the physical characteristics of the Project Description Chapter 3, Volume 2 Project whole project including, where relevant, requisite Definition and Volume 4 Social. demolition works, and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;
______3 Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Official Journal of the European Union
Page 11
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Annex IV Requirement Document reference in ESIA Report (c) a description of the main characteristics of the The Project comprises electrical transmission lines and operational phase of the project (in particular any substations and as such does not consume energy or production process), for instance, energy demand and materials or involve a production process per se. The energy used, nature and quantity of the materials and Project is described in full in Project Description natural resources (including water, land, soil and Chapter 3 Volume 2 Project Definition. biodiversity) used; (d) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected The construction and operation of the Project will not residues and emissions (such as water, air, soil and result in significant residues or emissions to water, air subsoil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, or soil, vibration, light or heat. Construction noise has radiation) and quantities and types of waste produced been scoped out of the assessment (see during the construction and operation phases. Section 1.4.1), however, operational noise is addressed in Chapter 4, Document 5.1 Volume 5 Physical Environment. EMF is addressed in Section 5.3.3 of Document 4.1 Volume 4 Social. A strategy for the management of wastes will be developed for the Project by the Contractor in accordance with the ESMP (Volume 8) and also separate Waste Management Plan(s). 2 A description of the reasonable alternatives (for Project Need and Alternatives, Chapter 2, Volume 2 example in terms of project design, technology, Project Definition location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects 3. A description of the relevant aspects of the current Each topic assessment (Volumes 3 to 5) state of the environment (baseline scenario) and an outline of the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the project as far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort on the basis of the availability of environmental information and scientific knowledge. 4. A description of the factors specified in Article 3(1) likely to be significantly affected by the project: Population; Volume 4 Social Human health; Volume 4 Social Biodiversity (for example fauna and flora); Volume 3 Biodiversity Land (for example land take) Volume 4 Social and Volume 7 LARCF Soil (for example organic matter, erosion, compaction, Impacts on soils have been scoped out of the sealing); assessment (see Section 4.3.4 of the Scoping Report). Measures to control impacts on soils are outlined within the ESMP, Volume 8.
Page 12
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Annex IV Requirement Document reference in ESIA Report Water (for example hydromorphological changes, A detailed assessment of Project impacts on water quantity and quality); quality and flood risk has been scoped out of the assessment (see Section 4.3.4 of the Scoping Report). Nevertheless, key hydrological features (such as large river crossings) are mapped and described in Document 5.1 Physical Environment so that likely constraints can be established to inform the necessary mitigation approaches which are set out in the ESMP, Volume 8. Water quality and pollution risk are also addressed. Air; Impacts on air quality have been scoped out of the assessment (see Section 4.3.4 of the Scoping Report). Measures to control impacts on air quality are outlined within the ESMP, Volume 8. Climate (for example greenhouse gas emissions, The construction and operation of the Project does impacts relevant to adaptation); not result in significant impacts on climate. A detailed assessment of Project impacts on flood risk has been scoped out of the assessment (see Section 4.3.4 of the Scoping Report). Material assets, cultural heritage, including Documents 4.1 and 4.2, Volume 4 Social architectural and archaeological aspects; and Landscape. Chapter 2 Document 5.1 and Chapter 1 Document 5.2 Volume 5 Physical Environment 5. A description of the likely significant effects of the project on the environment resulting from inter alia: (a) the construction and existence of the project, including, where relevant, demolition works; Each topic assessment (Volumes 3 to 5) (b) the use of natural resources, in particular land, The construction of the Project would require a range soil, water and biodiversity, considering as far as of materials (e.g. aggregate for access tracks, possible the sustainable availability of these conductor lines, steel work, and concrete). A strategy resources; for the management of materials will be developed for the Project by the Contractor in accordance with the ESMP (Volume 8). This will consider the materials requirements across the Project and will determine how GSE and the Contractor manage these aspects. (c) the emission of pollutants, noise, vibration, light, A detailed assessment of Project impacts on water heat and radiation, the creation of nuisances, and the and air quality has been scoped out of the assessment disposal and recovery of waste; (see Section 4.3.4 of the Scoping Report). Noise is addressed in Chapter 4, Document 5.1 Volume 5 Physical Environment. The impact of radiation in the form of EMF is considered in Section 5.3.3, Document 4.1 Volume 4 Social. The Project would generate a range of wastes (e.g. steel work from dismantled steel lattice towers, aggregate removed following construction compounds and conductor line drums
Page 13
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Annex IV Requirement Document reference in ESIA Report and fuel drums). A strategy for the management of wastes will be developed for the Project by the Contractor in accordance with the ESMP (Volume 8) and also separate Waste Management Plan(s), as required by Georgian regulations. This will consider the materials requirements and waste generation across the Project and will determine how GSE and the Contractor manage these aspects. (d) the risks to human health, cultural heritage or the Each topic assessment (Volumes 3 to 5) and in environment (for example due to accidents or particular Volume 4 Social with respect to human disasters); health and EMF and also impacts on cultural heritage. (e) the cumulation of effects with other existing Each topic assessment (Volumes 3 to 5). and/or approved projects, taking into account any existing environmental problems relating to areas of particular environmental importance likely to be affected or the use of natural resources; (f) the impact of the project on climate (for example The Project will not emit significant quantities of the nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas greenhouse gases and will not be vulnerable to emissions) and the vulnerability of the project to climate change due to the location and nature of the climate change; infrastructure. Flood risk has been scoped out of the assessment (see Section 4.3.4 of the Scoping Report). (g) the technologies and the substances used. Each topic assessment (Volumes 3 to 5). The description of the likely significant effects on the Each topic assessment (Volumes 3 to 5). factors specified in Article 3(1) should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-term, medium-term and long- term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project. This description should take into account the environmental protection objectives established at Union or Member State level which are relevant to the project. 6. A description of the forecasting methods or Each topic assessment (Volumes 3 to 5) includes a evidence, used to identify and assess the significant description of the methodology used. effects on the environment, including details of difficulties (for example technical deficiencies or lack of knowledge) encountered compiling the required information and the main uncertainties involved. 7. A description of the measures envisaged to avoid, Each topic assessment (Volumes 3 to 5) and also prevent, reduce or, if possible, offset any identified Volumes 6 and 7 include a description of the significant adverse effects on the environment and, mitigation proposed. The ESMP (Volume 8) sets out where appropriate, of any proposed monitoring how the mitigation described in Volumes 3 to 7 will be arrangements (for example the preparation of a post- implemented. project analysis). That description should explain the extent, to which significant adverse effects on the environment are avoided, prevented, reduced or
Page 14
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Annex IV Requirement Document reference in ESIA Report offset, and should cover both the construction and operational phases. 8. A description of the expected significant adverse Covered by the Hydrology, Geology and Geohazards effects of the project on the environment deriving Volume 5 Physical Environment from the vulnerability of the project to risks of major accidents and/or disasters which are relevant to the project concerned. Relevant information available and obtained through risk assessments pursuant to Union legislation such as Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council or Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom or relevant assessments carried out pursuant to national legislation may be used for this purpose provided that the requirements of this Directive are met. Where appropriate, this description should include measures envisaged to prevent or mitigate the significant adverse effects of such events on the environment and details of the preparedness for and proposed response to such emergencies. 9. A non-technical summary of the information Volume 1 Non-Technical Summary. provided under points 1 to 8. 10. A reference list detailing the sources used for the Each topic assessment (Volumes 3 to 5). descriptions and assessments included in the report.
Other International Guidelines The Project has also considered the following international guidelines to complement those described above where further guidance is appropriate or specific guidance is absent: • International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) EHS sector guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution4, which provides guidance specifically related to the development of overhead transmission lines; and • IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) guidelines5 covering noise and vibration, which provides specific guidelines for noise limits from projects. • International Commission On Non Ionising Radiation Protection (2010) Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz - 100 KHz)6 • World Health Organisation (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines. Global Update 2005. Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide;’ • The IFC/World Bank EHS Guidelines Discharges of stormwater to surface water;
______4 IFC, Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution, April 2007 5 www.ifc.org/ehsguidelines 6 www.icnirp.org
Page 15
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• The International Labour Organization (ILO) core labour conventions: o C029 – Forced Labour Convention; o C087 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention; o C098 – Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention; o C100 – Equal Remuneration Convention; o C105 – Abolition of Forced Labour Convention; o C111 – Discrimination (Employment and Occupation Convention; o C138 – Minimum Age Convention; and o C182 – Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention.
1.4 Approach to ESIA
1.4.1 ESIA Scoping In order to establish the scope of the ESIA studies, a number of scoping meetings were undertaken by GSE and SLR Consulting which were held with the local municipalities and also Government Departments. Further details are set out in Section 5.2 of the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Volume 6). This was undertaken separately to the local EIA Scoping Report consultation run by the MEPA (see Section 1.3.1). An ESIA Scoping Report was then prepared which incorporated the results of these meetings. This was made available on the GSE website and issued to government agencies, municipalities and some non-governmental organisations7. The key findings of the scoping phase were: • Need to present evidence that alternatives have been adequately considered (see Section 2.3 of this document); • Avoidance of protected areas where possible must be achieved (see Section 2.3 of this document); • Landscape and visual impact in and near to protected sites which are important for promoting ecotourism as well as for biodiversity (see Volume 5 Physical Environment); • Bird surveys should be undertaken and appropriate mitigation considered (see Volume 3 Biodiversity); • Use of helicopters should be considered for difficult to access areas (see Section 3.5.2 of this document); • Emerald Sites present challenges and would not be approved unless the need and alternatives assessment demonstrated no other option (see Section 2.3 of this document); • Alignment with findings of the Energy Sector Strategic Environmental Assessment is needed (this document has not as yet been published); • Importance of obtaining official road and protected sites information (this information has been obtained); • EMF concerns on health of people and fauna (see Document 4.1, Volume 4 Social); ______7 http://www.gse.com.ge/projects/international-projects/Open-Programme-Extension-of-Transmission-Network- II
Page 16
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Concerns about the need for resettlement (see Volume 4 Social and Volume 7 Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Compensation Framework); • New Forestry Code coming into force in 2022 – further consultation with the Forestry Agency needed (meeting held 21 September 2018, see Volume 6, Stakeholder Engagement Plan); • Natural monuments database is currently being reviewed and updated – further consultation needed (Up-to-date information has been obtained); and • Potential use of underground cables rather than overhead lines should be considered in sensitive areas (see Section 2.3.8 of this document with respect to Tsinandali line). Consideration of the following has, therefore, been scoped out of this ESIA assessment: • Air quality and odour - the impacts of the Project on air quality are such that their management by the mitigation measures that will be set out in the ESMP (Volume 8) based on GIP, would prevent the occurrence of significant impacts; • Construction noise - the impacts of construction noise from the Project would be controlled by the Contractor(s) to meet IFC EHS guidelines5 (in the absence of Georgian standards relevant to construction noise). The Contractor(s) will use GIP and mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the relevant guidelines and thereby prevent the occurrence of significant impacts. These measures will be implemented through the ESMP (Volume 8); • Operational noise from lower voltage overhead lines (i.e. 110kV) - Lower voltage overhead lines (i.e. the 110kV lines of the Project) are considered to be ‘practically quiet’ in operation due to the relatively low electrical stresses on these lines; • Impacts on geology and soils - impacts on geology and soils will relate principally to the construction phase and would potentially arise from ground instability and ground disturbance. The majority of the works would be undertaken on previously undeveloped land where mobilisation of soil contamination is not an issue. The potential impacts are such that their management by avoidance measures, GIP and project-specific mitigation measures, which have been incorporated into the ESMP (Volume 8), is considered likely to provide sufficient mitigation for sensitive receptors to ensure that there are no significant impacts as a result of the Project; and • A detailed assessment of Project impacts on water quality and flood risk - impacts on water quality (both surface water and groundwater) will principally be associated with the construction phase, and will be associated with ground disturbance, any dewatering activities, creation of impermeable surfaces, and accidental release of pollutants or works near or within watercourses. These impacts are typically associated with infrastructure construction projects and thus measures to prevent environmental impacts arising from these are well developed and used. It is proposed that avoidance measures, GIP and project- specific mitigation measures have been incorporated into the ESMP (Volume 8). These are considered suitably effective to provide mitigation for sensitive receptors so that there would be no significant impacts as a result of the Project. Nevertheless, key hydrological features (such as large river crossings) are mapped and described in Volume 5 Physical Environment. Flood risk, principally of substations, is considered in the Hydrology, Geology and Geohazards assessment (Volume 5), though the protection of any site is to be considered further at the detailed design stage by the appointed contractor. All relevant comments received during the scoping process were taken into consideration in the preparation of this ESIA Report which is being disclosed by GSE to the public (see Section 1.5 of this document).
Page 17
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
1.4.2 Project Alternatives and Embedded Mitigation A key element of the ESIA process is the examination of alternatives. Through this process it has been possible to establish the least environmental and social impact transmission line routes and in so doing apply the first principle of the mitigation hierarchy, the principle of avoidance. This can also be referred to as ‘embedded mitigation’. The design of the transmission line routes has as much as practically possible avoided environmental and social impacts wherever possible. A number of design principles have been adopted and these have been a key consideration when reviewing alternative routes and then work which is ongoing to optimise the transmission lines. Such embedded mitigation includes the following aspects wherever possible: • Avoidance of protected areas, especially Emerald sites; • Avoidance of settlements and properties wherever possible; • Avoidance of key sensitive landscapes; • Avoidance of high value biodiversity features, such as primary forest (natural forest without evidence of human intervention); • Avoidance of tower placement within wetlands, rivers, or areas of biodiversity value; • Keeping transmission lines to landscapes already impacted by transmission lines rather than untouched landscapes; • Minimising vegetation removal with the right of way corridor; and • Avoiding placing towers on visible prominent ridges. The results of the assessment of alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 Project Need and Alternatives, Volume 2 Project Definition.
1.4.3 Project Component Assessment The Project has been developed to a feasibility level, i.e. to a detail considered sufficient to establish that the proposed alignments and substations are technically feasible and to allow environmental and social effects to be assessed. Final detailed design, including precise location of towers, substations and access tracks will be undertaken once the contractor(s) is appointed to develop the main technical design and prior to construction commencing. For the purposes of each ESIA assessment, and in the acknowledgement that a transmission line route could change at a later date as more information comes to light and when the Contractor(s) are appointed by GSE, a corridor approach to the assessment is being taken. A 250m corridor either side of the identified transmission line centre line is being adopted. This approach considers constraints within the 500m total corridor identifying any areas where development must be avoided. This permits the definition of the areas within 500m that are the acceptable ‘limits of transmission line deviation’ should deviation from the centre line be required by GSE or the Contractor(s). Changes to the route of the transmission line outside of the 500m corridor would be subject to further assessment and permissions, in accordance with a Method of Change Procedure set out in Section 2.4 of the ESMP (Volume 8). This method would require the assessment of any changes outside the current assessment corridors in line with international requirements aligned to the funders’ policies and may require disclosure before being approved. The Georgian EIA permitting process would also apply to these changes. For substations, a 50m assessment buffer would be assessed around substation locations. Constraints within the 50m buffer would be identified. If the final substation location moves outside the 50m buffer, as for overhead
Page 18
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
lines, it would be subject to further assessment in accordance with a method to be presented in the ESMP (Volume 8). In addition to support the assessments being undertaken and to enable consistency of approach and reference to geographical locations, each transmission line in each Project Component has been split into kilometre marker points, as shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.10, and denoted as KMXX in the reports.
1.4.4 Cumulative Assessment The assessment of cumulative impacts is a requirement of EBRD E&S Policy (PR 1, Paragraph 9) and the EU EIA Directive[3]. As directed by PR1, the cumulative assessment must consider the combined direct and indirect impacts of projects that are associated with this Project. These are called ‘associated facilities.’ PR1 also states that the cumulative assessment must ‘…consider cumulative impacts of the project in combination with impacts from other relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects.’ Projects that have occurred in the past, for example, existing transmission lines, have been considered to form part of the existing baseline environment. Therefore, they form an integral part of the impact assessment presented in the ESIA. In addition, different transmission lines forming some Project Components, for example, the Lechkhumi line and the Derchi Line or the Sairme line and the Tao line, form part of the overall Project and are assessed in-combination in the main impact assessment. They do not form part of the cumulative assessment. The cumulative assessment has, therefore, concentrated on the identification and subsequent assessment of other projects which could be of a nature to result in a cumulative impact which are either under construction or due to be constructed within a reasonably foreseeable period. In this ESIA, cumulative impacts are assessed in each of the technical topic Project Component assessments: Document 3.2 Biodiversity Project Component Assessment; Document 4.2 Social Project Component Assessment; and Document 5.2 Physical Environment Project Component Assessment. Process of Identifying Cumulative Projects The identification of cumulative projects has concentrated on identifying similar types of large infrastructure projects where there could be either, or both, a temporal and spatial overlap. In order for the project to be included in the cumulative assessment, sufficient information on the timing, the nature of the project and the potential environmental and social impacts are needed. In most cases this meant that only projects which have been subject to ESIA or Georgian EIA are included in the assessment. The following steps have been undertaken to identify cumulative projects: • Scoping the project with government agencies and municipalities; • Reviewing projects underway or proposed by the Government of Georgia with specific reference to: o Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development; o Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure; • Reviewing projects being financed by international lending agencies, including: o World Bank; o Asian Development Bank; o EBRD and KfW; and • Discussions with GSE to identify associated facilities and to collect information on future hydropower projects that are planned to connect to the electricity network.
Page 19
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Associated Facilities Associated facilities are projects that are reliant upon the development of the Project and, therefore, they generally have both a temporal and spatial overlap. All associated facilities are, therefore, considered in the cumulative assessment. Table 1.4 illustrates the associated facilities that have been identified and are assessed as part of the project. Of the projects listed in Table 1.4, there are limited details for Oni HPP although it is understood that feasibility studies have been completed and construction is due to start in Q4 2021. Table 1.4 also illustrates the continuation of the 400kV transmission line (Tao line) from the Georgian border to Tortum in Turkey. Whilst this is an associated facility, the assessment of the combined impacts and the impacts of this project are considered in the Transboundary Assessment of the Project Component specific assessments for Component A. Further details are outlined in Section 1.4.5 and 4.2.2 of this document.
Table 1.4 Associated Facilities Identified for the Cumulative Assessment Project Component Associated Facility Developer
Component A 500kV Tskaltubo substation GSE 400kV transmission line from Georgia/Turkey TEAS border to Tortum in Turkey
Component B Zoti HPP Zoti Hydro LLC
Component C1 Nenskra HPP JSC Nenskra Hydro Mestiachala HPPs JSC Svaneti Hydro
Component C2 Namakhvani Cascade HPP JSC Cascade of Namakhvani HPPs Kheledula HPP Kheledula Energy LLC Oni HPP JSC Oni Cascade
Component D None
Cumulative Projects Cumulative projects are those projects that are not linked to the Project, but which could interact with it either during the construction or operation phase. Table 1.5 outlines the potential cumulative projects that have been identified and outlines whether they are considered to have either a temporal or spatial overlap with the Project. The table also highlights whether environmental and social information is available for the projects. As highlighted in Table 1.5, the only cumulative projects to be identified, with sufficient environmental and social impact assessment information available, are the two transmission lines being promoted by GSE, which shall be considered in the Component A assessments. No other cumulative projects have been identified which could interact with the project following a review of infrastructure projects in Georgia (e.g. road or energy projects).
Page 20
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Table 1.5 Projects Identified as Potentially Having a Cumulative Impact Project Potential Cumulative Project Developer Temporal ESIA/EIA Component (T)/ Spatial available (S) Overlap?
A 500kV transmission line Jvari to Tskaltubo GSE T and S Yes 220kV transmission line Akhaltsikhe to Batumi GSE T and S Yes
B None
C1 500kV transmission line Jvari to Nenskra GSE T and S No
C2 None
D None
Cumulative Assessment Methodology Once a cumulative project has been assessed as having a spatial and temporal overlap, and thus having the potential for a cumulative impact, the assessment follows the same methodology as set out for the assessment of topic environmental and social impacts (e.g. biodiversity, landscape, social). However, the cumulative assessment is dependent upon the collection of suitable baseline and project information regarding the cumulative project. Ideally, there will be an ESIA or Georgian EIA available for the cumulative project which sets out the project details and the predicted impacts. Where this is not available assumptions are made based on the type of project and the potential environmental impacts that could be generated. This might mean extrapolating the environmental and social baseline information collected as part of the Project, unless the cumulative project occurs within the same area (i.e. having spatial overlap) with the Project.
1.4.5 Transboundary Assessment In the same way as cumulative impacts, EBRD E&S Policy (PR 1, Paragraph 10) and the EU EIA Directive both require a Transboundary Assessment to be undertaken where relevant. Therefore, a Transboundary Assessment is considered in each of the technical topic Project Component assessments, if relevant: Document 3.2 Biodiversity Project Component Assessment; Document 4.2 Social Project Component Assessment; Document 5.2 Physical Environment Project Component Assessment. 400kV Tao Line – Onward Section to Tortum in Turkey Of particular note to the Transboundary Assessment is the 400kV Tao line which will continue from Georgia into Turkey. Therefore, a Transboundary Assessment of this section of the line in Turkey has been undertaken. However, at the time of preparing this ESIA, no information is available on the route of the transmission line from the Georgia border to its intended end-point in Tortum, Turkey. As a result, a high level review of potential routes and environmental and social constraints has been undertaken. A desktop study of the potential route corridors has been undertaken to establish the sensitivity of the baseline environment. This study has been used to establish whether a suitable corridor is available that would meet the principles of GIP and not result in potentially significant impacts which could not be mitigated. The desktop study has considered the following: • Environmental and social constraints based on available published information e.g., Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs); • Review of satellite imagery from various sources, such as Google Earth; and
Page 21
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Review of photographs from Google Street View; Once the baseline information had been mapped, potential route corridors were established based on the same routing principles used for the development of this Project, which is described in Section 2.3.3 of this document. Details of the route corridors considered as part of the transboundary assessment are presented in Section 4.2.2.
1.4.6 ESMP An Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) has been prepared for the Project and is included in Volume 8. The purpose of the ESMP is to guide the implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements identified in the ESIA, principally Volume 3 (Biodiversity), Volume 4 (Social), Volume 5 (Physical Environment) and Volume 7 (LARCF). The ESMP is structured as follows: • Document 8.1: Project-wide ESMP - sets out the background, context, and general environmental and social obligations of all project members (e.g. GSE, the Contractor and the municipalities and Georgian government) and applies to all Project Components; • Document 8.2 Transmission Line ESMP - details the environmental and social obligations of GSE and the Contractor with respect to transmission lines (overhead lines and underground cables), including measures that apply across the Project and at specific transmission line locations of Project Components; and • Document 8.3 Substation ESMP - details the environmental and social obligations of GSE and the Contractor with respect to substations, including measures that apply across the Project and at specific substation locations of Project Components. The ESMP sets out the environmental and social measures to be applied on the Project, including details of any mitigation identified during the ESIA process. The ESMP sets out the measures that must be adopted by the Contractor during construction. It establishes a framework for the organisation of environmental and social management which will be implemented by GSE and its engineering support (Implementation Consultant) to administer the proper adherence of the ESMP. The ESMP is an umbrella document that gives direction to the development of the full complement of management plans necessary for the Project. The ESMP can be found in Volume 8.
1.4.7 Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Compensation Framework A Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Compensation Framework (LARCF) has been prepared for the Project and is included in this ESIA Report as Volume 7. The LARCF sets out the principles, criteria and procedures that will be employed to manage impacts associated with land acquisition and sets out a framework for the preparation of site-specific Resettlement Action Plans for the construction of the Project in accordance to international standards. The LARCF establishes a standard approach for the treatment of land acquisition and easements, as well as livelihood restoration in all Project activities in line with Georgian regulations and the EBRD’s Performance Requirement 5. It identifies procedures and requirements to guide GSE in dealing with people who experience land and property losses or economic displacement due to the Project-related land requirements. The principle objective of the LARCF is to ensure that all Project Affected People (PAP) will be compensated for their losses and provided with rehabilitation measures. The main objectives and principles of the LARCF comprise: • Minimise or avoid land acquisition and resettlement where possible. Where resettlement is unavoidable, the LARCF sets out procedures and requirements that must be followed. Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) will be required to minimise adverse impacts.
Page 22
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Compensate, relocate and rehabilitate all the Project Affected Persons (PAPs) at full replacement cost to improve their standard of living, income earning capacity and production capacity, or at least to restore to pre-Project levels. The livelihoods of poor and vulnerable households have to be improved to standards above the national poverty line. • Assist all PAPs in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of Project implementation. • Prevent the impoverishment of affected persons as a consequence of compulsory land acquisition or loss of livelihood due to project activities. • Consult and inform all PAPs and ensure they are active participants in the resettlement process and have access to adequate and accessible grievance redress mechanisms. Consultations must consider gender issues and consider the needs of stakeholders who may be considered vulnerable.
1.4.8 Structure of the ESIA Report The ESIA Report is presented in eight volumes structured as follows: • Volume 1 – Non Technical Summary– provides a summary in easy to understand language of the significant environmental issues identified through the ESIA process; • Volume 2 –Project Definition (this volume, see below); • Volume 3 – Biodiversity comprising assessments of the impacts of the Project on ecology and ornithology; • Volume 4 – Social including assessments of the impacts of the Project on local communities, employment, EMF and cultural heritage; • Volume 5 – Physical Environment– including assessments of the impacts of the Project on landscape and visual, noise, air quality, and hydrology and geology; • Volume 6 – Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) - Stakeholder engagement is a key element of the environmental assessment and development process defined by the requirements of the Lenders. The SEP is primarily focused on the requirements of the Lenders and the ESIA Report, however the stakeholder engagement associated with the EIA Reports is also referenced. • Volume 7 – LARCF – describes the principals, criteria and procedures that will be used to manage the impacts associated with land acquisition and sets a framework for the preparation of site-specific Resettlement Action Plans for the construction of the Project; and • Volume 8 – Environmental and Social Management Plan. Provides a framework for environmental management during the construction and operation of the Project and sets out how the mitigation described in Volume 3 to 7 will be implemented. The ESMP is split into a Project-wide ESMP (Document 8.1) and a Transmission Line ESMP (Document 8.2) and a Substation ESMP (Document 8.3). Volumes 3 to 5 - each volume comprises two documents, a Project-wide Assessment report and a Project Component Assessments report. The former provides introductory information, details of methodology and approach and the Project-wide assessment and mitigation which are relevant to all components; and the latter describes the Project component assessments and mitigation information specific to that Project Component. Each Project-wide Assessment is structured as follows: • Section 1.0 – Introduces the study;
Page 23
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Section 2.0 - delivers a Policy Framework with respect to that particular topic relevant to both Georgia and international requirements; • Section 3.0 - describes the Methodology employed for that topic assessment, including Study Area, Survey Methodologies, Assessment Methodology and Assessment Limitations. • Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 – provides the Project-wide Baseline Overview, Project-wide Impact Assessment and Project-wide Mitigation respectively. These comprise an assessment of the impacts that is relevant across each project component; and • Section 7.0 - presents in tabular form a Project-wide Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Commitments, including assessment of potential significance without mitigation, the mitigation/commitment necessary and the significance of the residual impacts. Project Component Assessments comprises specific Project component information and for each Project component in turn includes: • Baseline; • Impact Assessment; • Mitigation; • Cumulative Assessment; • Transboundary Assessment (if appropriate); and • Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Commitments, again in tabular form as for Section 7.0 of the Project- wide Assessment document. Volumes 6 to 8 include both Project-wide and component specific measures.
1.5 Consultation and Engagement Stakeholder engagement is a key element of the ESIA process as defined by the requirements of the Lenders and the requirements are set out in EBRD’s PR 10 Information Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement. The need for consultation is also set out in Georgian legislation. The purpose of stakeholder engagement is to enable stakeholders, including government agencies, municipalities and locally affected people and communities to engage with the decision making process, express their views and influence mitigation and technical solutions. Since the early stages of the Project, GSE has consulted people and organisations to ensure balanced decisions are made based on all the information and feedback available. Details are provided in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan at Volume 6. There have been two main stages of consultation/engagement to-date: • Scoping Consultation via o Scoping Meetings and correspondence with the relevant government agencies; o Scoping Meetings with the municipalities through which the projects will pass; and o Submission of a Scoping Report to the municipalities within which the Project is located, relevant government agencies, developers of associated facilities, Lenders of the Project and to the public via the GSE website. • Baseline Information Consultation
Page 24
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
o Topic specific meetings and one to one meetings with a range of stakeholders across the environmental topics, to inform a more detailed assessment and identification of appropriate measures to mitigate the effects of the proposals. This current third phase of the engagement process focuses on disclosing and consulting on the draft results of the ESIA process i.e. the Public Disclosure phase, as summarised below and described in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (Volume 6).
1.5.1 Public Disclosure Public Disclosure is being undertaken through: • Presenting the ESIA Report on the GSE and EBRD website in English and Georgian; • Making the ESIA Report available as paper copies in key relevant community locations; and • Public meeting(s) to be held between December 2018 and March 2019 (please see website for further details).
Following the 120 day disclosure period, the ESIA Report will be finalised in accordance with the comments received from the public and consultees. This final ESIA Report will be used by the Lenders to determine the compatibility of the Project with their policies and performance requirements and, therefore, their ability to provide funding for its construction.
Page 25
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Project Need and Alternatives
2.1 Introduction This document sets out the need for the Project and outlines the main alternatives considered for each component and the key reasons for GSE’s choices. The Project is part of a wider programme being implemented over a 10 year period by GSE to strengthen the power transmission grid in Georgia in order to improve cross border trade opportunities, to meet increased power demands and to connect existing and planned power projects, principally the growth of hydropower.
2.2 Project Need
2.2.1 Overall Need GSE has developed a Ten Year Network Development Plan of Georgia 2018-2028 (TYNDP)[8] to identify and implement projects that will meet the need for modifications and improvements to the transmission network of Georgia for the next ten years, in accordance with Article 32 of “Law Of Georgia On Electricity And Natural Gas” and the amendment in paragraph 3 of Article 2 of “Law Of Georgia On Electricity And Natural Gas” (12 December 2014). The TYNDP presents the programme for reinforcing the infrastructure of the national transmission system, addressing existing problems including system stability issues, responding to the future challenges relating to the need to connect a significant number of proposed hydropower projects (HPPs) and exploiting any opportunities such as the potential to increase cross border export of electricity. A large majority of the Georgian transmission network elements were designed and installed during the Soviet era and assumed parallel operation with the North Caucasus and Armenian/Azeri power systems. Specifically, the electrical power generated by the hydropower plants (HPPs) located in West Georgia was transmitted to Russia, while the power plants located in East Georgia were supplied with fuel from Azerbaijan. After Georgia regained independence, prices for fuel supply for the thermal units of Georgia grew, and the power generated by the HPPs in the western part of Georgia was needed to supply power to the demand centres in the east (for example Tbilisi). Meanwhile, the prospect of export to the neighbouring Turkish energy market and the potential for cross-border electricity trade/energy transit between other neighbouring countries emerged. The increased export of power will strengthen the regional power grid, and benefit Georgia’s economy. To be able to provide sufficient transfer capacity for both new renewable energy and to allow power exchange with neighbouring countries; GSE also aims to prepare the Georgian transmission network to meet the requirements for inclusion in the European Network of Transmission System Operators’ for Electricity (ENTSO- E’s) Ten-Year Network Development Plan[9]. ENTSO-E represents 43 electricity transmission system operators from 36 countries across Europe to facilitate the harmonisation, integration and efficiency of the European electricity market. Consequently, the GSE TYNDP, based on the best European practices and experience in the field, sets out a programme for achieving three major goals: • Development of a stable, reliable, cost-effective and efficient transmission system; • Connecting new renewable electricity generation, i.e. HPPs, to the network and satisfying the growing demand for electricity; • Fully utilising Georgia’s export and transit potential. ______8 GSE, Ten Year Network Development Plan of Georgia 2018-2028, 2018 9 http://tyndp.entsoe.eu/tyndp2018/
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The plan has been based on: • Existing capacities of the network and HPPs; • Future capacities of planned HPPs (location, capacity, generation, and year of inception); • Projections of consumption growth; and • Agreements with neighboring countries regarding a cross-border network development. Overall the TYNDP sets out proposals that will: • Increase the length of transmission lines by 1100km; • Increase substation capacity by 5000MVA; and • Require investments of €700 million. This Project forms part of these proposals and is designed to fulfil some of the requirements of the TYNDP. System Stability The Georgian transmission network is predominantly oriented from west to east (with the exception of Batumi). The majority of energy is generated in the west part of the country (total installed capacity of HPPs located in the west currently amounts to 2080MW), with the main consumption in the more populated centres of the east (e.g. Tbilisi and Rustavi). This imbalance is highlighted during spring and summer, when due to the high water flows available in Georgian rivers, HPP electrical production peaks and the thermal power units located at the east of the country (near Gardabani) are not operated. In the event of a fault on the 500kV Imereti line (the line exporting power from the largest HPP in Georgia at Enguri to Zestaponi), the remaining existing network, comprising 220kV transmission lines, is unable to transfer the full power load flow resulting in outage and power deficits in the east. This has often led to total system blackouts. In addition, when any large power unit in the Georgian system fails, the emergency control system initiates load shedding, resulting in brown outs or power cuts. The system does not, therefore, comply with what is known as the ‘N-1 criterion’ as required by the Georgian Grid Code for the transmission system. The N-1 criterion refers to a transmission system that is planned such that, with all transmission facilities in service, the system is in a secure state, and in the event of a loss (i.e. outage) of any one item of plant (e.g. transmission line, substation transformer, generator), the system would carry on to all intents as normal without resulting in any power cuts or brown outs. Changes to the transmission infrastructure are, therefore, needed to meet the N-1 criteria and to more efficiently balance energy demand and supply in Georgia between west and east. Therefore, the proposed infrastructure forming this Project is being designed to be stable, cost-effective, efficient and reliable so that it will achieve: • Uninterruptable transmission of the existing generation; • Compliance with the N-1 criterion (improvement of reliability); • Provision of sufficient operating reserves, and thereby responding to the (naturally) growing demand in the power system ; • Improvement of the power quality; and • Establishment of reliable power supply centres for promoting development of potential production/tourist centres. Connection of HPPs The Georgian power system currently experiences shortage of operating power generation (reserves) resulting in low power quality. The need for sufficient operating reserves will be met by the proposed construction of
Page 27
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019 regulated HPPs (with water storage) and thermal power plants as well as rehabilitation of existing generation facilities. It is proposed that aged thermal units be replaced with flexible and cost-effective combined cycle thermal power plants. The fulfilment of the TYNDP will enable the integration into the Georgian power transmission network of more than 100 HPPs with a total capacity of 4000MW. Network modifications are required in order to transmit this new energy generation to the demand centres. The TYNDP will permit the annual generation in Georgia to be increased by 15 billion kilowatt hours. The HPPs to be connected to the national transmission system via each component are listed in Section 2.2.2 onwards. Cross-border Export Without the TYNDP, the aggregated energy production of the proposed HPPs would continue to exceed Georgian electrical consumption (including for projected growth of Georgian demand) by as much as 5 billion KWh by 2021 and more than 10 billion kWh by 2025. Therefore, it is planned to increase the transfer capacity of the Georgia to Turkey electrical interconnection network, as Turkish demand for electrical power is consistently growing. This will be achieved by the construction of the Tao line (Component A) linking Akhaltsikhe Substation to the Turkish Border and onwards to Tortum in Turkey. In comparison with the existing Meskheti line (Akhaltsikhe to Borchka in Turkey), the new line would export the energy to Turkey with a higher reliability (see Section 2.2.2). As noted above, the Turkish electricity market has become steadily more attractive, and has an unmet demand for power, which has encouraged the development of the majority of the greenfield HPPs that are currently under construction or proposed in Georgia. Due to its geographical location, the Georgian transmission network could also be used for energy transit between the following neighbouring countries: Russia and Armenia/Iran; Azerbaijan and Turkey; Russia and Turkey; and Armenia/Iran and Turkey. Sections 2.2.2 to 2.2.7 provide further information on the development drivers for each of the components.
2.2.2 Development Need Component A - Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe and on to the Turkish Border at Vale The proposed 500kV double-circuit transmission line Tskaltubo-Akhaltsikhe (the Sairme line), the 400kV single- circuit transmission line Akhaltsikhe-border (the Tao line) and the associated 400kV and 500kV switchyards extension in Akhaltsikhe converter station, together with the planned 500kV Jvari-Tskaltubo transmission line (a separate World Bank funded project which is due to be constructed by 2020) are proposed in order to improve network reliability in the western part of the Georgian 500/220kV transmission system and increase the transmission capacity to the Turkish border. Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe – the Sairme Line At present, the largest hydropower plant in Georgia, Enguri HPP, is connected to the rest of Georgia by a single- circuit 500kV line via Zestaponi Substation (the Imereti line which does not meet the N-1 criterion). Any interruptions on the Imereti line result in electricity being transmitted via the existing 220kV transmission lines which reduces power transmission capacity by 80% and results in outages and power blackouts. The existing 220kV line is also the only back-up to the 500kV Zestaponi-Akhaltsikhe transmission line (Zekari line). Initial steps have, therefore, been taken to resolve these issues by the proposals for the World Bank funded 500kV Jvari-Tskaltubo transmission line project. In addition to facilitating the export of power from the Enguri HPP, Namakhvani Cascade HPP and other HPPs, this Jvari-Tskaltubo project will facilitate N-1 compliance and will comprise a 500kV transmission line connection between Tskaltubo and Jvari, and a 220kV connection between substations Tskaltubo 220 (existing) and Tskaltubo 500 (to be constructed). The estimated date of the project completion is the second half of 2020. The TYNDP identified a need to further strengthen the grid in this region through the development of the Sairme line, extending the 500kV transmission line from Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe. When the 500kV Jvari-
Page 28
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Tskaltubo-Akhaltsikhe network is operational, the transmission system will meet the N-1 reliability criteria. The 500kV Jvari-Tskaltubo transmission line will increase the transmission capacity of the internal Georgian network by 1000 to 1200MW, whereas the Sairme line will increase the transmission capacity of the internal Georgian network by 2000 to 2400MW. The Sairme line will also play an essential role in closing the new 500kV western grid, helping to reduce the loads on the Imereti line.
This component will also enable the export of power southwards from the following planned HPPs, which are presently forecast to be commissioned by 2023 or soon after:
• Khudoni HPP 702MW (Planned operational date not known but likely after 2023); • Nenskra HPP 280MW; • Mestiachala 1 and 2 HPPs 50MW; • Tskhenistskali Cascade HPPs 357.1MW (now due to be operational by 2024); • Namakhvani Cascade HPPs 433MW (also exported via Component C and the Jvari-Tskaltubo line); • Alpana HPP 60MW (also exported via Component C and the Jvari-Tskaltubo line); and • Dolra HPP 30MW (also exported via Component C and the Jvari-Tskaltubo line). Akhaltsikhe to Turkey Border– the Tao Line As the above HPPs come online, the aggregated capacity will exceed the Georgian energy consumption. Therefore, the Sairme line and the Tao line together provide Georgia with the opportunity to export excess energy to Turkey, in addition to, increasing reliability and fulfilling the N-1 operation criterion. Currently, there is only the Meskheti line (from Akhaltsikhe to Borchka) available for the export of power from Georgia to Turkey. There is often a need to cease power transmission from Georgia, during the peak power production of HPPs in April, May and June. The reason for this is that the Meskheti line also transmits power from Turkish HPPs at Borchka and Deriner HPP and other HPPs located in the Turkish Eastern Black Sea Region. These also have peak power production during the spring months and have priority in exporting via the Turkish part of the line over those in Georgia. Therefore, a connection from Akhaltsikhe to Tortum Substation, via the Tao line, will enable the transmission of power to the Erzurum bulk load centre in Turkey, and onwards to the southern and western regions of Turkey such that no reduction in transmission during spring would be necessary. The new Tao line will also improve the security of supply by being able to back up the existing Meskheti line, which is not effectively supported in the event of outages. Works have already begun on the main transmission corridor for the export to Turkey with the construction of the HVDC back-to-back Akhaltsikhe Converter Station. This has resulted in the construction of the 500kV double circuit Sairme line becoming a critical requirement for the further development of power transmission to Turkey. With the 500kV Jvari- Tskaltubo line, the Sairme line and the Tao line to the Turkish border in operation, it will be possible by 2022 to transfer 700MW to Turkey and give more capacity for transfer to Armenia under both summer off-peak and winter peak loads, rising up to 1400MW and 700MW respectively by 2027. In order to accommodate the Sairme line and the Tao line, the 500kV switchyard and the 400kV switchyards at Akhaltsikhe Substation will need to be extended.
Page 29
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
2.2.3 Development Need Component B - Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP and Connection from Ozurgeti to the Paliastomi Line Component B is required to reinforce the transmission infrastructure in the Guria region with the following aims: • integration of new HPPs into the Georgian grid (principally Zoti HPP (48MW)); • improvement of security of supply of Guria region; • improvement of reliability of the grid connections of HPPs which are on the southern stretches of the Rioni River (e.g. Vartsikhe cascade (256MW) which is currently only connected to the network via Kutaisi); and • increase the reliability of supply in the Batumi region. Therefore, Component B comprises the construction of a new 110/220kV substation at Ozurgeti and a 110kV transmission line linking this to Zoti HPP power house (Guria line) to connect the Zoti HPP project. Due to the proximity of the proposed substation at Ozurgeti to the existing Paliastomi single circuit 220kV transmission line, it is proposed to connect the two with a 2.5km loop-in/loop out dual circuit transmission line (Paliastomi loop). This will act to further strengthen the electrical distribution network in this area and would provide additional security of supply for the Batumi and Adjara regions. This link will reduce voltage problems in Batumi Substation and increase its facility for power evacuation.
2.2.4 Development Need Component C Component C1 (Jvari to Nenskra and on to Mestia) and Component C2 (Lajanuri connections to Kheledula HPP, Oni HPP and Tskaltubo) are intended for the integration of HPPs with roughly 2300MW total capacity being added into the network. In addition, the transmission network in the Racha region comprises outdated infrastructure which cannot guarantee stability and security of power supply of the Georgian transmission system, resulting in a risk of blackouts and emergency outages. Component C1 - Nenskra and on to Mestia The 500kV Jvari-Nenskra transmission line (Lekarde line) is required to increase transmission capacity of the Georgian network and will do so by 1000 to 1200MW. The component is required to export the power from the Nenskra HPP (280MW) and also the proposed Khudoni HPP (702MW) The 110kV Nenskra-Mestia transmission line (Mestia line) will connect the Mestiachala 1&2 HPPs (50MW) and other HPPs (Dolra and Alpana) as they are brought online in the future. In order to enable system stability and operate the new Component C transmission lines within the Georgian transmission and distribution networks, a new 110/220/500kV substation is required. Originally, this was planned to be located near to the proposed Khudoni HPP powerhouse, but the postponement of the commissioning date for this HPP and the bringing forward of the Nenskra HPP has resulted in a site at Nenskra being proposed. A reactor will be required to be installed at the substation in order to maintain the voltage across the connected transmission lines within the required limits, especially during low production and low load times. A new transmission line linking the existing Kavkasioni line to this new substation will also be constructed to improve system reliability and stability (Kavkasioni loop). The existing Kavkasioni line can export approximately 700 MW.
Page 30
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Component C2 - Lajanuri Connections to Kheledula HPP, Oni HPP and Tskaltubo The present hydropower production of the Lajanuri area is 78MW, and is expected to increase by 2022 to nearly 270MW and by 2027 to up to nearly 1100MW. Component C2 is required to export power from the following HPPs: • Namakhvani Hydropower Cascade Project (414MW) i.e. Upper Namakhvani (UNK) and Lower Namakhvani (LNK) – to be exported via the double circuit 220kV New Derchi line which will link Lajanuri to Tskaltubo and include loop in/loop outs to the HPP power houses; • Kheledula HPP (60MW) – to be exported from Kheledula HPP powerhouse to Lajanuri (Kheledula HPP line); and • Oni HPP (272MW) to be exported from the Oni HPP powerhouse to Lajanuri (Oni HPP line). In addition, a new 500kV transmission line linking Lajanuri to Tskaltubo (Lechkhumi line) is required to enable the onward export of the power from Kheledula and Oni HPPs to the Georgian demand centres. The Lechkhumi line will increase the transmission capacity of the internal Georgian network by 1000 to 1200MW. While there is an existing single circuit 220kV Derchi line linking Lajanuri to Tskaltubo, this transmission line does not have sufficient capacity to integrate the proposed HPPs and does not meet the N-1 criterion. It is, therefore, necessary to replace the existing line with a complete new transmission line using the same corridor. The 220kV double circuit New Derchi line will increase the transmission capacity of the internal Georgian network by 1000MW. In order to operate these new transmission lines a new 500/ 220/110kV substation is required at Lajanuri. In the absence of the existing Derchi line which currently exports power from the Lajanuri HPP, a new 4.2km 220kV connection will also be required between the Lajanuri HPP and the new substation at Lajanuri (Lajanuri HPP line). The Lechkhumi line must be available when the HPPs at Kheledula and Oni come into operation in order to transmit power to Tskaltubo and onwards into the Georgian grid system.
2.2.5 Development Need Component D Reinforcement of the Transmission Infrastructure in Kakheti Component D is required to improve the reliability and security of supply in the Kakheti region and also the Dusheti region. It will also facilitate the connection of future HPP projects if and when these come forward. Currently the majority of power generation in this region is located in the vicinity of Akhmeta (≈ 41MW) and Gurjaani (≈ 18MW). In addition, about 40MW of perspective HPPs is possible in the Akhmeta area, and 60MW in the Telavi area. Assuming possible future HPP generation and local consumption the maximum energy transmission could be in the order of 120MW to be evacuated along the network system. Almost the same amount of power will need to be imported onto the Kakheti region network system during the dry period when power generation is low. Due to the geographical proximity of this district to Tbilisi, and its suitability for agricultural production, it is also anticipated that agriculture and manufacturing could be increased in the short to medium term in this area. Hence, significant growth of Kakheti power consumption is anticipated. The existing 110kV network between Gurjaani, Tsinandali, Telavi and Akhmeta has a capacity of just 50MW and that of Gurjaani Substation is no more than 100MW. An upgrade of the existing Akhmeta to Gurjaani transmission lines and associated substations is therefore required. This component will comprise the decommissioning and removal of the existing transmission lines (Kalauri, Tsinandali and Ikalto) and construction of a new double circuit 110kV/220kV transmission line to be constructed on 220kV towers between Gurjaani and Telavi (Gurjaani line) and a new double circuit 110kV transmission line to be constructed
Page 31
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019 on 220kV towers between Telavi and Akhmeta (Akhmeta line). Rehabilitation of the existing substations at these locations and also at Mukuzani and Tsinandali and loop-in/loop outs will also be required to these substations.
2.3 Alternatives
2.3.1 No –action Alternative Under the no‐action alternative, the Project would not be constructed and all direct environmental and social impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed electric transmission lines and substations would be avoided. The Project is, however, an integral and major part of GSE’s transmission grid strengthening project, which has been under development for several years, the need for which is set out in Section 2.2 of this document. Should the Project not be constructed then these benefits would not accrue and the existing power transmission system would: • Not be able to meet the current demand for power transmission, in accordance with the N-1 criterion; • Not be able to evacuate the energy from the proposed new HPPs in Georgia; • Not be able to export additional power to Turkey; and • The overall efficiency of the system would gradually decrease year by year. The no-action alternative would therefore cause overall problems in the system, which GSE has identified as needing to be solved as soon as possible. Problems in the network system and the lack of capacity to transmit power would also result in the delay or cancelation of power generation projects and the benefits this could bring to Georgia in terms of positive social and economic impacts. Therefore, the no-action alternative is not considered to be a desirable or viable option.
2.3.2 Review of Alternatives As stated in Chapter 1, the consideration of alternatives is a key part of the ESIA process and is clearly set out in EBRD PR1 as a requirement. The Project has considered alternatives in determining the routing of transmission lines, substation locations and technology types (e.g. tower types or underground cables). GSE developed a framework methodology for the review of alternatives, as highlighted in Figure 2.1. This framework has been developed to illustrate the design process being applied and the stages at which alternatives have been or could have been considered. There are three stages at which alternatives have been considered: strategic alternatives (following ‘Power System Level’ studies); corridor and node alternatives (following ‘Desk Study Level’ studies on technical, environmental and social aspects); and finally route optimisation alternatives (at the ‘ESIA and Technical Studies Level’). The results of the ESIA studies to-date have been fed into the route designs to optimise for technical, environmental and social aspects. Comments received from stakeholders during the public disclosure process will also be considered and fed into the route optimisation studies.
Page 32
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
FIGURE 2.1 FRAMEWORK METHODOLOGY FOR REVIEW OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
2.3.3 Methodology for Selecting Alternatives and for Routing
The selection of alternatives for further study was achieved through a series of workshops with GSE, their technical advisor (Fichtner) and the environmental and social consultant (SLR Consulting). The assessment considered technical, social and environmental aspects in the review of alternative lines, with the aim of selecting routes that best balanced the technical objectives of the Project with the likely impacts on environmental and social aspects.
An analysis of the selected alternative corridors was then made using a multi-criteria analysis of aspects deemed to be important in making decisions for the Project. The framework for the multi-criteria analysis is shown in Table 2.1. It is important to note that the approach is also based on supplementing the multi-criteria analysis with textual descriptions to support and help evaluate the conclusions being made from the analysis. This is important to ensure that the multi-criteria scoring is verified, justifiable and consistent between components and alternatives.
Table 2.1 Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework Component Aspect Importance
Technical Construction cost 20%
Constructability 5%
Page 33
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Component Aspect Importance
Implementation time 20%
Operation and maintenance 2.5
Environmental Biodiversity 22.5%
Landscape, cultural heritage and recreation 5%
Social Resettlement, economic displacement, land use impact 25% and proximity to people
For the multi-criteria analysis, a criterion system of individual scoring (1 to 5) was made of the evaluated aspects of each selected alternative corridor in the alternatives analysis. The scores for each aspect were defined to enable the assignment of scores to the alternatives being considered. Appendix 1 illustrates the definitions of the scores for each component and aspect of the assessment.
Once scores had been applied to each aspect being studied, the weighting was applied to give a weighted score. The weighted scores were then combined to give a final overall performance score for each component. Once each alternative had been evaluated and scored, this method enabled an informed comparison to be made and was used to support the decision making process and identify the best performing alternative.
Following identification of the best performing alternative, routes were then developed within the identified corridors through an iterative process that included desktop studies and route visits. The desktop route studies used maps (including topography and verified cadastral maps) and satellite imagery from commercial sources and various topographical maps. The GSE team also obtained input from various local stakeholders relevant for infrastructure crossings. The following routing principles for overhead lines were adopted: • Avoidance of protected areas, especially Emerald Sites; • Avoidance of settlements and properties wherever possible; • Avoidance of key sensitive landscapes; • Avoidance of high value biodiversity features, such as primary forest (natural forest areas not affected by human intervention); • Avoidance of tower placement within wetlands, rivers, or areas of biodiversity value; • Keeping transmission lines to landscapes already impacted by transmission lines rather than untouched landscapes; • Minimising vegetation removal with the right of way corridor; and • Avoiding placing towers on visible prominent ridges. • Avoidance of high altitudes and inaccessible areas. • Avoidance of barren slopes or areas showing signs of instability or erosion; • Minimising line visual impact by placement beyond ridges; and • Maximising usage of the existing logging trails for access.
Page 34
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The selection of substation sites were also subject to site selection studies but often the siting of these where predetermined due to the presence of other existing infrastructure or proximity to other transmission lines. The following criteria were given consideration for the siting of substation infrastructure: • Avoidance of residential areas; • Minimising the biodiversity impacts; • Landslide and flood risk; and • Accessibility; • Distance to and from connection points, being that existing infrastructure or connecting HPP locations. A description of the alternatives considered and an assessment of alternatives is presented in the following sections.
2.3.4 Component A - Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe and on to Turkey Border at Vale Sairme Line – Alternatives Analysis Three broad alternatives were considered for Component A1:
1. Alternative 1 – Passing through the mountain terrain of the Borjomi Kharagauli ridge which is designated as the Adjara Imereti Ridge IBA, but avoiding the Borjomi Kharagauli candidate Emerald site and National Park.
2. Alternative 2 - Adjacent to existing 500kV Zekari line and passing through high mountain terrain and the Borjomi Kharagauli candidate Emerald Site and National Park; and
3. Alternative 3 - Running eastwards around the Borjomi Kharagauli candidate Emerald Site and National Park. This much longer route passed through the highly populated, scenic and popular tourism area of Borjomi and through population centres including Zestaponi.
These alternative routes are shown in Figure 2.2 and the comparative assessment of these alternatives is presented in Table 2.2.
Page 35
300000 320000 340000 360000 380000
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1 (SELECTED) Tskaltubo Substation ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
4680000 EXISTING SUBSTATION
NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART OF PROJECT)
WORLD HERITAGE SITE
CANDIDATE EMERALD SITE
IMPORTANT BIRD AREA
NATIONAL PROTECTED AREA
SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA BIRDS
Service Layer Credits: Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P 4660000 Corp. Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 4640000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2:
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED
4620000 FOR THE SAIRME LINE Akhaltsikhe 0 5 10 15 20 Substation Figure 2.2
Scale Date Kilometres 1:275,000 JANUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.2.2.0 AlternativeRoutes Considered 5752.00002.16.2.2.0for the Sairme Line Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Table 2.2 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Sairme Line Alternative 1 – Borjomi Kharagauli ridge Alternative 2 – Parallel to Zekari Line Alternative 3 – Via Zestaponi and Borjomi Biodiversity Overall, this route presents some Overall, this route presents significant Overall, this is the best performing challenges with respect to biodiversity. It challenges with respect to biodiversity. It alternative with regards to biodiversity as it crosses the Adjara Imereti Ridge IBA and crosses a candidate Emerald Site, the does not impact on the three designated the remoteness of the section across the Adjara Imereti Ridge IBA, and a Special areas of the Borjomi Kharagauli ridge. Borjomi Kharagauli ridge suggests the Protection Area for Birds and there is the However the presence of a bird migration possible presence of other protected potential for adverse impacts on critical routes indicates that bird mitigation would mammal and fauna species. However, the habitat. The remoteness of the section be required. route is located outside of the Borjomi across the Borjomi Kharagauli ridge Kharagauli National Park and candidate suggests the possible presence of other Emerald site. Significant impacts on these protected mammal and fauna species. species could occur. A transmission line Significant impacts on these species could along this route would require mitigation occur. A transmission line along this route to ensure protected species are protected would require mitigation to ensure during construction. protected species are protected during construction. This is considered to be the worst performing alternative with respect to biodiversity. Social This alternative is the preferred option with While this alternative follows the route of This alternative is the least preferred respect to social criteria as the route an existing transmission line and crosses option with regards to social criteria as it minimises the resettlement requirement the Borjomi Kharagauli ridge rather than follows a more populated route leading to and also results in the least disruption to passing through the lower land and valleys, greater interaction directly with the settlements and agriculture. Whilst there the route would result in some residential properties (particularly in will be some impacts to communities resettlement if optimisation is not possible. Zestaponi, Borjomi and other towns) and particularly through disruption to vegetable A longer length of agricultural land would indirectly with settlements in the vicinity. growers and also to communities on the also be affected compared to Alterative 3. north side of the Borjomi Kharagauli ridge the social impacts on this alignment are less than the other alternatives.
Page 36
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Alternative 1 – Borjomi Kharagauli ridge Alternative 2 – Parallel to Zekari Line Alternative 3 – Via Zestaponi and Borjomi Landscape Overall, this proposed alternative is Overall, this proposed alternative is While this route avoids the high quality and Cultural considered to have the potential to have a considered to have the potential to have remote landscape of the Borjomi Heritage significant impact on the landscape and less significant impact on the landscape of Kharagauli ridge, the transmission line will visual amenity of the Borjomi Kharagauli the Borjomi Kharagauli ridge than impact on the visual amenity of the tourists ridge, introducing a transmission line into a Alternative 3 due to the presence of the and residents of the valleys to the north high quality remote landscape which is existing Zekari transmission line. and south, particularly in the vicinity of considered to offer recreation value due to Borjomi. its remoteness and high-quality scenery. Technical The main technical challenges relate to part The main advantage of this option is the This route is of the order of 50% longer of the route being located above 1500m reduced length of the route compared to than Alternatives 1 and 2. However it is ASL. This results in: increased costs due to other two alternatives and the possibility of considered easiest in terms of the need for equipment with increased using the maintenance roads installed for constructability as it passes through mainly mechanical strength and heavier or more the Zekari line for access in the flat and hilly areas close to the main densely spaced supports; moderately mountainous areas. Again part of the route regional roads. Seasonal working difficult constructability; and operational is located above 1500m ASL, although to a restrictions are far less likely than in case of access restrictions during the winter slightly lesser extent than Alternative 1, the other alternatives, however the period. Regular prewinter inspections resulting in increased construction costs, additional length of this option negates this would be required in order to reduce the moderately difficult constructability and advantage. risk of defects during winter. operational access restrictors during the winter period.
Page 37
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The scoring of these alternatives based on the studies undertaken for each alternative route are shown in the following table, along with the weighting to illustrate the evaluation and comparison of alternatives.
Scoring Weighted scoring Description Category Weight Factor Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Construction cost 0.2 3 2 4 0.6 0.4 0.8 Constructibility 0.05 4 4 3 0.2 0.2 0.15 Technical Implementation time 0.2 4 4 4 0.8 0.8 0.8 Operation and maintenance 0.025 3 3 2 0.075 0.075 0.05 Biodiversity 0.225 4 5 3 0.9 1.125 0.675 Environmental Landscape/Cultural heritage/recreation 0.05 4 4 4 0.2 0.2 0.2 Resettlement/Economic displacement / Social Land use impact 0.25 2 3 5 0.5 0.75 1.25
Total points allocated 3.275 3.55 3.925 The selected route for the Sairme line is Alternative 1, which scored lowest in the multi-criteria analysis. This route was considered to best balance impacts on biodiversity and social aspects whilst also representing a route that was technically acceptable. Principally this route avoids the important protected areas of the National Park and the candidate Emerald Site along the Borjomi Kharagauli ridge. It should be noted that this was not the lowest scoring technical alternative, which was Alternative 2 following the existing Zekari line. Sairme Line Route Optimisation: Following the selection of Alternative 1, the route has been optimised further to take account of environmental, social and technological constraints. The following items have been addressed through the optimisation process: • In the vicinity of Amaghleba (KM25 to KM31), the route passes through a mix of farmed and forested land. Two different options were considered in this section. The initially proposed route travelled in a south easterly direction before turning south. While routing has been designed so as to avoid proximity to local population, in several locations this line would pass near housing receptors. The route has therefore been optimised to continue in a general southerly direction, crossing the River Kvinistskali which it then continues to follow for approximately 2km gradually turning in a southwest direction. The advantage of this option is that it crosses a less populated area and consequently there are fewer instances of the transmission line passing near habitation. • Two options were also considered for the ascent up the escarpment of the Borjomi Kharagauli ridge. The topography of this section was difficult to evaluate due to dense vegetation; and steep slopes where erosion hazards can be expected in places. The route that was closest to existing access roads was selected so as to minimise new access road construction and wider impacts on unaffected areas by the Project; and • Due to locations of the entry points into Akhaltsikhe Substation, and space restrictions on the approach to the substation due to the presence of existing transmission lines, the initial route proposal included two crossings of the Zekari line: one just outside the substation, and the other where the Zekari line turns north towards Zestaponi. To reduce the number of crossings, two subsequent proposals were considered. Neither option had any particular differences with respect to environmental or social aspects. The alternatives considered were: o Relocation of part of the existing Zekari line (approximately 6.5km) to follow a route approximately 80m to the north to free the space for the new Sairme line – effectively swapping the Zekari line with that of the initial proposal. This would eliminate the need for both crossings but would have additional costs. This was the technically preferred option as it removed the need for two 500kV lines crossings and the associated risk of multiple circuit
Page 38
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
outages in case of mechanical failure on one circuit, however it was discounted due to its increased cost. o A modification of the existing entry point of the Zekari line would enable a new line entry on the eastern side of the Zekari line, thus eliminating the need for the line crossing outside the substation. The main disadvantage of this option is the need for rearrangement of the protection and control system equipment in the substation. This option has been taken forward. Tao Line – Alternatives Analysis. Two alternatives were identified for the Tao line, as follows: • Alternative 1 - running to the north of Akhaltsikhe and other populated areas (such as Skhvilisi) within the Potskhovistskali River valley • Alternative 2 - a route to the south of these features. These alternative routes are shown in Figure 2.3 and the comparative assessment of these alternatives is presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOR THE Tao LINE Alternative 1 – North Alternative 2 – South Biodiversity This route is slightly more preferable to This route is slightly worse performing than Alternative 2 as it appears to cross fewer Alternative 1 with respect to biodiversity as rivers and no forestry clearance would be there are two river crossings and the route required. There are no protected areas would require some clearance of forestry and designated along the route of this potentially mitigation for birds within the alternative. Potskhovistskali River Social This alternative performs slightly worse than This route performs slightly better than Alterative 2 due to there being a potential Alternative 1 as it would avoid resettlement of need for a limited number of properties to properties. be resettled within the village of Persa Landscape Both routes pass through similar landscapes, Both routes pass through similar landscapes, and Cultural with this alternative running parallel to the though this line passes closer to inhabited Heritage existing Meskheti line. This is seen as being areas where no transmission line infrastructure slightly more favourable than Alternative 2 exists. Whilst a new transmission line would by keeping the transmission line impact the landscape, as the landscape is infrastructure in the same area which is similar to Alternative 1 it is considered to have slightly less populated with less potential for the capacity to accept transmission lines. On impacts on regularly used views. This benefit the basis that this landscape currently has no is marginal and both alternatives were transmission lines in the landscape this is scored the same. marginally less favourable than alternative 1 but both alternatives were scored the same. Technical No significant issues with adverse effects No significant issues with adverse effects identified, with possible exception of the identified, with possible exception of the need need for tall crossing structures, however for tall crossing structures, which is common to this is common to both options. The both options. However this route would presence of the maintenance roads of the require the additional crossing of a railway line, Meskheti line is an advantage compared to roads and the new 220kV Batumi line. Alternative 2 as is its avoidance of a railway
Page 39
320000 330000 340000
LEGEND
4630000 ALTERNATIVE 1 (SELECTED)
ALTERNATIVE 2
EXISTING SUBSTATION
CANDIDATE EMERALD SITE
IMPORTANT BIRD AREA
NATIONAL PROTECTED AREA
SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA BIRDS
Akhaltsikhe 4620000 Substation Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 4610000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2:
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED FOR THE TAO LINE TURKEY 0 5 10 Figure 2.3
Scale Date Kilometres 1:100,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.3.0 AlternativeRoutesConsidered 5752.00002.16.2.3.0for the Tao Line Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
line, roads.
The scoring of these alternatives based on the studies undertaken for each alternative route are shown in the following table, along with the weighting to illustrate the evaluation and comparison of alternatives.
Scoring Weighted scoring Description Category Weight Factor Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Construction cost 0.2 2 2 0.4 0.4 Constructibility 0.05 2 3 0.1 0.15 Technical Implementation time 0.2 2 2 0.4 0.4 Operation and maintenance 0.025 1 1 0.025 0.025 Biodiversity 0.225 3 3 0.675 0.675 Environmental Landscape/Cultural heritage/recreation 0.05 2 2 0.1 0.1 Resettlement/Economic displacement / Social Land use impact 0.25 2 2 0.5 0.5
Total points allocated 2.2 2.25 Alternative 1 to the north of the Potskhovistskali River scores marginally better than Alternative 2 on the ground that the landscape impacts are lower, it avoids biodiversity impacts of crossing the river valley and some areas of forest and technically it is more straightforward as it avoids crossing the railway line, roads and the new 220kV Batumi line. It is recognised that with Alternative 1 there is some resettlement required but this is limited to a small number of residential properties in Persa, which are currently located close to existing transmission lines (Zekari and Meskheti lines). Keeping the Tao line close to an existing transmission line in an environment already impacted by an overhead line the landscape impacts of the new line would be less compared to a new line in an unaffected landscape. On this basis Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred route. Tao Line - Route Optimisation: No significant route optimisation has been identified for the Tao line. Akhaltsikhe Substation Extension – Alternatives Analysis Two alternatives were identified for the installation of the three 500kV circuit breakers and Protection and Control outdoor container required for the Sairme lines at the existing Akhaltsikhe Substation, as shown on Figure 2.4: • Alternative 1 - Use of empty areas within/adjacent to the substation referred to as 10B04 and 10B05 (see Figure 2.4). The currently empty bay (A) in 10B05 had previously been set aside for the future installation of a third back-to-back converter (an additional 350MW). The use of this bay for the current Project would therefore require the back-to-back converter, when needed, to be located to the east of the substation in a new area excavated from the adjacent hillside. In addition, the final towers of the existing Zekari line may need to be relocated to facilitate the construction of the Sairme circuits into these bays. This is the selected option; and • Alternative 2 - The relocation of inter alia six existing transformers and two masts from a measuring bay (referred to as 10B00) within the substation to free the space needed for one Sairme circuit, with the use of the 10B04 area for the second circuit, as for the first option. This option would have design difficulties and would require the Zekari line to be switched off for at least a month during the works. Alternative 1 was therefore selected in order to avoid the switching off of the Zekari line and the design difficulties associated with Alternative 2.
Page 40
342000 343000 344000
LEGEND
EXISTING SUBSTATION BOUNDARY 4620000 ALTERNATIVE 1
AREA 10B04
AREA 10B05
ALTERNATIVE 2
AREA 10B00
AREA 10B04
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 4619000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS CONSIDERED FOR NEW EQUIPMENT WITHIN AKHALTSIKHE SUBSTATION
0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 2.4
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.4.0 Alternativelocations considered 5752.00002.16.2.4.0for new plant within Akhaltsikhe Substation Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The 400kV single circuit Tao line will be connected to the most easterly bay (20C01) at the existing substation. However, when in the future an additional, third back-to-back converter is constructed at the substation, this will result in a more difficult technical solution with respect to the presence of the existing Meskheti line. An alternative was, therefore, considered comprising a connection to the fourth bay (20C04). However, this would result in greater issues for the installation of the proposed third converter as two 400kV transmission lines would be connected in the same bay, resulting in a need to switch off both lines during outages. Use of this alternative would also require the Tao line to cross the existing Meskheti line near the Akhaltsikhe Substation. This alternative was therefore discounted.
2.3.5 Component B - Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP and Connection from Ozurgeti to the Paliastomi line Guria Line – Alternatives Analysis Three broad alternatives were considered for Component B: • Alternative 1 - Lowland Valley Route passes through highly populated areas but avoided the forested areas of the Meskheit Range. This route was discarded due to significant resettlement requirements; • Alternative 2- Edge of mountain ridge and lowland valley (Toe of the Mountain). This sought to minimise biodiversity and social impacts by skirting the Meskheit Range and scored similarly to Alternative 3 and so was taken forward for further study; • Alternative 3 - Mountain Route runs eastwards from Ozurgeti through a forested area of the Meskheit Range west of Bakhmaro and to the east of Chkhahoura. The route passes to the north west of Bakhmaro and modified landscapes surrounding the resort of Bakhmaro; and • Alternative 4 – Southerly Mountain Route which is a variant of the ‘Mountain Route’ but passing further south towards Gomismta avoiding the area of forest that Alternative 3 passes through. The first 15km and last 24km follow similar routes to Alternative 3. These alternative routes are shown in Figure 2.5 and the comparative assessment of these alternatives is presented in Table 2.4.
Page 41
250000 260000 270000 280000
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 4 (SELECTED)
NEW SUBSTATION
NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART OF PROJECT)
CANDIDATE EMERALD SITE
4650000 IMPORTANT BIRD AREA
NATIONAL PROTECTED AREA
PLANNING PROTECTED AREA
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Zoti HPP USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, Powerhouse METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Ozurgeti Substation 4640000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION 4630000 NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2:
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED FOR THE GURIA LINE
0 5 10 Figure 2.5
Scale Date Kilometres 1:125,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.5.0 AlternativeRoutes Considered 5752.00002.16.2.5.0 for the Guria Line Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Table 2.4 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Guria Line Alternative 1 – Lowland Valley Alternative 2 – Toe of the Alternative 3 - Mountain Alternative 4 – Southerly Mountain Mountain Route Biodiversity At least half of this route is Like Alternative 1, At least half The majority of the route Alternative 4 avoids more located within the Adjara- of this route is located within comprises forestry habitat forest than Alternative 3 and Imereti Ridge IBA. Other than the Adjara-Imereti Ridge IBA. which may include areas that where it does pass through that this alterative is This alternative passes through are natural and undisturbed. forest it passes through areas considered to be the best some areas of forestry in areas Surveys have confirmed that which have been modified and performing option with respect that tend to be close to there are areas of primary where there is existing access. to biodiversity, as it does not habitation and as such are forest that would qualify as Like Alternative 3, a significant pass through or close to any more modified than habitats Priority Biodiversity Feature part of the route passes sensitive areas and the found in alternative 3 and 4. (PBF) habitats based on EBRD through the IBA. Like majority of the route Performance Requirement 6. A Alternative 3, the route also comprises modified habitat. significant part of the route is passes within close proximity also located with the Adjara- to the proposed reserve of Imereti Ridge IBA. The route pontine oak also passes within close proximity to the proposed reserve of pontine oak. Social This route is the worst No resettlement is required The alignment avoids This alternative is similar to performing alternative with but this route would result in settlements with the exception Alternative 3 with respect to respect to social criteria due to greater interaction with local of the start of the route out of social aspects. It also passes the built up nature of the area communities and will impact Ozurgeti (which is consistent near to Gomismta. Good through which it passes, some economic and private for all alternatives) and as it access is possible along the resulting in the potential need land. Particularly sensitive approaches Zoti. In the whole of the route. to resettle in the order of 3 or routing along the Gubazueli highland areas there are a 4 properties and for there to River valley would be needed number of small settlements be disruption to a number of as the route passes close by a and the resort of Bakhmaro is communities number of properties and passed by this alternative. In settlements. . this area the route passes a
Page 42
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Alternative 1 – Lowland Valley Alternative 2 – Toe of the Alternative 3 - Mountain Alternative 4 – Southerly Mountain Mountain Route number of seasonally occupied properties. Landscape and While this route will have This route will have some This alternative passes through Like Alternative 3, the Cultural visual impacts on the landscape and visual impacts the more scenic area of the landscape is more scenic than Heritage Gubazeuli river valley, this but the landscapes are not Meskheit Range and passes the alternative 1 and 2. This route route performs well with highly valued. There are some tourist and recreation area does pass through areas where respect to landscape and scenic areas in the Gubazeuli around Bakhmaro. Much of a transmission line would be cultural heritage, as it avoids River valley which could be this landscape has been visible on the landscape. the scenic area of the Meskheit impacted. modified though a Range. transmission line would be a visible feature on the landscape. Technical All alternatives broadly cost a This route would face similar This alternative would require This alternative is slightly similar amount with challenges to Alternative 1. significant tree cutting and better than Alternative 2 and 3 Alternative 1 and 2 having removal to create the due to less tree cutting and some challenging tower necessary right of way and for better availability of the access foundation locations along the access tracks. Part of the line roads throughout its Gubazeuli River Valley. is also located at altitude which alignment. As for Alternative Operations and maintenance would require careful planning 3, being located at altitude would be easier due to good during construction plus an would require careful planning access along the route. allowance made for altitude during construction plus an and weather conditions in the allowance made for altitude design of the towers and and weather conditions in the conductors. design of the towers and conductors.
Page 43
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The scoring of these alternatives based on the studies undertaken for each alternative route are shown in the following table, along with the weighting to illustrate the evaluation and comparison of alternatives.
Points Allocated Points Calculated Description Category Weight factor Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Construction cost 0.2 4 4 4 4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Constructibility 0.05 4 4 4 3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.15 Technical Implementation time 0.2 4 4 4 3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 Operation and maintenance 0.025 2 3 4 4 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.1 Biodiversity 0.225 4 4 4 4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Environmental Landscape/Cultural heritage/recreation 0.05 2 2 4 4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Resettlement/Economic displacement / Social Land use impact 0.25 5 3 2 2 1.25 0.75 0.5 0.5 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Total Points Allocated 4.1 3.625 3.5 3.25 Part way through the Project, the Adjara-Imereti Ridge IBA boundary changed and extended to cover all four alternatives. This resulted in the need to re-assess the alternatives assessment during the earlier part of the Project. Given that now all four alternatives pass through the IBA, Alternative 4, the Southerly Mountain Route, was selected. The route was considered to be the best performing as it avoids the settled areas of Alternative 1 and 2 and avoids the primary forest areas and PBF of Alternative 3. Guria Line – Route Optimisation The final route has been optimised to as much as practically possible follow areas of existing access to minimise the quantity of forestry removal in the section of line between Ozurgeti (KM5) and Gomismta (KM17). The boundary of the proposed reserve of pontine oak has also been considered in the routing, with a change to the boundary made since the start of the review of alternatives. Paliastomi Loop - Alternatives Analysis Due to the short length of transmission line and the lack of any significant environmental or social constraints, it was not considered necessary to review other alternatives as the straight line shortest route appeared to meet the routing requirements set out in Section 2.3.3 of this document. Paliastomi Loop – Route Optimisation The route of the Paliastomi Loop has been optimised to minimise the impact on a riparian woodland feature which runs alongside a river called the Choloki River. It was considered that the Paliastomi line connection would be better on the north side of the Choloki River as this avoids interaction with riparian woodland compared to areas to the south of the Choloki River which would have resulted in removal of riparian woodland. The Paliastomi line crosses the Choloki River where there is an existing access crossing the river. The line then skirts the riparian woodland protecting this riparian feature as much as possible. Ozurgeti Substation – Alternatives Analysis The location of the proposed Ozurgeti Substation was identified using the substation site selection criteria outlined in Section 2.3.3 and also on the basis of the need to make a connection to the Paliastomi line and the local EnergoPro existing distribution transmission network. The site selected met the criteria for a substation site, having good access and being adjacent to existing EnergoPro infrastructure. Whilst the substation location requires a 2.5km connection to the Paliastomi line, it was considered to be a better location than building a line next to the Paliastomi line. Under such a scenario and whilst areas could be identified that met the site selection criteria a site with better access or the ability to make connections to the existing EnergoPro infrastructure could not be located.
2.3.6 Component C1 - Nenskra to Mestia Nenskra Substation Alternatives Analysis In order to make a grid connection and export power from the planned Nenskra HPP project a substation would be needed in proximity to the Nenskra HPP powerhouse. The substation location also had to be close
Page 44
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019 enough to the existing 500kV Kavkasioni transmission line so that a loop-in loop-out connection could be made from the substation so that power generated from Nenskra HPP could be exported to the national grid. The valley is quite constrained due to the steep sided valley slopes, the relatively narrow valley floor, the scattered population living and using the valley floor and the Nenskra River running through the valley. Therefore, there were few options available for suitable sites of the size needed (2.2 hectares). Three possible locations were considered in the Nenskra valley. The first, located on the right bank of the Nenskra River, opposite the Nenskra HPP powerhouse, was discounted due to its proximity to a residential area. Two further alternatives are located downstream of the Nenskra HPP powerhouse and these comprised the following: • Alternative 1 - located approximately 1km downstream of the Nenskra HPP powerhouse on the left bank of the river, comprising a flat long but narrow (varying from 25m to 60m wide) area adjacent to the Nenskra River. Being adjacent to the river flood protection measures, riverbank erosion control may be needed to ensure the site is protected, although river regulation following the construction of the HPP will reduce the likely flood risk of the site. The site is used by the local community for grazing and hay production. To the east of the site, the land rises steeply and there is evidence of soil and rock movement on the slope. Engineering works would be required to ensure stability of the slope and protection of the site from rockfall. Access is currently only possible by a footbridge, although above the site on the left bank there is a former access road, constructed during the early 1990s as part of the enabling works for the proposed, but not yet constructed, Khudoni HPP project. This access follows the Nenskra Valley to the main Nenskra road at the point where it crosses the road at the junction to the village of Tobari, just upstream of the Nenskra and Enguri River confluence; and • Alternative 2 - located approximately 1.5km downstream of the Nenskra HPP powerhouse on the right bank of the river. The area is partly occupied by a sawmill and a single property on the edge of the village of Lakhami. The alternative sites are shown on Figure 2.6. Both sites are flat with good geological ground conditions. The access along the valley to both sites would require significant upgrade to enable the transport of abnormal loads (i.e. the transformer). Retaining walls and also terracing of the adjacent slopes would also be required at both sites. The disadvantages of both sites are as follows: Alternative 1 – Left bank of Nenskra River Alternative 2 – Right bank of Nenskra River Social No resettlement requirement from the This alternative would require the need to site. However, there is evidence of limited resettle one property and one sawmill local community use of the site for grazing business affecting the livelihood of those and possibly for recreation. Many similar involved in that business. areas exist within the Nenskra Valley. Biodiversity Some mature trees still exist on the site There is little or no biodiversity value of but overall the site has a modified habitat the immediate site with only very limited and is grazed by cattle. Its overall vegetation present. biodiversity value is considered to be low
Page 45
268000 270000 272000 274000
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1 (SELECTED)
ALTERNATIVE 2 4766000
IMPORTANT BIRD AREA 4764000 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 4762000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2:
ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FOR THE NENSKRA SUBSTATION
0 1 2 Figure 2.6
Scale Date 4760000 Kilometres 1:25,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.6.0 Alternativelocations for the5752.00002.16.2.6.0 Nenskra Substation Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Alternative 1 – Left bank of Nenskra River Alternative 2 – Right bank of Nenskra River Technical Technically this site has some challenges Significant excavation would be needed to with respect to the potential for falling create a level site. Access is better than for rocks. There is also limited space which Alternative 1 though as the site is at an restricts the layout of the substation and elevated location there could be some the way in which transmission lines can challenges with respect to the delivery of enter the site. Due to its proximity to the the transformers to site. Nenskra River the level of the site would need to be raised by at least 2-2.5m to mitigate groundwater issues. Access to the site is possible via either a bridge or an upgrade to the access along the left bank.
Overall, the need to resettle a property and a business located within Alternative 2, resulted in the selection of Alternative 1, even though Alternative 1 was slightly more complex from an engineering perspective. Mestia Line - Alternatives Analysis Three broad alternatives have been considered for the Mestia line from the Nenskra Substation to a new substation in Mestia which comprised the following: • Alternative 1 - Following the Nenskra Valley downstream and then via the Enguri Valley with a view to following the valley floor to Mestia; • Alternative 2 – following a direct route leaving the Nenskra Valley passing over the valley sides to higher ground and entering the Enguri Valley some 9km up the Enguri Valley to avoid a narrow section of the Enguri Valley; and • Alternative 3 - Passing up the Nenskra Valley and over the Nakra Pass to Nakra before entering the north side of the Enguri Valley where the topography is less constraining. These alternative routes are shown in Figure 2.7 and the comparative assessment of these alternatives is presented in Table 2.5.
Page 46
270000 280000 290000 300000 310000 320000
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1
4790000 ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3 (SELECTED)
NEW SUBSTATION
NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART OF PROJECT)
CANDIDATE EMERALD SITE
4780000 IMPORTANT BIRD AREA
PLANNING PROTECTED AREA
Service Layer Credits: Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
4770000 Mestia
Nenskra Substation 4760000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2:
4750000 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED FOR THE MESTIA LINE
0 5 10 Figure 2.7
Scale Date Kilometres 1:175,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.7.0 AlternativeRoutes Considered 5752.00002.16.2.7.0for the Mestia Line Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Table 2.5 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Mestia Line Alternative 1 – Nenskra Valley and via the Alternative 2 – Direct route from Nenskra Alternative 3 – Nakra Pass and Enguri Enguri Valley Valley to Enguri Valley via higher ground Valley Biodiversity All three alternatives are located within the All three alternatives are located within the All three alternatives are located within the Svaneti IBA. This is the best performing Svaneti IBA. This route does present some Svaneti IBA. This route does present some alternative with regards to biodiversity as it challenges with respect to biodiversity. challenges with respect to biodiversity. does not require the removal or The first section of the route is likely to be The first section of the route is located in interference of any natural habitats. By re- populated by brown bear. The forested an area known to be populated by brown using the existing corridor (existing line or nature of the section from Nenskra to the bear. The remoteness of the section new parallel line) it would minimise Enguri Valley would also suggest the between Nenskra and Nakra would also impacts on habitats and whilst there is still possible presence of other protected suggest the possible presence of other the potential for disturbance to protected species. As these areas have had less protected species. The elevation of the species during construction, these habitats logging and new accesses would be route above 2500m above sea level would are not likely to be important for key required this alternative could open up also indicate presence of alpine habitats. species in the area, such as bear. these slopes to further human intervention However, the Nakra Pass has been subject which could affect protected species’ to logging activities and summer grazing habitats. Mitigation to ensure protected and there is vehicle access part way up species are protected during construction both sides of the pass. Mitigation would be would be needed but it would be harder to needed to ensure protected species are replace natural lost habitats especially if protected during construction and to limit primary forest is present. vehicle access to that which exists presently. Social This route avoids any resettlement issues in As with Alternative 1, this route will avoid There will be some social and economic the Nenskra Valley and is likely to avoid any the need for any resettlement and largely displacement issues to address along the resettlement issues within the Enguri avoids social issues other than limited Nenskra Valley and in a number of valleys Valley. This alternative largely avoids social economic displacement of agricultural land along this route. The need for any issues other than limited economic as the line approaches Mestia. resettlement is likely to be avoided. displacement of agricultural land as the line approaches Mestia.
Page 47
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Alternative 1 – Nenskra Valley and via the Alternative 2 – Direct route from Nenskra Alternative 3 – Nakra Pass and Enguri Enguri Valley Valley to Enguri Valley via higher ground Valley Landscape This is the best performing alternative with This alternative would be prominent and This alternative would result in a landscape and Cultural respect to landscape as the route follows a visible from the Nenskra valley, particularly impact on the Nakra Pass by introducing a Heritage landscape that has already been modified due to the requirement to remove trees to transmission line into a high quality remote and affected by human intervention and make the necessary right of way. landscape. Whilst not visible from where there are existing power lines. habitable areas this pass does have recreation potential during the summer months. It currently offers a remote and high quality landscape. Technical There are no particular technical challenges This alternative passes over the steep There are no particular engineering within the Nenskra Valley, but the initial 8 valley slopes of the Nenskra Valley challenges with this route, although due to to 10km of the Enguri Valley from the resulting in construction challenges, a section of the route being above 2000m Nenskra River confluence is very including landslide risks and access special towers and conductors will be constrained through a narrow and very difficulties. Overall, this first section of the needed to deal with the more severe steep sided gorge. An existing 35kV local route was considered to have too many climatic conditions. distribution transmission lines passes technical challenges with respect to through the valley. GSE confirmed that it construction for this to be considered a would not be possible to remove this feasible alternative. important distribution line which is the property of EnergoPro. Without removing this line there would be no room for a new transmission line to be constructed due very steep topography in the Enguri Valley
Page 48
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The scoring of these alternatives based on the studies undertaken for each alternative route are shown in the following table, along with the weighting to illustrate the evaluation and comparison of alternatives.
Description Category Weight Scoring Weighted scoring Factor Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Construction cost 0.2 3 4 4 0.6 0.8 0.8 Constructibility 0.05 5 5 4 0.25 0.25 0.2 Technical Implementation time 0.2 3 4 4 0.6 0.8 0.8 Operation and maintenance 0.025 2 3 3 0.05 0.075 0.075 Biodiversity 0.225 4 4 4 0.9 0.9 0.9 Environmental Landscape/Cultural heritage/recreation 0.05 2 3 4 0.1 0.15 0.2 Resettlement/Economic displacement / Social Land use impact 0.25 2 2 3 0.5 0.5 0.75
Total points allocated: 3 3.475 3.725 Following the analysis of alternatives it became apparent that both Alternatives 1 and 2 were not viable alternatives due to topographical constraints in the Enguri Valley and the need to maintain the supply of power to Mestia via the existing EnergoPro 35kV transmission line in the Enguri Valley. Therefore, the only remaining viable option is Alternative 3 over the Nakra Pass. This alternative has been selected but it is recognised that the Nakra Pass is potentially sensitive particularly for landscape and biodiversity. This section has been investigated in detail in both Volume 3 Biodiversity and Volume 5 Physical Environment in the landscape assessment. Mestia Line - Route optimisation No significant route optimisation has been identified for the Mestia line at this stage. Kavkasioni Loop – Alternatives Analysis Due to the short length of transmission line required, and the need to avoid other transmission lines i.e., the planned 500kV line from Jvari, the 110kV line to Mestia and the necessary transmission line from the Nenskra HPP powerhouse to the Nenskra HPP dam (to provide power to construct the HPP), a route due west to the Kavkasioni line was selected. This passes through an area of no real biodiversity interest and avoids the need for any physical displacement of properties. No other alternatives were considered for the Kavkasioni Loop.
2.3.7 Component C2 - Lajanuri Connections to Oni, Kheledula and Tskaltubo Kheledula HPP Line - Alternatives Analysis Three broad alternatives were considered: • Alternative 1 - running to the east through natural forestry habitats and high mountains; • Alternative 2 - following the Tskhenistskali River valley and the Alpana – Tsageri road; and • Alternative 3 - running west of Tsageri. These alternative routes are shown in Figure 2.8 and the comparative assessment of these alternatives is presented in Table 2.6.
Page 49
310000 320000 330000
LEGEND 4740000
ALTERNATIVE 1
Kheledula HPP Powerhouse ALTERNATIVE 2 (SELECTED)
ALTERNATIVE 3
EXISTING SUBSTATION
NEW SUBSTATION
NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART OF PROJECT)
CANDIDATE EMERALD SITE
PLANNING PROTECTED AREA 4730000
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 4720000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2:
Lajanuri ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED Substation FOR THE KHELEDULA HPP LINE
0 5 10 Figure 2.8
Scale Date Kilometres 1:100,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.8.0 AlternativeRoutes Considered5752.00002.16.2.8.0 for the Kheledula Line HPP Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Table 2.6 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Kheledula HPP Line Alternative 1 - Eastern route over the Alternative 2- Following Tskhenistskali river Alternative 3 - West of Tsageri mountain valley Biodiversity The central part of this route passes This alternative does not pass through any This route does not pass through any through the Racha-Lechkhumi Proposed protected areas. There are some areas of protected areas, although there is potential National Protection Area and the newly forest, most of which have been partly for there to be protected species present, designated Racha- Lechkhumi candidate cleared or affected by human intervention with large areas of woodland that are Emerald site. The central part of the route due to proximity to settlements. Some relatively untouched in the protection area comprises forest areas of forest appear to be less affected which has been unaffected by logging and and in these locations efforts to minimise human intervention and most likely forestry removal would be needed. represents natural habitat and provides refuge for protected/red list species. Social This route performs well with regards to This route appears capable of avoiding the This route has many more resettlement effects on social aspects with no need for physical resettlement of challenges than the other alternatives, resettlement requirements, little economic properties. The transmission line would particularly navigating between Kveda displacement and few properties in pass close to a number of settlements and Tsageri and villages to the south. Whilst it proximity to the line. some agricultural land may be affected by may be possible to find a route that avoids tower placements, but the area of land significant physical resettlement, the design affected would be limited. of the transmission line may not be feasible from many other aspects. It is assumed that between 10 and 20 properties would need to be physically resettled along this route. Landscape This alternative follows a route of high This alternative performs better from a This route passes through predominantly and Cultural landscape quality in a tranquil and scenic landscape perspective by keeping largely to modified landscapes at the start, but would Heritage area that is promoted for its ecotourism the bottom of valleys in landscapes that then be elevated above the Tskenistskali and recreation (e.g. Dzuguri). A have largely already been modified. river valley in an area of natural habitat. transmission power line would not be in However the section between the Lajanuri Here it would be highly visible from a keeping with this environment. valley and the Tskenistskali river valley is number of locations and from a high
Page 50
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Alternative 1 - Eastern route over the Alternative 2- Following Tskhenistskali river Alternative 3 - West of Tsageri mountain valley more scenic and comprises some natural number of properties, particularly those habitats and a transmission line through along the southern part of the route around this area would impact this landscape. Tsageri and Kveda Tsageri. Technical This is the longest of the three options. A Most of the route is accessible using the This is the shortest of the three options. considerable part of the route is located in Tsageri – Lentekhi road and local municipal Although access to the first part of the remote areas at high altitudes, with roads, only short access roads will be route is less favourable than in case of potential risk of soil erosion and landslides required. This alternative is moderately alternative 2, this is partially offset by easier There is expected to be increased costs due difficult in terms of constructability since access to the second part. to the need for equipment with increased most of the route is located on steep slopes The Tskhenistskali river crossing will require mechanical strength and heavier or more in the Tskhenistskali river valley. Some of a very long span, approximately 1400m. densely spaced supports. The high altitudes these areas also include potential risk of soil Alternatively, one tower can be located in are also likely to result in seasonal working erosion and landslides. the floodplain. However, this would require restrictions during both construction and This option has the shortest crossing of the special foundations and torrent protection. operation. Lajanuri reservoir crossing, estimated The first part of the route is difficult in The remoteness of the area has associated around 900m. terms of constructability due to steep logistical difficulties, as well as the need for A relatively short section of the route north slopes and relatively high altitudes. long access roads and extensive vegetation of the village of Doghurashi, may be clearance is also expected. The crossing of susceptible to severe weather restrictions. the Lajanuri reservoir will require a long 1100m span.
Page 51
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The scoring of these alternatives based on the studies undertaken for each alternative route are shown in the following table, along with the weighting to illustrate the evaluation and comparison of alternatives.
Description Category Weight Scoring Weighted scoring Factor Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Construction cost 0.2 4 3 4 0.8 0.6 0.8 Constructibility 0.05 4 3 3 0.2 0.15 0.15 Technical Implementation time 0.2 4 3 4 0.8 0.6 0.8 Operation and maintenance 0.025 4 3 4 0.1 0.075 0.1 Environmental Biodiversity 0.225 5 2 3 1.125 0.45 0.675 Landscape/Cultural heritage/recreation 0.05 5 2 3 0.25 0.1 0.15 Resettlement/Economic displacement / Social Land use impact 0.25 1 2 4 0.25 0.5 1
Total points allocated 3.525 2.475 3.675
Alternative 2 scored significantly better than the other two routes as it avoids resettlement, the Racha- Lechkhumi proposed protected area and the newly designated Racha- Lechkhumi candidate Emerald Site. It also has the least potential landscape impacts of the three alternatives. Kheledula HPP Line - Route Optimisation Along the Tskhenistskali River valley the challenge of minimising impacts on local communities and minimising the potential impacts on nearby forest was considered. Whilst the Project considered routing the transmission line along the valley floor, there are a number of villages to avoid which pushes the transmission line back into the valley slopes. It was also desirable to minimise the number of angle towers and a transmission line that was visible crossing the valley. As a result it was considered that the best route would be one that transverses the eastern valley slopes above the villages in the valley. The route can take advantage of existing village and logging accesses and also a number of potentially long spans across deep ravine, whereby the clearance of trees and vegetation can be kept to a minimum. Oni HPP Line - Alternatives Analysis Two broad alternatives considered: • Alternative 1 - running to north of the Rioni River; and • Alternative 2 - running on the south side of the Rioni River. These alternative routes are shown in Figure 2.9 and the comparative assessment of these alternatives is presented in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Oni HPP Line Alternative 1 – north option Alternative 2 – south option Biodiversity This route crosses some areas of This alternative passes close to the Racha 3 and natural hardwood forest habitat which Racha 4 candidate Emerald Sites. As habitats between could be important for protected/red the route and the designated sites appear contiguous list species. However, the majority of there is the potential for there to be the route does pass through more designated/protected species in the area. modified habitats. There are no protected areas along the route of this alternative.
Page 52
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Alternative 1 – north option Alternative 2 – south option Social Overall from a social aspects The south side of the valley is more populated over a perspective, this route performs well as wide area of the valley and a transmission line here it can avoid the need for resettlement. would interact more with settlements and properties. Some resettlement may be needed. Landscape The Rioni River Valley and the Lajanuri As for Alternative 1, this route would have an impact and Gorge are both of relatively high on the landscape and would be visible from some Cultural landscape value forming part of the prominent views. It would have a slightly higher Heritage same landscape features found in the impact on the natural hardwood forest landscape and protected upland areas to the north, be more visible to more settlements and properties in the valley is of relatively high landscape closer proximity to the line than in Alternative 1. value. However, many of its natural features have been modified in the landscape. This route would have some landscape impacts but to a slightly lesser extent than Alternative 2. Technical This is a slightly shorter route, however, Both alternatives scored the same with respect to the it passes through slightly more difficult technical criteria. terrain and will likely require certain amount of piled foundations and potentially special crossing structures in the section passing through the Rioni river valley. These issues are offset by the benefits of a slightly shorter line, and both options were scored the same.
The scoring of these alternatives based on the studies undertaken for each alternative route are shown in the following table, along with the weighting to illustrate the evaluation and comparison of alternatives. Description Category Weight Scoring Weighted scoring Factor Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Construction cost 0.2 3 4 0.6 0.8 Constructibility 0.05 3 3 0.15 0.15 Technical Implementation time 0.2 3 3 0.6 0.6 Operation and maintenance 0.025 3 3 0.075 0.075 Environmental Biodiversity 0.225 3 4 0.675 0.9 Landscape/Cultural heritage/recreation 0.05 3 3 0.15 0.15 Resettlement/Economic displacement / Social Land use impact 0.25 2 3 0.5 0.75
Total points allocated: 2.75 3.425 Alternative 1 was selected as it runs above settlements and avoids as much natural primary forestry as possible by staying mostly in more modified habitat. The route minimises impacts on the landscape compared to Alternative 2 and is also located further from the candidate Racha 3 and 4 Emerald Sites.
Page 53
320000 330000 340000 350000 360000 370000
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1 (SELECTED)
ALTERNATIVE 2
NEW SUBSTATION 4730000
CANDIDATE EMERALD SITE
NATIONAL PROTECTED
PLANNING PROTECTED
SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA BIRDS 4720000
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), Oni HPP NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Powerhouse Community
Lajanuri Substation 4710000 4700000 4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2:
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED FOR THE ONI HPP LINE
0 5 10 Figure 2.9
4690000 Scale Date Kilometres 1:175,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.9.0 AlternativeRoutes Considered 5752.00002.16.2.9.0for Line the OniHPP Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Oni HPP Line - Route Optimisation Two alternative routes were considered, with the main difference being that for the first 10/12km stretch of the line how to navigate the mountain ridge and Lajanuri Reservoir to the north of the new Lajanuri substation. It was decide to follow the same route as the Kheledula HPP line north out of the Lajanuri substation and cross the Lajanuri Reservoir. This enables a route to pass behind a ridge line which minimises views of the line from the Rioni River valley. There has also been some minor optimisation to avoid pockets of forest and further opportunities may exist to optimise the line to minimise forest removal during the detailed design process. Lechkhumi Line -Alternatives Analysis Three broad alternatives have been considered for the 500kV transmission lines which comprise: • Alternative 1 - running to the west and partly utilising a planned 500kV transmission line route from Tskaltubo to Jvari by adding a second circuit to the proposed transmission towers, before leaving this after 33km and turning northeastwards towards Lajanuri; • Alternative 2 - partly utilising the planned 500kV Tskaltubo to Jvari transmission line towers but for a shorter distance (19km); and • Alternative 3 - broadly running parallel to the existing 220kV Derchi line which will be removed and replaced as part of this Project (see below), albeit with several local deviations proposed to avoid populated areas. These alternative routes are shown in Figure 2.10 and the comparative assessment of these alternatives is presented in Table 2.8.
Table 2.8 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Lechkhumi Line Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Biodiversity This route passes through This route does not pass through This route does not pass the Racha proposed any designated sites and appears through any designated sites Emerald Site and crosses to pass through less natural and appears to pass through mountainous hardwood hardwood forest than Alternative less natural hardwood forest forest, alpine meadows 1. than the other two and pasture areas that alternatives. The use of the may include sensitive existing Derchi line corridor habitats and/or and existing access would also threatened species (such minimise effects on as brown bear, wolf and biodiversity. lynx). Social No resettlement and little economic displacement would arise from any of the three alternatives. The social aspects for all alternatives are very similar and there is little to distinguish between alternatives. Landscape Alternative 1 passes Landscape impacts on the This is the preferred alternative and Cultural through some remote Tskhenistskali valley would occur with respect to landscape and Heritage upland areas and also with some prominent views to cultural heritage, as while it past villages where the south of Ghvedi. The also passes through remote viewpoints may be Tskhenistskali valley also offers areas, the villages which the impacted by the addition recreation value due to its high line passes are larger and less of a transmission line. quality scenery. remote and have the existing Derchi line transmission lines (which are to be replaced)
Page 54
280000 290000 300000 310000 320000
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1 4720000
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3 (SELECTED)
Lajanuri PLANNED 500KV TO JVARI Substation
NEW SUBSTATION
NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART OF PROJECT)
WORLD HERITAGE SITE 4710000 CANDIDATE EMERALD SITE
NATIONAL PROTECTED AREA
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 4700000
Sataplia
4690000 Nature 4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW Reserve EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Tskaltubo VOLUME 2: Substation ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED FOR THE LECHKHUMI LINE
0 5 10 Figure 2.10
Scale Date Kilometres 1:150,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.10.0 Alternative RoutesConsidered 5752.00002.16.2.10.0 for the Lechkhumi Line Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 already present within the landscape. It is also considered that concentrating transmission lines into the same area would minimise the areas impacted, particularly as those areas considered in Alternative 1 and 2 are more natural and have sensitive landscapes. Technical Almost 50% of the route Approximately 30% of the overall This alternative is significantly length is shared with length would use the same shorter (49km compared to Jvari – Tskaltubo 500kV transmission towers as the Jvari – 69km for both Alternative 1 transmission line, using Tskaltubo 500kV line. The and 2), however, this single the same towers in a remainder of the route mainly circuit line is almost 15km and double circuit passes through Tskhenistskali 9km longer than the single configuration. This is very river valley and is relatively easily circuit sections of Alternative 1 cost effective for both accessible using the Tskaltubo – and 2. A significant beneficial lines. Tsageri road, although access to aspect of this option is its Remainder of the route some tower locations might be accessibility via existing passes through difficult difficult where these are located maintenance roads of the mountainous terrain with on the opposite river bank. This current 220 kV Derchi line. limited access and alternative is estimated as the Restricted access likely during requires a large amount most expensive. winter period, during of vegetation clearance This route is moderately difficult construction and operation both for the clearance in terms of constructability, corridor and access mainly because a considerable roads. part of the route is located in Restricted access likely proximity of busy a regional road during winter period, which can lead to significant during construction and traffic impact and potential operation. public safety issues. No winter access restrictions are likely.
The scoring of these alternatives based on the studies undertaken for each alternative route are shown in the following table, along with the weighting to illustrate the evaluation and comparison of alternatives.
Page 55
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Description Category Weight Scoring Weighted scoring Factor Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Construction cost 0.2 4 4 3 0.8 0.8 0.6 Constructibility 0.05 3 3 2 0.15 0.15 0.1 Technical Implementation time 0.2 2 4 3 0.4 0.8 0.6 Operation and maintenance 0.025 3 3 2 0.075 0.075 0.05 Biodiversity 0.225 5 3 2 1.125 0.675 0.45 Environmental Landscape/Cultural heritage/recreation 0.05 4 4 3 0.2 0.2 0.15 Resettlement/Economic displacement / Social Land use impact 0.25 2 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total points allocated: 3.25 3.2 2.45
Alternative 3 has the best score and was selected as it benefits from good access and keeps visual impacts confined to one area where a transmission line is already present in the landscape. Biodiversity impacts would also be minimised. In addition, this route is more direct and has the ability to use the existing accesses installed for the Derchi line. Lechkhumi Line - Route Optimisation The selected alternative runs generally parallel to the existing Derchi line, however the route has been optimised in order to deviate from this route to avoid the following: • The village of Sachkheuri (KM11 to KM16); • The villages of Opurchkheti, Zhoneti, Mechkheri and Zarati and the area to the west of Opurchkheti village (KM23 to KM38); • Residential area between Gumbra and Banoja (KM41 to KM43); and • Housing to the east of Ternali (KM44 to KM46). After crossing the Rioni River the 500kV transmission line has been brought closer to the 220kV loop in loop- out to Namakhvani and the 220kV Derchi line so that: • Tree removal is minimised and the line avoids good quality forest which includes many Georgian red list species; • The route takes advantage of better and existing access; and • To minimise access track construction and hence further minimise tree removal. New Derchi Line - Alternatives Analysis The New Derchi line is to replace and generally follow the route of the existing Derchi line and no other alternatives were, therefore, considered. This was based on there already being a transmission line in this environment with the presence of access tracks and right of way which would always make this the least impact alignment to take. In addition there will be two loop in/loop outs to the powerhouses of the Namakhvani Cascade HPP. No major alternative route corridors were considered for these loops as the alignments generally follow the most direct route whilst also considering and aligning with the design principles outlined in this document at Section 2.3.3. Other alternatives would have resulted in either significantly more tree cutting in good quality, and most likely primary forest, passing very close or through settled areas or encountering very steep and challenging topography. Lajanuri Substation - Alternatives Analysis Space for the proposed Lajanuri Substation is limited near Alpana village. A plot outside the village but at the same time close to the existing 220kV Derchi line and the existing power station of Lajanuri HPP was therefore investigated. The criteria applied to identify a location are as follows:
Page 56
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• avoidance of populated areas; • safer position concerning landslides and floods; • accessibility to the plot; and • shortest distance from 220kV Lajanuri HPP. The alternatives considered are shown in Figure 2.11. • Alternative 1 – the selected option comprises a greenfield site located to the west of Alpana, on the right bank of the Rioni River, and north of the Alpana, Kutaisi-Alpana road, 2.9km from the Lajanuri HPP powerhouse. Parts of the site are farmed and woodland is also present; • Alternative 2 – an area to the south of Alpana, on the left bank of the Rioni River, approximately 800m from the Lajanuri HPP powerhouse. The site is used for farming and has existing non-residential buildings and woodland; and • Alternative 3 – a wooded area to the southwest of Alpana, on the right bank of the Rioni River close to the Alpana, Kutaisi-Alpana road, approximately 3.9km from the Lajanuri HPP powerhouse. While Alternative 2 is located very close to the Lajanuri HPP powerhouse, this site was discounted, due to: the socio-economic impacts associated with land take and economic resettlement; proximity to housing (of the order of 50m); and also proximity to the Rioni River resulting in the potential for land erosion and flood risk. In addition, access is more challenging and would be via an existing bridge across the Rioni, approximately 300m to the north. Alternative 3 has good access being close to the main road through the valley, but is a very steeply sloping site and was discounted due to potential biodiversity impacts and also due to landslide/erosion risks.
2.3.8 Component D Reinforcement of the Transmission Infrastructure in Kakheti Component D comprises the rehabilitation of an existing Kalauri, Tsinandali and Ikalto lines albeit the voltage of the line in parts is increasing from 110kV to 220kV. Therefore, the analysis of broad alternatives has not been undertaken. The existing corridors have been taken as the starting point and these have been optimised where there are technical, environmental and social constraints. Similarly alternative sites have not been considered for the substation locations as the existing substations will be rehabilitated or extended as necessary. Gurjaani line – Route Optimisation The Gurjaani line has been optimised to deviate from the existing Kistauri and Tsinandali lines as shown on Figure 2.12 follows: • By following the edge of the Tsiv Gombori Range for a distance of 6.3km, keeping to the west of the densely populated areas of Zegaani ,Chumlaki and Mukuzani to the tee-off for the Mukuzani Loop (KM4 to KM10; • A further refinement of the route was considered close to the tee-off for the Mukuzani loop in order to avoid existing vineyards (KM5 to KM11). This was discounted due in order to avoid impacting upon the forest at KM5 to KM6. • At a watercourse/cliff crossing south of Shashiani, where the existing transmission line is routed through the edge of the village (KM14 to KM16). The Gurjaani line has been diverted higher up the escarpment before rejoining the existing line after 2.7km; • An 800m diversion in the vicinity of Akura (KM20 to KM21), where the Gurjaani line moves higher up the escarpment again to avoid housing;
Page 57
315000 320000 325000
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1 (SELECTED) 4720000
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), 4715000 NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW
4710000 EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE LAJANURI SUBSTATION
0 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 2.11
Scale Date Kilometres 1:50,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.11.0 Alternativelocations considered for the Lajanuri Substation 5752.00002.16.2.11.0 Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• At the tee off point for the Tsinandali loop, the transmission line heading on to Telavi will transition to an underground cable for a distance of 3.3km (KM26 to KM29). The underground cable is routed to the southwest around the proposed Radisson Blu hotel’s vineyard before turning to the northwest and passing under a cliff and watercourse and re-joining the route of the existing Tsinandali line to the southwest of Kisiskhevi. This section of the route is being undergrounded in order to reduce visual impacts on views due to the proposed tourism and recreation use of the area. An alternative overhead transmission route was also considered for this section of the route but was discounted as this would require additional tree removal within the candidate Emerald Site compared to the underground cable route; and • At the approach to Telavi, where the existing Tsinandali line passes close to housing, the Gurjaani line will deviate to the south to minimise resettlement and follow the Khrukiaskhevi river bed which runs between housing to the Telavi Substation (KM31 to KM33). However, it is expected that at least one house would require resettlement in any case. Akhmeta line - Route Optimisation The route has been refined to deviate from the existing Ikalto line as it leaves Telavi Substation as the existing line passes close to housing. The revised route (KM0 to KM4) will follow the route of the Khrukiaskhevi River bed southwards between housing, following a parallel route to the proposed Gurjaani line. The route then swings southwestwards to re-join the existing route of the Ikalto line. The route of the existing Ikalto line passes through the residential areas of Akhmeta, Sachale, and Kistauri and its replacement along this existing route would involve significant physical resettlement of properties. Two alternative routes have been proposed to avoid these areas, as shown in Figure 2.12. Both alternatives are routed from KM18 to avoid the town, a school and a shopping area. To the east of Akhmeta, Alternative 1 (10.6km) passes to the south of the existing line and on to higher land and steeper slopes to avoid the residential areas of Sachale, and Kistauri. Alternative 2 (9.8km), the selected option, stays to the north of the existing line and follows the Akhmeta-Kistauri road, staying to the north and avoiding the residential areas of Sachale, and Kistauri.
Table 2.9 Comparative Assessment of Alternative Routes for the Akhmeta Line Alternative 1 – Southern Route Alternative 2 – Northern Route Biodiversity This route does not pass through or close to any This alternative has no biodiversity issues. areas designated for their biodiversity, including This route does not pass through or close to birds. any areas designated for their biodiversity, The majority of the route crosses uncultivated including birds. There are no protected land and will require the clearance of a right of habitats or undisturbed natural habitats. way through approximately 1700m of trees/woodland habitat. As the route is on the edge of the forested area, close to areas of habitation, some forest areas are likely to be already impacted by access roads and logging activities. Although in certain locations such as between Arashendi and Kistauri, the forest appears to be natural due to lack of easy access. The transmission line following this route is unlikely to open up new areas to logging or hunting. However, it would act to push the boundary of the main forested area higher up
Page 58
520000 530000 540000 550000 560000 570000
LEGEND 4660000 GURJAANI LINE
REVISED ROUTE Akhmeta Substation EXISTING LINE
AKHMETA LINE
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
4650000 EXISTING LINE
EXISTING SUBSTATION TO BE REHABILITATED
CANDIDATE EMERALD SITE
IMPORTANT BIRD AREA
Telavi NATIONAL PROTECTED AREA Substation Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 4640000 Tsinandali Substation
Mukuzani Substation 4630000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
Gurjaani GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION 4620000 Substation NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED FOR THE AKHMETA LINE AND THE GURJAANI LINE
0 5 10 Figure 2.12
Scale Date Kilometres 1:175,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.2.12.0 Alternative routesconsidered 5752.00002.16.2.12.0 for the Akhmeta line Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Alternative 1 – Southern Route Alternative 2 – Northern Route the ridge. A number of small coppices would be removed in their entirety. Mitigation would be needed to protect species during construction. Due to the presence of forestry, breeding birds may be present which would require possible mitigation. Social This route avoids the need for physical This alternative can be routed to avoid the resettlement of properties; however it does need for physical resettlement, but would pass within 100m of eight properties. This pass within 100m of five properties in the alternative would not lead to significant vicinity of KM34. agricultural land loss. This alternative would not lead to The route would require the use of access tracks significant agricultural land loss. that pass through communities and close by properties. This would lead to dust and noise issues and also disturbance to local traffic. Landscape This route would result in greater landscape and No significant landscape or cultural heritage and Cultural visual impacts than Alternative 2 due to its issues identified. Heritage prominent location for two stretches, higher on the ridge to the south. There are also some steep slopes and potentially unstable slopes which could pose a challenge with respect to construction Technical This alternative requires more angles and Alternative 2 is a straightforward technical requires construction through some forest areas option. It passes away from properties, it and over some steep slopes. Soils in this region passes over flat topography and there is are known to have poor geotechnical properties good access from agriculture tracks. It does so there could be localised soil erosion issues. pass over a gas pipeline and this will This alternative is technically more challenging influence positioning of the towers, but that Alternative 2. there are no major technical constraints with this alternative.
Following selection of Alternative 2, this route was optimised to re-route further to the north, to follow the right bank of the Alazani river bed in order to minimise the impact of the transmission line on the vineyards that are crossed by the route by following roads and avoiding private land. Mukuzani line – Route Optimisation As noted with respect to the Gurjaani line, the Kalauri line at this location is routed through the town of Mukuzani and the Gurjaani line has been diverted to the south. The Mukuzani loop in/loop out will be routed from this new route around the north of the town to minimise resettlement. This new line does pass through an area of vines and it final optimisation would require negotiation with landowners to minimise impacts on the vineyards. Tsinandali line – Route Optimisation The Tsinandali line will follow the route of the existing Kalauri line. The use of underground cable has been considered for the final 400m of this route into Tsinandali Substation, in order to remove the need for
Page 59
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019 resettlement of a house, restaurant and road-side shop. This has been discounted due to the significantly higher costs associated with the use of underground cable. A route to the north of the road into the substation was also considered in order to avoid the housing but this was discounted as the land on the northern side of the road is occupied by a cemetery.
Page 60
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Project Description
3.1 Introduction This chapter provides a description of the Project and its Project Components. It outlines the detailed design process, summarises the Project elements being constructed, provides a description of the construction and operation and maintenance phases, and comments on Project decommissioning. A summary of each Project Component, its Project elements and the geographical locations and routings of transmission lines can be found in Chapter 4. The elements of the Project comprise the development and replacement of transmission lines, construction, extension and rehabilitation of substations and the development of associated infrastructure (e.g. access roads, construction compounds). Associated infrastructure which will be constructed as part of the Project includes the following: • Access tracks and works to some public highways; • Establishment and use of site compounds for various purposes (including use for movement and storage of materials, workers accommodation and sanitary facilities, storage of hazardous materials and for refuelling and storing vehicles and plant); • Temporary scaffolding to protect roads and railway crossings; • Working areas at various locations (e.g. at tower bases and for transmission line stringing) in order to facilitate the required construction activity; • Works to modify the existing lower voltage network where necessary to allow construction of the components (Component D only); and • Areas of mitigation, restoration and/or reinstatement.
3.2 Project Design Status The Project has been developed to a feasibility level, i.e. to a detail considered sufficient to establish that the proposed alignments and substations are technically feasible and to allow environmental and social effects to be assessed. Final detailed design, including precise location of towers, substations and access tracks is to be undertaken by the appointed Contractor and will be subject to approval by GSE prior to construction commencing. For the purposes of this assessment, GSE has defined a Project study area for each of the components that includes all land considered to be required for the construction and operation of the Project, on either a temporary or permanent basis. This study area encompasses a 500m corridor for each transmission line, centred on the centreline of the current alignment and a 100m buffer around proposed substation locations. It is anticipated that the majority of the refinement of the current feasibility design will be within this corridor/buffer. Where this is not the case, the detailed design of the infrastructure must meet acceptable environmental and social standards and be assessed in accordance with a ‘Management of Change Procedure’ which is set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 6.4, Document 8.1 Volume 8). The purpose of this is to ensure that environmental and social impacts are acceptable and the proposed mitigation measures (as set out in the ESMP) or any additional mitigation measures would effectively minimise the environmental and social impacts of the Project as described in this ESIA. The Georgian EIA Reports will be prepared to obtain an Environmental Decision and a Construction Permit for each Project Component. These will be based on the detailed design information. Any additional mitigation from these studies and from the permit requirements set out by the MEPA will be included in the ESMP.
Page 61
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
In addition, during the construction phase, it is possible that micro-siting of towers, determined at the detailed design stage, may be required to respond to detailed site factors that cannot reasonably be investigated prior to the detailed design. Again this will be undertaken in accordance with the steps set out in the Management of Change Procedure in the ESMP (Volume 8) and any permit requirements from MEPA.
3.3 Project Summary The Project comprises five main components (Project Components) as illustrated previously in Figure 1.1: • Component A - Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe and on to the Turkish border at Vale; • Component B - Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP and connection from Ozurgeti to the Paliastomi line; • Component C1 - Nenskra to Mestia; • Component C2 - Lajanuri connections to Kheledula HPP, Oni HPP and Tskaltubo; and • Component D - Reinforcement of the transmission infrastructure in Kakheti. Table 1.1 (see Chapter 1) provides an overview of the Project Components and the terminology used in this ESIA Report for the transmission lines and substations being developed or rehabilitated by the Project.
3.4 Description of Project elements
3.4.1 Outline of Project Elements The main Project elements that will be constructed, and in some cases rehabilitated, comprise the following: • 500kV, 220kV and 110kV transmission lines mostly as overhead lines but with some sections of underground cable; and • Substation/substation extensions. A summary of the Project elements for each Project Component is given in Table 3.1
Table 3.1 Project Elements by Project Component Project Component Project Elements
A 104km of 500kV double circuit overhead transmission line (Sairme Line) 33km of 400kV single circuit overhead transmission line (Tao Line) Extension to existing 500/400/220kV Akhaltsikhe Substation
B 45.4km of 110kV double overhead line (Guria Line) 2.7km of 2200kV double circuit overhead transmission line (Paliastomi line) New 110/220kV Ozurgeti Substation
C1 58.6km 110kV double circuit transmission line (Mestia Line) 550m 500kV loop in/loop out transmission line (Kavkasioni Line) New 110/220/500kV Nenskra Substation
C2 49km 220kV double circuit overhead transmission line (Oni HPP Line) 33km 220kV double circuit overhead transmission line (Kheledula HPP Line)
Page 62
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Project Component Project Elements
49km 500kV single circuit overhead transmission line (Lechkhumi Line) 45km 220kV double circuit overhead transmission line (New Derchi Line) 3.8km 220kV single circuit overhead transmission line (Lajanuri HPP Line) New 500/220/110kV Lajanuri Substation
D 29.8km 110kV/220kV double circuit overhead transmission line (Gurjaani Line) 3.3km of 220kV double circuit underground cable (Gurjaani Line) 35km 110kV double circuit overhead transmission line (Akhmeta Line) 1.6km 110kV double circuit overhead transmission line (Tsinandali Line) 2.8km 110kV double circuit overhead transmission line (Mukuzani Line) Rehabilitation and extension of 110kV Akhmeta Substation Rehabilitation and extension of 110/220kV Telavi Substation Rehabilitation of 110kV Tsinandali Substation Rehabilitation and extension of 110kV Mukuzani Substation Rehabilitation and extension of 110/220kV Gurjaani Substation Components C2 and D also require the removal of existing 220kV and 110kV transmission line infrastructure respectively.
3.4.2 Description of Project Elements Transmission Lines The overhead transmission lines will be formed of self-supporting steel lattice towers from which electrical conductors and an earth wire will be suspended. The transmission lines will run between substations and/or power generating facility switchyards. Different overhead line towers will be used taking into account the different voltages of the Project Component transmission lines. The proposed tower types and typical dimensions are shown in Table 3.2 and Image 3.1. Individual tower heights are expected to vary slightly due to varying ground topography, where there is a requirement to achieve longer spans or if there is a need to achieve higher vertical clearances (e.g. motorway crossings). Each tower type can be increased in height by using one or more 1.5m or 3m extensions. In a small number of cases, tower heights may be reduced but normally by no more than one short (e.g. 3m) section.
Page 63
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Table 3.2 Tower Types and Dimensions
Transmission Description Typical Height Approximate Approximate line voltage (m) Cross Arm width of tower Width (m) base 500kV Barrel type Sairme line 51.3 -68.4 30 10-15 towers with 6 crossarms and two earth wire Kavkasioni line 65-70 24 15-20 peaks
Y type towers with three phases and 37.5 19 9.5 two earth wire peaks. – Lechkhumi line 400kV Y type tower with horizontal 33 21 10 arrangement of phases and two earth wire peaks. 220kV Barrel type towers with 6 crossarms 50 14.4 8.5 and one earth wire peak 110kV Barrel type towers with 6 crossarms 37 13.6 7.6 and one earth wire peak
Page 64
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
IMAGE 3.1 TYPICAL PYLON TYPES Typical Barrel tower
Typical Y shaped tower
Irrespective of the transmission line design type, there are different functional types of tower that will be need for the Project, which are as follows:
Page 65
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Suspension towers - which support the transmission line in a straight line; • Tension towers - which generally support the transmission line where the line changes direction and to achieve maximum spans but are also used as a fixed point in a long line of suspension towers. These are generally slightly taller and wider than suspension towers; and • Terminal towers - which usually support the transmission line when the line is connected to a substation. These are also generally slightly taller and wider than suspension towers. The conductors will typically comprise a bundle of aluminium and steel or solely aluminium wires with a total diameter of approximately 2 to 3.5cm. Although the Project will use a standard conductor system, at high altitudes and large crossings (up to 1,400m) a heavier conductor will be used due to its higher strength and lower sag. The added weight of this conductor type also reduces the potential for the high-amplitude, low-frequency oscillations of overhead transmission lines that can occur due to the wind (known as galloping). In addition to the conductors, the transmission lines will include the standard Georgian requirement of one optical earth-wire and one normal earth-wire. The optical earth wire will allow effective control and operation of the transmission system by providing telecommunication links between the substations. Earth-wires would be made of galvanised steel wires or aluminium clad steel wires. The distance that a conductor line ‘spans’ between transmission line towers varies depending on the size of the tower being used and other factors such as ground topography or features being crossed. However, Table 3.3 shows typical and maximum spans between towers for the different voltage transmission lines being proposed. Maximum spans are achieved through the use of two tension towers. The detailed design will optimise the use of tower types and will determine the span distances between towers. This can only be done once the siting of towers has been made and confirmed.
Table 3.3 Typical and Maximum Spans Between Towers
Transmission line voltage Typical span Maximum span 500kV 400m below 1500m above 1200m (Sairme and Lechkhumi mean sea level (AMSL) lines) 370m above 1500m AMSL 400kV 350m 900m 220kV 400m below 1500m AMSL 1000m 370m above 1500m AMSL 110kV 320m below 1500m AMSL 800m 300m above 1500m AMSL
Underground Cable As part of Component D, a 3.3km length of 110kV double circuit underground cable is proposed. Six cables would be required and would be placed in a single trench in two groups of three cables. Typically, an accompanying auxiliary optical wire for system communication would run within a duct in the trench. The cable trench would be typically 1.5m wide and 1.6m deep. Once installed, the cables are buried and there would be no visible structures above ground. Cable sealing end (CSE) platform towers (one circuit 220kV and one circuit 110kV) would be required at either end of the underground cables to provide the point of transition between the overhead line and underground cable technologies. These would comprise a steel platform and steel cable ‘ladder’ structure. A typical single circuit
Page 66
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
110kV CSE Platform is 7.5m wide and 5m deep and is supported by three vertical steel supports concreted into the ground. Image 3.2 shows a typical single circuit CSEP. Termination of a double circuit, as required for Component D, would require two such platform structures which are typically mounted on each side of the lattice pylon structure.
IMAGE 3.2 TYPICAL LOW VOLTAGE SINGLE CIRCUIT CABLE SEALING END PLATFORM.
The 110/220kV CSE platform towers would each occupy a footprint of up to 35m x 50m and be up to 50m in height. Rights of Way Georgian legislation under Decree 366 (Government of Georgia, 201410) requires the establishment of a zone of protection or right of way along the path of a transmission line. For overhead line, the regulations prescribe a protection zone in terms of distance from the outermost conductors and are determined by the voltage of the transmission line. Within these protection zones buildings must not be constructed and certain activities are restricted to ensure the safe operation of the lines and for the safety of people. The zones of protection for different voltages are as follows: • 500kV = 30m each side of the outermost conductor; • 400kV = 30m each side of the outermost conductor; • 220kV = 25m each side of the outermost conductor; and • 110kV = 20m each side of the outermost conductor. Decree 366 prescribes the Zone of Protection which determines the rights of way in terms of distance from the outermost conductors. The Zone of Protection is then calculated for transmission lines based on these and the width of the tower to the outermost wires, as shown in Table 3.4 for each of the Project Component lines.
______10 Government of Georgia (24 December 2014) Decree #366 On Regulation for Protection of Linear Structures of Power Networks and Determination of Zones of Protection
Page 67
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Table 3.4 Rights of Way
Voltage Transmission lines Distance from Zone of Protection outermost wires from building required by Regulation N366 500kV Sairme and Kavkasioni 30m 75m loop, Lechkhumi 400kV Tao 30m 80m 220kV Kheledula HPP, Oni 25m 60m HPP, New Derchi, Lajanuri HPP, Paliastomi loop, Gurjaani, Akhmeta, Tsinandali, Mukuzani 110kV Mestia, Guria 20m 50m
For underground cables, Decree 366 only requires 1m of tree and vegetation clearance either side of the outer most cables. It is also necessary to remove trees and vegetation from within the right of way for the safe operation of the transmission lines, in accordance with the requirements set out within Decree 366 and as shown in Table 3.5. The methodology proposed for the removal of trees and vegetation is described in Section 3.5.2 of this report and also in Section 3.4 of the Transmission line ESMP (Document 8.2, Volume 8).
Page 68
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Table 3.5 Clearance Requirements
Transmission line voltage Ground cover Vegetation and Tree Clearance Requirements Clearance Next to outer conductor line (horizontal distance) 500kV Vegetation11 Vegetation less than 4m = no cutting - Sairme line Trees12 Gardens of fruit trees = no mandatory - Kavkasioni loop clearance - Lechkhumi line Tree height (forests13) if trees >4m Trees outside forest14 = 5m from maximum conductor swing 400kV Vegetation Vegetation less than 4m = no cutting - Tao line Trees Gardens of fruit trees = no mandatory clearance Tree height (forests15) if trees >4m Trees outside forest16 = 5m from maximum conductor swing 220kV and 110kV (representing the Vegetation Vegetation less than 4m = no cutting only source of power for consumers) Trees Gardens of fruit trees = no mandatory - Gurjaani line clearance - Akhmeta line Tree height (forests17) if trees >4m - Tsinandali line
______11 Vegetation – any ground cover such as grass or bushes which comprise a perennial woody plant with a branched crown formed from the surface of the ground and which does not reach more than 3m in height. 12 Tree – a perennial woody plant which develops a main stem or, in case of coppice tree – several branches, and forms a branched crown, and reaches a minimum of 3m height in maturity. 13 Forest – land plot with a width of not less than 10m and area of not less than 0.5 hectare covered with one or more forest timber species where the canopy cover makes not less than 20% of this land plot. 14 Definition of trees outside ‘forests’ comprise gardens, municipal green zones and parks; rows of trees with the function of preventing soil erosion (e.g. windbreaks); territories which are not located in forest and are used for short term rotation for up to thirty years starting from the time when forest forming timber species are planted; arboretums of forest species and New Year tree plantations; plantations of timber tree species used for producing walnuts, hazelnuts, chestnut, also fruit/ berry species. 15 Forest – land plot with a width of not less than 10m and area of not less than 0.5 hectare covered with one or more forest timber species where the canopy cover makes not less than 20% of this land plot. 16 Definition of trees outside ‘forests’ comprise gardens, municipal green zones and parks; rows of trees with the function of preventing soil erosion (e.g. windbreaks); territories which are not located in forest and are used for short term rotation for up to thirty years starting from the time when forest forming timber species are planted; arboretums of forest species and New Year tree plantations; plantations of timber tree species used for producing walnuts, hazelnuts, chestnut, also fruit/ berry species. 17 Forest – land plot with a width of not less than 10m and area of not less than 0.5 hectare covered with one or more forest timber species where the canopy cover makes not less than 20% of this land plot.
Page 69
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Transmission line voltage Ground cover Vegetation and Tree Clearance Requirements - Mukuzani line Trees outside forest18 = 4m for 220kV or 3m for 110kV from maximum conductor swing 220kV Vegetation Vegetation less than 4m = no cutting - Paliastomi loop Trees 4m from maximum conductor swing - Kheledula HPP line In slopes and ravines where the minimum - Oni HPP line clearance from the top of the lowest - New Derchi line conductor is 8m = 2m on lower slope and 4m - Lajanuri HPP line on upper slope 110kV Vegetation Vegetation less than 4m = no cutting - Guria line Trees 3m from maximum conductor swing - Mestia line In slopes and ravines where the minimum clearance from the top of the lowest conductor is 8m = 2m on lower slope and 3m on upper slope
Substations The construction and rehabilitation of substations would comprise the installation of electrical equipment such as transformers and switchgear. A transformer within a substation would change (or ‘transform’) the level of a voltage from one value to another value for onward transmission and distribution. Switchgear would be used to provide operational safety and flexibility to the network to enable efficient power flows under maintenance or fault conditions. The switchgear technology installed within the substations will be either gas insulated switchgear (GIS) or air insulated switchgear (AIS). AIS generally has a larger footprint and GIS components are smaller in footprint and are usually housed in buildings. The maximum height of structures proposed in the substation would be the landing gantries and lighting masts which would be up to 35m high. Typical heights of GIS buildings would be up to 10m. The following auxiliary equipment would also be required: • Low voltage cabling; • Earthing and lightning protection systems; • Small power and lighting systems; • Substation control and monitoring systems, telecommunication, control and protection, metering systems;
______18 Definition of trees outside ‘forests’ comprise gardens, municipal green zones and parks; rows of trees with the function of preventing soil erosion (e.g. windbreaks); territories which are not located in forest and are used for short term rotation for up to thirty years starting from the time when forest forming timber species are planted; arboretums of forest species and New Year tree plantations; plantations of timber tree species used for producing walnuts, hazelnuts, chestnut, also fruit/ berry species.
Page 70
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Civil works including busbars, supports and gantries ; • Internal roads, fences, gates, control building and guard house; • Meteorological monitors (temperature, humidity. luminosity( lightness), wind speed, wind direction, rainfall); and • Closed circuit television. A description of the detailed elements being installed at each new substation or substation extension/modification is summarised in Section 4.
3.5 Construction of the Project This section of the document provides a summary of the construction methods that would be used and which have been assessed in the relevant topic assessments (Volumes 3, 4 and 5).
3.5.1 Environmental and Social Management Plan An ESMP has been prepared for the Project and is included as Volume 8. The purpose of the ESMP is to guide the implementation of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements through the construction phase as identified in the ESIA, principally Volume 3 (Biodiversity), Volume 4 (Social), Volume 5 (Physical Environment) and Volume 7 (LARCF).
3.5.2 Site Preparation, Establishment and Reinstatement Construction of all components of the Project would commence with site clearance and ground preparation of Project element working areas, the installation of access tracks as required and the formation of temporary construction compounds. Methods of construction of working areas would typically involve the removal and appropriate storage of topsoil (for later reinstatement). Some working areas may require the use of crushed stone potentially overlain on a reinforcing geotextile membrane if the ground conditions are soft. Where necessary, improvements to the existing public highway network may be undertaken to facilitate the safe access of construction plant and materials and Project element items e.g., substation transformers. Access Tracks Where possible, existing roads and access tracks would be used for the construction of the Project. In many cases the working areas are remote, and no direct access is currently available from the public highway and local road network or existing access tracks are too narrow and in a poor condition; therefore, access tracks would be required to provide suitable access for the delivery of materials, plant and the workforce to the working areas. Access tracks would be approximately 4.5m wide although could be wider in places depending upon topography and access requirements. Access tracks passing across steep slopes would have a maximum gradient of around 12-15% and would have provisions for the collection and diversion of runoff from uphill slopes. The method of construction would also depend on ground conditions and topography but will most likely use crushed stone, 300mm to 500mm deep, or compacted subsoil. For soft soil conditions, some form of geotextile matting or timber matting with crushed stone may be used. All access tracks would be constructed with provision for the control of runoff from the tracks and for the control of surface drainage adjacent to the tracks. These requirements are set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.5, Document 8.2 Volume 8)). Where access tracks need to cross watercourses, one of a number of alternative crossing methods would be adopted. Smaller watercourse crossing may use small pre-cast concrete culverts, whereas wider watercourses would be crossed by single span bridges to protect the watercourse. All works would be undertaken in accordance with measures outlined in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.6, Document 8.1, Volume 8) based on
Page 71
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
GIP. These methods would ensure water flows continue to be managed and for the protection of mammals, such as otter. In some locations of the Project, the installation of access tracks is to be controlled to a minimum in order to protect biodiversity and to minimise the footprint of the Project. In such locations, special measures are to be adopted for the delivery of equipment, materials and the workforce. This could include the use of helicopters, manual transport (using mules or horses) or the use of low pressure tyre vehicles that can access locations without the need for constructing access tracks. These measures are outlined in the Transmission Line ESMP (Section 4.2.1, 4.4.1, and 4.5.2, Document 8.2, Volume 8) and the locations are described in more detail in Section 4 and the biodiversity assessment (Document 3.2, Volume 3 Biodiversity). It is anticipated that most access tracks would remain in situ following completion of the construction phase to provide for access during operation and maintenance. Where accesses are no longer needed and there is a biodiversity benefit to them being reinstated the access tracks would be removed and replanted. Site Fencing and Warning Signs Prior to site clearance it may be necessary to identify and fence off vulnerable or protected areas such as community water supplies, cultural heritage features, biodiversity areas to be avoided, watercourses or other water features. The contractor would also install signs that indicate these restricted areas for the construction workforce and any signs required for highlighting the presence of construction works for the local community. Tree and Vegetation Removal The removal (or height reduction) of trees and ground vegetation would be required ahead of soil stripping or any excavation and foundation works. Tree removal and vegetation clearance would be kept to a minimum and would comply with the specifications set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.2, Document 8.2, Volume 8) which are based on GIP. Tree clearance and vegetation removal in the transmission line Right of Way would also follow a protocol which is set out in the Transmission Line ESMP (Section 3.4, Document 8.2, Volume 8). Here it is proposed to remove or cut trees and vegetation where only necessary for the construction of the towers, the stringing of the conductor lines and the safe operation of the transmission lines. The safe operation of the transmission lines takes into account the maximum sag of the conductor line (which is typically in the hottest weather conditions), the maximum swing of conductor lines in strong winds and also an allowance to enable tree and vegetation cutting maintenance cycles to be no more frequent that 5 years. However, the most important part of the specification outlined in the ESMP, is for the minimisation of cutting and also for the retention of trees and vegetation in order to meet minimum required safety clearance heights in accordance with Table 3.5. Project Working Areas Working areas would vary in size depending on the Project element. Tower base working areas would typically be 20m by 20m for 500kV and 400kV tower bases, 15m x 15m for 220kV and 110kV suspension tower bases. These areas would be slightly larger for the tension and terminal towers. Substation working areas would depend on the dimensions of the proposed substation and the necessary working areas required adjacent or around the proposed sites. Substations must be formed on level ground and consequently it is likely that a degree of cut and fill operations may be needed in order to create a level platform. Project Working Area Reinstatement Any topsoil and subsoil excavated during site preparation would be stored separately alongside the working area in accordance with the specifications set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.6, Document 8.1, Volume 8) and with GIP. This will ensure that the working area can be reinstated or where project elements require a permanent footprint the soils can be formed into bunds or used to restore other areas as appropriate once construction activities are complete. Areas of temporary land take would be restored to their original use, in accordance with the measures outlined in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.10, Document 8.1, Volume 8). The
Page 72
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
level of restoration works would be assessed on the basis of the pre-existing and neighbouring land uses where the working areas and construction compounds are constructed.
3.5.3 Temporary Construction Compounds The Project would require the use of a number of construction compounds at each substation location and at intervals along the transmission lines. The precise location of temporary construction compounds are not yet determined, but will be required to meet environmental and social standards which are set out in the Project- wide ESMP (Section 5, Document 8.1, Volume 8). These temporary compounds could include site offices, welfare and sanitation facilities and laydown areas for equipment and materials for the works. The size, shape and layout of compounds would vary depending on the nature of each site location. Typical site compounds could encompass an area of up to 50m by 50m. Each temporary construction compound would be required to be secure, resulting in the need for suitable, secure fencing and a gated site entrance with security. These requirements are set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.5.6, document 8.1, Volume 8) Temporary construction compounds would also be used for the storage of potentially hazardous substances such as oil and fuel for plant and vehicles. The storage and disposal of hazardous substances at appropriate and licenced facilities would be subject to strict specifications, which are set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.5.10, Document 8.1, Volume 8). Typically, this would comprise safe and secure storage, appropriate training of staff for their use, spill containment bunds and spill kits for any leaks or spills. Refuelling of vehicles may also take place within temporary construction compounds and this would also be subject to strict controls which are also outlined in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.7, Document 8.1, Volume 8). Concrete batch plants may also be required. Effluent from batching activities and cleaning of concrete trucks shall be collected in settlement ponds and treated in line with GIP. The temporary construction compounds would typically be constructed following the removal and appropriate storage of topsoil (for later reinstatement) if appropriate and the laying of areas of crushed stone potentially overlain on a reinforcing geotextile membrane depending on site ground conditions. Surface water drainage may be required at the temporary construction compounds depending upon their location. Movements of materials and personnel from all these compounds to the working areas would be by a combination of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), and small vans and potentially by the use of helicopters, mules or horses or the use of low pressure tyre vehicles for more remote and harder to reach areas or where the environment is particularly sensitive and there is a need to minimise the footprint of the Project,.
3.5.4 Installation of the Transmission Line Towers Following construction of the working areas and the clearance of the Right of Way, the construction of the transmission lines would begin with the construction of the foundations for the towers. In flat or moderately hilly areas, the foundations would generally comprise either standard pad and chimney, concrete block designs or be piled depending on ground conditions. Pre-mixed concrete would be delivered to site along with steelwork for the foundation frames and bases. The foundation would comprise reinforcing steelwork cylinders encased in concrete, with ‘stubs’ projecting through the concrete above ground to which the tower legs would be attached (Image 3.1 and Image 3.2).
Page 73
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
IMAGE 3.3 TYPICAL TOWER FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION SITE
IMAGE 3.4 PILED TOWER FOOTING COMPLETED
For towers located in inaccessible mountainous sections, micro-pile foundations with grouted rock anchors may be used. Self-propelling piling units would be used for these and would be suitable for difficult access. Micro-pile foundations require much reduced quantities of concrete and in particular a reduction in disruptive excavations. The modular lattice towers would be erected in sections, with a mobile crane. If circumstances demand, such as in very remote and hard to access locations, a helicopter may be used to lift the assembled sections into position. The insulators would be fastened to the towers in preparation for the installation of the conductors. As highlighted previously, for very remote or steep slope areas and areas where the surrounding biodiversity is considered to be particularly sensitive, it would be necessary to use helicopters or other less intrusive methods (e.g. mules and horses, vehicles running on low pressure tyres) of access to reach tower foundation sites for the delivery of equipment and foundation materials. Areas of the Project where special provisions for the access to
Page 74
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
tower locations, delivery of materials and the delivery and erection of towers are required are highlighted in the Biodiversity Project Component Assessment (Document 3.2, Volume 3) and also the Transmission Line ESMP (Sections 4.2.1, 4.4.1, and 4.5.2, Document 8.2 Volume 8). Protection against avalanches will also be installed in remote high altitude locations on the uphill side of tower locations where the contractor assesses there to be such a risk.
3.5.5 Installation of Conductor Lines The conductor lines would be delivered to site on drums using HGVs as would the tensioning and pulling machines an example of which is shown in Image 3.5.
IMAGE 3.5 GROUND LEVEL VIEW OF A TYPICAL PULLING/TENSIONING MACHINE SITE
The preparation of the working corridor is undertaken in advance of the conductor stringing. This may require the use of scaffolding in some instances to protect members of the public and assets from transmission line construction works. Items that may require protection include roads, tracks, railways, buildings, and lower voltage transmission lines. Scaffolding would be assembled prior to stringing or other works on the transmission lines. For road crossing, temporary road closures or the use of workers (flagmen) to direct traffic may also be used. The works may also require the crossing over or diversion of lower voltage local distribution lines. This would typically be undertaken in advance of the Project’s construction works and be undertaken in a manner that ensured continuity of local energy supplies to local communities. Some tree and vegetation removal would also be required to enable the stringing works to take place, particularly in forests. The conductor lines are installed in sections between approximately 10 towers at a time. The pilot wires are run at ground level (and over any temporary scaffolding protecting obstacles and roads) along the full length of the section, between the ‘pulling site’ and the ‘tensioning site’ where the new conductor is positioned. If necessary a corridor up to 5m would be cleared of trees and vegetation. However, such clearance would be avoided where possible by passing the pilot wire around areas of tree and vegetation. The pilot wires are then lifted and fed through running wheels on the cross arms of all the towers in the middle of the section, and then fed around a special machine at the final tower or pulling site in the run of towers being strung. In order to keep the conductor lines off the ground and avoid any damage to property, the tensioning site has a similar machine that stops the conductor line running freely when the pulling machine ‘pulls’ the pilot wire. When the pilot wire is tensioned it pulls through the conductor line avoiding contact with the ground through the towers before connecting to the final tower in the run. The required tension and height above ground are made and the process begins again for the next section of towers.
Page 75
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
In some cases where the topography is very steep or challenging (e.g. crossing deep ravines or wide rivers), there is no need to clear a corridor of trees and vegetation because the necessary vertical clearances are met without any removal. In such instances, the pilot wires are run between towers either by cutting a very narrow path (maximum 5m) with minimum tree and vegetation cutting or ideally by passing the pilot wires via the nearest access tracks. In such instances, it is important that tree and vegetation removal is kept to a minimum and this is described in the Transmission line ESMP (Section 3.4, Document 8.2, Volume 8).There are other methods which could also be used by the contractor including helicopters, drones, manual transport (i.e. mules or horses) or the use of low pressure tyre vehicles that can access locations without the need for constructing access tracks. These methods are designed to avoid or reduce the footprint and impacts of the Project.
3.5.6 Underground Cable A working area approximately 10m wide would be created along the length of the underground cable and protected by post and wire fencing. Vegetation would be cleared and topsoil would be stripped from the areas of ground to be disturbed in the working area. An existing access track would provide access along the route and a trench would be dug alongside using an excavator. The cable trench would be typically 1.5m wide and 1.2m deep. Soils would be handled as described in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.6, Document 8.2, Volume 8). Pre-construction drainage and ground condition surveys would determine the need for any drainage works. Underground cable are supplied in cable drums, which would be delivered to working areas using HGVs, with smaller vehicles such as tractors used to transport cable drums and other materials along a temporary the excavated trench. The cables are supplied in lengths of approximately 800-1000m; the cable lengths would be connected to each other using an underground joint bay. For each joint bay, an above ground inspection kiosk and a surface accessible link pit structure would be required. The only visible structure protruding above ground level would be the above ground kiosks which would each be approximately 1m long by 0.5m wide and 1.25m tall. The trenches would be back-filled with the soil and compacted, with any excess soil side-cast in accordance with the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.6, Document 8.1, Volume 8). Top soil would be replaced and reseeded/planted in accordance with the Site Reinstatement Plan (Section 5.3.10, Document 8.1, Volume 8).
3.5.7 Transmission Line Removal Removal of existing transmission towers will be required for Component C2 and Component D. To facilitate the removal of redundant transmission lines, the area around each tower would be cleared and where appropriate fenced. Fittings such as dampers and spacers would be removed from the conductors and the conductors would be cut into manageable lengths or winched on to drums in a reverse process to that used during installation. The towers would either be dismantled by crane, with sections cut and lowered to the ground, or the legs of the tower would be cut and it would be pulled to the ground using a tractor before being dismantled. In particularly sensitive areas, such as in forests or areas of agriculture, (for example, vineyards in Kakheti), manual dismantling and removal would be used to minimise the surrounding impacts to land. It is anticipated that much of the steelwork of the dismantled pylons will be suitable for recycling. Any materials that cannot be recycled will be disposed of to appropriate licensed facilities. This requirement is set out in the Transmission line ESMP (Sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.2, Document 8.2, Volume 8). Subject to agreement with relevant landowners, it is expected to be appropriate to remove only above ground infrastructure to minimise the potential for damage to vegetation and soils. In some circumstances and following discussions with landowners, the foundations may be removed to 0.5m or 1m below ground to return the land to productive agriculture. Such works would require the use of heavy plant and equipment which would impact surrounding land and as such any works to remove foundations would be agreed with landowners.
Page 76
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
3.5.8 Substations For the proposed new substations and substation extensions, topsoil would be removed and an appropriate working platform established for the development. As highlighted previously, this may require a degree of cut of fill operations to ensure a level platform is created. Cut and fill operations would require the use of excavators and drilling equipment where bedrock is present. Once the working platform has been created, a series of earth tapes or an earth grid would be installed below the ground to create an ‘earth mat’ to make the compound electrically safe. Construction of concrete foundations for some of the electrical equipment would be undertaken and concreate or tarmac roads would be installed for safe access around the site. The substation support structures, electrical equipment and GIS buildings, where appropriate, would then be erected. Other areas in the substations would be constructed mainly on areas of permeable stone chippings. Rainfall intercepted by the site would run off external impervious surfaces into filter drains. Impervious site drainage would be collected in piped drains and directed to an oil interceptor. Surface water drainage disposal would follow the measures outlined in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.5, Document 8.1, Volume 8) and be based on GIP. Surface water drainage provision on the site would also provide for spill containment in areas where there are hazardous materials or potentially polluting substances. This will include impermeable bases and containment around transformers. Upon completion of the works temporary site installation facilities and working areas would be removed and the soil replaced. For rehabilitation works at existing substations, such as those in Kakheti, the construction activities would be similar to those outlined above, as required by each specific substation site and the nature of the planned rehabilitation works. As these sites would require the removal of old infrastructure for the replacement with new equipment, measures would be needed for the safe removal of any equipment containing potentially hazardous substances, such as old transformers which would contain PCBs. These existing substations also have evidence of spills and leaks and as a result it would be necessary to understand the levels and spread of contamination before any earthworks take place. These requirements are set out in the Substation ESMP (Section 4.2.1 and 4.6.3, Document 8.3, Volume 8). Hazardous and contaminated equipment and soils being removed from existing substations will be removed and treated in accordance with measures set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.7, Document 8.1, Volume 8). Particular construction requirements for each substation of the Project are set out in Section 4 which describes in detail each Project Component.
3.5.9 Material and Waste Management The Project would require a range of materials (e.g. aggregate for access tracks, conductor lines, steel work, concrete) and would generate a range of wastes (e.g. steel work from dismantled steel lattice towers, aggregate removed following construction compounds, conductor line drums, fuel drums, hazardous substances, contaminated soils). A strategy for the management of materials and wastes would be developed for the Project by the Contractor in accordance with the measures set out within the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.7, Document 8.1, Volume 8). This would consider the materials requirements, sourcing and storage and waste generation across the Project and would determine how GSE and the Contractor removes, stores, manages and separates these aspects. All wastes will be disposed of to appropriate licensed facilities.
3.5.10 Construction Workforce and Accommodation During the construction phase, the Project will generate temporary employment opportunities, comprising skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. The workers for the transmission line construction will be organised in several crews working in parallel, moving along the transmission lines. The number of crews and the estimated number of workers are indicated in Table 3.6. Each crew will work only a few days at each work site. Each tower installation will likely be spread over two weeks, based on the following schedule:
Page 77
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Excavation: 1 day; • Reinforcement stubs: 1 day; • Foundation works: 1 day; • Wait 7 days before erection of tower to allow foundations to set; followed by • Tower installation and electrical mounting: 1 day. The transmission line crews would work only temporarily in an area of approximately 10 towers, and the construction works in each area will be completed in about one month. At each new substation, the number of workers would approximately be around 100, with works lasting up to 27 months (see Table 3.6). The numbers of workers on site at any one time will depend greatly on a number of factors, including construction progress and seasonal work limitations. More detailed information will be available following contract award. The Project will ensure that local workers are provided opportunities to be recruited and trained.
Table 3.6 Estimated Number of Workers for Transmission Line Construction. Number of Transmission line > 40km Transmission line < 40km workers per crew Number of Total number of Number of Total number of workers crews working workers working crews working in working in parallel in parallel in parallel parallel
Foundations ~15 3 crews ~45 2 crews ~30
Towers ~12 3 crews ~36 2 crews ~24 erection
Stringing ~30 3 crews ~90 2 crews ~60
Total ~57 9 crews ~171 6 crews ~114
Part of the workforce is expected to come from outside the Project area, both from within Georgia and from other countries, with a 20% target to be recruited at the local level (municipality). The Contractor would develop an Accommodation Strategy which would be based on the following approach for housing the construction workforce: • Using available accommodation in larger settlements where temporary accommodation is good supply in the form of hotels, guesthouses or houses/apartments for rent; • Outside of the larger settlements, temporary accommodation camps would be used. Accommodation camps will have to be used in some of the more remote parts of the Project as there is no alternative accommodation available; • If may also be possible to use local accommodation in smaller villages but the Contractor would need to undertake an assessment of the available accommodation and the impact of the workforce using this local accommodation. This may be possible for small numbers of workers and most likely only for teams working on the transmission lines rather than the substations, other than when there are small specialist teams working on a site.
Page 78
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
In all cases, the accommodation used must meet the Lenders’ requirements on workforce accommodation, including the IFC and EBRD document ‘Workers’ accommodation: processes and standards’19 and also the specifications set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Volume 8).
3.5.11 Transport Management The movement of materials, waste, construction workforce and plant requires careful management with respect to transport movements. Prior to the commencement of construction works at each Project Component a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be developed by the Contractor and agreed with GSE and local municipalities. This will set out how transport movements will be managed on the local network, routes for larger vehicles, and details and timings of any necessary road closures. The TMP will be made available to the local communities. The requirements of the TMP are set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.4.8, Document 8.1, Volume 8). Peak traffic numbers will be associated with the construction of the substations where construction staff will be bussed to site and at a maximum would be expected to be of the order of 20 vehicles per day, comprising in the order of 10 mini-buses carrying workers and 10 goods vehicles. Peak traffic numbers associated with the transmission lines would be during the stringing of each line, at which time up to 30 workers would be transported to site via mini-bus and 5 goods vehicles per day, resulting in less than 10 vehicles travelling to a location each day.
3.5.12 Construction Programme The detailed programme for each Project Component is still to be finalised but in general terms construction works will start following the grant of funding, award of Environmental Decision, award of Construction Permit, the approval of the Contractor’s detailed design and the procurement of materials for construction.
Table 3.7 Project Component Programme Component Project name Duration of construction works on site (including commissioning) (months)
A Sairme line 16 Tao line 12.5 Akhaltsikhe Extension 27 B Guria line 16 Paliastomi loop 4 Ozurgeti Substation 15 C1 Nenskra Substation 22 Mestia line 10 Kavkasioni loop 7 C2 Lajanuri Substation 18 Oni HPP line 14
______19 EBRD/IFC Workers’ accommodation: processes and standards’ A guidance note by IFC and the EBRD, August 2009 https://www.ebrd.com/downloads/about/sustainability/Workers_accomodation.pdf
Page 79
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Component Project name Duration of construction works on site (including commissioning) (months)
Kheledula HPP line 14 Lechkhumi line 18 New Derchi line 8 Lajanuri HPP line 4 D Gurjaani line, Tsinandali line and Mukuzani line 11.5 Akhmeta line 7 Akhmeta Substation 10 Telavi Substation 16 Tsinandali Substation 9 Mukuzani Substation 5 Gurjaani Substation 14 Surveys and engineering design would be programmed to occur during the autumn and winter periods so that works onsite can be undertaken and completed as far as possible within the spring/summer seasons in order to avoid adverse weather conditions. This is particularly important in the higher altitude locations which would potentially result in programme delays. Where possible, some works may need to take place in autumn and winter such as tree and vegetation clearance in order to avoid the breeding bird season through spring and summer, as set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.3, Document 8.1, Volume 8). Works at any one location would vary in duration with multiple intermittent activities occurring in some locations through to longer continuous activity at others.
3.6 Operation and Maintenance of the Project
3.6.1 Transmission Lines The transmission line(s) would be operated remotely by GSE and would require very little ongoing maintenance. However, the lines would be subject to annual inspections from either the ground or air most likely by drone or helicopter. The inspection would identify if there are any visible faults or signs of wear and would also indicate if changes in plant or tree growth, or development, had occurred which might risk infringing safety clearances. Inspections would also confirm when refurbishment is required. Small 4 wheel drive vehicles would be used to carry out routine maintenance works. HGVs would only be used to bring new materials and equipment to site and remove old equipment if major repairs were required. The Right of Way corridor would require monitoring to ensure the necessary safety clearances are maintained. Maintenance of the Right of Way corridor would be undertaking using manual cutting to minimise the intrusion into the vegetated corridor. Restrictions on the timing of the maintenance works would be in place to protect wildlife and to avoid breeding seasons. These restrictions are set out in the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.3.3, Volume 8). Refurbishment of the transmission line may be required throughout the life of the Project and this could involve: • The replacement of conductors and earth wire; • The replacement of insulators and steelwork that holds the conductors and insulators in place;
Page 80
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Painting or replacing the tower steelwork; and • Replacement of tower furniture (anti-climbing devices, colour identification plates, danger of death notices, number plates).
3.6.2 Underground Cable Monitoring of the short length of underground cable in Component D would be carried out via the fibre optic cables. If a cable needs to be replaced then the section of the cable would need to be removed and new joints constructed.
3.6.3 Substations Substations would be securely fenced to prevent unauthorised access and security guards would also be present 24 hours a day. They would also be lit where necessary for safety purposes, to allow for maintenance or as a result of security requirements. External lighting would be designed not to direct glare to nearby residential or other potential receptors. The proposed substations would be permanently or temporarily manned by GSE employees. Akhaltsikhe, Telavi, Akhmeta, Gurjaani, Tsinandali, and Mukazani as existing substations would continue to be staffed by existing staff levels, however, five extra staff would be required at Telavi. The new substations at Ozurgeti, Nenskra and Lajanuri would each require 10 new GSE staff, comprising one head of substation, two managers, five operators, one cleaner, and two maintenance workers. Staffing may follow a shift pattern or follow normal working hours depending on the requirements of GSE’s National Control Centre. Appropriate welfare facilities will be provided at substations to include toilets, washrooms, and areas for taking breaks. Maintenance would be undertaken approximately every three years or as required, following electrical isolation of the appropriate equipment. If the substations require refurbishment and/or replacement works, it is expected only small teams of specialist workers would be used. Limited and infrequent HGV movements may be necessary if there is a requirement to bring in new materials and equipment to site and remove old equipment.
3.7 Decommissioning of the Project
3.7.1 Transmission Lines The transmission lines would be made up of a variety of materials, from concrete and steel for the foundations, steelwork for the tower and aluminium/steel for the conductors. All these materials have an expected lifespan, which varies depending on how the transmission line is used and where it is located. The transmission lines have a minimum design life expectancy of approximately 50 years. After construction, the components of the Project would become an integral part of the Georgian transmission network. As such the lifespan of the transmission lines may be longer than the anticipated 50 years, depending on their condition, refurbishment and the future transmission network requirements. If the transmission lines are no longer required as part of the network of electricity transmission, the transmission line may be removed. Upon removal, much of the material would be suitable for recycling. Similar access would be required as outlined for construction. Fittings, such as dampers and spacers, would be removed from the conductors. The conductors would be cut into manageable lengths or would be winched onto drums in a reverse process to that described for construction. The fittings would be removed from the towers and lowered to the ground. The tower may be dismantled by crane, with sections cut and lowered to the ground for further dismantling and removal from site. Depending on the space available, it may be possible to cut the tower legs and then pull the tower to the ground using a tractor. The tower can then be cut into sections on the ground. Unless there is a compelling need for removal of all the foundations, to avoid ground disturbance steel work may be removed to ground level with subsurface elements left in situ.
Page 81
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
3.7.2 Underground Cable Underground cables have a life expectancy of approximately 40-50 years. After 40- 50 years the cables would require replacing, assuming the connection is still required. If the connection is no longer required, underground cables would be decommissioned. Unless there is a compelling need for removal of underground cables, they would remain buried in the ground. If underground cables were to be removed, similar methods and access would be required as outlined for installation.
3.7.3 Substations The lifespan of equipment within the substation would be approximately 40 years. If its useful life has expired it would be removed and replaced as these substations would form an important part of the Georgian Transmission network. Much of the material removed from the substation would be suitable for recycling. Similar methods of installation and equipment would be required as for construction.
Page 82
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Project Component Descriptions
4.1 Introduction This chapter provides a detailed description of each Project Component, the planned project elements and a description of the routes taken by each transmission line. Detailed figures for each Project Component are shown in Figure 4.1 to 4.11. Each transmission line has also been divided into km marker points to assist with the description of the routes. The detailed description of the routing alternatives considered is outlined in the Chapter 2 of this volume (Volume 2 Project Definition). Figures 4.12 to 4.19 show the proposed substation locations.
4.2 Component A - Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe and on to the Turkish border at Vale
4.2.1 Outline of Project Component Elements Component A comprises the Project elements outlined in Table 4.1 which will be constructed as a result of the Project.
Table 4.1 Project Elements in Component A Project Elements Summary of Component A Project Elements
Overhead transmission lines Sairme Line - 104km of 500kV double circuit overhead lines using barrel type towers with six crossarms and two earth wire peaks Tao Line - 33km of 400kV single circuit overhead line using Y type tower with horizontal arrangement of phases and two earth wire peaks
Underground cables None in Component A
Substations Extension to Akhaltsikhe Substation to facilitate the 400kV and 500kV connections
Significant crossings (e.g. existing transmission lines, Sairme Line - E60 motorway crossing (KM13) watercourses, motorways, railways) Sairme Line – 7 significant crossings including Rioni River crossing (KM19/KM20) Sairme Line – railway crossings south of Tskaltubo (KM1) and south of Kutaisi (KM10) Sairme line - six low voltage lines (110kV and 220kV) crossings Sairme line - two high voltage lines (500kV) crossings Tao line – one low voltage line and two high voltage crossings. Tao line - 7 watercourse crossings including the Kvabliani River
Altitude greater than 1500m ASL Sairme line – 37km
Page 83
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Project Elements Summary of Component A Project Elements
Tao line - none
Estimated length of Right of Way corridor passing Sairme line – up to 13.8km20 through forest Tao line – 900m
Associated Facilities New 200/500kV Tskaltubo Substation Approximately 200km of 400kV double circuit line from Georgia/Turkey border to Tortum in Turkey
4.2.2 Transmission Line Route Description Sairme Line The 104km 500kV Sairme line from Tskaltubo to Akhaltsikhe will comprise two circuits on a single alignment of towers. The line will link a new substation, Tskaltubo Substation, (not part of this Project), approximately 6.5km west of Kutaisi, to the existing Akhaltsike Substation, 12km northeast of Akhaltsikhe, as shown on Figure 4.1. Tskaltubo Substation (KM0) is located on a flat area at about 120m above sea level, south of Tskaltubo town close to the village of Ternali. This new substation is to be constructed as part of another project GSE is promoting and which is being funded by the World Bank. The 500kV Jvari-Tskaltubo Project includes the installation of a switch breaker and a 500kV switchyard bay specifically for the 500kV Sairme line. This substation is currently the subject of a separate ESIA process and is due to be constructed in 2021. From the new Tskaltubo Substation, the route heads south and for the first 25km, runs through mostly flat agricultural land, with easy access. It has been routed so that it avoids populated areas on the outskirts of Kutaisi and the surrounding villages. It passes to the west of the former and now unused Kutaisi Airport and an old industrial estate on the western outskirts of Kutaisi (KM2 to KM4). Although this area is relatively densely populated, a route avoiding houses and other buildings has been identified. The line continues to the south crossing the E60 motorway (KM13), which links Tbilisi to Kutaisi and beyond to the west. South of the E60 motorway the land use turns more agricultural and there is a large area of vegetable and salad production, particularly tomatoes grown in plastic polytunnels between KM11 and KM18. The Sairme line would have to oversail at least two polytunnels and four additional polytunnels would be within the Right of Way corridor in this location. To enable continued use of the polytunnels and reduce social impact, the clearance of the conductors above ground level would need to be increased to ensure the required vertical clearances to the conductors was maintained or the polytunnels would need to be removed. The route then rises up through a mixture of farmed and forested land on the edge of the mountain range of the Lesser Caucasus. This section (KM25 and KM32) also passes through an area of scattered houses and small villages (Dzulukhi and Inashauri) and a number of houses cannot be avoided and would need to be resettled. Access to most of this section is possible using existing but poor access tracks formed out of mud, rock and gravel. To facilitate the construction and the delivery of plant and materials some of these access tracks would need to be widened in places. The route between KM25 and KM32 ascends into the mountains of the Lesser Caucasus range through forest with some steep slopes at an altitude above 2000mASL and consequently has very difficult access. ______20 Worst case estimate as includes areas of mixed habitat containing some woodland
Page 84
280000 300000 320000 340000 360000
LEGEND
THE SAIRME LINE
Tskaltubo KILOMETRE (KM) MARKERS Substation
1 EXISTING SUBSTATION 2
4 3 NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART 5 OF PROJECT) 4680000 6 7 8
9 10
12 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 25
4660000 28 27 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, 30 USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, 29 METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), 31 NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 33 34 36 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
4640000 50 52 51 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 62 63 4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW 65 EDINBURGH PARK 64 EDINBURGH 66 67 EH12 9DH 69 T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 68 71 www.slrconsulting.com 70 72 85 87 91 83 89 93 99 101 GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION 77 81 102 73 74 79 95 97 86 90 NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 82 84 88 92 94 100 4620000 75 98 76 78 80 96 Akhaltsikhe VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION Substation THE SAIRME LINE 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 4.1
Scale Date Kilometres 1:300,000 JANUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.1.1The Sairme Line Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
From KM32 to KM72, the route crosses the Lesser Caucasus range, where the highest point of approximately 2820mASL is reached. Land use comprises hardwood forest between KM32 and KM41, after which land use is formed of alpine meadows and pasture areas. A stretch of the route between KM32 and KM41 has little or no access. Beyond KM41, access is easier than the previous section as two access roads lead to this area for use by shepherds, one from Tskaltubo direction and the other from Akhaltsikhe direction. The Lesser Caucasus mountains are affected by heavy snow falls in the winter and it is not uncommon for there to be heavy snow cover from December to May. Consequently, seasonal working limitations are expected in this area. From KM41 to KM73, the route also crosses through the Ajara Imereti Ridge IBA. The final 31.5km runs eastwards from KM74, following the lower slopes of the Little Caucuses mountains and for the last 11km runs to the north of the existing 500kV Akhaltsikhe to Zestaponi transmission line (the Zekari line) and the existing 400kV single circuit line Akhaltsikhe – Borchka (Meskheti line). The route crosses the Zekari line at KM91 (north of the village of Sviri and again just outside of Akhaltsikhe Substation). This part of the route (KM74 to KM102) has good access, with a reasonably good network of municipal roads. However, due to the elevated ground and nature of the soils, which are soft and have a high clay content, access to certain parts of this section might be difficult in wet and/or cold conditions. Close to KM78, the route crosses the Kutaisi – Baghdati -Abastumani – Benara road passing through a gap between private properties scattered along the roadside. On the approach to Akhaltsikhe Substation the route passes close (within 60m) to the boundary of the candidate Emerald Site of Borjomi Kharagauli for a distance of approximately 5km. Environmental and Social Constraints There are approximately seven major watercourse crossings along the route of the Sairme line, including the Rioni River, which at the point where it is crossed is approximately 800m wide and comprises several channels typical of a braided riverbed. A single span of the river is proposed to avoid any construction work within the river. The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. However, the studies undertaken to date shows that 6 residential properties could potentially require resettlement. The Right of Way passes through the following protected area: • Adjara – Imereti Ridge IBA. The Right of Way passes less than 10km from the following protected areas: • 70m of Borjomi Kharagauli candidate Emerald Site (GE0000010 and GE0000056); • 6.3km from Ajameti candidate Emerald Site (GE 0000018); • 9.8km from un-named proposed candidate Emerald Site (GE0000039); • 9.9kmm from un-named proposed candidate Emerald Site (GE0000043); • 2.8km from Zekari Special Area for Birds; and • 60m from Borjomi Kharagauli National Park. The Sairme line would also be 7.6km from Bagrati Cathedral World Heritage Site (WHS). Tao Line The 33km 400kV Tao line would comprise a single circuit transmission line and will run generally south westwards from Akhaltsikhe Substation in the direction of Tortum in Turkey as far as the Georgian/Turkish border, close to the border crossing of the S8 road, 5km southwest of Vale. The route of the Tao line is shown on Figure 4.2 and closely follows that of the existing single circuit 400kV Meskheti line linking Akhaltsikhe to Borchka Power Station in Turkey, the route of the new line passing some 100m to the south. Y type towers would be used in order to be similar in appearance to those of the nearby Meskheti line.
Page 85
320000 340000
LEGEND
THE TAO LINE
KILOMETRE (KM) MARKERS
EXISTING SUBSTATION
4 3
4620000 2 5 6 Akhaltsikhe 7 Substation 8 1 0 9
10
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, 11 USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User 12 Community
13 14 19 16 15 20 17 21 18 22
23 24 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
33 T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION
TURKEY THE TAO LINE 0 1 2 3 4 FIGURE 4.2
Scale Date Kilometres 1:85,000 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.4.2.0The Tao Line Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
IMAGE 4.1 EXISTING MESKHETI LINE TOWERS
The route departs Akhaltsikhe Substation (KM0) heading southwest, crossing the wide valley north of the village of Zikilia. The first approximately 8km of the route runs generally westwards parallel to the proposed Sairme line, with a separation of approximately 250m to 500m. From KM0 to KM10, the route crosses five ridges and associated valleys, running southwards from the Lesser Caucasus. The valleys are frequently associated with scattered housing and villages and the line passes close to a number of these, including the villages of Mugareti, Persa and Giorgitsminda. From KM8, the line turns to the southwest and from KM12 descends into an agricultural area, crossing four 110kV transmission lines and three municipal roads. Here (KM15) the line passes 2.3km to the north of Akhaltsikhe. At KM25 the route crosses the Kvabliani River and follows the Potskhochai River southwards for 2km to KM27 before turning southwestwards again to the Turkish border. The route also runs from KM9, close to the newly constructed double circuit 220kV line Akhaltsikhe - Batumi (Batumi line) to the crossing point of the Batumi and Meskheti lines northwest of the village of Klde (KM10). The route also passes close to the infrastructure present at the Turkish border and a newly constructed BP gas pipeline (KM32). For the most part the line will cross hilly terrain at an altitude varying between 900m and 1400m. The route passes mostly through open pasture land and there is very little forest or trees in the right of way corridor. Very little tree and vegetation clearance will be required as a consequence along the Tao line. There is a good network of existing access roads along the length of the Tao line either from the public highway or from accesses used for the installation of the Meskheti line. As highlighted with the Sairme line, access can be difficult in wet periods on unsurfaced roads. Tao Line Section in Turkey At the Georgia/Turkey border, the Tao line would continue onwards through Turkey to Tortum, which is approximately 180km to the southwest. As discussed in Section 1.4.5, several possible broad corridors have been considered as currently there is no line yet defined for this section. The possible corridors and the environmental constraints identified are illustrated in Figure 4.3.
Page 86
180000 200000 220000 240000 260000 280000 300000 320000 340000
LEGEND
OPTION 1
¯ OPTION 2
4600000 OPTION 3
TORTUM
SETTLEMENT
NATIONAL PARK 4580000
ËËËËË ËËËË ËËËËË IBA ËËËË ËËËËË
Service Layer Credits: Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,
4560000 NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 4540000 4520000 4500000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION 4480000 POSSIBLE ROUTES OF THE TURKEY Tortum BORDER TO TORTUM CONNECTION AND THE KNOWN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 0 10 20 30 40 FIGURE 4.3
Scale Date Kilometres 1:575,000 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 4460000 5752.00002.16.4.3.0 Turkey Border to Tortum Connection Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Environmental and Social Constraints Within the Georgian section of the Tao line, there are at least seven major watercourse crossings along the route of the Tao line, including the wide Kvabliani River (KM25). The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. However, the studies undertaken to date shows that 8 residential properties (4 of which are understood to be abandoned or uninhabited) could potentially require resettlement (for example at Persa). The route does not pass through any protected areas, but does pass less than 10km from the following protected areas: • 1.3km from Borjomi Kharagauli candidate Emerald Site (GE0000010); • 9.4km from Adjara – Imereti Ridge IBA; • 3.6km from Shavsheti Ridge IBA; and • 3.1km from Meskheti Ridge IBA.
4.2.3 Akhaltsikhe Substation Extension The existing 400/500kV AIS Akhaltsikhe Substation, built in 2013, is located approximately 15km northeast of the city of Akhaltsikhe and 25km from the Georgia/Turkey border. It is situated on a ridge at 1100m ASL overlooking the Mkvari River, and the villages of Zikilia to the south, Persa to the west and Tsinubani to the east. The railway to Akhaltsikhe and the main road from Borjomi to Akhaltsike are also located to the south in the Mkvari River valley bottom (Figure 4.2). The existing substation is situated on approximately six hectares of land and is surrounded by open hillside without any tree cover (Image 4.2). The existing substation comprises a 400kV and 500kV AIS substation and also a back-to-back HVDC 500/400 Converter Station (total capacity 2×350 MW). The substation is currently connected to Zestaponi and Gardabani substations via the 500kV Zekari and Vardzia lines, and to the Turkish system at Borchka Substation via the 400kV Meskheti line.
IMAGE 4.2 AKHALTSIKHE SUBSTATION FROM SOUTH
The Sairme and Tao lines require extensions to the 500kV switchyard and 400kV switchyard of the existing substation .These will also be of the outdoor AIS type. The 500kV switchyard will comprise: • three 500kV circuit breakers; and • new Protection and Control outdoor container The new 400kV switchyard will comprise:
Page 87
342000 343000 344000
LEGEND
AKHALTSIKHE SUBSTATION, EXISTING LAYOUT 4620000
EXTENSION LOCATION
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 4619000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION AKHALTSIKHE SUBSTATION LOCATION
0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 4.12
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 OCTOBER 2018 5752.00002.16.4.12.0 AkhaltsikheSubstation Extension5752.00002.16.4.12.0 location Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• two 400kV circuit breakers. The substation is currently manned by 10 trained operators. The existing Substation Control and Monitoring System will be extended, enabling both local substation level control and monitoring as well as remote control and monitoring from related GSE control centres. The newly extended Akhaltsikhe Substation will be operated as one substation from the existing control room. With parts of the 500kV and 400kV being installed within the existing substation boundary, the additional areas outside of the current boundary that are required cover approximately 6550m2 (i.e. 30m x 205m plus 20m x 20m). The layout of the substation is shown in Figure 4.12. Environmental and Social Constraints The existing substation and the extension would be quite remote from housing, with the nearest housing being located 800m away to the southwest. The site and the extension would also remain hidden from views from local villages. Surrounding land use is poor quality short grass which may be intermittently used for grazing but there is little evidence of intensive use for agriculture. Adjacent to the ridge where the substation is located is a deep valley, and there is evidence of erosion and some steep slopes. This would need to be taken into account in the final detailed design of the Project. However, the area is not considered particularly sensitive but the substation is located within 2km of the Borjomi Kharagauli candidate Emerald Site. The existing substation is relatively new and was built to a high standard with modern electrical infrastructure and good spillage containment facilities. The site is not expected to be contaminated but it would still be necessary to confirm the status of soil quality to confirm this.
4.3 Component B - Ozurgeti to Zoti HPP and Connection from Ozurgeti to the Paliastomi Line
4.3.1 Outline of Project Component Elements Component B comprises the Project elements outlined in Table 4.2 which will be constructed as a result of the Project.
Table 4.2 Project Elements in Component B Project Elements Summary of Component B Project Elements
Overhead transmission lines Guria line – 45.4km on barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak Paliastomi loop – 2.7km of 220kV double circuit overhead lines using barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak
Underground cables None
Substations Ozurgeti Substation
Significant crossings (e.g. existing transmission lines, Guria line – 11 significant watercourse crossings and watercourses, motorways, railways) the main Ozurgeti to Kobuleti road Paliastomi loop - two watercourse crossings
Page 88
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Project Elements Summary of Component B Project Elements
Altitude greater than 1500m ASL Guria line – 24.7km Paliastomi loop - none
Estimated length of Right of Way corridor passing Guria line – 20.9km through forest Paliastomi loop – minor tree and vegetation removal
Associated Facilities Zoti HPP 110kV Anaseuli/Kobuleti line loop-in/loop-out 110kV Chakhvi /Batumi 1 line loop-in/loop-out
4.3.2 Transmission Line Route Description Guria Line The Guria line will comprise a 45.4km connection between the proposed Ozurgeti Substation and the proposed Zoti HPP powerhouse. Ozurgeti Substation will be located in an area of farmland, south of the town of Ozurgeti at an elevation of circa 100m ASL. The first 25km of the Guria line will generally run in a south easterly direction after which the route then turns to the north east for the final 20km to Zoti HPP powerhouse which is located 800m to the south of Kvabgha and 3.5km northwest of Zoti. The route crosses over a mountainous area which reaches elevations of just over 2,400m ASL then drops down to the Zoti HPP in the Gubazeuli River gorge at an elevation of circa 550m ASL. On leaving the substation, the route crosses areas of undulating farmland as far as KM5, crossing a tributary of the main road between Ozurgeti and Kobuleti at KM2 and the Bzhuzha River at KM3. Between KM5 and KM18, the Guria line will climb the northern side of a range of wooded hills (part of the Adjara – Imereti Ridge) that are situated to the southeast of Ozurgeti. The slopes of the forested valleys are steep, especially as the route climbs up to the village of Gomismta, which it passes 400m to the north. After Gomismta, the route of the Guria line continues to ascend, with altitudes ranging from 2000m to 2500m ASL, and passes through meadows seasonally used as grazing land. At KM24, the route drops down a moderately steep slope into Khanistrskali River, a tributary of the Gubazeuli River gorge. The descent is through areas of natural vegetation comprising a mosaic of woodland, alpine meadows and scrubland. Most of this area has been influenced and impacted by human activities. The line will intersect the main road connecting Chokhatauri to Bakhmaro around KM34 and will pass close to one wooden cabin. Lastly, from KM36 up to the end of the line at KM41, the route mainly crosses grazing land and forest. Between KM66 and KM75, the route runs 1.7km to the north of the village of Bakhmaro, a health resort comprising wooden bungalows that are used as holiday homes in the summer months. Environmental and social constraints There are approximately 11 major watercourse crossings along the route of the Guria line, including the Bzhuzhi, Achistskali and Gubazeuli rivers. The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. However, the studies undertaken to date shows that one abandoned or uninhabited residential property could potentially require resettlement. The transmission line will pass through the Adjara-Imereti Ridge IBA close to Gomismta from KM19.5 to Zoti HPP powerhouse. The route also passes less than 10km from the following protected areas:
Page 89
260000 280000
LEGEND
GURIA LINE
¯ PALIASTOMI LOOP
(! KILOMETRE (KM) MARKERS
± NEW SUBSTATION
NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART ± OF PROJECT)
± 46 (! 3 Zoti (! 4 HPP (! 45 (! 2 Powerhouse (! 5 2 1 (! (! (! (! 0 (!±(! 1 44 6 43 Ozurgeti (! (! 42 Substation 7 ! (! Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, ( 41 USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, 8 9 (! (! 40 METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), (! 10 ! NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
4640000 ( (! 11 39 Community (! 12 13 37 38 (! (! (! 14 36 (! (! (! (! 35 15 (! (! 34 16 (! (! 33 17 (! (! 18 32 (! (! 19 (! 31 20 (! (! 21 (! 30 22 (! (! 29 23 (! (! 24 28 (! (! 25 27 (! 26 (! (!
(!
(!
2 (! 4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH 0 EH12 9DH 2 1 (! 1 (! (! ±(! T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 Ozurgeti www.slrconsulting.com Substation GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION THE GURIA LINE AND PALIASTOMI LOOP 0 2 4 6 8 FIGURE 4.4
Scale Date Kilometres 1:125,000 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.4.0 The Guria Line and Paliastomi Loop Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• 7.8km from un-named proposed candidate Emerald Site (GE0000014); and • 100m from a managed reserve of pontine oak. Paliastomi Loop The proposed 2.7km 220kV loop in/loop out transmission line will connect the existing Paliastomi 1 single circuit 220kV transmission line to the proposed 220/110kV Ozurgeti Substation (loop out) and a second circuit will connect the substation back to the Paliastomi transmission line using the same towers (i.e. loop in). The single row of towers will therefore each support two circuits. The Paliastomi transmission line links Batumi to Zugdidi. The tower adjacent to the Paliastomi 1 line (KM2) would comprise a low transition tower located in line with the existing Paliastomi alignment. The works shall include the replacement of insulators and other equipment on the existing Paliastomi 1 connection towers. Land use along the route generally comprises grazing pasture and arable land. The route crosses of the order of three watercourses. The route of the Paliastomi loop is shown on Figure 4.4. There are no residential properties that will require resettlement for this component and there are no protected areas within 10km. The route is located in low altitudes, not exceeding 100m ASL.
4.3.3 Ozurgeti Substation The proposed Ozurgeti Substation would be located on a greenfield site, approximately 5km south of Ozurgeti town on a flat area at approximately 100m ASL. The site is shown on Figure 4.13 and would be approximately 200m from the Ozurgeti to Batumi Road and would have dimensions of approximately 65m x 80m. The substation would be equipped with the following main elements: • A 110kv and a 220kV switchyard; • Two three-phase autotransformers at 220/110/10kV; • Two 10kV AIS indoor switchgear; • Two auxiliary/earthing transformers at 10/0.4kV; • Two neutral resistors; and • One diesel generator set at 0.4kV, with 400kVA capacity (approx. 4.5mx 1.25m x 2.25m high). The location of the substation is shown in Figure 4.13. The Paliastomi loop would connect into the 220kV switchyard and the Guria line would connect into the 110kV switchyard. The substation will be manned by 8 trained operators. In addition, and not part of the current Project, loop in/loop outs would be made from the 110kV switchyard to the 110kV Anaseuli/Kobuleti line and to the 110kV Chakhvi /Batumi 1 line which are operated by EnergoPro. It is also expected that a number of small-scale HPPs that are proposed for area surrounding Ozurgeti would connect via overhead lines or underground cable into the 110kV switchyard. These connections would be the responsibility of each HPP developer. Environmental and social constraints The proposed substation is located within an area of flat agricultural land with limited vegetation except for along some field boundaries. Overall the site is not considered to be particularly sensitive and it is not located near to any protected areas. There are also few buildings in the area and the nearest house is 530m to the south. The four transformers would form Abnormal Indivisible Loads and would require to be escorted to the substation site. Measures to minimise the impact of the transport of these loads on users of the local road
Page 90
249000 250000 251000
LEGEND
PROPOSED OZURGETI ¯ SUBSTATION 4642000
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
4641000 VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION OZURGETI SUBSTATION LOCATION
0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 4.13
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.13_20.0 Substation locations Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019 network will be set out in a Traffic Management Plan in accordance with the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.4.8, Document 8.1, Volume 8). However, there is good access to the substation off the public highway.
4.4 Component C1 - Nenskra to Mestia
4.4.1 Outline of Project Component Elements Component C1 comprises the Project elements outlined in Table 4.3 which will be constructed as a result of the Project.
Table 4.3 Project Elements in Component C1 Project Elements Summary of Component C1 Project Elements
Overhead transmission lines Mestia line - 58.6km 110kV double circuit overhead transmission line on barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak Kavkasioni loop – 0.7km 500kV double circuit overhead transmission line with barrel type towers with three phases and two earth wire peaks.
Underground cables Nenskra HPP line – 1km 220kV cable
Substations Nenskra Substation
Significant crossings (e.g. existing transmission lines, Mestia line – nine watercourse crossings, including watercourses, motorways, railways) the Enguri River (KM51) Mestia line – three low voltage line crossings and crossing of the Mestia ski chair lift Kavkasioni loop – no significant crossings
Altitude greater than 1500m ASL Mestia line – 40.2km Kavkasioni loop - none
Estimated length of Right of Way corridor passing Mestia line – up to 41.9km through forest Kavkasioni loop - none
Associated Facilities Jvari to Nenskra 500kV overhead transmission line Nenskra HPP and cable connection Mestiachala HPPs (1&2)
4.4.2 Transmission Line Route Description Mestia Line The Mestia line will comprise a 58.6km 110kV double circuit transmission line connecting the proposed Nenskra Substation and the existing Mestia Substation. For the first 9km the route runs northwards along the Nenskra Valley, gradually rising up the valley side before turning eastwards (KM9) over the ridge line and through the high mountainous area between the Nenskra Valley and the Nakra Valley (KM25). The
Page 91
280000 300000 320000
LEGEND
KAVKASIONI LOOP
¯ MESTIA LINE
(! KILOMETRE (KM) MARKERS
± NEW SUBSTATION
NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART ± OF PROJECT) 4780000
14 15 ! 13 ( (! 17 (! (! (! 18 11 (! (! Service Layer Credits: Content may not reflect National (! 16 (! 20 23 27 Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National ! 12 25 26 29 ( (! 22 (! (! ! (! (! ! 30 Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, 9 19 (! (! (! ( ( 31 NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P (! 10 24 28 (! 21 (! 33 Corp. (! (! 34 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, (! (! 8 32 (! 35 INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (! (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © (! 7 37 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 36 (! Mestia (! 6 (! 38 ± ! (! ( 5 39 40 57 (! (! (! 58 (! 42 43 55 (! (! 4 (! 44 (! (! 46 53 (! 56 41 (! (! 51 (! ! (! (! 50 (! ( 3 47 49 (! (! 54 2 45 (! 52 (! (! 48 (! 1 0 (! Nenskra ± Substation
(! 4760000
(! 2
1 (! 4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com 0 (! Nenskra GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION ± Substation NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION THE MESTIA LINE AND KAVKASIONI LOOP 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 FIGURE 4.5
Scale Date Kilometres 1:175,000 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.5.0 The Mestia Line and Kavkasioni Loop Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019 transmission line then runs roughly parallel to the Enguri River to Mestia, albeit approximately 2km to the north until approximately KM49, where the line drops down into the valley close to the river. Between KM30 and KM48, the line passes close to the villages of Paledi (KM33), Svipi (KM36), Iskari (KM38) and Shkaleri (KM48). The line crosses the river at KM51, between the village of Shkaleri and Mestia (KM53) where the valley is steep sided. The route terminates at the Mestia Substation which is located to the north east of Ushguli, approximately 5km east of Mestia itself. The route of the Mestia line is shown on Figure 4.5. Altitude ranges from 710m to 2760m. The Mestia line crosses mixed woodland, scrubby woodland, villages and alpine meadows; including some very species rich hay meadows. In particular, where the line passes over the Nakra Pass, the habitats are sensitive (see Biodiversity Section 3.3, Document 3.2, Volume 3). Special construction methods would be required to protect this area. Modular assembly of towers and delivery of materials would need to be by use of animals, low tyre pressure small vehicles or helicopter to avoid the construction of access tracks into this sensitive environment. Specification of special rock anchor piled foundations may be required to minimise excavation and the volume of concrete required. Larger spanned crossings would also minimise the impact on the Nakra Pass where the topography permits. Environmental and Social Constraints In terms of hydrology, the Mestia line crosses several small alpine streams (at least 12). The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. The studies undertaken to date show that 5 residential properties (1 of which are understood to be abandoned or uninhabited) could potentially require resettlement. The route passes through the following protected area: • Svaneti IBA. The route passes less than 10km from the following protected areas: • 1.8km from Svaneti 1 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000012); • 4.4km from Svaneti 2 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000045); • 8.9km from Samegrelo candidate Emerald Site (GE0000021); • 9.6km from Samegrelo 2 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000057);and • 1.8km (to the south) and 5.25km (to the north) of Upper Svaneti Planned National Park. Kavkasioni Loop A 570m loop in/loop out transmission line will be constructed to link the proposed Nenskra Substation to the existing 500kV Kavkasioni transmission line which is an existing transmission line between Kavkasioni and Tsentralinaia in Russia. The Kavkasioni line has a transmission capacity of approx. 700MW. The route of the Kavkasioni loop is shown on Figure 4.5. The transmission line will run westwards from the Nenskra Substation to cross the Nenskra River and climb the steep slope of the right bank of the Nenskra Valley to a point at about 860m ASL between towers 113 and 116 of the existing transmission line. A high level preliminary assessment shows that no residential properties could potentially require resettlement. Other than the Nenskra River, the transmission line would not cross any other watercourse. The route passes less than 10km from the following protected areas: • 6.6km from Upper Svaneti Planned National Park; • 8.5km from Samegrelo candidate Emerald Site (GE0000021);
Page 92
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• 9.4km from Svaneti 2 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000045); and • 9.6km from Samegrelo 2 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000057).
4.4.3 Nenskra Substation Nenskra Substation would be located on a greenfield site within the Nenskra Valley, 540m downstream from the proposed Nenskra HPP powerhouse and would export power from Mestiachala 1 and 2 HPPs and Nenskra HPP. The substation site is located adjacent to the Nenskra River in the Nenskra Valley. The site is currently used for cattle grazing and there is access by foot to the site from a bridge from the main road from the Enguri Valley to the villages up the Nenskra Valley. The substation location and layout of the proposed substation is shown on Figure 4.14 and approximate dimensions are approximately 325m x 150m. The substation will be equipped with the following main elements: • 35kV, 110kV, 220kV and 500kV switchgear; • One autotransformer bank at 500/220/35kV, • One 500kV shunt reactor bank; • Two three-phase regulating transformers at 35/35kV, two earthing transformers and two auxiliary transformers • One diesel generator set at 0.4kV, with 400kVA capacity (approximately 4.5m x 1.25m x 2.25m high). It is proposed that the required 500kV shunt reactor be relocated from Jvari Substation and would be used to maintain the voltage on the new transmission lines within the required limits at times of low loading of the 500kV network. The substation would be manned by up to 10 trained operators. The developer of the Nenskra HPP (JSCNH) would be required to install a 220kV double circuit cable connection between the GSE Nenskra Substation and the Nenskra HPP powerhouse (to be built by the developer and not part of this Project). Similarly a connection would be required to the powerhouses of Khudoni HPP should this project come forward. Environmental and Social Constraints The site is quite constrained with the Nenskra River on one side and the steep valley slopes on the other. Due to the limited space available and the substation configuration, the switchgear may be GIS rather than AIS and would, therefore, be located within a building. It is expected that the site would require some flood defence works to protect the site from the Nenskra River. It is also expected that some form of retaining structures would be required to stabilise the slopes adjacent to the substation site. Access to the site would either be via a new bridge across the Nenskra River from the existing local Nenskra Valley road, or via an old abandoned track which had formerly been constructed as part of the enabling works for the Khudoni HPP project which was started during the Soviet period. This project was later abandoned but the presence of track still exists, which whilst maintained could be redeveloped to provide access. No resettlement is needed for the construction of the Nenskra substation. The nearest housing is located 230m away to the west and is located on the other side of the Nenskra River. The site is also not located close to any protected sites but there are trees present on the site that would need to be cleared.
Page 93
270000 271000
LEGEND
PROPOSED NENSKRA ¯ SUBSTATION 4764000
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 4763000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION NENSKRA SUBSTATION LOCATION
0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 4.14
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.13_20.0 Substation locations Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
4.5 Component C2 - Lajanuri Connections to Kheledula HPP, Oni HPP and Tskaltubo
4.5.1 Outline of Project Component Elements Component C2 comprises the Project elements outlined in Table 4.4 which will be constructed as a result of the Project.
Table 4.4 Project Elements in Component C2 Project Elements Summary of Component C2 Project Elements
Overhead transmission lines Oni HPP line - 49km 220kV double circuit overhead transmission line with barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak Kheledula HPP line – 33km 220kV double circuit overhead transmission line with barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak Lechkhumi line – 49km 500kV single circuit overhead transmission line with Y type towers with three phases and two earth wire peaks New Derchi line – 45km 220kV double circuit overhead transmission line with barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak Lajanuri HPP line – 3.8km 220kV single circuit overhead transmission line with barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak
Underground cables None
Substations Lajanuri Substation
Significant crossings (e.g. existing Oni HPP line – two lower voltage line crossings transmission lines, watercourses, Oni HPP line – nine watercourse crossings, including the Lajanuri motorways, railways) Reservoir and also five crossings of the Rioni River Kheledula HPP line - Nine watercourses, including the Lajanuri Reservoir and also four crossings of the Tskenistskali River Lechkhumi line - Six watercourses, including two crossings of the Rioni River; Lechkhumi line - 500kV Imereti line near Zhoneti village (KM34) New Derchi line - six watercourses, including two crossings of the Rioni River New Derchi line - 500kV Imereti line (KM26) Lajanuri HPP line – the Rioni River at two locations
Altitude greater than 1500m ASL Oni HPP line - none Kheledula HPP line – none Lechkhumi line – none
Page 94
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Project Elements Summary of Component C2 Project Elements
New Derchi line – none Lajanuri HPP line - none
Estimated length of Right of Way Oni HPP line - up to 33.3km corridor passing through forest Kheledula HPP line – up to 23.4km Lechkhumi line – 34.8km New Derchi line – 30.1km Lajanuri HPP line – 2.4km
Associated Facilities Namakhvani Cascade HPP Oni HPP Kheledula HPP
4.5.2 Transmission Line Route Description Oni HPP Line The 49km 220kV double circuit line between Lajanuri Substation and Oni HPP will traverse the mountain range located north of Rioni River, passing through largely forested areas, as shown in Figure 4.6 and will then follow the Rioni River. Altitude ranges from 550m to 1300m ASL. The route crosses generally easily accessible areas, with a limited number of locations to which access tracks will have to be built. On leaving Lajanuri Substation, the route runs northwards for 1.2km parallel to the existing 110kV Moashi line, crossing over it at two locations. The transmission line then turns northeastwards (KM1) to cross over the Lajanuri Reservoir (KM5) where an approximately 700m long span between towers will be required. The route then turns to the southeast and crosses a ridge to the village of Zemo Zhoshkha (KM15) and to follow the mountain range north of the Rioni River. The route is located some 1.5km to 2km north of the river (KM17 to KM39), in order to avoid the villages along the river valley. The route passes through steep terrain and spans a number of deep valleys, where several large spans crossings will be required. The route passes through predominantly forested, sparsely inhabited areas. Limestone cliffs and pavements are present where in places the floral biodiversity value is relatively high. The transmission line will generally be easily accessible from the main road to Oni and the existing network of agricultural tracks. However, terrain is challenging at some locations to which access roads will have to be constructed. On the approach to Oni, between KM39 and Oni Substation, the transmission line will be located along the bottom of the river valley and parallel to the existing transmission line supplying Oni, crossing the main road and the river at several locations. The line will terminate at the proposed Oni Substation, near to the powerhouse of the Oni HPP, approximately 8km to the west from the town of Oni and next to the main road linking Oni with Alpana and Tsageri. The Oni Substation will be the responsibility of the Oni HPP developer. Environmental and Social Constraints There are approximately nine watercourse crossings, including the Lajanuri Reservoir and also six crossings of the Rioni River.
Page 95
320000 340000 360000
LEGEND
THE ONI HPP LINE
KILOMETRE (KM) MARKERS
NEW SUBSTATION
NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART OF PROJECT) 4720000
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, 5 6 13 14 USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, 15 METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), 4 7 12 8 9 NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User 10 18 19 Community 3 17 20 2 16 11 21 1 Oni HPP 23 Powerhouse 0 24 48 LAJANURI 25 46 22 26 44 45 49 SUBSTATION 27 43 28 42 47 29 30 41 31 34 37 32 35 38 39
33 36 40
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION 4700000 NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION THE ONI HPP LINE 0 2 4 6 8 FIGURE 4.6
Scale Date Kilometres 1:150,000 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.6.0Theline OniHPP Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. However, the studies undertaken to date shows that 1 residential property could potentially require resettlement.. The route passes less than 10km from the following protected areas: • 3.2km from proposed Racha Lechkhumi candidate Emerald Site (GE0000058); • 6.6km from proposed Ratcha 3 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000041); • 6.0km from proposed Ratcha 4 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000042); • 3.0km to Kvemo Svaneti Planning Protected Area; and • 10km to Rach SPAB. Kheledula HPP Line The Kheledula HPP line would comprise a new 220kV double circuit transmission line linking the proposed Lajanuri Substation with the proposed Kheledula HPP, 1.5km to the south of Lentekhi, as shown on Figure 4.7. However, initially the transmission line would be operated at 110kV rather than 220kV, when the line would be used to export only power from Kheledula HPP (65MW). As additional HPP projects come on line, (Tsageri (120MW) and Lentheki (205MW)) the transmission line can then be operated at 220kV without the need to restring the conductors or install new towers. For the first 4.5km, the route follows that of the Oni HPP line (see above), crossing the existing 110kV Moashi transmission line in two locations and also passes over the Lajanuri Reservoir (KM5) where an approximately 1km long span would be required. The route then turns northwards along the Tskenistskali River valley, and initially parallel to the Lajanuri Reservoir (KM5 to KM8). Between KM8 and KM26, the route is located above the valley floor as it was not possible to route the transmission line in the valley due to the presence of the existing 110kV local distribution line, the topography of the valley and also the presence of a number of villages including Gagulechi (KM8), Lajana (KM10), Naghomari (KM18), Gvimbrala (KM23) and Khopuri (KM25/26). In this section there would be a requirement for tree removal, but it is considered that the route can avoid significant tree removal by creating long spans between ridges. This requirement is set out in the tree and vegetation removal specification in the Transmission Line ESMP (Section 4.5.2, Document 8.2, Volume 8). Environmental and Social Constraints From KM27, the route then follows the bottom of the narrow river valley for approximately 6km to the location of the proposed Kheledula HPP powerhouse. The line crosses the main road along the valley and also the river, encountering steep slopes and forested areas. There are approximately 11 watercourses, including the Lajanuri Reservoir and also seven crossings of the Tskenistskali River. The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. However, the studies undertaken to date shows that three residential properties (of which one is understood to be abandoned or uninhabited) could potentially require resettlement The route passes less than 10km from the following protected areas: • 2.6km from the proposed Racha-Lechkhumi Emerald Site (GE000058); • 7.2km from the Ratcha 3 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000041); • 8.3km from the Svaneti 2 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000045); • 8.4km from the Samegrelo 2 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000057); • 1km from the Kvemo Svaneti Planning Protected Area; and
Page 96
320000
LEGEND 4740000
THE KHELEDULA HPP LINE
Kheledula HPP Powerhouse 31 KILOMETRE (KM) MARKERS 32 30
29 NEW SUBSTATION
28 NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART OF PROJECT)
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, 19 USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 18 17 16
15 14
13 12
11
10
9 8
4720000 7
6
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK 5 EDINBURGH EH12 9DH 4 T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 3 www.slrconsulting.com GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION 2 NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1 VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION 0 THE KHELEDULA HPP LINE 0 2 4 6 8 Lajanuri FIGURE 4.7 Substation Scale Date Kilometres 1:100,000 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.7.0TheKheledula line HPP Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. 300000 320000
LEGEND
0 LINK TO LOWER NAMAKHVANI 0 (! (! LAJANURI SUBSTATION POWERHOUSE (! 1 1 (! LINK TO UPPER NAMAKHVANI (! 2 2 POWERHOUSE (! ¯ (! 3 3 NEW DERCHI LINE (! 4 (! 4 (! LECHKHUMI LINE (! 5 5 (! (! 6 3 (! KILOMETRE (KM) MARKERS (! (! 7 (!6 2 NEW SUBSTATION (NOT PART (! 7 (! OF PROJECT) (! 8 1 8 (! (! (! 9 NEW SUBSTATION 9 (!(! 0 10 (! 10 (! (! 11 11 (! ! 12 ( 12 (! 13 13 (! (! 14 14 (! (! 15 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, 15 (! USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, (! METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), 16 (! NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 16 (! (!
4700000 17 17 (! (! 18 18 19 (! (! (! 20 (! (! 20 19 21 (! 21 (! 22 (! 22 (! 28 (! 23 29 (! 23 30 (! 4 27 (! (! (! 31 (! 5 (! 24 (! 24 (! 26 (! 34 32 3 (! (! 33 (! 25 (! (! 2 (! (! 25 35 (! 1 (! (! 26 (! (! 0 36 27 ! (! 28 ( (! 34 30 29 37 (! 33 32 31 ! (! (! (! (! (! ( 35 38 (! (!(! 36
(!(! 4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW 37 39 EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH 38 (!(! 40 T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com (!(!41 42 39 GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION (! (! NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 43 40 (! (! VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION 45 44 (! (! (! 41 46 (! 42 THE LECHKHUMI LINE (!(! AND NEW DERCHI LINE TSKALTUBO SUBSTATION (! 43 (!47 45 44 0 2 4 6 8 FIGURE 4.8
Scale Date Kilometres 1:125,000 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.8.0 The Lechkhumi Line and New Derchi Line Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• 8.4km from Svaneti IBA. Lechkhumi Line The Lechkhumi line will comprise a 500kV single circuit transmission line from Lajanuri Substation to Tskaltubo Substation (a separately funded World Bank project being promoted by GSE). This transmission line will increase the transmission capacity of the internal Georgian network by up to 1200MW. The 49km transmission line will be located in a combination of flat, hilly and mountainous terrain at altitudes ranging between 110m and 1210m, with the terrain being flatter in the Tskaltubo area. The route generally follows the corridor of the existing Derchi 220kV single circuit line which connects Tskaltubo Substation and Lajanuri HPP Powerhouse and is to be replaced by the New Derchi line. Generally, the route, starting at the Lajanuri Substation heads south until east of Namakhvani Cascade HPP, where it turns southwest towards the new 500kV switchyard in Tskaltubo Substation. The route is shown in Figure 4.8. For the first kilometre of the route from KM0 at the new Lajanuri substation, the transmission line will run in a southeastwards direction and parallel to the proposed New Derchi line (the route of the existing Derchi line which is to be replaced), crossing the main Kutaisi to Alpana road and the Rioni River. Access to left bank of the river in front of Lajanuri Substation is steep and would result in a long span across the Rioni River. The route then (from KM1) runs up into the forested mountainous area to the west of Tsagera (KM 2/ KM 3) and turns to run roughly southwards with the Rioni River to the west and the existing Derchi line to the east. From KM6 to KM10, the route runs more closely parallel to the route of both the existing and New Derchi lines, with a separation of approximately 100m. At KM10, the route starts descending to lower altitudes, passing away from the proposed Derchi line, through hilly terrain with a variety of land uses (pastures, arable land, deciduous woodland). From KM12, the Lechkhumi line then deviates to the west of the Derchi line to avoid the village of Sachkheuri. The transmission line would then re-join a parallel route to the Derchi line at approximately KM 16 for a further 7.3km through deciduous forests before turning westwards at KM23 towards Zhoneti (KM30). This deviation from the Derchi line corridor is proposed to avoid inhabited areas (Opurchkheti, Zhoneti, Mechkheri and Zarati) and the area to the west of Opurchkheti village where protected plants of the Buxaceae family (Caucasian Box Tree) are present. This section of the route re-crosses the Rioni River (KM29- KM30). Between Zhoneti and a point to the north east of Kvilishori (KM34), the route runs parallel to the existing 500kV Imereti line, for approximately 8km before turning to the south, where a crossing of the Imereti line would be necessary. After crossing the Imereti line, the route runs in a southerly direction for about 2.5km, to meet the proposed New Derchi line at KM38, close to the Sataplia Nature Reserve. The route then continues to follow the Derchi line in a southwest direction all the way, with two minor deviations (KM42 and KM45) to avoid housing, to Tskaltubo Substation. The final 6km of transmission line passes through agricultural land with scattered housing. Environmental and Social Constraints Access to the majority of the route is possible using existing maintenance roads of the existing Derchi line. The route crosses the main Kutaisi-Tskaltubo road (KM45/KM46) prior to arriving at the substation. There are six watercourses, including two crossings of the Rioni River. The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. Based on the feasibility studies it is not expected that there would be any physical displacement of houses. The route passes less than 10km from the following protected area: • 200m from the Sataplia Nature Reserve;
Page 97
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• 2.1km from the Ratcha 3 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000041); • 3.8km from unnamed proposed candidate Emerald Site (GE0000039); • 4.6km from unnamed proposed candidate Emerald Site (GE0000043); • 1.3km from the Khomuli Cave Natural Monument; • 8.0km from the Tskaltsitela Gorge Natural Monument • National Protected Area The Lechkhumi line would also be 5.3km from Bagrati Cathedral WHS and 8.3km from Gelati Monastery WHS. New Derchi Line The existing single circuit 220kV Derchi line currently connects the 110MW Lajanuri HPP Powerhouse to Tskaltubo Substation and is operated by Energo-Pro. This line would be replaced by a new 45km 220kV double circuit line which would link the Lajanuri Substation to Tskaltubo (the New Derchi line) and would generally follow the same route as the existing Derchi line, as shown in Figure 4.8 and would include in addition two double circuit loop in/loop out lines as follows: • A 4km link from between KM9/KM10 to the proposed Upper Namakhvani (UNK) powerhouse at Tvishi; and • A 5.3km link from between KM25/KM26 to the proposed Lower Namakhvani (LNK) powerhouse, 7.5km south of the proposed dam at the end of the tail race. The New Derchi 220kV line, being double rather than single circuit, will add approximately 1000MW transmission capacity to the internal Georgian network. In order to enable the continued export of power from the Lajanuri HPP, following the removal of the existing Derchi line, a new 4.2km 220kV connection will be required between the Lajanuri HPP and the new substation (the Lajanuri HPP line). For the first kilometre of the route, the transmission line will run southeastwards and parallel to the proposed Lajanuri HPP line, crossing the main Kutaisi to Alpana road and the Rioni River. Access to left bank of the river in front of New Lajanuri Substation is anticipated to be challenging. Additionally, a relatively long span will be required to cross over the Rioni River. The route then turns to the southeast and rises up onto the high terrain, to the north of Tsagera, to follow, from KM2, the route of the existing Derchi line southwards running broadly parallel to the east of the Rioni River, albeit high in the mountainous area. The route is also broadly parallel to the proposed Lechkhumi line. Between KM9 and KM10, the loop in/loop out link to the Upper Namakhvani HPP powerhouse, would run to the northwest down a very steep section into the valley past the village of Orkhvi (KM2-KM3). Two long spans are anticipated in this section. From this tee off point, the line continues for a further 16.2km to the tee off point (KM25 to KM26) to the loop in/loop out link to the Lower Namakhvani HPP powerhouse. The route in this section deviates in two locations from that of the existing Derchi line, once passing eastwards to avoid the village of Sachkheuri (KM12 to KM15) and once deviating to the west to avoid scattered housing around KM23. The link to Lower Namakhvani HPP powerhouse runs down into the valley, roughly parallel to the Lechkhumi line and also for a distance of approximately 1.5km parallel to the existing Imereti line. Again the terrain is very steep and long spans are anticipated. From the Lower Namakhvani HPP powerhouse tee-off (KM26), the route crosses the Imereti line and turns to the southwest, still following the route of the existing Derchi line, down into the Rioni River valley between the villages of Rioni and Zarati (KM30 to KM31). The line would cross the river (KM32) and continue in a south/southwesterly direction to skirt the Sataplia Nature Reserve (KM36) and run parallel to the proposed Lechkhumi line through an area densely populated between the towns of Gumbra and Banoja (KM 39 to KM41)
Page 98
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019 to the Tskaltubo Substation. There is one deviation from the existing Derchi route at KM32 to KM33 where the route runs further north in order to benefit from easier access. As the New Derchi line will use the same corridor as the existing Derchi line, the latter will be decommissioned and dismantled. In order to ensure the ability to continually export the power from the existing Lajanuri HPP during the removal of the existing Derchi line, the proposed Lechkhumi and Lajanuri lines, the 500kV switchyard in the Lajanuri Substation and also the 500kV extension to the Tskaltubo Substation (World Bank project) must be completed prior to the dismantling of this line. The total length of the transmission line to be removed is approximately 45.3km. Environmental and Social Constraints The route crosses the main Kutaisi-Tskaltubo road (KM43/KM44) prior to arriving at the substation. The route crosses six watercourses, including the two crossings of the Rioni River. Access to majority of the route is possible using existing maintenance roads of Derchi line and this was a major factor in the selection of this route. The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. Based on the feasibility studies it is not expected that there would be any physical displacement of houses. The Right of Way passes less than 10km from the following protected areas: • 100m from the Sataplia Nature Reserve; • 2.0km from the Ratcha 3 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000041); • 6.3km from un-named proposed candidate Emerald Site (GE0000039); • 6.7km from un-named proposed candidate Emerald Site (GE0000043); • 1.6km from the Khomuli Cave Natural Monument; and • 5.6km from the Tskaltsitela Gorge Natural Monument. The New Derchi line would also be 4.7km from Bagrati Cathedral WHS and 6.2km from Gelati Monastery WHS. Lajanuri HPP Line In order to export the power from the existing Lajanuri HPP (110MW), which is currently exported via the existing Derchi line (which is to be removed and replaced), a new 3.8km 220kV single circuit transmission line will be installed to link the Lajanuri Substation to the existing Lajanuri HPP powerhouse. The route, as shown in Figure 4.9, runs south from the proposed substation to cross the Rioni River, before turning at KM1 generally eastwards and then north again to re-cross the river and reach the powerhouse close to Alpana. There are no residential properties within the Right of Way. The route passes less than 10km from the following protected area: • 5.5km from the Ratcha 3 candidate Emerald Site (GE0000041); • 9.7km from the Racha Lechkhumi candidate Emerald Site (GE0000058); and • 9.1km from Kvemo Svaneti Planning Protected Area.
4.5.3 Lajanuri Substation Lajanuri Substation will be located on a greenfield site at about 500m above sea level, to the west of the town of Alpana, approximately 2.5km from the existing Lajanuri HPP powerhouse. The terrain is relatively flat with some vegetation and low height trees. There are also some agricultural fields. The Lajanuri Substation would be equipped with the following main elements: • 110kV, 220kV and 500kV switchyard and also 35kV indoor switchgear;
Page 99
320000 321000
LEGEND
PROPOSED LAJANURI ¯ SUBSTATION, 4715000
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 4714000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION LAJANURI SUBSTATION LOCATION
0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 4.15
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.13_20.0 Substation locations Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• One autotransformer bank at 500/220/35kV; • Two three-phase autotransformers at 220/110/35kV; • Two three-phase power regulating transformers 35/35kV; • Two auxiliary transformers at 35/0.4kV; • Two 35kV earthing transformers; and • One diesel generator set at 0.4kV, with 400kVA capacity (approx. 4.5mx 1.25m x 2.25m high). The proposed substation would cover an area of approximately 600m x 300m. The substation will be manned by up to 10 trained operators. The location and layout of the substation are shown in Figure 4.15. The Lechkhumi line, New Derchi line; Oni HPP line; Lajanuri HPP line, Kheledula HPP line and the existing Moashi 1 line and Moashi 2 line, which connect to Mestia, would all connect into the substation. Environmental and Social Constraints The nearest housing to the proposed substation site is located approximately 700m away to the east in the village of Alpana. Some tree and vegetation removal would be required but the site and its surroundings are not considered to be particularly sensitive. There are no protected areas located within or near to the site. The existing main road between Kutaisi and the proposed substation site is in very poor condition, with approximately 20km requiring complete refurbishment and 10km requiring partial refurbishment. It is understood that this refurbishment work will be undertaken by the Ministry of Roads in order to facilitate construction of new HPPs. Access to the substation would also need to be improved to avoid houses close to the existing access. It is anticipated at this stage that a new access off the main highway would be constructed. This would facilitate the delivery of 8 transformers which would comprise Abnormal Indivisible Loads and would require an escorted to site. Measures to minimise the impact of the transport of these loads on users of the local road network would be set out in a Traffic Management Plan in accordance with the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.4.8, Document 8.1, Volume 8).
4.6 Component D - Reinforcement of the Transmission Infrastructure in Kakheti
4.6.1 Outline of Project Component Elements Component D comprises the Project elements outlined in Table 4.5 which will be constructed as a result of the Project.
Table 4.5 Project Elements in Component D Project Elements Summary of Component D Project Elements
Overhead transmission lines Gurjaani line – 33.1 km 110kV/220kV double circuit transmission line with barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak Akhmeta line – 35km 110kV double circuit overhead transmission line with barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak Tsinandali line – 1.6km 110kV double circuit overhead transmission line with barrel type towers with six
Page 100
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Project Elements Summary of Component D Project Elements
crossarms and one earth wire peak Mukuzani line – 2.8km 110kV double circuit overhead transmission line with barrel type towers with six crossarms and one earth wire peak
Underground cables Gurjaani line- 3.3km
Substations Akhmeta Substation – rehabilitation and extension Telavi Substation – rehabilitation and extension Tsinandali Substation– rehabilitation Mukuzani Substation – rehabilitation Gurjaani Substation– rehabilitation
Significant crossings (e.g. existing transmission lines, Gurjaani line - one low voltage line crossing watercourses, motorways, railways) Gurjaani line - 18 watercourse crossings Akhmeta line – 10 watercourse crossings Tsinandali line – four watercourse crossings Mukuzani line – one railway crossing (railway line not currently operational)
Altitude greater than 1500m ASL None
Estimated length of Right of Way corridor passing Gurjaani line – up to 8.3km through forest Akhmeta line –up to 8.4km Tsinandali line - 100m Mukuzani line - none
Associated Facilities None
4.6.2 Transmission Line Route Description Component D comprises the reinforcement of the transmission infrastructure in Kakheti through the rehabilitation of the existing 110kV line between Gurjaani and Akhmeta, albeit the voltage of the line in parts is increasing from 110kV to 220kV. The proposed routing is shown on Figures 4.10 (Gurjaani, Mukuzani, and Tsinandali lines and Figure 4.11 (Akhmeta line). Gurjaani Line The existing single circuit 110kV transmission line between Gurjaani to Telavi (the Kalauri and Tsinandali lines) would be replaced with a new double circuit 110kV/220kV transmission line to be constructed on 220kV towers. The line would be 33.1km in length and would include 3.3km of underground cable to the south of Tsinandali. Although the transmission line from Gurjaani to Telavi would link the intermediate substations, it is important to note that 220kV circuit would form an uninterrupted connection between Telavi and Gurjaani substations. However, the 110kV circuit would be diverted, as a double circuit loop in/loop out to the Tsinandali and Mukuzani substations.
Page 101
540000 560000
LEGEND
GURJAANI LINE
MUKUZANI LINE
Telavi TSINANDALI LINE Substation
33 KILOMETRE (KM) MARKERS 32 4640000 31 EXISTING SUBSTATION TO BE 30 REHABILITATED 29
1 28 0 Tsinandali 25 Substation 27 26 23 24 22
21 20
19
18 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), 17 NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 16
15 14
13 12 2 1 11 Mukuzani 0 10 Substation
9
8
7 6
5
4
3 4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK 2 EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 1 www.slrconsulting.com Gurjaani Substation GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION 0 NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION 4620000 THE GURJAANI LINE, MUKUZANI LINE AND TSINANDALI LINE 0 2 4 6 8 FIGURE 4.10
Scale Date Kilometres 1:100,000 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.10.0TheGurjaani Line Mukuzani Loop and Tsinandali Loop Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. 520000 540000
LEGEND 4660000 THE AKHMETA LINE
KILOMETRE (KM) MARKERS
EXISTING SUBSTATION TO BE REHABILITATED
AKHMETA 34 SUBSTATION 33
32
31
30 29 26 25 28 27
24
23
22
21 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), 20 NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
19
18
17
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7
6 0 TELAVI 5 SUBSTATION 1 4 3 4640000 2
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION THE AKHMETA LINE 0 1 2 3 4 FIGURE 4.11
Scale Date Kilometres 1:100,000 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.11.0 The Akhmeta Line 5752.00002.16.4.11.0 Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
On leaving Gurjaani Substation (KM0), for the first 500m of the line, the 110kV and the 220kV circuits follow separate routes due to the orientation of the respective switchyards, with the 110kV circuit being routed from the northeastern end of the substation and the 220kV circuit leaving from the southwestern end of the substation. The two circuits meet after approximately 500m and are then located on the same transmission towers, heading in a north northwesterly direction, along the lower slopes of the Tsiv-Gombori Range and parallel to the existing Kalauri line that is to be replaced. At KM4, after skirting Gurjaani and Chumlaki, the existing Kalauri line turns east through the densely populated areas of Zegaani and Chumlaki and in order to avoid resettlement, the proposed Gurjaani line continues to follow the edge of the ridge, keeping to the west of the residential areas to between KM10 and KM11 where the two routes coincide once more. From the tee off point of the Mukuzani loop to the Mukuzani Substation (between KM10 and KM11), where the line passes through a large area of vineyards, the route of the Gurjaani line follows that of the existing Kalauri line for a distance of 3.5km, again following the ridge and keeping to the west of the residential areas until a watercourse/cliff crossing south of Shashiani (KM14). Here the existing line is routed through the edge of the village so the route of the Gurjaani line is diverted higher up the escarpment before rejoining the existing line after 2.7km (between KM16 and KM17). The Gurjaani line then follows the route of the existing Kalauri line for approximately 9km to the edge of Tsinandali and the tee off point for the Tsinandali loop (between KM25 and KM26) with one small diversion in the vicinity of Akura (between KM20 and KM21), where it moves higher up the escarpment again to avoid housing. At the tee off point for the Tsinandali loop (between KM25 and KM26), the transmission line will terminate in a cable sealing end platform in order to transition to and continue as an underground cable for a distance of 0.86km. This section of the route is being undergrounded in order to reduce impacts on views of a tourism and recreation area being developed as a Radisson Blu hotel and vineyard resort (KM26 to KM27). The route of the cable follows the perimeter of the vineyard before turning to the northwest at which the cable would change back to overhead line at a second cable sealing end tower. The line would then pass over a cliff and watercourse (KM27 to KM28) with a long span and rejoining the route of the existing Gurjaani line to the southwest of Kisiskhevi (KM29). The transmission line then follows the route of the existing Gurjaani line to the edge of Telavi (KM31) where it deviates to the south, to minimise resettlement, to follow the Khrukiaskhevi river bed which runs between housing to the Telavi Substation. Environmental and Social Constraints The majority of the Gurjaani line passes along the edge of the Gombori candidate Emerald Site (GE0000027). This Emerald Site was recently increased in size, such that 40km of existing transmission line is located within the candidate site. The Alazani Valley IBA is located 8km from the Gurjaani line. There are no other protected areas within 10km of the Gurjaani line. The Gurjaani line would make approximately 18 watercourse crossings, including of the Kisiskhevi, Vantiskhevi, Mghvriekhevi, Chermiskhevi, Papriskhevi, and Khrukiaskhevi rivers. The watercourses in this region are typically dry ephemeral rivers but their presence is indicative of high flow events most probably after heavy rainfall. The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. Assessments show that 1 residential property could potentially require resettlement, Akhmeta line The existing single circuit 110kV transmission line between Telavi to Akhmeta (the existing Ikalto line) would be replaced with a new double circuit 110kV transmission line to be constructed on 220kV towers and would be approximately 35km in length. As additional HPP projects come on line in the future, the transmission line can be upgraded to operate at 220kV without the need to install new towers.
Page 102
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The initial part of the route leaves Telavi Substation (KM0) in a south southwesterly direction, parallel to the Gurjaani line described previously, following the Khrukiaskhevi river bed to KM2, in order to minimise resettlement along the edge of Telavi. At KM2 the Akhmeta line turns to the northwest across a forested area of hillside passing the Telavi University and some other buildings, to rejoin the route of the existing Ikalto transmission line at KM4, following the lower slopes of the Tsiv-Gombori Range until a point southeast of Arashenda (KM18) where the existing transmission line passes through the residential areas of Akhmeta, Sachale, and Kistauri. Its replacement along this existing line would involve significant physical resettlement of properties. Therefore, the proposed route has been routed to the north of the existing line to avoid the residential areas of Sachale and Kistauri. From Arashenda, the route runs northwards from KM18 to KM25 and passes across flat agricultural land, used in part for vineyards. At KM25 the route turns eastwards to run parallel to the Alazani River for the final 10km into the existing Akhmeta Substation. Environmental and Social Constraints As with the Gurjaani line, the Akhmeta line crosses a number of watercourses and again all of which are mostly dry river beds. With the re-routing of the line to the north of Sachale and Kistauri the feasibility design has managed to avoid the need for any physical displacement of properties. This re-routing is a significant benefit of the Project compared to the route of the current 110kV line which runs through Sachale and Kistauri but also through the centre of Akhmeta. The current line passes over many properties and also an area of shops and a school in the centre of Akhmeta. The new route would now pass predominantly through agricultural areas some of which are used for growing vine for wine making. The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. However, the studies undertaken to date shows that 4 residential properties could potentially require resettlement. Between KM0 and KM11, where the Akhmeta line runs northwards from Telavi it passes along the edge of the Gombori proposed Emerald Site. In addition, the Right of Way passes less than 10km from the following protected areas: • 7.2km from the Babaneuri Nature Reserve; • 7.3km from Alazani Valley IBA; and • 7.2km from un-named proposed Emerald Site (GE0000055). Tsinandali Line The 110kV Tsinandali loop in/loop out will be 1.6km in length and will link the cable sealing end platform at the edge of the Radisson Blu hotel’s vineyard to the Tsinandali Substation. The route has been diverted from that of the existing line in order to minimise impacts on housing and runs initially to the northeast, following the route of a river bed. There will be four crossings of this river. The final 400m of this route turns to the southeast to run to the south of a local road into the substation. This final 400m is constrained by a cemetery located on the north side of the road and a belt of mature trees. To the south there are buildings located within the right of way of the existing transmission line. Environmental and social constraints The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. However, assessments show that three structures could potentially require resettlement, including: • One house;
Page 103
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• One new café/restaurant; and • Small roadside shop. Other than the first 95m, the majority of this route avoids the Gombori candidate Emerald Site (GE000027). The Tsinandali line is 7.5km from the Alazani Valley IBA. There are no other protected areas within 10km. Mukuzani Line The 110kV Mukuzani loop in/loop out will be 2.8km in length and would cross flat agricultural land to link the Gurjaani line (from a point between KM10 and KM11) to the Mukuzani Substation. The transmission line will be routed initially to the northeast around the north of the town to minimise resettlement. Between KM1 and KM2, the line will turn to the southeast to reach the substation. Agriculture in the area comprises mainly vineyards, with Mukuzani wine being a controlled appellation of Georgian wine. Environmental and social constraints There are no watercourse crossings. The final detailed design would take into account all properties and buildings and seek to avoid as many as practically possible. Based on the feasibility studies it is not expected that there would be any physical displacement of houses. This line will follow the inside edge of the Gombori candidate Emerald Site (GE0000027). The Mukuzani line is 7km from the Alazani Valley IBA. There are no other protected areas within 10km.
4.6.3 Component D Substations Akhmeta Substation The existing Akhmeta substation is located on the north side of Akhmeta on the Akhmeta to Batsara road. To the east, where the new Akhmeta line will approach from, the land use is agriculture and the landscape is flat and open with few trees. The existing substation footprint is 40m x 70m and this is located in a larger footprint of land (approximately 180m x 60m) owned by GSE where there are some operational and maintenance buildings (Image 4.3).
Page 104
516000 517000 518000
LEGEND
EXISTING AKHMETA ¯ SUBSTATION 4656000
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
4655000 T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION AKHMETA SUBSTATION LOCATION
0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 4.20
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.13_20.0 Substation locations Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
IMAGE 4.3 AKHMETA SUBSTATION
The rehabilitation of the existing 110kV Akhmeta Substation would include the following main elements: • Construction and extension of the 110kV switchyard; • Installation two 10kV AIS indoor switchgears; • Rehabilitation of the existing 110/35/10kV power transformer; • Installation of two auxiliary/earthing transformers at 10/0.4kV, with 630kVA; • Installation of two neutral resistors; • Installation of a protection and control system, telecommunication and metering; • Installation of one diesel generator set at 0.4kV, with 200kVA capacity (approx. 2.5mx 1m x 1.6m high); • Construction of a control building and guard house; and • Installation of a CCTV system. The above works will require an extension of the substation plot into adjacent agriculture fields of approximately 70m x 150m plus another small area of 40m x 70m. Environmental and Social Constraints The existing substation is located on the edge of Akhmeta so is generally situated away from the main residential areas of the town. The nearest buildings are within 50m of the substation but the nearest housing is approximately 130m from the substation. The substation is located approximately 160m from the Ilto River, which is a tributary of the Alazani River. The substation is located approximately 6m above the river and, therefore, could be located within the floodplain.
Page 105
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Like other rivers in this region this runs dry for the majority of the time responding only to periods of heavy rainfall. The substation and its surrounding area are not located in a sensitive environment, being surrounded by either industrial buildings to the north, south and west and with agriculture to the east. As a result there are no protected areas near the site or within 10km. As the substation is an existing substation, there is old and existing electrical equipment that could present a risk to the environment. Oil filled transformers are expected to contain PCBs, and as with some of the other substations in Kakheti, there is some evidence of leaks on site. It is expected that some soils on site could be contaminated and this would need to be investigated prior to site construction. Telavi Substation The existing Telavi substation (Image 4.4) is located to the east of the town centre of Telavi and is located within the city limits with houses and buildings to the west, north and east of the substation. To the south of the substation there is an area of open fields some of which appear to be cultivated but most appear to be unused. The existing transmission lines from Akhmeta and Gurjaani enter the substation from this side. The existing substation footprint is approximately 85m x 90m which is set within a fenced and partly walled enclosure. A larger footprint (180m x 190m) for the GSE regional office and buildings is located to the north and west of the operating substation.
IMAGE 4.4 TELAVI SUBSTATION
The rehabilitation and extension of 110/220kV Telavi Substation will include the following main elements: • Installation of a new 110kV and a new 220kV switchyard ; • Installation of a new 125MVA autotransformer; • Relocation and rehabilitation of the existing 110/35/10kV power transformers; • Replacement of the existing 10kV switchgear and 35kV outdoor switchyard with new indoor 10kV and 35kV switchgear, which will be installed in the new control building;
Page 106
541000 542000
LEGEND ¯ EXISTING TELAVI SUBSTATION 4641000
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
4640000 T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION TELAVI SUBSTATION LOCATION
0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 4.19
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.13_20.0 Substation locations Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Replacement of the existing auxiliary transformers with one 35/0.4kV 630kVA auxiliary transformer and one 35/0.4kV 630kVA earthing transformer ; • Installation of the protection system for 220kV, 110kV, 35kV and 10kV equipment, including telecommunication and metering; • Construction of a new control building (new Control Room); • Rehabilitation of the existing fences; • Rehabilitation and upgrading of the earthing and lightning protection; and systems; and • Installation a CCTV system. The above works will require an extension of approximately 85m x 90m to the existing substation footprint, which would be made to the west of the site. The area of the extension comprises unused land which is part of the GSE landholdings. Some buildings may need to be removed and relocated within the site. Environmental and Social Constraints As highlighted in the previous section, the existing substation and the planned extension is located within the city limits of Telavi. The planned extension to the west would bring the substation closer to properties, with the nearest approximately 60m from the new substation. Provisions would need to be made for the placing of the noise emitting transformers as far away from this western boundary as possible to minimise emissions and meet noise standards. This is specified within the Substation ESMP (Section 4.6.4, Document 8.3, Volume 8). The existing Telavi substation is not located within a particularly sensitive natural environment being located within the city limits and there are no trees or little vegetation. Some vegetation exists along its western boundary and this would be maintained for the benefit of biodiversity and also for noise screening. Although the substation is located in the Telavi city limits, it is located approximately 400m from the Gombori proposed Emerald Site (GE000027). This newly proposed Emerald Site appears to cover some of the city limits of Telavi but since the boundary is recently proposed it is understood that MEPA is considering the boundary which may be redrawn to the forest limits adjacent to the city. These forest limits are approximately 1.2km from the existing substation. There are no other protected areas close to the site or within 10km. As with Akhmeta, the Telavi substation is an old substation and there is evidence of leaks from the existing oil filled transformers. There is no containment or spill protection and it is considered likely that the ground is contaminated with oils and PCBs. A site investigation would need to be undertaken prior to any works to identify the remedial works required ahead of construction. One of the proposed new transformers would be an Abnormal Indivisible Load and would require to be escorted to site. These loads would be of similar dimensions to those already delivered to site for the existing substation and, therefore, no significant issues are anticipated. Measures to minimise the impact of the transport of these loads on users of the local road network would be set out in a Traffic Management Plan in accordance with the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.4.8, Document 8.1, Volume 8). Tsinandali Substation The existing substation (Image 4.5) is located to the southeast of Tsinandali adjacent to the village of Kvemo Khodasheni. The substation is located on the main road to Telavi opposite a cemetery which is located to the north. The substation is surrounded by buildings and properties to the south and an old concrete irrigation channel to the east. The existing substation is approximately 24m x 36m in size and is located within a larger footprint (approximately 75m x 50m) owned by GSE which also comprises some trees and vegetation and a large operations and maintenance building.
Page 107
548000 549000
LEGEND
EXISTING TSINANDALI ¯ SUBSTATION 4638000
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 4637000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION TSINANDALI SUBSTATION LOCATION
0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 4.18
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.13_20.0 Substation locations Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
IMAGE 4.5 TSINANDALI SUBSTATION
The rehabilitation of the 110kV Tsinandali Substation will include the following main elements: • Rehabilitation 110kV switchyard; • Installation of a new protection system for 110kV switchyard, including the telecommunication and metering • Rehabilitation of the existing control building (new Control Room) • Rehabilitation of cable ducts, fences, internal roads and drainage systems • Rehabilitation and upgrading of the earthing and lightning protection systems • Installation a CCTV system. All new infrastructure would be within the existing substation footprint, however some land outside of this may be required during the construction phase though it is not clear yet where this would be located. Any land used for construction would most likely be nearby agricultural land. Environmental and Social Constraints The Tsinandali substation is located adjacent to properties, the nearest being approximately 20m from the substation boundary. As highlighted previously the substation is located adjacent to a cemetery which is also bound by a line of mature trees. There are also trees and vegetation located to the west and partly on the northern boundary of the substation. The site is also located approximately 260m from the Gombori proposed Emerald Site (GE000027). There are no other protected areas close to the site or within 10km. As with the Akhmeta and Telavi substation, Tsinandali substation is old and like others in Kakheti, it is expected that soils at the site could be contaminated with oil and PCBs. A site investigation would be undertaken prior to any works so that a remedial strategy could be implemented ahead of construction works.
Page 108
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
Mukuzani Substation The existing Mukuzani substation (Image 4.6)is located to the eastern edge of town, close to the village of Velistsikhe. The substation site is located near to the railway line to Telavi, but this is not currently in use. The substation is 20m x 30m in size located within a large GSE ownership boundary of approximately 60m x 60m. The nearest property to the existing substation is approximately 30m to the south. To the north and west the substation is surrounded by vineyards. To the east and south the land use is mostly poor quality and derelict land. There is evidence of what once must have been a large grand building to the east evidenced by high garden walls, non-native mature trees and gates to the area. However, it appears that now all buildings within the walls have been demolished.
IMAGE 4.6 MUKUZANI SUBSTATION
The rehabilitation of the 110kV Mukuzani Substation will include the following main elements: • Rehabilitation of the 110kV switchyard; • Installation of a new protection system for 110kV switchyard, including telecommunication and metering; • Rehabilitation of the existing control building (new Control Room); • Rehabilitation of cable ducts, fences, internal roads and drainage system; • Rehabilitation and upgrading of the earthing and lightning protection systems; • Creation of a new access; and • Installation of a CCTV system.
Page 109
561000 562000
LEGEND
EXISTING MUKUZANI ¯ SUBSTATION
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 4629000 CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION MUKUZANI SUBSTATION LOCATION 4628000 0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 4.17
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.13_20.0 Substation locations Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
The above works would require an extension of approximately 6m x 6m to the existing substation but this can be contained within the existing land ownership of GSE. This area will be required for the new access to the site and is not currently utilised. No buildings would need to be moved from this area. Environmental and Social Constraints The nearest housing from the new extension area would be approximately 25m distant. The substation is not located within a particularly sensitive area although there are some matures trees located to the east of the substation. The existing site is located approximately 1km from the Gombori proposed Emerald Site. There are no other protected areas close to the site or within 10km. As with the other Kakheti substations, this site is old and there is evidence of leakage from the oil filled transformers. There are no containment or spill provisions on site and as a consequence it is likely that soils are contaminated with oils and PCBs. As with the other substation sites, a site investigation and remedial works would be needed ahead of construction. Gurjaani Substation The Gurjaani substation (Image 4.7) is located to the southwest of Gurjaani on the edge of the Tsiv-Gombori Range in a forested area. The substation is located at an altitude of 590m ASL and there are clear views out to the Kakheti valley and the mountains beyond to the north and east. The nearest housing is approximately 380m away from the substation but the substation is not clearly visible due to being surrounded by trees and vegetation.
IMAGE 4.7 GURJAANI SUBSTATION
The rehabilitation and upgrade of 110/220kV Gurjaani Substation will include the following main elements: • Rehabilitation and upgrading of the existing 110kV and 220kV switchyard; • Installation of an additional 125MVA autotransformer;
Page 110
564000 565000 566000
LEGEND
EXISTING GURJAANI ¯ SUBSTATION 4621000
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 4620000
4/5 LOCHSIDE VIEW EDINBURGH PARK EDINBURGH EH12 9DH
T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 www.slrconsulting.com
GEORGIA ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION NETW0RK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VOLUME 2: PROJECT DEFINITION GURJAANI SUBSTATION LOCATION
0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 4.16
Scale Date Metres 1:7,500 @ A3 FEBRUARY 2019 5752.00002.16.4.13_20.0 Substation locations Base mapping provided by Geoland © This drawing and its content are the copyright of SLR Consulting Ltd and may not be reproduced or amended except by prior written permission. SLR Consulting Ltd accepts no liability for any amendments made by other persons. Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
• Rehabilitation of the existing 125MVA autotransformer facilities; • Replacement of the existing auxiliary transformers with new ones with a capacity of 630kVA; • Rehabilitation of the existing auxiliary supply system (AC/DC); • Installation protection and control system, telecommunication and metering; • Rehabilitation of the existing control building (new Control Room); • Rehabilitation and upgrading of the earthing and lightning protection systems; • Rehabilitation of cable ducts, fences, internal roads and drainage systems; and • Installation a CCTV system. All new infrastructure would be within the existing substation footprint, however some land outside of this may be required during the construction phase. Environmental and Social Constraints As highlighted previously the substation site is located up to 380m from housing and surrounding land use is forest. The surrounding natural environment is, therefore, likely to be sensitive and any land required for temporary use would need to be on areas previously impacted by logging or other uses. The forest is not protected but the substation is located approximately 1.48km from the Gombori proposed Emerald Site. There are no other protected areas close to the site or within 10km. One of the proposed new transformers would be an Abnormal Indivisible Loads and would require to be escorted to site. Measures to minimise the impact of the transport of these loads on users of the local road network will be set out in a Traffic Management Plan in accordance with the Project-wide ESMP (Section 5.4.8, Document 8.1, Volume 8). As before, this substation is an old substation and there is evidence of leakage from the existing transformers. Some of the existing transformers have some containment but it is poorly maintained and there is no evidence that there is an operating collection system. There are also some unused electrical equipment and old oil storage tanks on site. Therefore, it must be assumed that soils would be contaminated with oils and PCBs. As with the other substation sites, a site investigation and remedial works would be needed ahead of construction.
Page 111
Georgian State Electrosystem (GSE) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment SLR Ref No:901.12.1 Volume 2 Project Definition July 2019
References
EBRD, Environmental and Social Policy, May 2014 European Network of Transmission System Operators’ for Electricity (ENTSO-E’s) Ten-Year Network Development Plan, 201,8 http://tyndp.entsoe.eu/tyndp2018/ European Union, Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Official Journal of the European Union Government of Georgia, Decree #366 On Regulation for Protection of Linear Structures of Power Networks and Determination of Zones of Protection, 24 December 2014 GSE website - http://www.gse.com.ge/projects/international-projects/Open-Programme-Extension-of- Transmission-Network-II GSE, Ten Year Network Development Plan of Georgia 2018-2028, 2018 IFC, Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution, April 2007 IFC, Environmental, Health and Safety guidelines www.ifc.org/ehsguidelines International Commission On Non Ionising Radiation Protection, Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time- Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz - 100 KHz), 2010 www.icnirp.org Parliament of Georgia, Code of Environmental Assessment, 01/06/2017 The International Labour Organization (ILO) core labour conventions - http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/conventions-and- recommendations/lang--en/index.htm World Health Organisation, Air Quality Guidelines. Global Update 2005. Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, 2005
Page 112
EUROPEAN OFFICES
United Kingdom .
AYLESBURY LEEDS T: +44 (0)1844 337380 T: +44 (0)113 258 0650
BELFAST LONDON T: +44 (0)28 9073 2493 T: +44 (0)203 805 6418
BRADFORD-ON-AVON MAIDSTONE T: +44 (0)1225 309400 T: +44 (0)1622 609242
BRISTOL MANCHESTER T: +44 (0)117 906 4280 T: +44 (0)161 872 7564
CAMBRIDGE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE T: + 44 (0)1223 813805 T: +44 (0)191 261 1966
CARDIFF NOTTINGHAM T: +44 (0)29 2049 1010 T: +44 (0)115 964 7280
CHELMSFORD SHEFFIELD T: +44 (0)1245 392170 T: +44 (0)114 245 5153
EDINBURGH SHREWSBURY T: +44 (0)131 335 6830 T: +44 (0)1743 23 9250
EXETER STAFFORD T: + 44 (0)1392 490152 T: +44 (0)1785 241755
GLASGOW STIRLING T: +44 (0)141 353 5037 T: +44 (0)1786 239900
GUILDFORD WORCESTER T: +44 (0)1483 889800 T: +44 (0)1905 751310
Ireland France
DUBLIN GRENOBLE T: + 353 (0)1 296 4667 T: +33 (0)6 23 37 14 14