REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN
Public Disclosure Authorized
NATIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROJECT Public Disclosure Authorized Loan # IBRD 7460 AZ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR HOVSAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SEA OUTFALL CONSTRUCTION Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized FINAL REPORT
A subsidiary of
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...... 3 1.3. PROJECT PLANNING AND REPORTING ...... 3 1.4. ORGANISATION OF THE REPORT ...... 4 2. PROJECT SETTING ...... 5
2.1. CASPIAN SEA ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES...... 5 2.1.1. General Features ...... 5 2.1.2. Physical and Chemical Features ...... 6 2.1.3. Biodiversity ...... 7 2.1.4. Main ecological concerns ...... 9 2.2. THE CITY OF BAKU ...... 14 2.2.1. Location and Ecological Context ...... 14 2.2.2. Human and socio-economic context ...... 18 2.2.3. Major environmental concerns ...... 22 2.3. THE BAKU BIGHT ...... 30 2.3.1. General description ...... 30 2.3.2. Beaches and bathing areas ...... 31 2.3.3. Harbors and navigation ...... 32 2.3.4. Fishing zones ...... 34 2.3.5. Oil exploitation zones ...... 34 3. POLICY, LEGAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK ...... 35
3.1. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...... 35 3.1.1. Azersu and Ministry in Charge of Water Supply ...... 35 3.1.2. The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR) ...... 35 3.1.3. Main other Institutions Relating to the Project ...... 36 3.2. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ...... 38 3.2.1. Azeri legislation for the Protection of the Environment ...... 38 3.2.2. Azeri legislation for Environmental Impact Assessment ...... 41 3.2.3. Azeri and international regulations on aspects relevant to the project ...... 42 3.2.4. International Environmental Conventions ratified by Azerbaijan ...... 46 3.2.5. World Bank Safeguard Policies Applied to the Project and Recommendations for Environmental Impact Assessment ...... 47 3.3. EIA PRACTICES IN AZERBAIJAN ...... 48 4. HOVSAN WASTEWATER OUTFALL PROJECT ...... 49
4.1. PRESENT SEWAGE SYSTEM AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL ...... 49 4.1.1. For the record: main characteristics of the water supply system ...... 49 4.1.2. Wastewater collection system ...... 50 4.1.3. Storm water drainage system...... 51 4.1.4. Wastewater Treatments Plants ...... 52 4.1.5. Discharge of Treated and Untreated Wastewater ...... 52 4.1.6. Improvements Scheduled and Underway ...... 59 4.1.7. Design flow and pollution loads for alternatives ...... 63 4.2. PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 65 4.2.1. Alternative 1 – Early design ...... 65 4.2.2. Alternative 2 – Proposed design ...... 66 4.2.3. Alternative 3 – Proposed design with a 5 km long sea outfall ...... 68 4.2.4. Alternative 4 – Reusing the effluent in agriculture ...... 70 4.3. MAIN FEATURES OF THE SEWAGE OUTFALL ...... 71 4.3.1. Pipe Route and Design ...... 71 4.3.2. Methodology Applied for and Schedule in the Construction of the Outfall ...... 72
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI ii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
5. BASELINE DATA ...... 76
5.1. DEFINITION OF THE STUDY AREA AND THE FIELD SURVEYS ...... 76 5.1.1. The Study area ...... 76 5.1.2. The Marine Field Surveys ...... 77 5.2. TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 78 5.2.1. Biophysical Terrestrial Environment ...... 78 5.2.2. Human and socioeconomic Environment ...... 81 5.3. MARINE ENVIRONMENT...... 82 5.3.1. Physical and Chemical Marine Environment...... 82 5.3.2. Biological Marine Environment ...... 89 5.3.3. Marine Human Setting and Activities ...... 93 6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 95
6.1. METHODOLOGY OF IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...... 95 6.1.1. Environmental Scoping ...... 95 6.1.2. Assessing and ranking Environmental Impacts ...... 95 6.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS ...... 99 6.2.1. During construction phase ...... 99 6.2.2. During operation phase ...... 99 6.3. POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ...... 101 6.3.1. during construction phase ...... 101 6.3.2. during operation phase ...... 105 6.3.3. Summary of indirect impacts ...... 108 6.4. CONCLUSIONS ...... 109 7. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 110
7.1. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (FOR THE RECORD) ...... 110 7.2. OUTFALL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE (EARLY DESIGN) ...... 111 7.3. 5 KM LONG SEA OUTFALL ...... 111 7.4. REUSE ALTERNATIVE ...... 111 8. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 114
8.1. MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 114 8.1.1. The Different Categories of Mitigation Measures ...... 114 8.1.2. Environmental Requirements for Contractors and Supervisors ...... 114 8.1.3. Additional Environmental Works ...... 117 8.1.4. Accompanying and Soft Measures ...... 118 8.1.5. Further Recommendations for the Middle Term ...... 120 8.2. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ...... 121 8.2.1. The Environmental Monitoring Unit (EMU) ...... 121 8.2.2. Stakeholders’ responsibilities and duties ...... 122 8.2.3. Environmental documentation ...... 125 8.3. ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERVISION AND MITIGATION PLAN ...... 125 8.3.1. Environmental Supervision of Works ...... 125 8.3.2. Recapitulation of Impact Mitigation Plan ...... 126 8.3.3. Monitoring plan, indicators, protocols and operators ...... 130 8.4. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ...... 135 8.5. ENVIRONMENTAL COST ESTIMATES ...... 137 8.5.1. Cost of Environmental Measures ...... 137 8.5.2. Costs of Accompanying and Soft Measures ...... 137 8.5.3. Cost of Environmental Supervision ...... 138 8.5.4. Cost of Environmental Monitoring ...... 138 8.5.5. Recapitulation of Environmental Costs ...... 140 8.6. RECAPITULATING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLANS ...... 140 9. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ...... 148
9.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 148 9.2. INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING ...... 148
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI iii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
9.3. FINAL PUBLIC MEETING ...... 149 10. CONCLUSION ...... 150
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI iv Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
ARP Absheron Rehabilitation Program Azersu JSC Azersu Joint Stock Company AzDHS Azerbaijan Demographic and Health Survey BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BP British Petroleum CCEMD Complex Caspian Environmental Monitoring Department CEMP Contractor Environmental Management Plan ( CENN Caucasus Environmental NGO Network CEP Caspian Environmental Program COD Chemical Oxygen Demand (liquid effluent) DDT DichloroDiphénylTrichloroéthane EA Environmental Assessment EC Electric Conductivity ED Ecological Department EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EMU Environmental Monitoring Unit EPA Environnemental Protection Agency ERL Effect Range-Low ERM Effect Range-Medium ESO Environmental Supervision Officer ESP Environment State Program EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FS Feasibility Study GDP Gross Domestic Product GWSSP Goranboy rayon Water Supply and Sanitation Project HCH HexaChlorocycloHexane IEC Important Environmental Components IFRS International Financial Reporting Standards IMC Impact Monitoring Consultant IMO International Maritime Organisation IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LEP Law on Environmental Protection LOF Law on Fauna LOW Law on Wildlife LSPA Law on Specially Protected Areas MA Ministry of Agriculture MAC maximal allowable concentration MARPOL Marine Pollution MENR Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources MES Ministry of Emergency Situations MOH Ministry Of Health NA National Average NCAP National Caspian Action Plan NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organization NOAA National Ocean and Air Administration NWSSP National Water Supply and Sanitation Project OP Operational Policy PCB PolyChloroBiphényls SAP Strategic Action Programme SAR Sodium Absorption Ratio ( SAWMA State Amelioration and Water Management Agency SCENRU State Committee for Ecology and Natural Resources Utilization SEE State Ecological Expertise SEHSO Site Environment, Health and Safety Officer
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI v Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
SOCAR State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic TACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independant States TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis ToR Terms of Reference TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons UNDP, United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Educational Program UNESCO United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization WSS Water Supply and Sanitation WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI vi Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 1: The Caspian Sea and location of Baku (from Google Earth) ...... 1 Picture 2: The Caspian Sea ...... 5 Picture 3: Pollution hot spots around the Caspian Sea (from Caspian TDA, Vol 2, 2002) ...... 9 Picture 4 : Scheme of the trophic structure of the Caspian Sea showing the interactions between pelagic and benthic fauna and plankton (from ―The Caspian Sea Environment‖, 2005) ...... 10 Picture 5: Spatial density of Mnemiopsis leidyi (picture) over the Caspian Sea in individuals/m2 of water column. (from ―The Caspian Sea Environment, 2005) ...... 13 Picture 6: General view of the Absheron Peninsula ...... 14 Picture 7: Wind rose in Baku airport (wind frequency cumulated percent) over the 2004-2007 period 16 Picture 8: Polluted soils in the Absheron Peninsula (from ARP III Large Scale Oil Polluted Land Cleanup Project – (Absheron Rehabilitation Program. Project Appraisal Document, the World Bank, 2006) ...... 25 Picture 9: Permanent oil slick along a beach bordering oil storage facilities in the Baku Bay (Zigh District) ...... 30 Picture 10: Hovsan Beach, to the east ...... 31 Picture 11: Hovsan Beach, to the west (Hovsan Port on the background) ...... 31 Picture 12: Hovsan Beach, the small channel and the riparian dwellings ...... 31 Picture 13: Hovsan Beach, pollution by plastic debris ...... 31 Figure 14: Maritime map of the Baku Bight ...... 33 Picture 15: Azerbaijan offshore production fields...... 34 Picture 16: Layout of existing WWTPs, municipal and industrial discharge sources in the Absheron peninsula (from NEAP 1998) ...... 54 Picture 17: View of Hovsan WWTP plume and Hovsan Canal plume from satellite view (from Google Earth picture) ...... 57 Picture 18: View of the effluent plume generated by the discharge of Zigh WWTP (from Google Earth picture, with increased contrast) ...... 58 Picture 19: View of the effluent plumes generated by the discharge points (red arrows) along the central Baku waterfront (from Google Earth picture, with increased contrast) ...... 59 Picture 20: Layout of Alternative 1, the historical option ...... 65 Picture 21: View of the terrestrial outfall route (in blue) of Alternative 1 and the location of the abandoned sea outfall (yellow and above picture) on the Hovsan beach ...... 66 Picture 22: View of Alternative 2 (proposed alternative), along the Hovsan nearshore ...... 67 Picture 23: View of plume of Alternative 2 (proposed alternative) ...... 68 Picture 24: View of plume of Alternative 3 (5km long outfall – Current speed : 0.5 m/s, summer condition) ...... 69 Picture 25: View of plume of Alternative 3 (5km long outfall – Current speed : 0.1 m/s, summer condition) ...... 70 Picture 26: Proposed wastewater reuse areas (marked in blue)and wastewater reuse network from Hovsan WWTP ...... 71
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI vii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
Picture 27: Terrestrial study area (red dashed perimeter) (from Google earth) ...... 77 Picture 28: Soil profile in the study area (see the clearer shell layer below) ...... 79 Picture 29 : Shells Ceratosderma on the beach ...... 79 Picture 30: Water poll in the study area (near the coast) ...... 79 Picture 31 : Oily deposit on the side of the Hovsan Canal (near the mouth) ...... 79 Picture 32: Typical herbaceous vegetation off the study area ...... 80 Picture 33: Grow of green macro-algae on the near shore (near the Hovsan WWTP outlet) ...... 80 Picture 34: Coastal road (view toward the Hovsan WWTP ...... 81 Picture 35 : Aerial Pipes crossing the current discharge pipe (clear track) ...... 81 Picture 36: Kids fishing with a net at the outlet of the discharge pipe...... 82 Picture 37 : Small fishes (mullets) caught at the outlet of the discharge pipe ...... 82
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI viii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Monthly rainfall in Baku for the 1999-2008 period ...... 15 Figure 2: Morbidity rate by cause of consultation in Azerbaijan and Baku (published by State Statistical Committee) ...... 20 Figure 3: Numbers of vehicles in Azerbaijan from the past years (from State Statistical Committee) ...... 23 Figure 4: Production of hazardous waste in Baku (from State Statistical Committee) ...... 29 Figure 5: Monthly storm water discharge in Baku versus rainfall in 2008 ...... 51 Figure 6: Wastewater Discharge flowrates from January to December 2008 ...... 53 Figure 7: Quality of wastewater entering the Hovsan WWTP (monthly average) ...... 55 Figure 8: Quality of treated wastewater from the Hovsan WWTP (monthly average) ...... 56 Figure 9: Process flow diagram of Hovsan WWTP after upgrading works ...... 62 Figure 10: Bathymetric profile of the sea bottom along the outfall route ...... 82 Figure 11: Concentrations of some pollutants associated with wastewater discharge in sea water. Yellow points are located along the sand bar ...... 86 Figure 12: Concentrations of some pollutants in sediments. Yellow points are located along the sand bar. Dashed purple line is lower effect lever (NOAA ERL) ...... 88 Figure 13: Biomass and distribution of taxa in phytoplankton organisms for the 3 sea water samples 89 Figure 14: Biomass and distribution of taxa in mobile meso-zooplankton organisms for the three sea water samples ...... 91 Figure 15: Biomass and distribution of taxa in macro-zoobenthos organisms for the three sea water samples ...... 92 Figure 16: Criteria for impact assessment ands ranking ...... 96 Figure 17: Riverside diagram (red diamond: Hovsan wastewater) ...... 112
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI ix Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Inorganic pollutants of concern in the sediments of the Caspian Sea (according to the results of monitoring systems) ...... 11 Table 2.2 Organic pollutants of concern in the sediments of the Caspian Sea (according to the results of monitoring systems) ...... 12 Table 2.3: Pollutants of concern in the sediments of the Baku bight (according to the results of monitoring systems) ...... 27 Table 2.4 Average value of sanitary parameters of bathing waters for Greater Baku beaches for the spring-summer 2008 (from Hygiene and Epidemiology) ...... 32 Table 3.1: Permissible changes in water features for the water bodies receiving wastewater 44 Table 3.2: Regulation applicable to industrial effluents discharged into public networks ...... 45 Table 3.3: International conventions ratified by Azerbaijan in the field of environment ...... 46 Table 4.1: Features of Greater Baku drinking water system ...... 50 Table 4.2: Features of WWTP within Greater Baku ...... 52 Table 4.3: Wastewater discharge flowrates measured by Azersu in 2008 ...... 53 Table 4.4: Analyses of wastewater entering the Hovsan Canal in early 2009 (SOCAR ED) ...... 57 Table 4.5: WWTPs planned by the 1999 wastewater master plan ...... 60 Table 4.6: Water quality assumptions for upgrading works at Hovsan WWTP ...... 61 Table 4.7: Performance guarantee for new lines of at Hovsan WWTP ...... 61 Table 4.8: Expected maximum concentration of pollutants in effluents from Hovsan WWTP .. 63 Table 4.9: Population forecast as described in Feasibility Study ...... 64 Table 4.10: Gross water demand forecast as described in Feasibility Study ...... 64 Table 4.11: Maximum pollution loads of treated wastewater discharged by Hovsan WWTP .. 64 Table 4.12: Hydrologic features of the sewage outfall ...... 74 Table 6.1a: Results of environmental scoping of the Hovsan sewage outfall project...... 97 Table 6.1b: Results of environmental scoping of the Hovsan sewage outfall project (continuing) 98 Table 6.2: Expected pollutant concentrations after initial 1/20 dilution of treated wastewater in the surrounding sea water at the diffuser place ...... 106 Table 8.1: Planning of the Impact Monitoring Consultant (IMC) ...... 123 Table 8.2: Supervision indicators to be monitored by the Environmental Supervision Officer 126 Table 8.3a: Environmental Mitigation Plan of the Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project ...... 127 Table 8.3b: Environmental Mitigation Plan of the Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project (continuing) ...... 128 Table 8.3c: Environmental Mitigation Plan of the Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project (continuing) ...... 129 Table 8.4: Impact Monitoring Plan for the initial monitoring stage ...... 135
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI x Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
Table 8.5: Project Environmental Management Plan Implementation Schedule (only specific environmental activities are reported) ...... 136 Table 8.6: Cost of construction of a by-pass at Hovsan WWTP ...... 137 Table 8.7: Cost of Environmental Supervision ...... 138 Table 8.8: Cost of monitoring campaigns for the initial monitoring stage ...... 139 Table 8.9: Recapitulation of Environmental costs of the Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project 140 Table 8.10a: Mitigation Plan for the Outfall Construction Phase ...... 141 Table 8.10b: Mitigation Plan for the Outfall Construction Phase (continuing) ...... 142 Table 8.11: Mitigation Plan for the Outfall Operation Phase ...... 143 Table 8.12a: Monitoring Plan for the Outfall Construction Phase ...... 144 Table 8.12b: Monitoring Plan for the Outfall Construction Phase (continuing) ...... 145 Table 8.13a: Monitoring Plan for the Outfall Operation Phase ...... 146 Table 8.13b: Monitoring Plan for the Outfall Operation Phase (continuing) ...... 147
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xi Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Background The present project is part of an effort to improve environmental conditions in the Greater Baku area that is materialized through implementation of the Environment State Program (ESP). This ESP is a comprehensive plan involving medium- and long- term environmental management activities that target regional development of the Absheron Peninsula through addressing untreated industrial and residential wastewater, solid waste disposal and continued oil production contamination. The Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant, located about 15 km from the center of Baku, is the largest wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) treating about half of the effluents of Baku. The Plant discharges its partially treated effluent via a pair of pipelines to the shore of the Caspian Sea, about 1 km south of the plant, in a semi- enclosed area, with significant impacts on the quality of the surroundings. The project development objective is to convey Hovsan WWTP’s effluent to a disposal point at sea, where dilution and dispersion of the effluent and bacterial die-off are adequate to guarantee that, once the overall sanitation system is completed, the relevant standards are met in the areas currently impacted by the effluent discharge on the shoreline, and will be satisfactory with respect to aesthetics, human health and aquatic life. Although the construction of the outfall will result in an improvement of shoreline water quality in the zone currently impacted by the discharge of the effluent of the Hovsan wastewater treatment plant, the outfall real impact must be seen in terms of its function as a critical element of Baku’s sanitation system. As indicated above, the ultimate project development objective is to improve coastal water quality in the Baku’s metropolitan area, but this objective will only be achievable after the other upstream elements of the system are completed. However, providing a capacious outfall for the Hovsan wastewater treatment system will ultimately enable the control of the existing discharges and their impacts on water quality in the city once these are intercepted and the transport of all wastewater from the city to the Hovsan WWTP for adequate treatment is completed, as planned. The Feasibility Study for the sea outfall is carried out concurrently with this EIA. This EIA is based on the preliminary conclusions of the FS study which indicates the preferred option and the alternatives studied.
Project setting The Caspian Sea With a current surface of more than 400 000 km2 (1,200 km long x 200-400 km wide) and a volume of 78,000 km3 the Caspian Sea is the largest closed inland water body in the world. The Caspian Sea is made of brackish water the level of which is nowadays approximately 27 m under the mean level of oceans. The maximum depth of the Caspian is 1025 m, and the average - 184 m. The Caspian Sea is mainly fed by the Volga River (80% of the annual river discharge) in the north and other main rivers of the western bank (including the Kura River in Azerbaijan). The rainfall contributes only for 20% of the total water input of the Caspian Sea. The rain and river waters discharges into Caspian Sea are balanced by evaporation. For the Baku area, the mean temperature of the water surface layer is approximately 7 °C in February, 10 °C in April, 26 °C in August and 14 °C in November.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
Surface currents in the Middle and Southern Caspian form a rotating circulation, which is clockwise along the shore of Baku. The salinity of the Caspian Sea is around 13 g/l, except in the northern part where the dilution due to the discharge of the Volga River reduces the salinity down to 5-10 g/l. The Caspian Sea has about 450 species, varieties, or forms of phytoplankton, 87 species of Benthic algae, 718 known fauna species, and 315 species and subspecies of zooplankton. The remarkable fauna of the Caspian Sea includes the Sturgeons, which spawn in the rivers of the Caspian basin, and which are the most economically valuable anadromous fishes and the Caspian seal which is an endemic species originating from the Artic region. Caspian seal migrate northward in the fall to reach cold waters and ice covers for pupping, molting, and mating. In the spring, they migrate southwards for feeding. On the way of both migrations, islands in the north Caspian Sea and Azerbaijan’s Absheron peninsula provide shelters and refuges important for seals resting. In addition to the marine fauna, the Caspian harbors on its shore a rich avifauna, which count 466 known species among which 120 are nesting birds, 68 are wintering birds, and 278 are migratory or summer residents. Sources of physical and chemical pollution of Caspian Sea can be divided into three main categories: - rivers, which have collected upstream large amounts of pesticides, industrial and urban effluents - seaside urban, harbour and industrial (including oil transformation) activities which generates pollutant such as hydrocarbons, heavy metal, nutrients and pathogens - oil extraction sites, which release crude oil and derivatives (hydrocarbons) into the sea mostly resulting from leaks, drilling activities (drill mud) and accidental spillages, The three main pollution hot spots are: the Volga delta (Russia), the mouth of the Kura River and the Absheron peninsula (Azerbaijan), where are located the industrial cities of Baku and Sumgayit. Most pollutants of concern are weakly soluble in water but have high affinity with fine particulate matters, sediments and organic matters. Consequently, when they are discharged into the sea, they do not stay a long time in the water column and sediment onto the sea bottom. The flora and fauna of the Caspian Sea include invasive species from the Arctic, Atlantic, and Mediterranean complexes. At present a recently introduced species of comb-jelly fish (ctenophore) Mnemiopsis leidyi is particularly of concern. The ctenophore non only competes for food (micro-zooplankton) with fish larvae but also preys directly on fish larvae (mero-plankton), which both result in reduction of fish stocks,. It already caused great changes in the Black Sea ecosystem. Scientific community really worries about the damage likely to be caused by Mnemiopsis to the Caspian Sea ecosystem for by the next decade.
The city of Baku The city of Baku is the capital city, the largest city, and the largest port of Azerbaijan and all the Caucasus Region. The Greater Baku occupies a 2200 km2 area on the southern shore of the Absheron Peninsula, which extends 60 km eastward into the Caspian Sea and reaches a maximum width of 30 km (from north to south).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xiii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
Greater Baku occupied a rather flat land, very slightly sloped toward the sea shore. Greater Baku counts many lowlands occupied by ponds and lakes, out of which around ten medium size lakes (more than 5 km2). These salted, shallow lakes are most often former sea lagoons. These lakes have been used for discharge of drainage and urban and industrial wastewater for decades and consequently are at present polluted and eutrophic. There is no true natural watercourse in the Greater Baku but rather wadis which use to drain intermittently seasonal rainfall and have been made into channels in order to receive urban or industrial effluent and convey them down to the sea. In the lowland and along the seashore, the superficial aquifer is very shallow, with a water table 2 to 5m under the ground level. Shallow groundwater is brackish because of salt intrusion. Leaking sewage pipelines, nitrate and pesticide contamination by agriculture and spills from oil and chemical plants have further degraded the quality of shallow groundwater. The Absheron Peninsula experiences a mild-hot, semi-arid climate. The average annual temperature is 14 °C. The monthly average temperature is 3.9 °C in January and 25.7 °C in July. Over the last ten years (1999 – 2008), the annual rainfall varies between 205 mm and 503 mm, with an average of 237 mm. Around 50% of the total annual precipitation falls from October to December. The evaporation is very high varying between 947 mm and 1344 mm, that is 4 to 6 times higher than the rainfall. Consequently there is a need for irrigation for the middle and long cycle agricultural crops. North and northwest winds are the most prevailing in Absheron Peninsula and are especially frequent from October to March. South winds make up around 20% of the total frequency. The Absheron Peninsula is experiencing a land degradation process, which favors both erosion and salinization of soils. Given its climatic and pedological features, the Absheron Peninsula is occupied by a semi-desert and salt-resistant vegetation, such as thistles and wormwood forming low steppes and pastures.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xiv Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
As usually in the urban and peri-urban zones, the upper fauna is mainly reduced to small-size terrestrial organisms such as amphibians, reptiles and rodents The Baku population is officially estimated at around 1.9 million people in 2009. In 2003, Baku additionally accommodated 153,400 internally displaced persons and 93,400 refugees. Since then, many people have migrated to the Baku and Sumgayit in search of jobs and opportunities without being registered. Consequently, unofficial estimates usually reach figures as high as 3 million people.
Major environmental concerns The major environmental concerns are: - Air pollution: Since 2003, stationary and mobiles sources have comparable contribution to the total air pollutant emissions. In Baku, the most polluting stationary sources are related to the oil sector. Emissions from mobile sources (mainly terrestrial vehicles) have continuously increased for the last past decade, with a number of cars that has almost doubled since 2000. - Soil pollution: The Absheron Peninsula is seriously polluted due to nearly 150 years of oil production and related industrial activities that have contaminated around 30,000 hectares of land. In these areas, hydrocarbons have seeped into soil and bedrock extending to as deep as several meters. This issue is exacerbated by the existence of hundreds of continuing production facilities such as drill rigs and oil pumps that constitute a continuing pollution source. Apart from petroleum hydrocarbons, the most concentrated soil pollutants are heavy metals, the level of which can reach as much as 50 times the international standards. - Coastal pollution: Pollution of coastal waters of Baku Bight has been clearly revealed by the monitoring campaigns carried out by the Caspian Environmental Program. The contamination is mainly caused by: o oil extraction (off-shore) and refinery o discharge of effluent of industrial facilities treated or not, conveyed by pipes or man-made watercourses such as Hovsan canal o discharge of urban wastewater, treated or not o natural discharge of superficial groundwater polluted by seepage and leaching of contaminants from soil or waste (informal landfills) According to the results of monitoring campaigns, the pollutants of concern in the Baku Bight are arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, and dieldrin and DDT pesticides. The coastal waters are also contaminated by faecal germs due to the huge quantities of untreated wastewater discharged into the sea. - Municipal waste management: There are four formal existing disposal areas, In addition, there are numerous informal dumpsites covering the area of a nearly 200-250 hectares. Presently none of these disposal areas meets the proper sanitary standards for storage and treatment of domestic waste. Furthermore, waste is burning continuously in some of them. Consequently the pollution to air, soil and waters caused by the dumpsites is of particular concern.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xv Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
The Baku Bight The 90km-long Baku bight can be divided into three bays according the morphology and land occupation: Baku Bay, ―Hovsan Bay‖ and ―Turkan Bay‖, the names of the two later bays being defined by the Consultant for the purpose of the study . The Baku Bay (strictly speaking) is 25km long from the west limit of Sabail to the eastern limit of Khatai rayon. This bay is rather closed-in and is bordered by industrial and densely populated urban area. Consequently the shoreline has been almost totally modified by manmade settings. The Baku bay also receives large quantities of poorly treated or untreated wastewater. Consequently, the few remaining beaches of the Baku bay are heavily polluted and no longer accommodate any tourist. The ―Hovsan Bay‖ is 17 km long alongside the Surakhani rayon. The Hovsan bay is limited by the 3.5km-long causeway reaching the Gum Island. Around 2 km east of Gum Island, 7 km away from the shoreline, there is 6km long, 0.5km wide offshore bar the depth of which is less than 2 m. The top of the offshore bar is only 40-60 cm below the mean level of the sea so much so that a very narrow strip of land called Chanlar Island may emerge from the sea during the low water period (winter). The Hovsan Bay is divided into two sub-bays by a double spit called ―Hovsan Cape‖ which harbors the Hovsan port. The western sub-bay is heavily polluted, especially by the discharges of both Hovsan channel and Hovsan WWTP pipe. Consequently the waters are not used for recreational activity but for leisure fishing (from the shore). Unlike western sub-bay, eastern sub-bay is apparently clean and used for bathing during the hot season by the local population. The ―Turkan Bay‖ is 45-50 km long alongside the Azizbeyov rayon up to the Cape Suiti. This bay just receives wastewater from the small settlement of Turkan and its water seems to be rather clean.
The beaches of Baku Bay and western Hovsan Bay are polluted by both oil products and wastewater discharged. The nearest beach which is used for recreational purpose is located along the eastern Hovsan Bay and is named ―Hovsan Beach‖. According to the results of the monitoring campaigns of the Ministry of Health, the bathing waters do not comply with EU standards with respect to pathogen contents. The Hovsan Port is the only port located in the vicinity of the project. But, maritime routes are far from the proposed alignment of the sea outfall. The minimum distance
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xvi Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
between maritime route and pipe alignment is 3 km. This is due to the shallow water surrounding the proposed pipe alignment. Fishing zones, indicated by Hovsan Port Authorities and used by professional fishermen, are located in the southern part of the Caspian Sea. The closest fishing area is located next to Makaparon oil field about 20 miles from the coast. Fishing zones are southwards from Makaparon oil field. The main offshore production fields are far from the project site. The oil field located next to the project site (on Gum Island and south of Gum Island) comprises 72 oil wells.
Institutional and legislative framework Azersu Joint-Stock Company (Azersu JSC) is the current Azerbaijani state- governed water company responsible for water supply and sewerage over the all Azerbaijan. The central institution in charge of Environment is the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR) created in 2001 by a Presidential Decree. The Caspian Environment Program (CEP) was launched in may 1998 and represents a partnership between the five littoral states, Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Turkmenistan, and the International Partners, namely the EU, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank. The overall goal of the CEP is to promote the sustainable development and management of the Caspian environment in order to obtain the optimal long-term benefits for the human population of the region. The Sanitary and Epidemiology Department of the Ministry of Health (MOH) undertakes routine monitoring of the water quality of both drinking and bathing waters. MOH is also responsible for issuance of sanitary standards, especially those related to water quality. Environmental NGOs have developed since the independence and more particularly the enactment of the Law on Environmental Protection (1999). They have gained valuable experience in participating in many Environmental Impact Assessments including environmental monitoring and public participation activities. . Since it gained its independence, Azerbaijan has ratified many international conventions in the field of environment among which the Framework Convention on the protection of Caspian Sea marine environment which is the first legally binding document addressing the protection of Caspian Sea environment. The general principles of Environmental protection in Azerbaijan are provided for by the Law on Environmental Protection (hereinafter, the LEP) dated 8th June 1999. As cited in its preamble, the purpose of the LEP is to guarantee environmental safety and the ecological balance of the environment, prevent the impact of socioeconomic and other activities, preserve biological diversity, and effectively manage the use of nature. Importantly, among the basic environment The Law on Fauna (LOF), also referred as Law on Wildlife (LOW), dated 4 June 1999 stipulates that wildlife is a national asset, and thus must not be affected by any physical or legal entity (Art. 5). More specifically with respect of the Baku outfall project, the LOF stipulates that during the design and construction phase of pipelines across coastal areas provisions shall be made and measures shall be implemented that ensure the preservation of the habitat, breeding conditions, and migration routes of wild animals, as well as the inviolability of areas of ecological value‖ (Art. 29). There is not formal marine protected area in Azerbaijan but it is worth noting that the part of Caspian Sea incorporated to the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan is classified as a specially protected water object.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xvii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
The main legal documents guiding water supply and sanitation sector include the Water Code dated 26 June 1997, and the Law on Water Supply and Wastewater dated 28 October 1999. The Water Code is the key document for the water sector development. It regulates the use of water bodies for all different usages. The Law on Water Supply and Wastewater sets institutional and economic principles of municipal water provision, and the obligations of water service providers and consumers. Azeri regulations relating to the discharge of wastewater into the natural water bodies derives from the former Soviet regulations. Based on the translated documents, it seems that permissible limits are not measured in the wastewater itself but at the discharge point (i.e.: within the receiving body after dilution). It is obvious that these standards addressing the receiving body and not the wastewater itself are difficult to monitor continuously in a proactive way, especially for WWTP performance management. So it has been decided through the letter sent in 16 April 2009 by Deputy of the Prime Minister of the Azerbaijan Republic to MENR, Ministry of Emergency Situations and Ministry of Health, that European standards will be applied in Water Supply and Sanitation Projects. It seems that there are no legal standards for the quality of recreational waters per se, but publications of the Ministry of Health in Azerbaijan usually mention a guideline value for Escherichia coli in bathing water of 500/100 ml.
Hovsan Wastewater Outfall project The wastewater collection system covers around 78% of the population of Baku. At present, the wastewater collection system comprises more than 1100 km of gravity pipes, 35 pumping stations, more than 100 km of pressure mains, five wastewater treatment plants for urban wastewater and one wastewater treatment plant for industrial wastewater. The characteristics of existing wastewater treatment plants are as follows : - Hovsan WWTP located on the southern coast of Absheron peninsula with a capacity of 640 000 m3/d. The wastewater arriving at the treatment plant is a mix of urban and industrial wastewater. - Zigh WWTP located on the southern coast of Absheron peninsula with a capacity of 126 000 m3/d, which requires complete refurbishment; - Haci-Hasan WWTP located near Lokbatan region (west of Baku city with a capacity of 18 600 m3/d; - Mardakan Shuvela WWTP located on the eastern coast of Absheron peninsula with a capacity of 16 000 m3/d; - Buzovna WWTP located on the eastern coast of Absheron peninsula with a capacity of 10 000 m3/d; - Sahil WWTP located on the southern coast of Absheron peninsula, west of Baku city,with a capacity of 17 600 m3/d. Due to the topography, most of the wastewater generated by Baku city centre flows by gravity to the seaside. There, a series of pumping stations and a deep interceptor (down to 28 m deep) send effluents to the eastern part of the city towards Hovsan WWTP. The majority of effluents is pumped to the Hovsan WWTP through Zigh pumping station, the rest flows by gravity. In Baku city centre, wastewater collection network and stormwater drainage network were originally separate. Nowadays, the split of flows is not properly done, wastewater is being discharged through storm sewers. The total average daily flow of water discharge by the storm drainage system of Greater Baku amounts to 324 000 m3/day. Analyses of water discharged into the sea through storm collectors indicate that some parameters such as oil products,
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xviii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
suspended solids, BOD5 are equivalent to measurements taken at the entrance of WWTPs. Suspended solids concentrations are around 100 mg/l versus a EU standard of 35 mg/l and BOD5 concentrations are around 40 mg/l versus a standard of 25 mg/l Discharge of wastewater into the environment was estimated at 327 million m3 in 2008. Hovsan WWTP received 51% of Baku City wastewater, 39% was discharged through drainage network, Zigh WWTP received 4% of wastewater and the rest (6%) was treated by the other WWTPs. However, this split of flow does not actually give an exhaustive recapitulation of the wastewater discharge in Greater Baku. Hovsan Canal is, for instance, not included in this list but its average flow is estimated at around 100 000 and 120 000 m3/day according to the SOCAR’s Ecological Department (ED). The Hovsan Canal receives wastewater from human settlements, industries, transport and commercial facilities as well as the largest lake of Absheron Peninsula - Lake of Boyuk-Shor which itself receives numerous industrial and domestic effluents. The Hovsan Canal is one of major source of pollution of the coast of Greater Baku. It discharges into the western Hovsan Bay, less than 500 m away from the discharge point of Hovsan WWTP. Hovsan WWTP Hovsan WWTP original design was a medium-load activated sludge treatment. The volume of wastewater discharged from Hovsan WWTP is almost constant throughout the year: it has stayed between 12 and 15 million m3/month over the 2006-2008 period. Analyses of wastewater entering the Hovsan WWTP show that wastewater is not concentrated: BOD5 from 80 to 95 mg O2/l, COD from 180 to 220 mg O2 /l and TSS from 140 to 160 mg/l) and COD/BOD5 ratio is standard for urban wastewater (between 2 and 2.5) Analyses of treated wastewater from Hovsan WWTP show that: - Quality of treated wastewater is constant throughout the year;
- BOD5 values are between 10 and 15 mgO2/l, which is below EU standards (25 mg/l)
- COD values are between 35 and 45 mg O2/l, which is well below EU standards (125 mg/l) - Suspended Solids concentrations are between 10 and 12 mg/l, which is below EU standards (35 mg/l) - Total N concentrations are between 8 and 10 mg/l - Phosphate concentrations are between 1.7 and 2.9 mg/l - pH values are comprised between 7.1 and 7.4. Analysis carried out at the secondary WWTPs show that treated wastewater quality does not comply with reference standards (for instance EU standards). Consequently, a strong effort should be made to rehabilitate and upgrade these treatment facilities. Projects planning According to the existing wastewater master plan which dates back in 1999, in addition to the existing WWTP that will remain and be extended in future, it was planned to implement construction of eight new wastewater treatment plants (biological treatment) in Absheron peninsula. In addition, wastewater flows conveyed by Hovsan Canal are planned to be transported by a closed system (pipe) to a new wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 200 000 m3/day. This new WWTP is planned to be built in the Hovsan shoreline area. After completion of all these WWTPs, there will be no discharge of untreated wastewater flows into Caspian Sea in accordance with State Ecological Program.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xix Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
Hovsan WWTP rehabilitation and upgrading project Hovsan WWTP was in poor condition and a project is underway to partly rehabilitate and upgrade the treatment plant and Zikh pumping station. This project is fully funded by the French Government. Based on the performance guarantee of the rehabilitation project and the quality of existing treated wastewater, it is assumed that the combined flow will not exceed: 25 mg/l f BOD5, 125 mg/l f COD, 25 mg/l of SS, 10 mg/l of Total nitrogen, and 2.3 mg/l of total phosphorus. These values can be considered as maximum values since quality of treated wastewater from the existing WWTP is better than the above figures. As for total coliforms (TC), the average concentration in wastewater after a biological treatment is generally around 106 TC/100 ml. Based on the assumptions of FS consultant as well as the expected quality of treated wastewater, the estimated flow rates and the estimated pollution loads for alternatives 3 are as follows : average flowrate in 2050 : 600 698 m /day, average BOD5 load : 15 017 kg/day, average COD load: 75 087 kg/day, average SS load : 15 017 kg/day. These values are used as a basis for estimating the impact of treated wastewater discharge on sea water quality.
Presentation of Alternatives This section is mainly based on the report prepared by the Feasibility Consultant. Alternative 1 – Early design In 1991, a design for the construction of sea outfall was prepared by Institute on River Transport Designing (Kiev, Ukraine). It consisted in the construction of a 3.8 km long overland pipeline and of 4 offshore pipelines (1400 mm diameter) with lengths of about 8 km. Part of the inland pipe and the outfalls were constructed but part of the inland pipe was never installed and the overall system was never put into service. The main disadvantage of this alternative is that today, the overland route passes through a new settlement area and construction works would entail a substantial amount of expropriation and resettlement and therefore important social, financial and environmental impacts to the project. The other main disadvantages of the project are listed below: - there is a forbidden zone allocated to shipping vessels’ magnetic calibration area next to the proposed sea outfall location; - according to Azersu, there would be up to 150 houses to expropriate; - the necessity to construct and operate a pumping station downstream of the WWTP due to the length of the overland and offshore pipes (3.8 + 8 km).
Alternative 2 – proposed design The proposed design consists in the construction of a 1 km long overland pipeline on the south direction from Hovsan WWTP followed by a 8 km long sea outfall. This alternative has the following advantages: - this is the direct route from Hovsan WWTP to the sea
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xx Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
- there are no housing, business or any need for land acquisition or resettlement on the proposed route of the outfall there is only one communication cable crossing the route but the Ministry of Communication and Information technology gave the Non Objection for construction of the outlet pipe while crossing the communication cable - there are no activities or infrastructures around that may hamper the construction of the sea outfall. The length of the sea outfall is mainly governed by the fact that there is a sand dune around 7 km off the coast and it is necessary to go beyond this point to discharge effluents. Indeed, any discharge before this point will be trapped in an area where dispersion might be reduced by the site configuration. Alternative 3 – Construction of a 5 km long sea outfall In the course of the EIA implementation, a new alternative came up which consists in constructing a 5km long sea outfall at the same location as alternative 2. This alternative will not be affecting the sand bar, would require less dredging which would reduce the disturbances due to re-suspension of sediment fine and polluted content and deposition of dredged materials and would reduce the cost of the project. However, a detailed circulation and renewal modelling should be carried out to ensure that there will be no accumulation of pollutants and nutrients in this zone if this outfall is constructed.
Alternative 4 – Reusing the effluent in agriculture The effluent reuse options that were considered by the FS consultant were: - reuse for irrigation; - discharge to the natural environment. Proposed reuse site by Ministry of Agriculture of Republic of Azerbaijan is on the west side of the city of Baku. This area is owned by the State. There is no vegetation at the moment, but the objective would be to cultivate animal feeds. The reuse scheme would consist in pumping the effluents to the lakes on the hills next to the propose reuse site. These lakes would be transformed into dams. From there, reused water would be fed by gravity to the irrigation area totalizing 22 000 ha. This alternative is not sufficient as such since one need another solution to properly discharge effluent when there are no need for irrigation (rainy season, winter,…). This alternative is not technically and economically feasible. In addition, from an environmental standpoint, due to the existing soil and sub-soil (hydro-geological) conditions, this alternative could cause important damages to the environment such as soil salinization / alkalization. Main features of the sewage outfall The sewage outfall starts at the outlet of Hovsan wastewater treatment plant and comprises a land portion and a marine portion. The land outfall pipeline is 939 m long and 2.4 m internal diameter, made of GRP. It starts at the WWTP outlet and runs down to the coast with a regular slope. The marine part of the outfall is to be a single 2.4 m internal diameter, made of GRP and 8 km long pipeline. Between 6 000 and 8 000 m from shore, the pipe crosses a submarine ridge. Pipe outlet takes place along the pipe last 230 m from 7 770 m to 8 000 m, where 18 risers on each pipe constitute the diffuser. Pipe material proposed by FS consultant is GRP mainly because it is manufactured locally. Other pipe materials that the outfall could be made of are possible as long as the life cycle cost is comparable or cheaper, including HDPE or steel.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xxi Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
The total duration of the construction works is estimated at nearly 2 years. Due to the outfall length and to the supply of pipe in short lengths, the longest phase of works will presumably be pipe preassembly and fitting. At Hovsan, sea bed is sandy along the whole route proposed for the outfall. Trench width will be about 5 m at the bottom with slopes between 4/1 and 7/1 depending on sand cohesion. The dredging volume is expected to be 60 to 80 m3/m for the close-to- shore trench and will reach up to 350 m3/m for the offshore ridge (sandbar) crossing. Considering that the spoil mixture will deposit with a 10/1 slope, the impacted sea bed area will be a 60 to 70 m wide band along the outfall path where deposit will be up to 2 m thick. Along the land section, trench backfilling will be mainly done from excavated material. Along the marine section, backfilling will differ for the ―close-to-shore‖ trench and the submarine ridge (sandbar) crossing. For the close-to-shore trench, spoil material extracted from the trench will be impossible to dredge because of its spreading on the sea bed and because it mostly is very fine material not adequate for backfilling. Therefore it will be necessary to extract sand of adequate characteristics from a borrow area (about 570 000 m3). For the submarine ridge (sandbar), extracted material should be of good quality and will have been deposited in a specific spoil area so that it may be dredged for backfill in order to reconstitute the ridge. During the site works, 50 to 100 workers may be employed on each construction site depending on the construction phase. Baseline data According to the outfall design, the study area will be comprised of a terrestrial section, which is defined as the 1km wide strip covering the land located within a distance of 500m of the onshore outfall route (1 km long) and a marine section which is defined as the 1km wide strip covering the sea bottom located within a distance of 500m of the outfall route from the shoreline to a distance of 500 m downstream of the outfall diffuser. The 500m distance has been chosen as a ―safety distance‖ beyond which the main negative impacts associated with construction and operation of the outfall (noise, air pollution, visual impact, and water pollution) are attenuated down to an acceptable level. Two specific marine field surveys have been carried out for the purpose of both Feasibility Study (FS) and the present Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The first survey was focused on the physical and chemical characterization of the sea water column and sea bed along the outfall route. A second field survey was carried out to investigate the aquatic biota living along the outfall route. The survey consisted of identification of the main taxa, the abundance and biomass of which was determined. The main results are summarized below : - Seawater quality is influenced by Hovsan discharge point with high concentration near the sea shore (between 10 and 22 NTU for turbidity, 0.85 mg/l for Ammonia, 160 000 TC/100 ml) and lower concentrations offshore (around 5 NTU for turbidity, 0.1 mg/l for Ammonia, around 2 000 TC/100 ml) - T90 was estimated at 90 mn; - Analysis of sediments show high concentrations of petroleum products between 400 m and 4500 m away from the shoreline (between 3.5 and 6.2 g/kg), high concentration of some heavy metals (Copper up to 910 mg/kg, and mercury up to 1.2 mg/kg) - The total measured biomass of phytoplankton amounts to about 32 g/m3 in Hovsan Bay which is very high as compared with values measured off-shore
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xxii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
in Middle and Southern Caspian Sea which generally do not exceed 100 mg/m3. - Phytoplankton is dominated by Bacillariophyta (diatoms) among which the large diatom Rhizosolenia calcaravis is highly prevailing in the Hovsan Bay: 80-90% of the diatom biomass and around 30 % of the total phytoplankton biomass; - Basic zooplankton biomass (wet weight) varies from 2.0 g/m3 above inner slope to 2.8 g/m3 in Hovsan Bay. These values are rather high even if the sampling was made in summer, when the zooplankton is most abundant. The zooplankton species which were identified during the field survey in August 2009 fall into five categories that are: Rotatoria, Cladocera, Copepoda, Ctenophora and roes of Mollusca, Balanus and Copepoda. - The total measured biomass of zoobenthos amounts to about 80 g/m2 in Hovsan Bay, about 110 g/m2 above the inner slope and about 145 g/m2 above the outer slope. With regard to benthos communities, which are most likely to be affected by the construction of the outfall, it can be stated that these communities are almost fully comprised of introduced species. The predominance of alien benthos species has been established for the all Caspian Sea, but the particular context of the Baku Bight, characterised by a high pollution level, has even more favoured these alien species against native species. However, most of the benthos species show very small body sizes. The only water course which crosses the study area is the manmade Hovsan Canal, the flow of which is during most part of the year constituted by both domestic and industrial wastewater. The land of the study area is covered by patchy vegetation comprised of low herbaceous plants. The number of species is reduced to less than 10 dominated by 3 or 4 common plants. No macro-fauna of interest was observed during the field visit. In short, it can be considered that no remarkable, rare, endangered or protected fauna and flora is likely to dwell, feed or spawn within the terrestrial study area. The land stretching between Hovsan WWTP and the seashore where the terrestrial study area is located is the property of the State The nearest housings are located at the eastern limit of the study area, more than 450m away from the outfall route. These are mostly middle standing houses. The nearest dense housing (multi-storey buildings) are located 1 km further eastwards. The study area is crossed by many aerial metallic pipes of different diameters. The polluted beach and shoreline are not used for recreational purpose but one fisherman and his kids were seen catching few fishes. This fishing activity is however marginal and cannot be considered as a livelihood for the local population. The field visits have not revealed any visible signs of archaeological and cultural assets within the study area. Currents in the Hovsan area are low. They are generated as secondary eddies from the main currents existing around the Absheron Peninsula. From available aerial and satellite imagery, it appears currents are globally clockwise within the bay where the present WWTP outlet is located. Currents velocity seems low, of the order of a few cm/s. From wind data, the maximum heights of waves generated by south winds which may reach the outfall site are of the order of 2 to 2.5 meters. The main findings of sea water analyses are summarized as follows: influence of existing Hovsan discharge point can be observed with high turbidity, ammonia and coliforms concentrations.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xxiii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
In contrast to concentration in water, concentration of pollutants in sediments, especially persistent pollutants such as heavy metals or PAH reflects contamination cumulated over a certain period. The main findings of the sediment analysis are summarized as follows: high concentration of petroleum products are observed (up to 6.2 mg/kg), heavy metals are also observed and for some of them (Mercury, Arsenic) at higher concentration than the lower effect level. Zooplankton and phytoplankton were studied in the water column and macro-benthic fauna (> 0.5 mm) was studied in collected sediment. The total measured biomass of phytoplankton amounts to about 32 g/m3 in Hovsan Bay and about 25 g/m3 above inner and outer slopes. These values are very high as compared with values measured off-shore in Middle and Southern Caspian Sea which generally do not exceed 100 mg/m3. So, the sampled sea water can be considered as eutrophic or mesotrophic. Basic zooplankton biomass (wet weight) varies from 2.0 g/m3 to 2.8 g/m3. These values are rather high even if the sampling was made in summer, when the zooplankton is most abundant. The macro-benthos species which were identified during the field survey fall into six taxonomic categories that are: Polychaeta (Annelida), Cirripedia (Crustacea), Amphipoda (Crustacea), Decapoda (Crustacea), Bivavia (Mollusca) and Bryozoa. The total measured biomass of zoobenthos amounts between 80 g/m2 in Hovsan Bay and about 145 g/m2 above the outer slope of the sand bar. With regard to benthos communities, which are most likely to be affected by the construction of the outfall, it can be stated that these communities are almost fully comprised of introduced species. The upper marine fauna (fishes and seals) has not been investigated for the purpose of the project, but the high pollution level of both sea water and sediments which most likely dates back several decades and the low biomass of benthic fauna (due to both pollution and invasive comb-jelly fishes) render the marine study area not very attractive for the upper fauna, especially the protected sturgeons and Caspian seal Environmental impacts The positive impacts identified for the project are: (i) during construction phase, employment of around 100 persons during nearly 2 years, induced economic activities, and (ii) during operation phase, improvement of public health, environmental and health benefits from elimination of chlorination, improvement of quality of life. The potential negative impacts are listed below. The potential negative impacts deemed significant are: (i) during construction phase, sea water pollution, sea bed excavation, sea bed pollution, introduction of invasive alien species, adverse effects on health, welfare and of the nearby population and (ii) during operation phase, bad perception of outfall by the riparian and local tourist population (which may cause public protest and bad image of Azersu). The potential negative impacts deemed moderate are: (i) during construction phase, loss of natural soil, pollution of soil, pollution of surface and ground water, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, destruction and disturbance of terrestrial fauna, changes in benthic communities (because mainly comprising introduced, mobile species which can re-colonize the backfilling material), changes in pelagic communities, disruption of road traffic, disruption to public services, and (ii) during operation phase, sea water pollution, sea bed pollution, changes in pelagic communities (because of the limited increment of nutrient due to the dilution). It should be noted that, in case of impaired treatment at Hovsan WWTP, the impact on marine environment is deemed significant. Proper operations and maintenance procedures are therefore needed at the treatment works to ensure that the risk of plant shut-down is minimized, but emergency plan with additional investments (like a buffer reservoir to store wastewater while solving the problem) is not required.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xxiv Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
All other identified impacts were considered insignificant. Environmental analysis of alternatives If the project is not implemented (No project alternative), the upgraded Hovsan WWTP will be responsible for two alternative nuisances: either the health risk related to the release of large amounts of faecal germs on the seashore or the environmental/ecological damages associated to chlorination. As for the outfall route alternative, this alternative entails resettlement of quite numerous populations which is a major negative impact and it is not cost effective. In addition, the discharge of effluent will be closer to the recreational waters. For the outfall length of 5km, this solution presents many advantages compared to the preferred option which are that (i) it will not be affecting the sand bar, (ii) it would require less dredging which would reduce the disturbances due to re-suspension of sediment fine and polluted content and deposition of dredged materials, (iii) it would reduce the project cost, and (iv) even with 5 km long and 8 m deep outfall, the plume will not reach the coast. However, there is a risk of accumulation of organic matters and nutrients, therefore a study should be carried out to assess the renewal capacity of the area behind the submerged sand bar and the potential impact of such renewal capacity on the dispersion and accumulation of the organic matter and nutrients in the sea. For the reuse alternative, wastewater analyses show that irrigation with treated waste water produced by Hovsan WWTP can only be undertaken with salt-tolerant crops. In addition, the perched water table caused by a continuous watering may reach the existing shallowest water table, which is often brackish, and so cause the salt growing up to the top soil. Then, soil salinization can occur, not because of the irrigation water but because of the brackish groundwater. It is also worth noting that this alternative cannot replace in the short and middle term the outfall alternative because of the tremendous flow of wastewater which will need environmentally sound disposal. Environmental Management Plan The recommended environmental impact mitigation measures of the wastewater outfall project have been divided into the four following categories: - Measures forming part of good environmental practices of a works contractor : o Ballast waters management, o Work camp and facilities siting, o Management of staff, hygiene and safety, o Management of hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances, o Waste management, o Abandoning the facilities on completion of the work, o Control of vegetation, tree felling, o Protection of public and private equipments, o Protection of Air Quality, o Protection of Quality of Sea and Fresh Waters, o Management of spoil material on land, o Management of marine spoil material (excavated sediments), o Noise Management,
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xxv Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
o Protection of Public and Private Utilities, o Management of Traffic and Social impacts - Measures consisting of additional works: o Restoration of the offshore ridge (sandbar), o By-pass for sending the effluent to the outfall in case of impairment of Hovsan WWTP, - Accompanying measures: o Ensuring the suitable quality of raw effluents treated by Hovsan WWTP: industrial sensitisation program, o Ensuring the treatment performance through a middle term Technical Assistance, o Shutting down the chlorination at Hovsan WWTP, o Regulation for the protection of the terrestrial outfall route, o Regulation for the protection of the marine outfall route, o Communication on the treatment works and wastewater outfall, - General recommendations for the middle term : o Drinking and Wastewater Master Plan for the whole Absheron Peninsula, o Phasing out the chlorination of Treated (and Untreated) Wastewater in All WWTP Operated by Azersu, o Regulation about wastewater discharge, The Consultant recommends the creation of an Environmental Monitoring Unit (EMU), a multi-sectoral committee which will be responsible in coordinating and supervising the implementation of all recommended environmental measures and in assessing in a proactive manner the environmental impacts of the project. This EMU should be located at Hovsan WWTP. Azersu JSC is the contracting authority. As a state-governed company, it should ensure compliance of the project with the national policy and regulations related to the protection of the environment. Azersu’s duty is to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed at all project levels as well as the mitigation measures to address these concerns are implemented, i.e. feasibility (i.e. present stage), design, construction, and operation. The implementation of the impact monitoring plan will be the assignment of a competent Impact Monitoring Consultant (IMC), who will be employed by Azersu. Since the Caspian Sea is the most important environmental asset potentially affected by the project implementation, it is critical that the Caspian Complex Environmental Monitoring Department (CCEMD) of the MENR be closely involved in the monitoring process. The Supervision Consultant shall make sure that the construction contractor properly implements the environmental requirements specified in the contract documentation and in the Contractor Environmental Management Plan. Since the environmental supervision needs to be carried out on a daily basis, the Supervision Consultant team should include a half-time Environmental Supervision Officer. A set of quantitative and qualitative indicators have been identified and can be considered as items of check-list to be reviewed and to establish, if the need arises, a non-compliance note to be slot in the monthly supervision reports. These indicators are routine monitoring parameters of wastewater: BOD5, Dissolved oxygen, total coliforms, faecal coliforms, nitrogen, phosphorus… Other wastewater parameters
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xxvi Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
more specific are monitored on annual bases: heavy metals, Petroleum products, organic micro pollutants (HAP, PCB, pesticides) and pathogens,… Sea water and sea bed pollution parameters are monitored on annual bases. The monitoring plan has been defined for the initial monitoring stage which starts from the end of the outfall construction and finish after 3 years of outfall operation. Operation phase indicators are related to the quality of raw and treated wastewater of the Hovsan WWTP, in particular the concentration of toxic substances, faecal germs, organic matters and nutrients, and solid particles and the quality of the most sensitive of impacted environmental components which are the sea water and the sea bottom together with their dwelling biota. The project environment related costs have been detailed. They amount to US $ 4 250 000 for the entire project duration, which includes a 3 year pilot monitoring stage (long term monitoring should be borne by Azersu on its own resources) and which is about 3% of the project total cost and split as follows: - Measures consisting of additional works, including Restoration of the offshore ridge and the construction of a by-pass at Hovsan WWTP: US $ 2 400 000 - Accompanying and soft measures: US $ 1 440 000 - Environmental supervision : US $ 110 000 - Environmental monitoring : US $ 300 000
Public consultation An initial public meeting has been organized on June 24, 2009 to present the project and the study to stakeholders (public bodies, NGOs,…) and a final public meeting has been organized on November 12, 2009 after disclosure of the draft EIA. Discussions during the initial public meeting were about the project, the alternatives that should be studied, the industrial wastewater, and the impact of the project on local population. During the final public meeting, a comprehensive presentation was made which detailed the main sections of the project including project setting, policy, legal, and administrative framework, Baku sewage disposal project, baseline data, environmental impacts and analysis of alternatives, Environmental Management Plan and steps of its implementation and conclusion. After the presentation, broad discussions were held during more than an hour about the project, its impacts and mitigation measures, the alternatives, the wastewater reuse option,… Conclusion Although the construction of the Hovsan wastewater outfall will not result in cleaning the highly polluted Baku Bight, this project can be considered as a first step of a comprehensive process of management of wastewater produced in the entire Absheron Peninsula. With this project, the wastewater treated in the bigger WWTP of Baku will be kept away from the coastal water used by the Baku population and hence protects the public health. The discharge of the treated wastewater into the Caspian Sea water is not likely to cause major change in the marine life in the surrounding of the discharge point (diffuser). The Hovsan outfall is the only long outfall of Azerbaijan and most probably one of the longest outfalls of the whole Caspian Sea. Accordingly, the project may be considered as a flagship project which can serve as a reference for the following ones. That is
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xxvii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 0- References
why that the environmental monitoring is very critical for proving or confirming the relative harmlessness of environmental impacts of this kind of treated water disposal. So it is highly recommended to Azersu which will operate the outfall to ensure the high quality and reliability of the monitoring process and analyses which will not have to suffer from criticism from the scientific communities.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI xxviii Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Republic of Azerbaijan is the largest country in the South Caucasus, with a population of about 8.6 million people. The capital city Baku has a population of around 2 million and is located on the south coast of the Absheron Peninsula, on the west side of the Caspian Sea (see Picture 1).
Picture 1: The Caspian Sea and location of Baku (from Google Earth)
Azerbaijan’s economy has rapidly grown in the last ten years mainly due to positive developments in the oil industry. Thanks to these revenues, the Government is committed to put in place the policies, institutions and investments that will continue to ensure that the full benefits of this growth reach all segments of society. In that respect, many projects in the water and sanitation sector have been already launched: - rehabilitation of the two main water treatment plants serving greater Baku and reduction of technical losses in Baku from about 70 percent to 35 percent - integration of the institutional structure for the sector into one main entity (AzerSu Joint Stock Company) and one smaller one serving the isolated Autonomous Republic of Nakchivan area (the State Amelioration and Water Management Agency - SAWMA) - establishment of a Tariff Council to guide tariff policies in the utilities sectors, with a view to promoting commercialization and financial sustainability - increase in average water tariffs in January 2007 by about 87 percent in order to achieve operations and maintenance cost recovery - mandating the introduction of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) into all utilities, as an essential tool to improve financial management and sustainability; - initiation of several WSS projects in rayons outside of the Greater Baku area, - cooperation with the World Bank in carrying out analytical work on WSS and irrigation in order to develop a Water Sector Strategy
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 1
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
The present project is part of an effort to improve environmental conditions in the Greater Baku area that was materialized through implementation of the Environment State Program (ESP), instituted by the September 28, 2006 Presidential Decree. This ESP is a comprehensive plan involving medium- and long-term environmental management activities that target regional development of the Absheron Peninsula through addressing untreated industrial and residential wastewater, solid waste disposal and continued oil production contamination. The Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant, located about 15 km from the center of Baku, is the largest wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) treating about half of the wastewater generated by Baku city. The Plant discharges its effluent via a pair of pipelines to the shore of the Caspian Sea, about 1 km south of the plant, in a semi-enclosed area, with significant impacts on the quality of the surroundings. There are several other small scale WWTPs in the metropolitan area currently discharging partially treated wastewater effluents into the Caspian Sea. Part of the wastewater is also discharged to rivers or to the sea without any treatment. Coastal pollution caused by these discharges is one of the region’s main environmental issues. The project development objective is to convey Hovsan WWTP’s effluent to a disposal point at sea, where dilution and dispersion of the effluent and bacterial die-off are adequate to guarantee that, once the overall sanitation system is completed, the relevant standards are met in the areas currently impacted by the effluent discharge on the shoreline, and will be satisfactory with respect to aesthetics, human health and aquatic life. Although the construction of the outfall will result in an improvement of shoreline water quality in the zone currently impacted by the discharge of the effluent of the Hovsan wastewater treatment plant, the outfall real impact must be seen in terms of its function as a critical element of Baku’s sanitation system. As indicated above, the ultimate project development objective is to improve coastal water quality in the Baku’s metropolitan area, but this objective will only be achievable after the other upstream elements of the system are completed. However, providing a capacious outfall for the Hovsan wastewater treatment system will ultimately enable the control of the existing discharges and their impacts on water quality in the city once these are intercepted and the transport of all wastewater from the city to the Hovsan WWTP for adequate treatment is completed, as planned.
Two studies in parallel: The Government of Azerbaijan represented by its Azerbaijan State Water Agency (AzerSu) together with the World Bank initiated the process for preparation of: - a Feasibility Study (FS) and - a related Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the planning, design, and construction of the new deep sea outfall to discharge treated wastewater from the Greater Baku metropolitan area into the Caspian Sea. The project indeed is of great importance, and thus requires specific studies concerning its impact on human health, on the environment, and on aesthetic amenity. The Feasibility Study for the sea outfall is carried out concurrently with this EIA. This EIA is based on the preliminary conclusions of the FS study which indicates the preferred option and the alternatives studied. In addition, a separate Social Impact Assessment has been commissioned.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 2
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment related to the outfall The World Bank Procedure OP/BP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment states that this outfall project stands as a Category A project (corresponding to a Category 1 project in Azerbaijan law). This implies a detailed EIA, two public consultations and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The EIA and the EMP will meet both the World Bank requirements and the Azeri Environmental legislation.
1.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main objective of the EIA is to improve as much as possible the integration of the project into its existing environment. This goal will be reached by: - evaluating the project's potential environmental risks and impacts in its area of influence - examining project alternatives - identifying ways of improving project implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating, or compensating for adverse environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts - developing an Environmental Management Plan which will allow to include the process of mitigating and managing adverse environmental impacts throughout project implementation (construction and operation phases) Furthermore, the EIA should also provide a tool for public information and consultation, in order to make the project approved by all the concerned stakeholders and concerned population.
1.3. PROJECT PLANNING AND REPORTING
The original planning covered a maximum duration of 16 weeks during the period of June-October 2009 (excluding idle period for activities of FS consultant and field surveys). The expected outputs of this assignment are listed below: - Inception EIA report within 2 weeks from the date for the commencement of services - Draft EIA including Executive Summary requested information as outlined in the present ToR discussed with the public to be submitted for Bank’s review and comments within 11 weeks from the date for the commencement of services - Public consultation on the draft EIA within 13 weeks from the date for the commencement of services - Input to Final Report including final results for all tasks to be submitted for Bank’s review and comments within 17 weeks from the date for the commencement of services. An initial public meeting was held on June 24th to present the objective and the content of the study to all stakeholders. The minutes of this meeting are attached in Appendix 4. In the course of project implementation, due to delay in implementation of field surveys and submission of preliminary FS, the date of submission of draft EIA was postponed by 8 weeks.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 3
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
1.4. ORGANISATION OF THE REPORT
The organization of the environmental assessment and the content of the present report are in line with the specifications of: (i) the national Environmental Protection Law (latest update) and other project investment related legislation in Azerbaijan and (ii) the World Bank Operational and Safeguard Policies, especially OP/BP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment. The ―Guidelines for Marine Outfalls and Alternative Disposal and Reuse Options‖ issued by the World Bank in March 1996 have also been considered as a reference document. The EIA Draft Final Report is divided in nine chapters with the following content: - the present Chapter 1: Introduction, summarizes the background of the project, the objectives of the study, project planning and reporting and the organization of the report. - Chapter 2: Project environmental Setting, describes the biophysical and socio- economic background of the project, the emphasis being placed on the Caspian Sea and Greater Baku. - Chapter 3: Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework, summarizes the main legal documents and describes the Azerbaijan institutions in charge of the management of Environment. The main stakeholders which should be involved in the project are also presented. - Chapter 4: Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project, describes the project and its alternatives - Chapter 5: Environmental Baseline Data, provides a detailed analysis of its physical, biological and socio-economic environment of the study area, i.e. the terrestrial and marines zones which are likely to be directly affected by both outfall construction and operation. - Chapter 6: Potential Environmental Impacts, describes the possible impacts of the project on the environment, which include both positive and negative potential impacts during the construction of the project and after its completion (operation phase). - Chapter 7: Environmental Analysis of Alternatives, assess the potential environmental issues that may rise from implementation of technical alternatives as well as the ―no project‖ alternative.. - Chapter 8: Project Environmental Management Plan (EMP) details the measures recommended by the Consultant to minimize the adverse project impacts on the environment. The EMP includes presentation of proposed mitigation measures, recommendation on environmental supervision and monitoring, institutional arrangement, implementation planning as well as estimates of relating cost. - Chapter 9 : Public consultations gives an overview of the public consultations that were carried out in the frame of this EIA - Chapter 10: Conclusion and recommendations
Several appendices provide support and more detailed information on the above chapters. They are classified into 6 parts : Figures and maps, Terms of References of the EIA, Results of Field surveys, Documents related to public meetings, Bibliography and Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 4
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
2. PROJECT SETTING
2.1. CASPIAN SEA ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
2.1.1. GENERAL FEATURES
With a current surface of more than 400 000 km2 (1,200 km long x 200-400 km wide) and a volume of 78,000 km3 the Caspian Sea is the largest closed inland water body in the world. The Caspian Sea is made of brackish water the level of which is nowadays approximately 27 m under the mean level of oceans. The maximum depth of the Caspian is 1025 m, and the average - 184 m. The mean depth of the northern Caspian is only 6 m. Located at the boundary between Europe and Asia, the Caspian Sea borders five countries (see Pict. 2): Russian Federation (1460 km of coastline), Kazakhstan (2320 km), Turkmenistan (1200 km), Iran (1000 km) and Azerbaijan (825 km).
Picture 2: The Caspian Sea
Because of its large extension and north-south orientation, the Caspian Sea crosses several climatic zones: temperate continental climate in the northern part (which ice covering the sea from November to February-March), moderately warm climate along the
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 5
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
western coast (including Baku and the Absheron peninsula), subtropical climate in the southwestern and southern regions and arid climate along the all eastern coast. The Caspian Sea is mainly fed by the Volga River (80% of the annual river discharge, i.e.: 300 km3/year on average) in the north and other main rivers of the western bank (including the Kura River in Azerbaijan). The rainfall contributes only for 20% of the total water input of the Caspian Sea. The rain and river waters discharges into Caspian Sea are balanced by evaporation, especially intense in the shallow Kara-Bogaz-Gol Bay, a lagoon-like gulf covering 18000 km2 and only few meters deep located in the arid east bank, on the Turkmenistan territory and naturally connected to the Caspian by a narrow strait.
2.1.2. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FEATURES
As for other closed waterbodies, the water level of the Caspian Sea is subject to long- term (i.e. not seasonal) variations according to the water balance, tightly associated to the climate. So, the current – 27 m level (i.e.: 27 m under the mean sea level) has stabilized only since 1995 onwards. For instance, the highest level measured was – 25 m in 1896 and the lower was – 29 m in 1977. The bottom of the Caspian shows three main forms of relief: - shelf from the shore to depths of about 100 m. Around the Absheron peninsula which harbors Bakou, the shelf is 20 to 40 km wide. - continental slope, from 100 m to depths of 500 – 700 m - bed of deep-water depressions : Derbent depression (790 m) and southern Caspian depression (1025 m). On the shallow north shelf, sediments are predominately terrigenous shell and oolitic sands. Aleurolites and silt sediments with high calcium carbonate content cover the deeper areas. On some parts of the bottom, there are hard rock outcrops of Neogene age. It is of public knowledge that the sediments of the Caspian Sea also contain rich oil and gas deposits. The temperature of the surface layer of the Caspian Sea varies from 0 °C (northern) to 10 °C (southern) in February and from 23 °C (northern) to 28 °C (southern) in August. For the Baku area, the mean temperature of the surface layer is approximately 7 °C in February, 10 °C in April, 26 °C in August and 14 °C in November. Water masses of the Caspian Sea experience both horizontal and vertical circulations, as well as in any other large water body. Surface currents in the Middle and Southern Caspian will form a rotating circulation, which is clockwise along the shore of Baku. A maximum force of choppiness (force 6) was registered at western coast of the Middle Caspian, from November to March. The quietest period is the end of the spring and the first half of the summer. The salinity of the Caspian Sea is around 13 g/l (12.85 g/l on average, against 35 g/l for the oceans), except in the northern part where the dilution due to the discharge of the Volga river (Volga delta) reduces the salinity down to 5-10 g/l. The Caspian Sea waters - 2- - contain less chloride (Cl ) and more sulfate (SO4 ) and bicarbonate (HCO3 ) than the ocean waters. The Caspian waters are slightly alkaline: pH = 8.4 to 8.55 for the shallow waters and 7,8 to 8,2 for the deep waters (more than 500 m). The nutrient contents decrease from north to south because of the predominance of the Volga River which not only has the largest catchment basin, but also runs across many areas of intensive agriculture where lots of fertilizers are used. So, for the surface layer of the middle Caspian, the mean content is of 0.32 µM P and 0.18 µM nitrate N (respectively 10µg/l P and 2.5 µg/l N) and, for the southern Caspian, of 0.15 µM P and 0.05 µM nitrate N (respectively 5 µg/l P and 0.7 µg/l N). These levels are also sharply higher in the deep
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 6
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
layers of the sea, because the biomass is there far less abundant. Moreover, in the vicinity of main cities like Baku, the P and N contents of sea water may locally dramatically rise because of the wastewater discharge. Owing to the strength of vertical movements, the deeper Caspian waters are still rich in dissolved oxygen.
2.1.3. BIODIVERSITY 2.1.3.1. Biodiversity and endemism
If the Caspian Sea gained its present shape only 5-7000 years ago, this water body started to individualize from a greater brackish lake (the ancient Pannonian Sea) around 5 million years ago. It is assumed that the isolation of the Caspian Sea started 1.8 million years ago. During this period, the future Caspian Sea had experienced many climatic conditions causing transgressions and regressions, many salinity levels and intermittent connections with other water bodies, namely Black Sea. Both natural changes and, for the last past thousands of years, human activities resulted in the current assemblage of fauna and flora species comprised of four components: indigenous (brackish water) species, Atlantic and Mediterranean species (through the Caspian Sea), arctic species (through the Volga River) and freshwater (river) species. Almost all the indigenous species are found in the Middle Caspian because of its relative stability over time and its consistent salinity regime (brackish). Consequently, the highest number of endemic species is found there. However, owing to its salinity and climatic variations, the North Caspian has the greatest diversity of both habitat and species, especially in regard to phytoplankton. The Caspian Sea has about 450 species, varieties, or forms of phytoplankton. The dominant forms are Cyanophyta (blue-green algae), Bacillariophyta (diatoms), and Chlorophyta (green algae). Middle and Southern Caspian phytoplankton are a mix of marine, brackish, and freshwater forms. By contrast, North Caspian phytoplanktons are all freshwater forms. Benthic algae in the Caspian Sea count 87 species, including 29 species of green, 22 of red, and 13 of brown algae. Some algae from the Black Sea were introduced after the opening of the Volga-Don canal in 1954. The Caspian Sea harbors 718 known fauna species among which 255 endemic species of invertebrates, 56 endemic species of fish and one endemic mammal, namely the Caspian seal (Phoca caspica). Biodiversity (380 species) and endemism rate are particularly high among the benthic fauna. The zooplankton comprises 315 species and subspecies. The overall fauna endemism rate is presently estimated at 46%, but it is reckoned that both this rate and the total number of dwelling metazoan species may rise, if further zoological surveys were conducted. Fishes and crustaceans count for 63 % of the total number of species and thus have the greatest diversity in the Caspian. Thanks to their very good osmo-regulatory ability, they can live in a very broad range of salinity, namely from fresh water up to brackish, and even in more salty water. Early separation of the Caspian Sea from the World Ocean has ensured a high level of endemism of its ichthyofauna. The Caspian Sea is inhabited by 4 endemic genera, 31 endemic species and 45 endemic subspecies of fish. Endangered species of fish include: Caspian lamprey (Caspiomyzon wagneri), bastard or ship sturgeon (Acipenser nudiventris), beluga (Huso huso), Volga shad (Alosa kessleri volgensis), Caspian trout (Salmo trutta caspius), Caspian inconnu (Stenodus leucichthys), Caspian schemaya (Chalcalburnus chalcoides chalcoides), Caspian vimba (Vimba vimba persa), Caspian barbel (Barbus brachycephalus caspicus), Barbus ciscaucasicus, and big-head barbel (Barbus capito).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 7
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
2.1.3.2. Remarkable fauna
Sturgeons, which spawn in the rivers of the Caspian basin, are the most economically valuable anadromous (breeding in river and living in sea) fishes. They can run upstream for hundreds of kilometers (if not blocked by dams or barrages). Sturgeons prefer pebbly and solid sandy ground for spawning and appreciate the close proximity of brackish waters with rivers, as Volga River and Northern Caspian. Six species belonging to the genera Huso and Acipenser, live in the Caspian Sea. In addition to the widespread poaching, the sturgeon populations are jeopardized by dam constructions along the Caspian rivers. The World Wildlife Federation already names the Beluga Sturgeon (Huso huso) as the fourth most endangered species on earth. However, given the high economic value of the fish, millions of sturgeon fry produced in the hatcheries are released every year into the Caspian sea. The Caspian seal is an endemic species originating from the Artic region. It is acknowledged that the arctic seal reached the Caspian Sea during the glacial periods and evolved to become more adapted to the Caspian Sea climatic and ecological features. The same phenomenon has likely occurred for the current Baikal seal. The Caspian seal is one of the smallest seals (50-60 kg), it feeds on kilka (anchovy-like fish) and other small fish, and is preyed upon by land animals such as wolves, dogs, large predator birds, and humans. The Caspian seal is listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals as vulnerable. It is unclear how many seals remain in the Caspian Sea: from a population estimated at more than 1 million in the early 20th century, at present population estimates vary from about 30,000 to 400,000., the seal has been the victim of recent mass mortalities that have reduced the population even further. For instance, in 2000, a mass mortality caused some tens of thousands of deaths throughout the Caspian. The most often cited threats on the seal population are the following: - hunting of juveniles, which ceased around ten years ago - poisoning (poly-toxicosis) by polluting substances discharged by rivers and directly released by industrial facilities. High amounts of persistent pollutants such as heavy metals, PCB, DDT metabolites, HCH ad chlordane have been found in liver and hypodermic fat of seals at the vicinity of the Absheron peninsula. - barrenness of female, possibly associated with pollution or disease - lack of food, especially kilka because of introduction of invasive plankton-eating species (see § 2.1.4.3) Caspian seal migrate northward in the fall to reach cold waters and ice covers for pupping, molting, and mating. In the spring, they migrate southwards for feeding. On the way of both migrations, islands in the north Caspian Sea and Azerbaijan’s Absheron peninsula provide shelters and refuges important for seals resting. 2.1.3.3. Seashore waterfowls
In addition to the marine (pelagic and benthic) fauna, the Caspian harbors on its shore a rich avifauna, which count 466 known species among which 120 are nesting birds, 68 are wintering birds, and 278 are migratory or summer residents. The region's marine birds include gulls, cormorants, pelicans, geese, swans, ducks, and flamingo. They congregate along the coast. The highest concentrations have been recorded in the Volga and Ural rivers estuaries (Northern Caspian). The region is of high importance as a site for reproduction, molting, and rest during migrations. At least 15 globally threatened bird species use the Caspian Sea.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 8
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
2.1.4. MAIN ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS
2.1.4.1. Physical and chemical pollution
Sources of physical and chemical pollution of Caspian Sea can be divided into four main categories: - rivers, which have collected upstream large amounts of pesticides, industrial and urban effluents - seaside urban, harbour and industrial (including oil transformation) activities which generates pollutant such as hydrocarbons, heavy metal, nutrients and pathogens - oil extraction sites, which release crude oil and derivatives (hydrocarbons) into the sea mostly resulting from leaks, drilling activities (drill mud) and accidental spillages,
The Caspian Sea pollution ―hot spots‖ are showed on Pict. 3. Three of these hot spots are particularly of concern: the Volga delta (Russia), the mouth of the Kura River and the Absheron peninsula (Azerbaijan), where are located the industrial cities of Baku and Sumgayit. Eleven moderate hot spots are scattered around the Caspian Sea: 3 in Russian Dagestan (including the mouths of Terek and Sulak rivers), 3 in Kazakhstan (including the mouth of the Ural River), 2 in Turkmenistan (including the oil refinery of Turkmenbashi) and 3 in Iran. Most pollutants of concern are weakly soluble in water but have high affinity with fine particulate matters and organic matters. Consequently, when they are discharged into the sea, they do not stay a long time in the water column and sediment onto the water bottom. Accordingly, the analysis of the water column can give an
instantaneous insight of the pollution, subject to variations over the time, whereas the analysis of Picture 3: Pollution hot spots around the Caspian Sea (from Caspian TDA, Vol 2, 2002) sediments informs about the cumulated pollution over a period depending for each pollutant on its degradation rate.
It is thus worth noting that the contamination of water bottom sediments do not necessarily reflect the current pollution flow. This is particularly to be underlined for some former industrial sites such as the greater Baku which used to accommodate many polluting industrial plants, the majority of which are at present shut down. However, both water column and sediment contamination do have an ecological impact because each of them is inhabited or used for feeding by sea organisms (see Pict. 4)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 9
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Both waters and sediments of Caspian Sea have been monitored on a monthly basis for the four past decades (since 1978), by the former USSR institutes until the late 80s and with the support of international programs (Caspian Environment Program) for the more recent years. The networks counts more than 300 stations and the main measured parameters are: total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), heavy metals, detergents, chlorinated pesticides, ammonium and phenol. More recently, contaminants have also been measured in the flesh (fat tissues) of fishes and seals.
When data are reviewed throughout the monitoring period it appears that the pollution reached its highest around the 80s and, fortunately, have showed a decreasing trend since then. In terms of geographical extension, the pollution of both water column and sediments mainly
Picture 4 : Scheme of the trophic structure of affects the coast and the shallow the Caspian Sea showing the interactions shelf of the Caspian Sea, not between pelagic and benthic fauna and extending on more than a few plankton (from “The Caspian Sea kilometres from the hot spots Environment”, 2005)
However, in terms of absolute concentration of pollution, recent reports, in particular those issued by the Caspian Environmental Program in 2002, cast doubt on the reliability of the results obtained more than twenty years ago by Soviet institutions, which did not use standardized methodologies for sampling and analyses. More recent and reliable measurements undertaken by petroleum companies for the needs of EIAs and baselines studies showed very lower concentrations than the former ones, but this may be due to the overall improvement of environmental practices in the Caspian region. With respect to contamination of the water column, the more recent (since 2000) and reliable campaigns of water sampling, as cited in the CEP report (2002), showed that: - water concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) are quite low: between 10 and 100 µg/l. Nevertheless, these concentrations may be of eco-toxicological concern for the Caspian organisms, especially fish fry and zooplankton. Obviously, the concentration may sharply increase in case of leak or accidental spillage resulting in floating oil slick. - heavy metals are of very low concentration in water, with arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, nickel, and vanadium often below detection limits. However, to obtain reliable and representative values would need very heavy (and costly) sampling protocol to take into account spatial and temporal variations. In alkaline water like in the Caspian Sea, heavy metal are often insoluble or adsorbed on fine particles, which means that they can be transported by currents and end up to settled down onto the sea bottom. Except in the close vicinity of a hotspot, it would be difficult to find high concentration of heavy metals. - mean nutrient concentrations are low, with nitrate and ammonium not higher than 1 µg/l, total nitrogen ranging up to a few tens of µg/l and phosphate rarely exceeding
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 10
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
10 µg/l. These are all low nutrient concentrations, which refer to oligotrophic or mesotrophic waters. Higher nutrient concentrations may be observed at discharging points of rivers (Volga) and sewage systems of biggest cities (Baku). There is no evidence of widespread eutrophication of the Caspian Sea. Water clarity in general is quite good. With respect to sediment contamination, data supplied by the former campaigns (USSR), more recent surveys conducted by CEP on the all Caspian Sea and petroleum companies on some future exploitation sites have been summarized in CEP report (2002). The main results are recapitulated by pollutants in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. It should be mentioned that in the Caucasus region and the south Caspian the natural ground level of many heavy metals such as aluminium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc is high. Nevertheless, high concentrations sites are often related to polluting industries. It appears that the Azeri nearshore waters are the most polluted areas, especially with heavy metals and hydrocarbons. The most polluted zone remains the Baku bight and, to a lesser extent, the mouth of the Kura River (see above Pict. 4). The pollution of the Baku bight will be described in more detail in § 2.2.3.4.
Table 2.1 Inorganic pollutants of concern in the sediments of the Caspian Sea (according to the results of monitoring systems) Guideline Contaminant value Occurrence/concentration in Caspian Sea Possible Origin ERL/ERM (*) Higher values (16-23 mg/kg) in Baku bight, Dagestan coast, south western Iranian coast, 8.2 mg/kg Wood and metal Arsenic Kazakh coast 70.0 mg/kg treatment High values (8-16 mg/kg) southern Iranian coast No values exceeding ERL, but values of 0.1-0.5 1.2 mg/kg Cadmium mg/kg along the Dagestan, Azeri and Iranian 9.6 mg/kg coasts Higher values (100-128 mg/kg) at the mouths of Ural River (Kazakhstan) and Kura River Industrial or 81 mg/kg (Azerbaijan) Chromium mining 370 mg/kg High values (55-100 mg/kg) along the Azeri discharges coast (including Absheron peninsula) and along the south-western and southern Iranian coast Higher values (47-57 mg/kg) at the mouth of Kura River (Azerbaijan), at Astara (Iran) and Use of copper 34 mg/kg along the south-western and southern Iranian sulfate-based Copper 270 mg/kg coast pesticides for High values (22-47 mg/kg) along the Azeri orchards coast (including Absheron peninsula) Industrial 0.15 mg/kg High values (0.15-0.45 mg/kg) from Baku bight Mercury facilities at 0.71 mg/kg to the mouth of Kura river (Azerbaijan) Sumgayit Higher values (52-68 mg/kg) along the Azeri coast (including Absheron peninsula) and 20.9 mg/kg Electroplating, Nickel south-western, southern Iranian coasts 51.6 mg/kg metallic alloys High values (21-52 mg/kg) along the Dagestan and south-eastern Iranian coast 150 mg/kg No values exceeding ERL, but values of 90-115 Zinc 410 mg/kg mg/kg along Azeri and Iranian coast
(*) NOAA’s Sediment Guide Values determined by Long et al., 1995 on the basis of large eco- toxicological database regarding adverse effects of toxicants on benthic fauna. From the ascending data tables, the 10th percentile values were named Effect Range-Low (ERL), indicative of concentration below which adverse effects rarely occur, and the 50th percentile values were named Effect Range-Medium (ERM), representative of concentrations above which effects frequently occur. These guideline values are adopted by the National Ocean and Air Administration of the USA and are cited as reference levels in most of studies.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 11
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Since no standard for marine sediment quality have been identified in Azerbaijan legislation the ERL values may be considered as surrogates for Maximum Permissible Levels.
Table 2.2 Organic pollutants of concern in the sediments of the Caspian Sea (according to the results of monitoring systems) Guideline Contaminant value Occurrence/concentration in Caspian Sea Possible Origin ERL/ERM (*) Pesticides 0.02 µg/kg Higher values of 0.17-0.34 µg/kg at the mouth Agricultural and Dieldrin 8.00 µg/kg of Volga River (Russia) urban use 0.32 µg/kg High values (0.3-0.6 µg/kg) at the mouth of Agricultural and Lindane 1.00 µg/kg Volga river and along Dagestan coast (Russia) urban use 1.58 µg/kg Higher values (4.6-13.4 µg/kg) in Baku bight Agricultural and DDT (total) 4.61 µg/kg and at the mouth of Kura River (Azerbaijan), urban use Other organic contaminants Higher values (600-1800 mg/kg) in Baku bight Oil extraction & Hydrocarbons - High values (200-600 mg/kg) at Kura river transformation 4.02 mg/kg Oil extraction & PAHs (total) Higher values (2.1-3.0 mg/kg) in Baku bight 44.79 mg/kg transformation Electrical No values exceeding TEL, but values of 2.0-7.7 22.7 µg/kg condensers, PCB (total) mg/kg at the mouth of Volga River, and along 180.0 µg/kg industrial Dagestan coast and in Baku bight facilities
(*) see above Table 2.1
2.1.4.2. Overfishing
In addition to sturgeons, any fish species of the Caspian Sea are of high economic value such as, Caspian trout, Caspian inconnu, Volga shad and others. Some specialist assumed in 1997 that the potential yearly income from fishing products can reach 5 to 6 billion dollar. Illegal fishing (poaching) particularly boomed after the collapse of USSR as the control authority disappeared. Moreover, the subsequent economic crisis and the increase of unemployment strongly favoured the overspread of small scale poaching. The quantities illegally catch would be more than 10 times higher than the legal (official) data. For example, as the legal catch of sturgeon in Turkmenistan is 20 tonnes per year for scientific purposes, approximate calculation based on amount of fish in Ashkabad markets gives a figure of at least 300 tonnes per year. If sturgeons are particularly jeopardized by illegal fishing (50 to 60 years would be necessary to recover the sturgeon reserves), other species have totally disappeared such as zander, after it has been intensively fished in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.
2.1.4.3. Introduction of invasive species
The flora and fauna of the Caspian Sea include invasive species from the Arctic, Atlantic, and Mediterranean complexes. Some of these species migrated by natural ways during geological recent periods (glaciations and inter-glaciations) few thousands years ago. For example, the very common cockle-like bivalve Cerastosderma lamarcki, also frequent in the Mediterranean Sea, started to invade the Caspian Sea 5000 to 7000 years ago, brought either by birds or by men. Most of these species have radiated into particular sub-species or new species and so became ―endemic‖ such as the Caspian seal. Far more recently, particularly since the end of the 19th century, the human activities have caused introduction of species both intentionally (to develop fishery, for example) and accidentally through the transport of vessels covered by fouling algae and/or small invertebrates (molluscs, etc.) or through the ballast waters of the transient boats coming from the Mediterranean/Caspian seas via the Azov Sea after the opening of the Volga- Don canal
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 12
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Between 1930 and 1970, at least nine species of fishes were intentionally introduced into the Caspian: Glos’s flounder (Pleuronectes flesus luscus), topknot (Rhombus maeoticus), mullets (Mugil auratus and M. Saliens), white grass carp (Ctenopharingodon idella), white silver carp (Hypophthalmichtys molitrix), motley silver carp (Aristichthys nobilis), chum salmon (Oncorhyncus keta), and humpback salmon (Oncorhyncus gorbuscha). Some invertebrates have also been introduced intentionally such as Nereis diversicolor, a polychaete worm and Abra ovata, a bivalve mollusc. Both benthic animals have been introduced in northern Caspian Sea in the 40s and have particularly flourished along the western coast so as to constitute the main food stock for sturgeons during their migrations. Actually, when introduced, these species found an almost empty ecological niche on the areas covered by slimy sediments. Of those invertebrates introduced accidentally which have thrived in Caspian Sea, the first was a mussel (Mytilaster lineatus). This mussel arrived as a part of fouling of boats transported by train from the Black Sea to Baku in 1919. By 1957, this mussel species had completely replaced on rocky areas of the sea bottom the main autochthonous mussels (Dreissena sp.) owing to its better ability to live in lowered oxygenated zones. The crab species Rhithropanopeus harrisii tridentate has also been introduced by the same way and know occupies large area of northern and southern Caspian Sea (but not of middle CS) At present a recently introduced species of comb-jelly fish (ctenophore) Mnemiopsis leidyi is particularly of concern. This macro-plankton species (1-10 cm and 3-10 grams) was first identified in the Caspian Sea in 1998 presumably after being introduced with ballast waters from the Black Sea, wherein it was introduced 10 years before from tropical American Atlantic coasts. The ctenophore non only competes for food (micro- zooplankton) with fish larvae but also preys directly on fish larvae (mero-plankton), which both result in reduction of fish stocks,. It already caused great changes in the Black Sea ecosystem, making up to 95% of the fresh biomass. Nowadays, Mnemiopsis leidyi is distributed mainly in the middle and southern parts of the Caspian Sea, occurring in water depths up to 50 m, and at densities at times exceeding 1 kg/m2 of water column (see Pict.5).
Scientific community really worries about the damage likely to be caused by Mnemiopsis to the Caspian Sea ecosystem for the next decade: in 2002, when it colonized actively the Caspian Sea, zooplankton biomass decreased by 5-6 times in all groups. Fishes feeding on zooplankton such as kilka – anchovy-like fishes which are the most caught all over the Caspian Sea) are the first affected: kilka catches dropped from more than 120,000 tons in 1998 to less than 20,000 tons in 2002. As kilka are preyed by seals and beluga sturgeons, these most valuable species are also jeopardized. The better way to control abundance of Mnemiopsis is to introduce its predator, another comb-jelly fish called Beroe Picture 5: Spatial density of Mnemiopsis leidyi ovata. The predator can however (picture) over the Caspian Sea in individuals/m2 only live in water not less than 10 of water column. (from “The Caspian Sea g/l salinity, which is the case of Environment, 2005) middle and southern Caspian Sea.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 13
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Fortunately, all introduced species are not so harmful than Mnemiopsis leidyi, some of them could even be considered as useful (for feeding sturgeons, for example), but most of them have replaced the autochthonous species. Allochtonous species (Mytilaster lineatus, Abra ovata, Balanus mprovisus, B. eburneus., Nereis diversicolor) account now for more than 60% of the macro-benthos fauna, and introduced copepod Acartia tonsa is one of the leading species of zooplankton. The native species only predominate among fishes.
2.2. THE CITY OF BAKU
2.2.1. LOCATION AND ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT
2.2.1.1. Location and topography
The city of Baku is the capital city, the largest city, and the largest port of Azerbaijan and all the Caucasus Region. The Greater Baku occupies a 2200 km2 area on the southern shore of the Absheron Peninsula, which extends 60 km eastward into the Caspian Sea and reaches a maximum width of 30 km (from north to south). The Peninsula also harbors on its northern shore the industrial city of Sumgayit (see Pict. 6). Although the Absheron Peninsula is geologically the easternmost extension of the Greater Caucasus Range, its landscape is only mildly hilly, a gently undulating plain that ends in a long spit of sand dunes known as Shah Dili, and now declared the Absheron National Park (see § 3.2.1). In this part the peninsula is dissected by ravines and characterized by frequent salt lakes. Greater Baku occupied a rather flat land, a part of which is situated at a negative altitude (it is recalled that the Caspian Sea level is 27 m under the general ocean level). The land is very slightly sloped toward the sea shore.
Picture 6: General view of the Absheron Peninsula
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 14
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
2.2.1.2. Climate
The Absheron Peninsula experiences a mild-hot, semi-arid climate. This type of climate is mainly due to the following factors: - the presence of the Greater Caucasus mountain ranges which blocks the cold air masses coming from north. Cold air masses accumulated in the back of Greater Caucasus sail to south-east causing strong north winds (―Khezri‖) in the Absheron peninsula - the presence of the Caspian Sea, which makes milder the summer heat and winter cold air masses coming from north - the solar radiation on this continental zone situated at 40°N latitude (as Turkey, Greece or southern Italy) - low altitude, even negative altitude for the coastal zones The average annual temperature is 14 °C. The monthly average temperature is 3.9 °C in January and 25.7 °C in July. Absolute maximum temperature is 42 °C, absolute minimum temperature is - 21 °C. Over the last ten years (1999 – 2008), the annual rainfall varies between 205 mm and 503 mm, with an average of 237 mm. Around 50% of the total annual precipitation falls from October to December and July and August are the driest months with less than 5 mm (see Fig. 1). Snow occurs only few days during the year and accounts for less than 10% of total precipitations. The evaporation is very high varying between 947 mm and 1344 mm, that is 4 to 6 times higher than the rainfall. Consequently there is a need for irrigation for the middle and long cycle agricultural crops.
70
60
50
40
30 Rainfall (mm) Rainfall
20
10
0 Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Figure 1: Monthly rainfall in Baku for the 1999-2008 period North and northwest winds are the most prevailing in Absheron Peninsula (55% of total frequency) and are especially frequent from October to March. South winds make up around 20% of the total frequency. The repartition of the wind speeds are the following: 0 – 1 m/s: 21%, 2 – 5 ms: 33%, 6 – 10 m/s: 26%, 11 – 15 m/s: 12.5%, > 15 m/s: 7.5%. The strongest winds come most often from north and north-west (see Pict. 7).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 15
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Picture 7: Wind rose in Baku airport (wind frequency cumulated percent) over the 2004- 2007 period
Mists are observed on the sea shore mostly from October to April, with a highest frequency in February-March (22 days). The Absheron Peninsula is considered as an area of high degree of land degradation process, which favors both erosion and salinization of soils. In addition to arid climate and strong dry winds, extended areas dedicated to industry and oil exploitation, exploitation of sand and limestone as building material contribute to land degradation on the Absheron Peninsula.
2.2.1.3. Geomorphology, ground- and surface waters
The Absheron Peninsula is the western most emerged part of the ―Absheron threshold‖, which is a structure formed as a continuation of folded structures of the Greater Caucasus, part of the alpine fold region. Like all the Caspian shore, the Absheron Peninsula is covered by terrigenic (sedimentary) Quaternary deposits. The territory of Greater Baku is mainly constituted by a flatland with an altitude not exceeding 50m (that is around 80m above the Caspian Sea level) apart from some small hills and ridges, which can reach more than 100 m, for example, along the western limit of central Baku. Greater Baku counts many lowlands occupied by ponds and lakes, out of which around ten medium size lakes (more than 5 km2) such as Beyok Shor, Khodjhasan, Ganligul, Kroznoye, Bulbul and Zikh Lake. These salted, shallow lakes are most often former sea lagoons the level of which naturally varies during the year according to the rainfall and during longer periods the level of the sea. These lakes have been used for discharge of drainage and urban and industrial wastewater for decades and consequently are at present polluted and eutrophic. There is no true natural watercourse in the Greater Baku but rather wadis which use to drain intermittently seasonal rainfall and have been made into channels in order to receive urban or industrial effluent and convey them down to the sea.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 16
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
In the lowland and along the seashore, the superficial aquifer is very shallow, with a water table 2 to 5m under the ground level at Hovsan and Turkan, but its depth increase up to more than 10m on the top of the hills. Shallow groundwater is brackish because of salt intrusion. Leaking sewage pipelines, nitrate and pesticide contamination by agriculture and spills from oil and chemical plants have further degraded the quality of shallow groundwater. At some place, continuous leaking of the water supply system has raised the groundwater level by several metres.
2.2.1.4. Seismology
The borders and seabed of the Caspian Sea lie in a tectonically active area. The existence of active faults in the western and southern region (Dagestan, Azerbaijan and Iran) also adds to the vulnerability of the region to tremors. Earthquakes, landslides, and flash floods occur frequently. In Azerbaijan, significant portions of the coasts are located in seismic zones of magnitude ranging from 6 to 7. From 1903 to 1999 more than 424 events of magnitude of 3.0 to 6.6 took place near the coastal zone of Azerbaijan. The last recorded earthquake in Baku occurred in November 2000: the epicentre was in the Caspian Sea, 25 km south-east of Baku. The magnitude at epicentre was 7.0 on the Richter scale but only 6.3 in Baku. The attenuation was due to the 25km-thick sedimentary layer which underlies the Absheron Peninsula and may absorb up to 70% of the seism energy. The human toll was heavy: 26 people died as a primary result, and 412 people were either hospitalised or sought medical assistance. The tremor badly damaged buildings, historical monuments and the water-treatment plants and the distribution network in Baku.
2.2.1.5. Proneness to flooding
Due to natural phenomena (evaporation and flow from the Volga, tied to climatic change) but also to anthropogenic activities (dams, change in vegetal cover, etc.), the Caspian Sea is subject to considerable water level fluctuations. In the last 100 years, a decrease of 3 m was recorded between 1930 and 1977 followed by an increase of 2.5 m between 1978 and 1996. Eventually, after 1996, levels fell by 0.5 m. The water level fluctuations may cause flooding and loss of land in the coastal fringe with very low slope. The central Baku is protected from flooding by a 3m-high seawall but other places along Baku may be more vulnerable. However, predictions indicate that the levels will remain relatively unchanged over the coming years. This would justify continued monitoring and long-term planning.
2.2.1.6. Soils
The lowlands of Absheron Peninsula are mainly covered by young soils called ―Grey soils‖ developed on alluvial deposits. These soils are alkaline, contain no more than 1.5 to 2% of organic matters in the top layers and often show a high salt concentration. The soil texture is mainly featured by clay, heavy clay, and loamy clay. These soils may be cultivated by crops resistant to salt and dryness such as pomegranate and olive trees. In theory, combined irrigation and drainage practices may allow to cultivate less tolerant crops such as many kinds of vegetables. Alongside the shore line, sandy soils of low fertility are more developed. Soil pollution by oil products and industrial waste remains one of the most critical environmental problem on the Asheron Peninsula (see § 2.2.3.2). In the past, most of the soils of Absheron peninsula have been used for agriculture (gardening, grape growing) and cattle breeding (pasture). After the independence and the enactment of the Land Reform all the lands, except those used for industrial purposes, have been shared between private ownership, local municipalities and Baku city executive power.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 17
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
2.2.1.7. Flora and fauna
Given its climatic and pedological features, the Absheron Peninsula is occupied by a semi-desert and salt-resistant vegetation, such as thistles and wormwood (Artemisia sp.) forming low steppes and pastures. Aquatic plants also grow in the ponds and wet lowlands. Originally, according to the Soviet reports, more than 800 plant species used to be present over the Peninsula. Nevertheless, as a result of agriculture but mainly of the extensive urbanization and industrialisation of the land, the former richness of local flora is likely to have dropped for the past decades. As usually in the urban and peri-urban zones, the upper fauna is mainly reduced to small- size terrestrial organisms such as amphibians, reptiles and rodents, for example: - on land: Bufo viridis (Green toad), Pelobates syricus (Spadefoot toad), Testudo graeca (Greek tortoise registered in the Azerbaijan Red Book), Cyrtopodion caspius (gecko), Agama caucasica, Stellio caucasicus and Eremias velox (lizards), Vipera lebetina (Blunt-nosed viper, dangerously venomous), Coluber ravergieri (Pallas Coleber), Hemiechinus auritus (Long-eared hedgehog), Pipistrellus kuhlii (Kuhl's pipistrelle), Rattus norvegicus (Brown Rat), Allactaga williamsi (Small Asian jerboa). - in brackish water ponds and lakes: Rana ridibunda (frog), Mauremys caspica (turtle), Natrix tessellata (Water snake), Among birds which may be observed: - in the rural areas: Falco tinnunculus (common kestrel), Tetrax tetrax (Little Bustard), Alectoris chukar (Chukar), Pterocles orientalis (Blackbellied Sandgrouse), Columba livia, Stretopelia turtur, S. decaocto and S.senegalensis (doves), Cuculus canorus (cuckoo) Galerida cristata (Crested Lark), Athene noctua (Little owl) and Oenanthe isabellina (Isabelline Wheatear). - in and around the water bodies: Podiceps rujicollis (Little grebe), Phalacrocorax carbo (Cormorant), Ardea cinerea (Grey heron), Rallus aquaticus (Water rail), Gallinula chloropus (Moorhen), Porphyrio porphyrio (Purple gallinule), Fulica atra (Coot) and Himantopus himantopus (Caydaq cullut) - along the seashore: Larus argentatus (Herring gull), Sterna hirundo, Chlidonias hybrida and Ch. leucoptera (terns) It should be reminded that the easternmost part of the Peninsula, 40 km away from Greater Baku, harbors the Absheron National Park inhabited by an outstanding fauna of waterfowls as well as by the protected Caspian seals.
2.2.2. HUMAN AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
2.2.2.1. Demography and administrative divisions
The Baku population is officially estimated at around 1.9 million people in 2009. In 2003, Baku additionally accommodated 153,400 internally displaced persons and 93,400 refugees. Since then, many people have migrated to the Baku and Sumgayit in search of jobs and opportunities without being registered. Consequently, unofficial estimates usually reach figures as high as 3 million people. The city of Baku is divided into 11 administrative Rayons: - Garadagh: south-western part of Absheron Peninsula, very large extension, periurban, rural and coastal
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 18
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- Binagadi: split into two portions, northern and central part of Absheron Peninsula, adjoining Sumgayit (easter limit) and central Baku (northern limit), medium extension, mainly urban, periurban and coastal - Sabunchu: northern central part of Absheron Peninsula, large extension, adjoining central Baku (northern limit), urban, periurban and coastal - Azizbayov; easternmost part of Absheron Peninsula, large extension, mainly rural and coastal, including the Absheron National Park - Surakhany: central southern part of Absheron Peninsula, medium extension, adjoining central Baku (eastern limit), periurban, indusial and coastal, including the Hovsan village and Hovsan WWTP - Sabail : southern part of Absheron Peninsula, adjoining central Baku (western limit), mainly industrial and coastal (western part of Baku bay) - Narimanov, Nasimi, Nizami, Khatai and Yasamal: small extension, making up central Baku, urban, only Kahtai has long sea shore (eastern part of Baku bay) Within its 11 Rayons, Greater Baku also comprises 48 townships, among which some are built on small islands in the Caspian Sea.
2.2.2.2. Education level
The constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic declared complete secondary education, which comprises 11 grades from age-6 to age-16, mandatory. The recent Azerbaijan Demographic and Health Survey 2006 (hereinafter 2006 AzDHS, report published in May 2008), which has treated data collected in 2006 by questionnaire to a population of nearly 30,000 over the national territory, has featured the educational attainment of the Azerbaijan population aged 6 and over. The survey showed that in Baku the proportion of people with no education is very low: 2.8% for females (against a national average of 4.8%) and 2.2% for males (NA: 3.1%). More than two thirds of the population of Baku received a complete secondary education: 69.3% of females (NA: 58.5%) and 70.6% of males (NA: 63.3%). Particularly in Baku there is no significant difference between genders for the school attendance until the end of complete secondary education. As capital and most populated city, Baku has many high level schools, institutes and universities and thus accommodates the majority of students of the Country.
2.2.2.3. Public Health
After the independence in 1991, the former centralized free health care system has been replaced with free, partially free and private paid medical service. During the low economical period which followed the independence (transition period), low income rate and unemployment issues restrict their access to paid private medical service. However, the sharp decline in life expectancy observed over the 1992-1994 was mainly due to the armed conflict with Armenia. Life expectancy began to rise from 1995. According to WHO, the life expectancy in 2006 was 62 years for men and 66 years for women. WHO also indicates a total expenditure on health of US$ 218 per capita. Recent outstanding improvement of the national economic situation is expected to have positive repercussion on public health, especially for Baku. Tuberculosis is still a significant public health problem in Azerbaijan even if, according to official country statistics, the registered number of cases of active tuberculosis dropped from 159 per 100,000 population in 1995, down to 64 per 100,000 in 2005. However, the incidence (number of new cases) of tuberculosis in 1995 was 40 per 100,000 and rose to 44 per 100,000 in 2005. Malaria was endemic over a vast portion of Azerbaijan until the 1960s, when mass malaria eradication efforts carried out throughout the former Soviet Union brought about its disappearance, except for 2 extensive epidemics reported in the 1970s and 1980s,
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 19
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
which were rapidly brought under control. The malaria situation began to deteriorate again in the early 1990s. In 1993-1994, the number of malaria cases increased from 23 to 667, and had reached 13,135 by 1996. The main reasons were the worsening of the socio-economic conditions, changes in agricultural practices and the seasonal migration of those involved in this sector, and the mass displacement of nearly one million persons due to armed conflict. Since then, thanks to large-scale epidemic control interventions, the malaria situation has dramatically improved with only 108 cases reported in 2007. Likely owing to the absence of freshwater, the Absheron Peninsula is considered of low risk for malaria transmission. As regard to the child health, the 2006 AzDHS showed that in Baku, 1% of surveyed children (less than 5 years) had symptoms of Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) that is 3 times less than the national (3%). However, the proportion of children having suffered from diarrhoea for the 2 weeks preceding the survey was 9.3%, not so far from the national average (10.6%). According to WHO, in 2005, the national prevalence of HIV among adult population above 15 years was 87 per 100,000. The 2006 AzDHS revealed for the Baku population at age 15-49 that around 50% of men used tobacco (same as national average) and the hypertension prevalence was 14.5% among women (national average: 16.4%) and 13.5% among men (NA: 19.6%). The diseases of circulatory system (heart and blood) are by far the first cause of mortality. The second causes are cancers.
100%
90% Neoplasms 80% Osteomuscular
70% Endocrine
Hematologic 60% Dermal 50% Circulatory
40% Digestive
Nervous 30% Infectious & parasitic 20% Respiratory
10%
0% Azerbaijan Baku
Figure 2: Morbidity rate by cause of consultation in Azerbaijan and Baku (published by State Statistical Committee) The first causes of morbidity in Baku are respiratory diseases (see Fig. 2). Although these diseases are most often caused or worsen by the pollution of environment, significant statistic links are difficult to establish. An epidemiological study published in 2006 in an international journal showed a higher cancer risk in the industrial city of Sumgayit than in the rest of the country. However, the authors themselves recognized that the data were of poor quality and that a modern cancer registry would be a prerequisite to more detailed examinations of cancer rates in the country. When comparing morbidity in Azerbaijan and Baku (se Fig 2), the main differences are indicated for infectious, parasitic and nervous system diseases which are higher (in frequency) in Baku than in the entire country and for circulatory system disease which are
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 20
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
lower. However, no solid conclusion can be drown from this, because both income and access to health system are likely better in Baku than in remote places of the country. Then, for instance, people affected by not severe infectious in remote towns or villages may be less prone to go to doctor or to hospital and prefer take medicine by themselves.
2.2.2.4. Housing
The 2006 AzDHS showed that in urban Azerbaijan (all cities): - nearly 100% of households are connected to electricity - nearly 90% of housing have wood planks or parquet floor - 78% of households use piped water into dwelling - 65% of households use flush to piped sewer system, 17% use pit latrine with slab and 15% have no improved facility for sanitation - 99% of households have a TV, 88.5% a refrigerator, 30% a washing machine, 76% a non mobile phone, 64% a mobile phone and 22% a car Within Greater Baku, the level of comfort of housing should be even higher given that the capital city accommodates 53 % of the highest and 34% of the fourth wealth quintile of the national population. Greater Baku is entirely equipped with piped natural gas.
2.2.2.5. Employment and income sources
Baku is not only the administrative but also the industrial and economic capital of Azerbaijan, where the vast majority of job opportunities are concentrated. Accordingly, the development of Baku is tightly linked to the development of the whole country. Economic growth of Azerbaijan has been outstanding for the last 5 years: while the average economic growth was around 10 per cent during 2002-2005, the real GDP grew at more than 26% in 2005, more than 35% in 2006, and more than 23% in 2007, making Azerbaijan the fastest growing economy in the world for this period. The development of oil and gas sector together with the sharp rise of the oil prices is responsible for this quick enrichment, but it is noteworthy that the non-oil sector (mainly services) has also significantly increased during this period (1.8 fold from 2003 to 2008). In 2007, the share of GDP by sector was: 6.3% agriculture, 61.6% industry and 32.1% services. In 2008, the GDP reached 5,404 US$ per capita. Greater Baku accommodates more than 55% of employees in the industrial sector of Azerbaijan. The main mining and industrial activities located in Greater Baku are: - oil extraction (98% of total national volume) - gas extraction (>99% of total national volume) - liquid fuels (almost 100% of the total national volume of gasoline, diesel oil and fuel oil) - bituminous mixtures (91% of total national volume) - calcareous extraction (100% of total national volume) - food industry (sausage, frozen fish, caviar, vegetable oil, tea, soft drinks) - textile (cotton linen, garment) - organic chemicals
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 21
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- plastic matters - cement (88% of total national volume) - iron equipment The average monthly salary in Azerbaijan was of AZN 187 (US$ 220) in 2007, but the rate is higher for the oil-gas industry, construction and financial sectors. Like salary rate, inflation rate is linked to economic growth: it stays between 10% and 20% per year.
2.2.2.6. Archaeological and historical features
The site of Baku has been occupied by man since the Palaeolithic period up to the present day. The city reveals evidence of Zoroastrian, Sassanian, Arabic, Persian, Shirvani, Ottoman, and Russian presence in cultural continuity. This long history has left Baku with a very rich legacy of historic settings: the Maiden Tower dated 6th century, the Inner Walled City dated 12th century and the Shirvansahs’ Palace dated 15th century were classified by UNESCO as part of World Heritage in 2000. There are also plenty of less famous sites and building of cultural and historical value such as Zoroastrian temples, mosques and so on. As far as hidden archaeological relics are concerned, many remnants of settlements, burial crypts, dating back to the 3rd to 1st millennium B.C. (Bronze Age) have been discovered in some places within Greater Baku such as Pirallahi, the vicinity of Zigh lake, Shuvelan, Mardakan, Binagadi and Amirjan.
2.2.3. MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
2.2.3.1. Air pollution
In the Soviet period, large industrial cities like Sumgayit and Baku suffered from air pollution levels considered unsafe for human health, because of the use of old technologies without regard to air pollution. The industrial collapse which occurred at the independence has improved air quality, but from air emission standpoint, this has been partially offset by a rapid increase in transport. Since 2003, stationary and mobiles sources have comparable contribution to the total air pollutant emissions. For instance in 2007, 386 Ktons of air pollutants were emitted in Azerbaijan by stationary sources whereas 584 Ktons were emitted by mobile sources (data issued by State Statistical Committee). The Greater Baku contribution to the national amount of air pollutant emissions is of 78% for stationary sources and 70% for mobile sources. However, in terms of environment and public health, ―total air pollutant emissions‖ does not make sense without any breakdown by individual pollutants or pollutant groups, the environmental/health effects of which may vary to a large extent. For example, adding tons of CO (toxic for heart & vascular system) and NO2 (toxic for respiratory system) is not consistent from a public health point of view. The stationary sources emissions in Baku are mostly made of volatile hydrocarbons: 88% in 2007. This high contribution is rather surprising even if the very large areas polluted by oil products (see § 2.2.3.2) are likely to release every year high quantities of volatile hydrocarbons by evaporation, which is confirmed by the typical oil odour that is often smelled in Baku during the hot season. Anyway, in Baku, the most polluting stationary sources are related to the oil sector, like Azerneftyag and Azerneftyanajag oil refineries, constructed in 1930 and 1965 with a capacity of 206,400 barrels/day and 137,600 barrels/day, respectively. Given their low technical and environmental level, these facilities used to emit tremendous quantities of SO2 and NOX into air. Thanks to recent upgrade, their emission rates have sharply decreased since a few years. Apart from the oil sector activities, the main stationary pollution source in Baku is the Garadagh cement factory (mainly dust and NOX emissions).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 22
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Some residential areas of Greater Baku are likely to receive a part of the air emissions that originate in Sumgayit, the big industrial city located at 30 km away north-westward. Pollutants emitted at Sumgayit include hydrogen fluorides from aluminium production, mercury and other toxic emissions from an amalgam plant for chlor-alkali production, heavy metals such as lead, zinc and cadmium in the dust from a steel plant, and various toxic substances from the petrochemical industries. Emissions from mobile sources (mainly terrestrial vehicles) have continuously increased for the last past decade: from 230 KTons in 2000 to 411 KTons in 2007, i.e. an average rate of 22.6 Ktons per year. The fast increasing number of cars and trucks in Azerbaijan, while the number of buses is steady, is very likely responsible for this trend (see Fig. 3). In 2007, around 55% of the motor vehicles registered in Azerbaijan (773,000) were located in Greater Baku, where the number of vehicles has doubled between 2003 and 2007. Most of cars in Baku are still of ancient design and constructed in former Soviet Union. However, with the economic growth, it may be expected a fast renewing of the circulating fleet with an increasing part of less polluting vehicles (compliant with European standards, for example).
700
600
500
400 Cars
300 Lorries Vehicles (x1000) Buses 200
100
0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 3: Numbers of vehicles in Azerbaijan from the past years (from State Statistical Committee) There are 8 pollution monitoring stations in Baku that measure many parameters including: SO2, CO, NOX, H2S, suspended particulates, HF, Cl2, Hg, NH3 and formaldehyde. According to the data issued by the MENR, the average concentrations for 2007 are 3 3 50 µg/m NO2 and 15 µg/m SO2. These values are lower than the national standards 3 and, for NO2, slightly above the WHO long-term standard (40 µg/m ). Average concentration of dust is 200 µg/m3. This value is 5 times higher than the national standard for 24 hours (see Appendix 1.1), exceeds the US-EPA standard (150 µg/m3) and equals the intervention level in the EU. However, without more information on the nature/size of dust particles (PM10, PM2.5, etc.) it is difficult to compare these data with international standards. Actually, telluric dust, which cause moderate health adverse effect (because not reaching pulmonary system), may be suspended in high concentrations in the air in Baku area due to the dry winds. Among the climatic features which may impact the concentrations of air pollutants, the most likely significant are the following:
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 23
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- the low rainfall occurring over a short period, insufficient to wash out air pollutants such as particles, NO2 or SO2 (adverse factor) - the high solar radiation which favour toxic photochemical pollutants such as ozone (adverse factor) - the high frequency of strong and medium-strong winds, which favour the dispersion of air pollutants (beneficial factors) Low-speed sea and land breezes which occur in the morning and evening are probably significant contributors to the air pollutant concentrations within coastal areas of Greater Baku.
2.2.3.2. Soil pollution
The Absheron Peninsula is seriously polluted due to nearly 150 years of oil production and related industrial activities that have contaminated around 30,000 hectares of land. In these areas, hydrocarbons have seeped into soil and bedrock extending to as deep as several meters. This issue is exacerbated by the existence of hundreds of continuing production facilities such as drill rigs and oil pumps that constitute a continuing pollution source. Polluted areas are classified into three categories. The first category refers to areas contaminated by oil products. According to SOCAR data, the first category comprises: - 900 ha of slightly polluted soils (up to 10 cm) - 2000 ha of medium polluted soils (up to 25 cm) - 3356 ha of highly polluted soils (deeper than 25 cm) - 4690 ha of soils entirely covered with oil wastes - 197 ha of soils totally left under bitumen layer Second category refers to areas covered with industrial, construction and domestic wastes (dumping-grounds). This category covers around 1000 ha. Third category refers to open caves dug for different opencast sites (quarries, sandpits, and etc.), pipeline, etc.. This category covers more than 8000 ha. Apart from petroleum hydrocarbons, the most concentrated soil pollutants are heavy metals, the level of which can reach as much as 50 times the international standards. Actually the polluted areas are mostly located around the central Baku (see Pict. 8) which poses a problem given the increasing demand for residential land resulting from economic growth. To address this concerning issue, the Government of Azerbaijan has recently launched a vast clean-up and remediation project in the framework of the Environment State Program (ESP) instituted by Presidential Decree No. 1697 of September 28, 2006. The Absheron Rehabilitation Program (ARP) is a component of ESP which received the support of the World Bank. The sub-component ARP I - Contaminated Sites Rehabilitation Project — includes cleanup activities at two former iodine production sites and a 1,000 ha oil production site. The sub-component ARP III - Large Scale Oil Polluted Land Cleanup Project, supported by a US$ 60 million loan, consists in cleaning up 2000 ha of the most polluted areas over about a 5-years period (2006-2010).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 24
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Picture 8: Polluted soils in the Absheron Peninsula (from ARP III Large Scale Oil Polluted Land Cleanup Project – (Absheron Rehabilitation Program. Project Appraisal Document, the World Bank, 2006)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 25
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
2.2.3.3. Raw water quality and urban water supply
There are three resources harnessed for supplying water to Greater Baku and the Absheron Peninsula as a whole, currently relies on three major sources for its water supply: - groundwater imported from the towns of Shollar and Hachmas 180 km north of Baku; - surface water brought via the Samur-Divichi-Absheron Canal from the Samur River catchment in the North of Azerbaijan and treated at the Jeiranbatan Treatment Plant 30 km to the north of Baku, and - surface water pumped from the Kura River which is treated at the Kura Treatment Plant 140 km to the southwest of Baku. The Kura River, which provides 70% of Baku drinking water, receives many effluents from riparian industrial facilities located upstream in the catchment basin, including in neighbour countries such as Georgia, Armenia or Iran. As a result, some pollutants such as phenol, fatty acids, oil products, heavy metals, etc. occasionally exceed maximum allowable concentrations. Within Greater Baku, the drinking water is distributed to nearly 95% of the population through a poorly maintained, pressurized distribution network. The implementation of Greater Baku Water Supply Project, supported by the World Bank and closed in 2006, focused on the rehabilitation of the Jeiranbatan and Kura River Treatment Plant, the installation of 30 chlorination stations for water disinfection, urgent physical improvements to the water supply system including leakage reduction and other facility repairs. It resulted in improvements in the reliability of water supply to domestic consumers in Baku (the average number of hours of service increased from 6 hours to 13 hours a day), as well as improvement of drinking water quality, which became fully compliant with the relevant standards of the World Health Organization (WHO). A new project called ―Greater Baku urban development master plan‖ funded by World Bank and implemented by the State Committee of Architecture and urban planning is currently underway with the aim that the water and sanitation services will develop in full accordance with the urban extension of Greater Baku.
2.2.3.4. Coastal pollution
Pollution of coastal waters of Baku Bight have been clearly revealed by the monitoring campaigns carried out by the Caspian Environmental Program (see Table 2.3). The contamination is mainly caused by: - oil extraction (off-shore) and refinery - discharge of effluent of industrial facilities treated or not, conveyed by pipes or man- made watercourses such as Hovsan canal - discharge of urban wastewater, treated or not - natural discharge of superficial groundwater polluted by seepage and leaching of contaminants from soil or waste (informal landfills) Apart from off-shore oil wells, the effluents are discharged into the sea shore, in some cases by short outfall with shallow end, in such a way that both chemical and biological contaminants are only slowly diluted and may cause health effects for the coastal wildlife and bathing population. Chemical pollutants of municipal and industrial effluent include nutriments (nitrogen and phosphorous compounds), which are quickly incorporated into the biomass and
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 26
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
persistent toxic/harmful compounds, both inorganic and organic, which easily adsorb on sediments. According to the results of monitoring campaigns compared with the sediment guideline values for marine life frequently used in the USA (see Table 2.3), the pollutants of concern in the Baku Bight are arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, and dieldrin and DDT pesticides.
Table 2.3: Pollutants of concern in the sediments of the Baku bight (according to the results of monitoring systems) Guideline Contaminant value Concentration in the Baku bay ERL/ERM (*) < 5 km of shoreline > 30 km of shoreline
Pollutant associated with oil production and processing
Hydrocarbons - 600-1800 mg/kg 200-600 mg/kg
Total Organic Carbon - 1.0-1.8% 1.9-2.8% 4.02 mg/kg PAHs (total) 2.1-3.0 mg/kg 2.1-3.0 mg/kg 44.79 mg/kg Heavy metals and inorganic compounds 8.2 mg/kg Arsenic 8-16 mg/kg 16-23 mg/kg 70.0 mg/kg 1.2 mg/kg Cadmium 0.1-0.5 mg/kg 0.1-0.5 mg/kg 9.6 mg/kg 81 mg/kg Chromium 81-100 mg/kg 81-100 mg/kg 370 mg/kg 34 mg/kg Copper 22 -34 mg/kg 22 -34 mg/kg 270 mg/kg 0.15 mg/kg Mercury 0.15-0.45 mg/kg 0.15-0.45 mg/kg 0.71 mg/kg 20.9 mg/kg Nickel 52-68 mg/kg 21-52 mg/kg 51.6 mg/kg 150 mg/kg Zinc 80-115 mg/kg 80-115 mg/kg 410 mg/kg Pesticides and chlorinated organic compounds 0.02 µg/kg Dieldrin 0.026 -0.085 µg/kg 0.026 -0.085 µg/kg 8.00 µg/kg 0.32 µg/kg Lindane 0.17 – 0.30 µg/kg 0.07 – 0.17 µg/kg 1.00 µg/kg 1.58 µg/kg DDT (total) 4.6-13.4 µg/kg 1.6-4.6 µg/kg 4.61 µg/kg 22.7 µg/kg PCB (total) 2.0-4.5 µg/kg 2.0-4.5 µg/kg 180.0 µg/kg
(*) NOAA’s Sediment Guide Values determined by Long et al., 1995 on the basis of large eco- toxicological database regarding adverse effects of toxicants on benthic fauna. From the ascending data tables, the 10th percentile values were named Effect Range-Low (ERL), indicative of concentration below which adverse effects rarely occur, and the 50th percentile values were named Effect Range-Medium (ERM), representative of concentrations above which effects frequently occur. These guideline values are adopted by the National Ocean and Air Administration of the USA and are cited as reference levels in most of studies. Due to the discharge of huge quantities of wastewaters all along the shoreline of Greater Baku (especially the southern coast), the coastal waters are contaminated by faecal germs. Accordingly, many samples collected by the Ministry of Health along the beaches used or not by the population shows high level of faecal coliforms, which can be as high as 100,000 per litre, that is 5 times higher than maximum permissible level issued by the UE for recreational waters.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 27
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
2.2.3.5. Municipal waste management
In Greater Baku, domestic wastes are currently collected in 2,450 collection points provided with special containers. Domestic wastes are not sorted. Dedicated trucks with compression or other equipment are used to transport the wastes to the disposal areas. The annual quantity of domestic waste collected within Greater Baku was estimated at 2.4 million m3 in 2007. Actually, 10 - 13% of these wastes are construction debris. There are four formal existing disposal areas, located in Balakhani (200 ha), Gandaragh (25 ha), Azizibzyov (5 ha) and Surakhani (2.5 ha). In addition, there are numerous informal dumpsites covering the area of a nearly 200-250 hectares in suburban areas of Balakhani. Presently none of these disposal areas meets the proper sanitary standards for storage and treatment of domestic waste. Furthermore, waste is burning continuously in some of them. Consequently the pollution to air, soil and waters caused by the dumpsites is of particular concern. The Absheron Rehabilitation Program (ARP) supported by the World Bank comprises a component which addresses the waste management: ARP II - Integrated Solid Waste Management Project. This component inter alia provides for: - Balakhani Landfill upgrading and management. This component will finance equipment (weighbridges, bulldozers, etc) and civil works (fencing, waste coverage, drainage control, internal roads, etc.) to control environmental impacts and improve site use effectiveness. The investments include measures to prepare the site for continuation of disposal activities in an operationally and environmentally sound manner for at least another five years. - closure and management of other dumps. This component will finance closure and cleanup of the informal dumps and improve management (or close) of the three other existing formal sites to minimize environmental effects associated with the informal dumping locations and improve formal site conditions in the region. At this stage it has not been determined whether the three formal dumpsites will be closed under the Project or will undergo rehabilitation investments for continuation of operations. - urgent collection equipment for 5 outer Baku district. This component will finance needed trucks, containers and bins to improve solid waste collection coverage and service efficiency in the most acutely underserved areas of Greater Baku. After rehabilitation the Balakhani main landfill will be provided with a special area allocated to hazardous waste storage.
2.2.3.6. Hazardous waste management
Hazardous wastes produced in the Absheron Peninsula are mainly related to: - production of caustic soda and chlorine based on mercury technology in Sumgayit. The Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR) has launched a work on the removal and burial of these wastes. To date 40,000 tons of mercury wastes have been buried in the hazardous wastes landfill which operates under the umbrella of the MENR - iodine-bromide plant located in Surakhani district, where 45,000 tons of radioactive wastes have piled up - oil extraction and refinery: some 126,000 tons of drill cuttings have been stored within the premises of oil companies Production of hazardous waste in Baku used to be high but decreased sharply in 2001 and have been rather steady since then (see. Fig. 4). The 2007 production was of 8400 tons. Although many old factories have been shut down in the two last decades, the obsolescence of some remaining processes still results in generation of high volumes of hazardous waste.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 28
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000 Hazardous waste production in Baku (tons) Baku in production waste Hazardous
0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 4: Production of hazardous waste in Baku (from State Statistical Committee)
There are currently five landfills in Azerbaijan for the disposal of hazardous wastes: - two landfills are dedicated to disposal of drill cuttings and are owned and managed by oil companies, respectively SOCAR (Akhtarma landfill, 37 km away from Baku, constructed in 1985) and BP (Saranja landfill, constructed in 2004). It is worth noting that a part of drill cuttings produced by BP has been conveyed to the Baku (Garadagh) cement factory for burning. Other treatments implemented by this company include thermo-sorption and bioremediation within the landfill premises. Beside the oily sludge, diverse hazardous wastes such as accumulators, chemical containers are buried in the Saranja landfill. - a landfill is dedicated to the disposal of agrochemical waste and is managed by MENR (Jangi landfill). The landfill is made of 183 waste cells totaling 1.5 ha. At present 60% of the landfill is occupied by wastes. The concrete lining of the empty cells have been damaged. - a landfill is dedicated to disposal of radioactive waste and is managed by the Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES). This 6.0 ha landfill used since 1964 has been rehabilitated recently and since then meets the relevant standards. - a formal hazardous waste landfill with a 250,000 m3 capacity, was constructed in Pirekushkul village of Absheron district, close to Sumgayit, with the support of the World Bank in the framework of the Emergency Environment Investment Project and has been in operation since 2004. This landfill was firstly commissioned in order to safely dispose (by encapsulation) some 40,000 tons of mercury waste produced by the Sumgayit chloro-alkaline plant, but its surface was increased by decision of the Government with a view to being used for other hazardous waste produced in the Absheron Peninsula. The area dedicated to mercury sludge covers 15 ha of a 55 ha total surface. This landfill operates under the authority of the MENR and meets relevant international standards. In 2002, the Hazardous Waste Management Agency was established under the MENR, which is the competent authority for hazardous waste management, including the development and implementation of policies.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 29
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
2.3. THE BAKU BIGHT
2.3.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
There is no formal definition of the Baku bight, but for the purpose of this study, it will hereinafter refer to the coastal marine waters alongside the southern border of Greater Baku from the Sabail (west) to the Azizbeyov (east) rayon. The so defined 90km-long Baku bight can be divided into three bays according the morphology and land occupation: Baku Bay, ―Hovsan Bay‖ and ―Turkan Bay‖, the names of the two later bays being defined by the Consultant for the purpose of the study . The Baku Bay (strictly speaking): 25km from the west limit of Sabail to the eastern limit of Khatai rayon. This bay is rather closed-in and is bordered by industrial and densely populated urban area. Consequently the shoreline has been almost totally modified by manmade settings, in particular, the newly rehabilitated waterfront along the historical/central settlements. The Baku bay also receives large quantities of poorly treated or untreated wastewater. Consequently, the few remaining beaches of the Baku bay are heavily polluted (cf. Pict. 9) and no longer accommodate any tourist.
Picture 9: Permanent oil slick along a beach bordering oil storage facilities in the Baku Bay (Zigh District)
The ―Hovsan Bay‖: 17 km alongside the Surakhani rayon (Hovsan coast). The Hovsan bay is limited by the 3.5km-long causeway reaching the Gum Island. The Gum Island is a 4.5 km long, 500m wide island stretching from east to west. It is used as a base for oil extracting activities. Around 2 km east of Gum Island, 7 km away from the shoreline, there is 6km long, 0.5km wide offshore bar the depth of which is less than 2 m. The top of the offshore bar is only 40-60 cm below the mean level of the sea so much so that a very narrow strip of land called Chanlar Island may emerge from the sea during the low water period (winter). The Hovsan Bay is divided into two sub-bays by a double spit called ―Hovsan Cape‖ which harbors the Hovsan port. The western sub-bay is heavily polluted, especially by the discharges of both Hovsan channel and Hovsan WWTP pipe (see Picture 17 in § 4.1.5.3). Consequently the waters are not used for recreational activity but for leisure fishing (from the shore). Unlike western sub-bay, eastern sub-bay is apparently clean and used for bathing during the hot season by the local population. The former outfall project designed by the Soviet engineers took place in this bay. During the low water period (winter), the abandoned pipe can be seen from the beach (see above Pict. 21 in § 4.2.1)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 30
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
The ―Turkan Bay‖: 45-50 km alongside the Azizbeyov rayon up to the Cape Suiti. This bay just receives wastewater from the small settlement of Turkan and its water seems to be rather clean although the pollution from Baku urban and its coastal suburbs is likely to be transported, but diluted, eastward by the coastal drift (clockwise direction current). The easternmost section of the bay, where the Absheron National Park is located, is supposed to be more or less protected from pollution.
2.3.2. BEACHES AND BATHING AREAS
As mentioned above, the beaches of Baku Bay and western Hovsan Bay are polluted by both oil products and wastewater discharged. The nearest beach which is used for recreational purpose is located along the eastern Hovsan Bay and is named ―Hovsan Beach‖. This beach is mainly visited by riparian low/middle income Hovsan population and is quite busy during the hot season (see Picture 10 & 11). The beach does not seem polluted by oil product but, moderately, by waste and debris such as cans, plastic bottles and bags. This beach is located about 7 km away from the present Hovsan WWTP and Hovsan canal discharge points. Moreover, the beach is directly polluted by a small channel as well as non point pollution sources such as informal septic tanks (see Picture 12 & 13).
Picture 10: Hovsan Beach, to the east Picture 11: Hovsan Beach, to the west (Hovsan Port on the background)
Picture 12: Hovsan Beach, the small channel Picture 13: Hovsan Beach, pollution by plastic and the riparian dwellings debris
According to the results of the monitoring campaigns of the Ministry of Health, the bathing waters do not comply with EU standards with respect to pathogen contents (see Table 2.4).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 31
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 2.4 Average value of sanitary parameters of bathing waters for Greater Baku beaches for the spring-summer 2008 (from Hygiene and Epidemiology) BOD Escherichia coli Location/District Name of the Beach 5 (mg O2/l) (No/ l) Standard = 3 Standard = 5000 Baku Bight Sabail Shikh 1,5-2,38 300-110 000 Surakhani Hovsan 1,25-2,37 610-110 000 Northern coast of Absheron Peninsula Azizbeyov Buzovna 1,40-2,56 300-11 000 Azizbeyov Maradakan 1,93-2,48 600-110 000 Azizbeyov Zagulba 0,70-2.40 300-1000 Azizbeyov Shuvelan 0,96-2,73 600-46 000 Binagadi Novkhani 0,92-2,22 730-21 000 Sabunchu Pirshghi 0,71-2,23 300-15 000 Sabunchu Bilgah 0,78-2,48 300-4400 Sabunchu Nardaran 0,95-2,48 300-4300 Southern coast of Absheron Peninsula Garadagh Sahil 0,94-1.68 730-29 000
2.3.3. HARBORS AND NAVIGATION
Three harbour areas are located on the Baku Bight, i.e. along the south coast of Absheron peninsula, namely from west to east: - the Baku Bay harbour area which counts several ports dedicated to transport of passengers and goods. All these ports are located more than 10 km away from the future Hovsan outfall site and separated from it by the closed causeway reaching the Gum Island - the Hovsan Port, located less than 5 km off the future Hovsan outfall, and - the small military Turkan port located about 20 km away from the future Hovsan outfall. The Hovsan Port which is the only port located in the vicinity of the project is comprised of a fishing port, a freight port to receive and store grain imported from Kazakhstan and some facilities to handle the discharge of polluted soils extracted off-shore by SOCAR ships. At the moment, maritime traffic in Hovsan is not very important but there are projects to extend it. There are about 10 fishing boats anchoring in Hovsan Port with capacities varying from 50 to 200 Tons. Annual catches of fishes were 1032 Tons in 2008. A new extension of the port was recently constructed and partly financed by Kazakhstan. It has a capacity of 500 000 Tons/year and includes grain silos. However, the actual quantity of seeds imported in 2008 was 8000 Tons. In addition, SOCAR has around 20 boats used to clean polluted sediments off-shore. Maritime routes are far from the proposed alignment of the sea outfall (see Pict. 14). The minimum distance between maritime route and pipe alignment is 3 km. This is due to the shallow water surrounding the proposed pipe alignment. Parking zones for boats heading to Hovsan port are located on both sides of the main maritime routes. Due to the windy conditions, port authorities impose a minimum distance of 1 km between each boat. Boats may indeed drift by up to 500 meters in case of strong winds.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 32
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Figure 14: Maritime map of the Baku Bight
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 33
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
2.3.4. FISHING ZONES
Fishing zones, indicated by Hovsan Port Authorities and used by professional fishermen, are located in the southern part of the Caspian Sea. The closest fishing area is located next to Makaparon oil field about 20 miles from the coast (cf. Pict. 14). Fishing zones are southwards from Makaparon oil field.
2.3.5. OIL EXPLOITATION ZONES
Oil fields in operation are indicated in the above Picture 15.
Picture 15: Azerbaijan offshore production fields
The main offshore production fields are far from the project site. The oil field located next to the project site (on Gum Island and south of Gum Island – Cf. Picture 14) comprises 72 oil wells of which 62 are working wells. Six of these wells are located onshore (on Gum island), the other 66 oil wells are located on offshore areas. .
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 34
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
3. POLICY, LEGAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
3.1. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
3.1.1. AZERSU AND MINISTRY IN CHARGE OF WATER SUPPLY
Azersu Joint-Stock Company (Azersu JSC) is the current Azerbaijani state-governed water company. Azersu was created the 11 July 2004 to replace the former Absheron Joint-Stock Company, which used to manage the water supply for both Baku and Sumgait cities. In addition, Aserzu was given the water supply and sewerage services of the other regions of the country. As a result, Azersu has become responsible for water supply and sewerage over the all Azerbaijan. Basically the management of the water resources rests within the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR).
3.1.2. THE MINISTRY OF ECOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES (MENR)
The central institution in charge of Environment is the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR) created in 2001 by a Presidential Decree to replace the former State Committee for Ecology and Natural Resources Utilization (SCENRU). Actually, the MENR covers numerous fields and their relating state bodies such as departments of Hydrometerology, Geology, Forestry, and Fishery. MENR comprises 21 specialized departments (including, among others, Caspian Environmental Monitoring, Department of Fishing Reproduction, Department of Forestry, Hydrometeorology, State Environmental Inspection) and 5 subordinated research oriented agencies. MENR also rules 41 enterprises for forest protection and regeneration, 10 fish hatcheries, and 7 geological expeditions (essentially, prospecting and inventory teams). MENR currently employs a staff of about 9,500 at the central and local levels. With respect to the overall management of the Environment at the national level, MENR’s tasks include: - formulation and implementation of the Government’s environment policy, - development of environment protection measures - screening of new and existing projects for potential adverse environmental impacts (ecological expertise and environmental impact assessment) - monitoring of enterprises, conformity with environmental legislation and imposing sanctions on errant enterprises - administering a pollution permit system - raise the environmental awareness of the population At the local level, MENR is represented by 29 regional environment and natural resource departments subordinated to its Department of Environmental Policy and Environment Protection. Application for EIA should be submitted to the relevant regional department. Under the aegis of the Caspian Environmental Program (CEP, see § 3.1.3.1), a Complex Caspian Environmental Monitoring Department (CCEMD) has been established within the MENR. The CCEMD took part to the working group for the elaboration of the last National Caspian Action Plan (NCAP Azerbaijan 200-20017) which was lead by the Acting Director of national Department of Environmental Monitoring of MENR.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 35
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
3.1.3. MAIN OTHER INSTITUTIONS RELATING TO THE PROJECT
3.1.3.1. Caspian Environmental Programme
The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) was launched in may 1998 and represents a partnership between the five littoral states, Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Turkmenistan, and the International Partners, namely the EU, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank. The overall goal of the CEP is to promote the sustainable development and management of the Caspian environment in order to obtain the optimal long-term benefits for the human population of the region. The CEP is governed by a Steering Committee composed of representatives, typically at the Ministerial or Deputy-Ministerial level, from each of the five Caspian littoral states. In addition, UNEP, WB, EU/TACIS, and UNDP are members of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee meets at least once a year and is the governing and policy- making body of the CEP. Representatives of the private sector, public and non- governmental organizations are often invited to participate as observers. The first phase of CEP ended on 2002. The phase aimed at developping a regional coordination to realize sustainable development and management of the Caspian environment, to complete an analysis of the condition of the Caspian Sea in order to define priority issues and to formulate global and national action plans. On November 2003 the five littoral states signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea (see § 3.2.4). In late 2003, the second phase of the CEP started with four main objectives: - implementation of the defined action plans in three areas: biodiversity, invasive species, and persistent toxic substances - reinforcement of environmental legal and policy frameworks at regional and national levels, - implementation of small-scale investments to achieve tangible environmental improvements in priority areas - strengthening of a regionally owned CEP coordination mechanisms In addition to the Framework convention, the main outputs of the CEP have been: - the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) which provided the technical basis for the development of action plans. It was achieved through strong regional input and in a very participatory manner, utilizing experts from around the region and internationally - the National Caspian Action Plans (NCAP) developed by countries, prepared by national experts and overseen by a national environment committee. The last Azerbaijan NCAP has been published in 2007 and covers the 2007-2017 period. - the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) which provides a synthesis of the priority transboundary issues. The SAP presents a road map for future policy, legislation, regulatory and investment interventions relating to the management of the environment - the CEP Website where all relevant materials relating to environmental management and sustainable development are available such as strategic and technical papers as well links to regional and international centres of expertise and experts. - Involvement of community and NGOs organization, which is considered by the CEP as a key point to enhance the awareness toward Caspian environmental issues Therefore, the participation of the public, private sector associations (especially oil
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 36
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
and gas companies), academic and research institutions, non-governmental organizations and local community groups is strongly favoured. It is worth noting that the upgrade of the Hovsan WWTP is mentioned in the Azerbaijan NCAP 2007-2017 as an action to prevent the deterioration of the Caspian environment.
3.1.3.2. Local Universities
Most of the universities and scientific institutions of Azerbaijan are set up in Baku, among which the Caspian Scientific Research Center and the Azerbaijan Institute of Scientific Research for Fisheries. Both took part to the working group for the elaboration of the last National Caspian Action Plan (NCAP Azerbaijan 200-20017).
3.1.3.3. Public Health Administration
The Sanitary and Epidemiology Department of the Ministry of Health (MOH) undertakes routine monitoring of the water quality of both drinking and bathing waters. MOH is also responsible for issuance of sanitary standards, especially those related to water quality.
3.1.3.4. SOCAR
SOCAR is the State oil company responsible for managing the oil fields on behalf of the Government, including signing "Production Sharing Agreements" with international oil companies. The Ecological Department (ED) of SOCAR was created in 2006 by a Decree of President. The ED mission consists in carrying out environmental assessments and improving environmental situation with respect to the oil sector in compliance with international standards and existing norms and concerns both current activities (environmental requirements and practices) and former damages to the environment (water and soil remediation). SOCAR has been particularly in charge of cleaning several hundreds of polluted soils within the Absheron Peninsula through the State Ecological Program. SOCAR’s Ecological Department has expedition groups, technical facilities, laboratories, soil remediation plants and equipment and relevant infrastructure for conducting environmental monitoring in both onshore and offshore oil and gas fields. Even though SOCAR is not a major stakeholder of the project, its skills in environmental monitoring and remediation could be useful to the environmental management of this project.
3.1.3.5. Environmental NGOs
Environmental NGOs have developed since the independence and more particularly the enactment of the Law on Environmental Protection (1999, see § 3.2.1). They also have received support from the Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN), a non- governmental, non-profit organization established in 1998, which has acted as a voluntary effort to foster regional cooperation by means of improved communication among environmental organizations of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. During the last past decade, the NGOs have actually gained valuable experience in participating in many Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) including environmental monitoring and public participation activities. As a result, many of them have experienced and knowledgeable scientists and professionals as their members, which sometimes results in NGOs possessing the largest capacity among all the participants of some EIAs. Environmental NGOs are also encouraged by the CEP to participate in Caspian environmental management. As an example, the environmental NGO ―Ruzgar‖ was invited to take part to the working group for the elaboration of the last National Caspian Action Plan (NCAP Azerbaijan 200-20017)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 37
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
3.2. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
3.2.1. AZERI LEGISLATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
It should be mentioned that the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic, adopted on 12 November 1995 and amended on 24 August 2002, stipulates that everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment, and to have information about the actual ecological situation. Moreover, it establishes the principle of compensation for people affected by damage caused to health or property by activities not compliant with the environmental regulations (Art. 39). The Constitution also declares that every citizen is responsible for the protection of the environment. According to the Constitution, the municipalities have the power to approve and implement local ecological programs (Art. 144). The general principles of Environmental protection in Azerbaijan are provided for by the Law on Environmental Protection (hereinafter, the LEP) dated 8th June 1999. As cited in its preamble, the purpose of the LEP is to guarantee environmental safety and the ecological balance of the environment, prevent the impact of socioeconomic and other activities, preserve biological diversity, and effectively manage the use of nature. Importantly, among the basic environment Environmental principles are in the one hand, the balanced achievement of social, economic, moral and aesthetic objectives and, in the other hand, the participation of the general public and civic organizations in environmental protection (Art. 3). Although much of the LEP pertains to outside users of natural resources, rather than to resident populations, the stipulations are stated generally and therefore may certainly be interpreted as applying to resident populations as well. The LEP established the main environmental protection principles, and the rights and obligations of the State, public associations and citizens with respect to environmental protection. The LEP establishes the requirements for the preparation of environmental impact assessments, environmental quality standards, requirements for permitting the activities that affect the environment, prevention and reduction of environmental pollution, environmental monitoring and control, the role of the public and sanctions imposed on law violators. The LEP provides significant safeguards for the public interest, which would include public participation and also the involvement of NGOs. In particular, civic organizations in the field of environmental protection shall have the right to: - design and promote their environmental programs, protect the rights and interests of citizens, and involve citizens in this activity; - exercise public oversight in the field of environmental protection; - obtain complete and accurate information from the governmental authorities on the condition of the environment and its recovery; - participate in the discussion of environmental projects; - request administrative and judicial review of decisions concerning the location, construction, renovation, and operation of plants and other environmentally hazardous facilities that will affect human health; - suit in court against organizations, public officials, and citizens for violations of environmental law. The LEP stipulates (Art. 36) that efficient measures for the prevention of pollution of the environment shall be taken into account in the course of design works in relation to residential settlements, industrial and agricultural objects and facilities, water supply and sewage systems.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 38
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Eventually, it is noteworthy that the LEP states that in the event of any discrepancies between international treaties of the Azerbaijan Republic in the area of protection of the environment and the legislation of the Azerbaijan Republic, provisions of international treaties shall prevail (Art. 82). This especially can apply to both Espoo and Arrhus conventions ratified by Azerbaijan in 1999 (see § 3.2.4).
It is recalled that the Arrhus Convention (on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) provides for the right of everyone (citizen, NGOs and associations): - to receive information on the state of the environment and human health and safety where that is held by public authorities (including policies or measures taken). Citizens are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they require it. With this aim, public authorities should actively disseminate environmental information in their possession; - to participate from an early stage in environmental decision-making - to challenge, in a court of law, public decisions that have been made without respecting the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general. The Law on Access to Environmental Information dated 12 March 2002 was enacted in order to ensure the application of the Arrhus Convention, namely to outline the modalities of disclosure of information collected by State and local governments with respect to the environment and the use of natural resources. The Law on Fauna (LOF), also referred as Law on Wildlife (LOW), dated 4 June 1999 stipulates that wildlife is a national asset, and thus must not be affected by any physical or legal entity (Art. 5). Wildlife has to be protected for the future generation, in particular by the observance of regulation and standards by the wildlife users. The LOW establishes the principles of hunting permits and hunting fees (Art. 15). Municipalities are fully involved in the wildlife protection through local regulations and activities they should set up to control use, restore and preserve the wildlife and its habitats (Art. 10). Monitoring of wildlife rests basically to the State but also involves the municipalities and the public (Art. 44 & 46). More specifically with respect of the Baku outfall project, the LOF stipulates that during the design and construction phase of pipelines across coastal areas provisions shall be made and measures shall be implemented that ensure the preservation of the habitat, breeding conditions, and migration routes of wild animals, as well as the inviolability of areas of ecological value‖ (Art. 29). The Law on Specially Protected Areas (LSPA) dated 24 March 2000 establishes the legal basis for protecting and preserving natural areas in the territory of Azerbaijan which are divided into the eight following categories: state natural reserves (including biosphere reserves), national parks, natural parks, ecological parks, natural monuments, zoological parks, botanical gardens and tree parks and treatment and health resorts. Each category of area may be of international, national, or local importance (Art. 7). Every protected area shall have a management plan which specifies regulation and restriction to the utilization of natural resources within its territory (Article 10). The highest level of protection is given to the state natural reserves within which utilization of land, waters, plant and animals for business purposes is forbidden (Art. 17) and no construction of building, roads, and other facilities would cause impact of any kind is permitted (Art. 19). Up to now, more than 40 protected areas (not including protected trees and protected geological/paleontological sites) have been established in Azerbaijan. The only protected area located in the vicinity of the Baku outfall project is the Absheron National Park which has been set up on 8th February 2005 (President Order No 622) on the base on the former Absheron State reserve (created in 1969). This (very) small national park covers an area of 7.83 km2 (783 ha) on the south-westernmost end of the Absheron peninsula, within the Azizbeyov district of Baku city and 30 km far from the
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 39
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
project site. The main purpose of this park is to protect the remaining rare Caspian seals, some water birds and the coastal sand flora. There is not formal marine protected area in Azerbaijan but it is worth noting that the part of Caspian Sea incorporated to the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan is classified as a specially protected water object. This is stipulated in the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 77 On Approval of Rules of Referral of Specially Protected Water Objects to Individual Categories dated 1 May 2000. This means that the use of the Caspian waters shall be regulated and monitored.
Among the others legal documents dedicated to the protection of environment which may apply to the present project it should be mentioned: - the Environmental Safety Law dated 1999 (adopted the same day as LEP) establishes a legal basis for the protection of life and health, society, its material and moral values, and all components of the environment against the hazards caused by the economic activities. The Law assigns the rights and responsibilities of the State, citizens and public associations in ecological safety, including information and substances and basic rules of conduct for industry in order to guarantee ecological safety. This law especially addresses the individual entrepreneurs engaged in the production, purchase, processing, use, transportation, storage or destruction of harmful substances such as explosive, flammable, toxic, radioactive matters. - the Law on Air Protection dated 2001 which establishes norms for managing physical and chemical impacts to atmosphere, as well as legal basis for state registration of negative impacts on atmosphere, provision of control over air protection, and solving disputes emerging from pollution of atmosphere. It sets general requirements for air protection during economic activities, establishes rules for the State inventory of harmful emissions and their sources, introduces general categories of breaches of the Law that will trigger punitive measures. - the Law on Public Health dated 1997 sets out basic principles of public health protection and the health care system. Special provisions are made for those living in a poor environment. The Law also assigns liability for harmful impact on public health, stipulating that damage to health that resulted from a polluted environment shall be compensated by the entity or person that caused the damage. - the Law on Sanitary-Epidemiological Services dated 1992 aims to protect the population from the negative influence of the environment. It addresses the rights of citizens to live in a safe environment and to receive full and free information on sanitary-epidemic conditions, the environment and public health. The Law sets out the rights and responsibilities of national and local agencies, and prescribes basic sanitary requirements for certain subsectors of the economy. It also establishes four levels of sanitary control: national, sector, enterprise and public sanitary control. - the Law on Mandatory Environmental Insurance dated 2002 defines basic principles of insurance for activities that represent a risk to the environment. However, there seems to be many practical obstacles to its implementation. - the Soil Code dated 1999 which sets compulsory requirement for remediation of all soils after their use, including soils where mining and excavation works have been undertaken. Furthermore, the Soil Productivity Law dated 2000 outline the necessity for protecting the top layer of soils in order to maintain or restore their agricultural or natural productivity. If a project results of loss of soil productivity, remediation works must be undertaken by the project owner within 3 or 5 years depending on the soil features.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 40
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
3.2.2. AZERI LEGISLATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Development of Azerbaijan’s environmental assessment system started during the Soviet period, with the adoption of the State Ecological Expertise (hereinafter, the SEE) procedure, which is still stated by the Law on Environmental Protection (LEP, see § 3.2.1) as the only official procedure for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Literally, the LEP defines SEE as the identification of conformity of the environmental conditions with qualitative standards and ecological requirements in order to identify, prevent and forecast the possible negative impact of an economic activity on the environment and related consequences. This verification basically rests with the Ministry in charge of Environment (currently the MENR), which may mandate a panel of experts for this purpose. Nevertheless, neither LEP, nor any other official text gives directives and guidelines on how to conduct an environmental impact study. Accordingly the EIA are performed in accordance with the Handbook for the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Azerbaijan (hereinafter, the EIA Handbook) developed in 1996 (before the LEP enactment) with the assistance from UNDP and local NGOs. Actually, the EIA Handbook is still a non-binding document but in practice it has been so far considered as a reference document for conducting EIA in Azerbaijan. In accordance with the international guidelines, the EIA Handbook defines the EIA process as a process whereby the potential environmental consequences of development proposals are identified and evaluated from the point of view of the physical, biological and socio- economic environment, and ways and means are developed by which negative impacts are either avoided or minimised to acceptable levels. The EIA Handbook establishes the main principles and elements of EIA process, i.e.: - the sequence of events, roles and responsibilities of developers and Government institutions charges - the purpose and scope of the EIA report - the modalities of public participation in the process - the environmental review and decision Once the developer (i.e.: project owner) has submitted to MENR head office or any of its regional branches its formal application the format and content of which must comply with the indications given in section 7.2 of the EIA Handbook, the EIA process unfolds as a two-tiered procedure: (1) in the first stage, which last no more than 1 month according to the EIA handbook, an initial examination of the application of the proposed activity is made by the MENR and the expected impacts are considered. This may include preliminary consultations with other agencies, NGOs, experts and initial public inquiries. If the activity is deemed likely to cause only minor impacts on the environment, the application may be approved with some conditions. If the activity is deemed likely to cause significant impacts, a full EIA is required. A scoping meeting is organized with the applying developer (or its representatives), invited experts and invited members of the public under the chairmanship of the MENR. Based on the outcome of this meeting, the MENR will notify the developer on the required scope and depth of the investigation and public consultation during the EIA study. (2) in the second stage, which last no more than 3 months according to the EIA handbook, the MENR will review the report of environmental impact study and related documents submitted by developer with the assistance from a panel of 5 to 11 relevant experts coming from Academy of Science, university or officers of other ministries chosen by the MENR according the their areas of competence. This expert group will undertake public submissions, investigations, and consultations relevant to the project impacts as deemed necessary in the review process. Consequently, at the end of this stage, a written review of documentation together with recommendations is submitted by the environmental review expert group to the MENR. Based on the review report and recommendations, the MENR decides
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 41
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
on whether to disapprove or to approve the application or it, with or without conditions. These conditions may include for instance, for the construction phase, additional requirements for base camp management, noise and dust emissions, wastewater and solid waste management, emergency contingency plans, etc.. In case of disagreement, the developer may appeal against the conditions by judicial proceedings. If any breach in conditions is observed during construction or operation phases, the MENR has the power to issue warning to the developer and force him to stop whatever activity which is causing the breach. In such cases, the MENR may reconsider the approval, possibly with the participation of the Environmental Review Expert Group, and the conditions of approval may be reviewed. On the other hand, if the project design significantly differs from the one presented in the EIA report, a new EIA may be requested by the MENR.
3.2.3. AZERI AND INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS ON ASPECTS RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT
3.2.3.1. Regulations Relating to the Compensation for Projects of Public Interest
Legal procedures for land acquisition and compensation for other property losses resulting from a project of public interest are basically laid down in the Civil Code dated 1 December 1998 and the Land Code dated 25th June 1999. The Civil Code states that any rights to immovable properties must be registered with the State, and that land may be recalled from owners for state or municipal needs as approved by the relevant courts. The Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 42 - On Some Normative and Legal Acts Relating to the Land Code of the Azerbaijan Republic dated 15 March 2000 outlines procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land for state or municipal needs (public interest). According to the Land Code, when land is required for projects of national interest, compensation is initially offered on the basis of valuations made in accordance with a standard code (No. 158 dated 1998). If the affected landowners disagree on this valuation, valuation can be revised. In the event that no agreement can be reached, the acquiring authority can process its application for acquisition through the courts, but this is often a long and complex process. The landowner also has an option for seeking recourse through the courts. The Land Code also allows for exchange land to be given, that is equivalent to the land being acquired. If land plots needed were occupied by illegal constructions (squatters without title or license), the land Code states that these plots would be returned to the relevant authorities without reimbursement of the expenses incurred during the illegal utilization. Rehabilitation of the lands should also be carried out by the illegal occupants, at their own expense. Overall, three scenarios of land acquisition are possible: (i) the land owner is provided with the equal size and quality of land, (ii) the land owner is compensated by proponents of the land acquisition on the basis of current market prices and (iii) disagreement and recourse to the court. For agricultural land, base land values are established using the Former Soviet Union (FSU) based cadastre system which values land based on land attributes (productivity of soils and regional agricultural characteristics), input costs and typical revenues achieved in each district. Cadastre based values are then reviewed in each district by a Valuation Commission and adjusted upwards where necessary to reflect changes in crop types and productions levels. Market prices for valuing crop production are determined based on
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 42
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
local market prices. These prices are based on statistical productivity data in local conditions for both annual and perennial crops. Procedures for acquisition and compensation valuation for affected buildings and immovable belongings are described by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No 110 - On Approval of Regulations for an Inventory Cost estimation of Buildings Owned by Natural Persons dated June 1999. The valuations are made on the basis of standard unit rates for different types of construction in different regions of Azerbaijan, as defined in the standard code No. 58. Goods liable to be compensated encompass a large range of items fences, walls, animal enclosures and shelters, irrigation channels, drains, wells, water pumps and roads. These items have to be valued on the basis of full replacement cost. Upon completion of construction, the land used for temporary access roads will be reinstated to its before-project condition and returned to the owner or user.
3.2.3.2. Regulations and Standards Relating to the Discharge of Wastewater
The main legal documents guiding water supply and sanitation sector include the Water Code dated 26 June 1997, and the Law on Water Supply and Wastewater dated 28 October 1999. The Water Code is the key document for the water sector development. It regulates the use of water bodies for drinking and service water and for medical treatment, spas, recreation and sports, agricultural needs, industrial needs and hydro energy, transport, fishing and hunting, discharge of waste water, fire protection, and specially protected water bodies. It delegates municipal water systems to municipalities and allows private ownership of the water intake and distribution systems. The Code defines water abstraction limits for water and wastewater pollution loads, and states that the water users are responsible for water conservation actions, maintaining norms and rules for water use and wastewater discharging, and prohibits free use of the resource.
The Law on Water Supply and Wastewater sets institutional and economic principles of municipal water provision, and the obligations of water service providers and consumers. The Law defines the water utility as a self-financed entity that is responsible for the provision of services for the population within its operation zone. According to the Law, water services shall be provided on the basis of the contract between the municipality and the utility. As regards the wastewater collection, combined systems collecting both rain and wastewater do not seem to be authorized. The Law stipulates that oil products and toxic substances cannot be discharged into sewage system. Industrial facilities may be required from the sewage system manager to undertake preliminary treatment prior to discharge effluent into the sewage system in order to remove toxics and substances harmful to both environment and treatment process. Azeri regulations relating to the discharge of wastewater into the natural water bodies derives from the former Soviet regulations. Based on the translated documents, it seems that permissible limits are not measured in the wastewater itself but at the discharge point (i.e.: within the receiving body after dilution). This means that (i) the regulation imposes that the pollution parameter of the receiving body should not be increased by more than the applicable value after discharge and (ii) the regulations should be adapted to each wastewater treatment plant depending on the ―ambient‖ pollution. Permissible change in the receiving water body are indicated in Table 3.5.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 43
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 3.1: Permissible changes in water features for the water bodies receiving wastewater Sensitive environment Parameters Less sensitive environment (vulnerable fishes) Concentration of suspended solids in the receiving water must not be Suspended Solids increased by more than : 0.25 mg/l 0.75 mg/l When concentration of suspended solids in the receiving water exceeds 30 mg/l, then the above parameters can be equal to 5% of suspended solids concentration. It is forbidden to allow discharge of wastewater into the environment if suspended solids in the wastewater settles down at 0.4 mm/sec while in the water body settlement speed is 0.2 mm/sec. Floating No signs of oil products, oils, fats, or other floating substances are substances permissible on the surface of water Color, odor and No odor, taste and color transmissible to fish meat are permissible in the taste water Water temperature of receiving body must not be increased by more than 50C in comparison with natural temperature of water body. Water Temperature Temperature for fish living in relatively cold water bodies must not exceed in summer 20°C in winter 5°C. In other water bodies, water temperature must not exceed 28°C in summer and 8°C in winter. Dissolved oxygen Must be above following indicators in winter season : content 6 mg/l 4 mg/l The dissolved oxygen content should not be less than 6 mg/l in summer in all
water bodies pH Must be between 6.5 and 8.5
BOD5 (20°C) must not increase the BOD5 of the water body by more than 3,0 mg/l. However, if the dissolved oxygen content of the water body exceeds 6.0 mg/l BOD 5 (for Category I) and 4.0 mg/l (for category II), it is acceptable that wastewater flows which do not have an impact on these indicators be discharged into the water bodies. Discharge of toxic substances which have harmful effect on fish, aquatic Toxic substances organisms or their feeding source are not allowed It is obvious that these standards addressing the receiving body and not the wastewater itself are difficult to monitor continuously in a proactive way, especially for WWTP performance management. So it has been decided through the letter sent in 16 April 2009 by Deputy of the Prime Minister of the Azerbaijan Republic to MENR, Ministry of Emergency Situations and Ministry of Health, that European standards will be applied in Water Supply and Sanitation Projects. These standards are particularly used as a basis of target values for the Hovsan WWTP upgrading project (see § 4.1.7.2). Industrial effluents discharged into the public network should comply with the regulation approved by Head of Baku city executive power – Decision N° 1219 dated 29/08/1996. Acceptable concentrations for effluents entering Baku sewerage system and wastewater treatment plants are shown in below Table 3.6. It is surprising that highly toxic substances such as cyanide and cadmium which are likely to hamper the biological treatment processes are not regulated.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 44
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 3.2: Regulation applicable to industrial effluents discharged into public networks
Parameter Unit Permissible level Chromium III mg/l 1.0 Chromium VI mg/l 0.1 Copper mg/l 0.5 Zink mg/l 0.1 Nickel mg/l 0.25 Manganese mg/l 1.0 Lead mg/l 0.1 Mercury mg/l 0.005 Aluminium mg/l 0.5 Oil products mg/l 2.0 Oil & grease mg/l 10 Phenol mg/l 0.01 Phosphorus mg/l 1.0 Soft surface active substances (*) mg/l 1.5 Hard surface active substances (*) mg/l absence Ether extractible substances mg/l 10 Nitrogen of ammonium minerals mg/l 2.0
BOD5 mg O2/l 375
COD mg O2/l 500 Suspended solid mg/l 375 pH mg/l 6.5-8.5 Temperature - < 40°C Color - 1:16 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/l 2000 Chloride mg/l 350 Sulphate mg/l 500 Iron mg/l 1.32
(*) Translation not resulting in a clear definition of this parameter
3.2.3.3. Other Environmental Regulations and Standards Relevant for the Project
Standards for water quality of natural water bodies, irrigation waters as well as for air quality are indicated in Appendix 1. It seems that there are no legal standards for the quality of recreational waters per se, but publications of the Ministry of Health usually mention a guideline value for Escherichia coli in bathing water of 500/100 ml.
3.2.3.4. Regulations Relating to Municipal and Hazardous Waste
The Law on Industrial and Municipal Waste dated 30 June 1998, describes State policy in environmental protection from industrial and household waste including harmful gases, waste water and radioactive waste. It defines the rights and responsibilities of the State and other entities, sets requirements for the design and construction of waste- treatment installations, and for the storage and transport of waste. The Law addresses both industrial and municipal waste, including harmful gases, waste water and radioactive
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 45
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
waste, but most of the focus is on industrial waste. The Law also encourages introduction of technologies for minimization of waste generation by industrial enterprises. The Law envisages both state and community (public) control over the waste generating activities and waste management, and imposes payments for collection, disposal, use and processing of wastes. The document on "State Strategy on Hazardous Waste Management in Azerbaijan‖, confirmed by Cabinet of Ministers in 2004, is an Action Plan addressing the specific issues related to hazardous and industrial waste, in particular compliance with international conventions and regulations on hazardous waste management and economic incentive, management of facilities (landfill, equipment) for hazardous wastes, including strengthening of capacity. Operational documents such as "Certification rules of hazardous wastes" and "Guidelines for inventory rules and classification systems of industrial wastes‖ also came into force in 2004.
3.2.4. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS RATIFIED BY AZERBAIJAN
Since it gained its independence, Azerbaijan has ratified many international conventions in the field of environment as indicated in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: International conventions ratified by Azerbaijan in the field of environment Date of Date of Name (purpose) of the convention Location adoption ratification UNESCO Convention on the Protection of World Paris 1972 1993 Cultural and Natural Heritage United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Rio de Janeiro 1992 1995 Change Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer Vienna 1985 1996 UN Convention to Combat Desertification Paris 1994 1998 Convention on the International Trade in Washington 1975 1998 Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from London 1973/78 1999 Marine Vessels (MARPOL) Convention on the Conservation of European Bern 1979 1999 Wildlife and Natural Habitats Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Aarhus 1998 1999 Justice in Environmental Matters Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment Espoo 1991 1999 in a Transboundary Context Convention on Biological Diversity Rio de Janeiro 1992 2000 International Plant Protection Convention Rome 1952 2000 Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans- Helsinki 1992 2000 boundary Watercourses and International Lakes Convention on Wetlands of International Ramsar 1971 2001 Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Basel 1989 2001 Disposal Convention on Long-range Trans-boundary Air Geneva 1979 2002 Pollution Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Stockholm 2001 2003 Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Helsinki 1992 2004 Industrial Accidents Framework Convention on the protection of Tehran 2003 2006 Caspian Sea marine environment
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 46
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
As mentioned above (see § 3.2.1), the law on Environmental Protection stipulates that the provisions of these conventions prevail on the national legislation. Of particular relevance for the Baku outfall project are the following conventions: - the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Marine Vessels (MARPOL) - the Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Watercourses and International Lakes - the Framework Convention on the protection of Caspian Sea marine environment
The Framework Convention on the protection of Caspian Sea Marine Environment is the first legally binding document addressing the protection of Caspian Sea environment ratified by the five littoral countries (Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Iran). This Framework Convention is based on a number of environmental principles such as polluting pays, precautionary action and access and exchange of information. This convention defines five main areas of concern: 1) Conservation and sustainable use of resources 2) Conservation of biodiversity 3) Improved water quality for the Caspian Sea 4) Sustainable development of the coastal area 5) Strengthen stakeholder participation in Caspian environment stewardship The Framework Convention comprises seven protocols among which four are related to the control of pollution and three are related to the protection of the marine environment. Of particular relevance for the present project is the Protocol for the Protection of the Caspian Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources and Activities which however applies for pollutant reaching the marine environment not only through coastal disposal and outfall but also rivers, canal and drainage structures, which contribute to the larger part of the Caspian Sea pollution. However, the Framework Convention states in its Art. 7 that the contracting parties should ensure that the pollution from land-based point sources is prevented, reduced and controlled through licensing of wastewater discharges by competent national authorities and licensing of waste-water discharges is based on promoting the use of environmentally sound technology.
3.2.5. WORLD BANK SAFEGUARD POLICIES APPLIED TO THE PROJECT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Three Word Bank Safeguards Policies have been triggered for this project: - Environmental Assessment (World Bank OP 4.01): the project has a Category A classification for Environmental Assessment (EA), because it could have the substantial important environmental impact on the Caspian Sea Coast. Accordingly, the overall environmental impact of the sea outfall construction and operation shall be mitigated by a proper Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which will particularly address short term negative environmental impacts, which are mostly expected to occur during construction. Furthermore, once the project becomes operational, most of the impacts are expected to be positive and the existence of a monitoring network shall allow the early detection of potentially negative impacts and the adoption of corrective measures. - International Waters (OP/BP/GP 7.50): the proposed infrastructure investments are limited to the immediate shoreline of the Absheron peninsula by the Caspian Sea. Even though the impact of the project on neighbouring riparian states will probably be
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 47
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
negligible, the Bank’s policy on projects on International Waterways is applied to this investment due to the international status of the Caspian Sea. - Natural Habitats (OP/BP/GP 4.04): this policy is triggered by the construction of the deep sea wastewater outfall although the net impact on the sea habitat in the project area is expected to be positive with improved environmental conditions. According to the OP 4.01, the present EIA Report will be used for Public Disclosure, foreseen for late October 2009 and final EIA will be sent to the Bank’s Infoshop afterwards.
3.3. EIA PRACTICES IN AZERBAIJAN
An assessment of effectiveness of EIA System in Azerbaijan was preformed in 2004 by the Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN). The main conclusions of this quite exhaustive assessment can be summarised as follows: - The SEE still applied nowadays in accordance to the LEP is a non-transparent process, which can sometimes create perception of being a means to approve environmentally dangerous activities thus causing social tension, most of which can be removed by linking SEE to the EIA process at the quality review stage. - The Azerbaijan’s expert capacity to undertake EIA quality reviews is actually quite high, which means that this stage of the EIA process could (and already is) significantly improve the overall effectiveness and transparency of EIAs in the country. - However, the gap in the Azerbaijani EIA legislation, namely the absence of the link between the LEP and the EIA process outlined in the EIA Handbook, may significantly reduce the efficiency of EIAs through preventing them to become a useful tool for decision-makers. - There is no doubt that Azerbaijan is in a need to improve its EIA system, especially in light of the rapid development of its economy, and that the only way to tackle this issue is to make EIA legal in the country and to bring it in accordance with international standards. This is necessary in order to make sure economic activities in the long term do not result in further degradation of the unique environment of the country, even if in the short term it would mean slightly increased costs for developers. Since this assessment has been issued, the national income has dramatically increased, together with the oil prices, so conditions are now far more favourable to a better implementation of EIA process for all relevant projects including those promoted by public institutions. However, the critical need for a formal advanced EIA legislation is still to be satisfied.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 48
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
4. HOVSAN WASTEWATER OUTFALL PROJECT
4.1. PRESENT SEWAGE SYSTEM AND EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
4.1.1. FOR THE RECORD: MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
The lack of significant adjacent urban surface water resources, which can be used as a source of water supply and over-salinity of underground water in Absheron peninsula caused to seek water at a considerable distance from the city area. Currently, according to the technical department of «Azersu» OJSC (July 2009) drinking water supply of Baku is served from four water pipelines: - the Baku water pipeline system I – the capacity of which is 1,27 m3/sec. Water is supplied through concrete water pipeline of 1,7х1,2m size and of 187km length; - the Baku water pipeline system II – the capacity of which is 2,73 m3/sec. Water is supplied through reinforced concrete water pipeline of 2,16х1,45m size, and of 175km length; - the Djeyranbatan water pipeline – the total capacity of which is 9,5 m3/s. Water is supplied through different steel water pipelines: two lines – d=1400mm, 27km length; two lines –d=1200 mm, 32,0 km length, single line - d=1200mm of 13,5km length, and single line - d=1200mm. - the Kura water pipelines, the total capacity of which is 5 m3/sec. Water is supplied through Kur water pipeline I via double steel pipelines of d=1400mm, 145,0 km length and a single pipeline of d=1400mm of 150,0 km length. In addition to these sources, Industrial Water is provided in Baku City and in Sumgayit City by pumping untreated water from Jeiranbatan Reservoir. The construction of a new water pipeline Oghuz-Gabala (more than 150 km long) is to be completed in 2009 which will enable additional 5 m3/sec of quality drinking water supply. It will allow improvement of drinking water supply. With the exception of supplies to the international airport and limited supplies to the settlements of Bina and Govsan, the eastern section of the Absheron Peninsula (east of a line through Mashtaga and the centre of Surakhany Area) is not served by piped supplies of Azersu water. While some water specifically for drinking is purchased from road tankers, in this area, water for most purposes is obtained from either groundwater or from the canal. Wells on the Absheron Peninsula comprise a variety of different types. Groundwater was the source of water (for both domestic and industrial supplies) for the Peninsula prior to the construction of the Jeiranbatan and Kura Water Supply Schemes. It remains a significant source of water for rural settlements and for agriculture and there are reported to be in excess of 15,000 wells on the Peninsula. The current status of the majority of the wells is unknown and hence total groundwater abstraction is currently not defined. The Absheron Peninsula is characterised by an absence of natural rivers, low rainfall and high evaporation. Underlain at depth by limestone formations, the predominant lithology is sandstone. Groundwater levels are high and the quality is highly mineralised with significant levels of chloride.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 49
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
The main characteristics of the distribution system and the commercial aspects are indicated Table 4.1:
Table 4.1: Features of Greater Baku drinking water system
Water distribution Average volume of water distributed (m3/day) in 2008 862 200 Number of subscribers 513 418 % of domestic consumers 81.4% % of non domestic consumers 18.6% Water tariff Domestic use 0.18 Manat/m3 Other uses 0.70 Manat/m3 Users of water as raw material 12 Manat/m3 Wastewater tariff Domestic use 0.04 Manat/m3 Other uses 0.20 Manat/m3
4.1.2. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
The wastewater collection system covers around 78% of the population of Baku. At present, the wastewater collection system comprises more than 1100 km of gravity pipes, 35 pumping stations, more than 100 km of pressure mains, five wastewater treatment plants for urban wastewater and one wastewater treatment plant for industrial wastewater. Due to the topography, most of the wastewater generated by Baku city centre flows by gravity to the seaside. There, a series of pumping stations and a deep interceptor (down to 28 m deep) send effluents to the eastern part of the city towards Hovsan WWTP. The majority of effluents is pumped to the Hovsan WWTP through Zigh pumping station, the rest flows by gravity. In Baku city centre, wastewater collection network and stormwater drainage network were originally separate. Nowadays, the split of flows is not properly done and one can find wastewater into drainage network and rain water into wastewater network. Indeed, due to the insufficiency of storm water drainage network, staff of emergency services opens wastewater manholes during rainy days in order to prevent flooding of streets. Some customers also have their wastewater connection connected to the drainage network. To reinstate networks in their original design, it is therefore important that a survey is carried out to identify and modify the wrong connections and to reinforce drainage networks. The main wastewater collectors and their catchment areas within Baku City are showed in Appendix 1.4.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 50
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
4.1.3. STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Storm water drainage system is designed to transport rainwater, and flows generated from watering and washing of streets into the sea without treatment. At present, there are 10 main drainage collectors in Baku city, the characteristics of which are detailed in Appendix 1.5. The total average daily flow of water discharge by the storm drainage system of Greater Baku amounts to 324 000 m3/day. In addition to these main collectors, there are smaller secondary collectors for district areas with much less discharge capacities. It should be noted that, due to the expansion of urbanization, existing networks are now undersized and therefore overloaded. During rainy days, this causes urban flooding and damage to buildings. Despite the fact that originally storm sewage collectors were not designed to receive flows other than rainwater flows, wastewater is now discharged into storm sewage system. As shown in Fig. 5 for year 2008, water discharge through storm sewers is almost constant throughout the year whereas rainfalls were very low between March and August. This clearly reveals that storm sewer flows are actually mostly composed of wastewater.
120 14000
12000 100
10000 80
8000 Monthly Rainnfall 60
Storm water discharge 6000
40 Rainfall (mm/month) 4000
20
2000 Storm Storm waterm3/month) (x1000 discharge
0 0
April May June July March August January February October September November December
Figure 5: Monthly storm water discharge in Baku versus rainfall in 2008 Moreover, new practices of discharging untreated wastewater into water reservoirs located within urban area are not only deteriorating reservoirs but are also causing negative impacts on sanitary condition of coastal zones. At present more than 10 collectors function at the disposal of Baku Sewage Service Department of Azersu OJSC of which 6 storm collectors are followed up by Department of Ecology and Natural Resources of Baku city due to their continuous flow of wastewater.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 51
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
4.1.4. WASTEWATER TREATMENTS PLANTS
There are six WWTP within Greater Baku, the bigger of which being the Hovsan WWTP, namely the WWTP concerned by the outfall project. The feature of each WWTP is summarized Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Features of WWTP within Greater Baku N° WWTP Start of Type of Design Existing Discharge points (*) operation treatment capacity capacity (m3/day) (m3/day) secondary 1 Hovsan 1987 640 000 455 920 Seashore treatment Zigh primary 2 1930 126 000 40 000 Seashore (mechanical) treatment primary 16 km pipeline (d=500 mm) 3 Haci-Hasan 1976 18 600 8 600 treatment near Lokbatan region Mardakan- secondary 4 1980 16 000 11 350 500 mm pipeline Shuvela treatment Pipeline (500 mm diameter), secondary 1200 m onshore, 300m 5 Buzovna 2007 10 000 7 460 treatment offshore through Buzovna region into the sea Partly recycled at ―Garadagh Cement Production‖ OSC (1425 m3/day for production secondary 6 Sahil 1987 17 600 17 060 purposes), the rest is treatment discharged through a sea outfall, 8 m depth, 600m offshore
(*) see Picture 16 Hovsan WWTP original design was a medium-load activated sludge treatment comprising: - pretreatment (bar screens and grit chambers); - primary sedimentation tanks (10 units) - aeration tanks - secondary sedimentation tanks - chlorination units - sludge treatment units consisting of sludge thickeners, aerobic stabilizers, sludge drying beds. Hovsan WWTP was in poor condition and a project is underway to partly rehabilitate and upgrade the treatment plant (cf. § 4.2.7.2)
4.1.5. DISCHARGE OF TREATED AND UNTREATED WASTEWATER
4.1.5.1. Discharge Flow Rates
Discharge of wastewater into the environment was estimated at 327 millions m3 in 2008. The breakdown between the different discharge points is presented Table 4.3.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 52
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 4.3: Wastewater discharge flowrates measured by Azersu in 2008 Annual volume of Contribution to Discharge points (Year 2008) wastewater discharged 3 total discharge (x1000 m /year) Zigh WWTP 14 428 4.4% Haji-Hasan WWTP 3 148 1.0% Mardakan-Shuvelan WWTP 4 155 1.3% Hovsan WWTP 166 865 51.0% Sahil WWTP 6 242 1.9% Buzovna WWTP 2 731 0.8% Storm sewers 128 154 39.2% Groundwater 1 285 0.4% Total volume of wastewater 327 008 100.0%
According to Table 4.3, in 2008, Hovsan WWTP received 51% of Baku City wastewater, 39% was discharged through drainage network, Zigh WWTP received 4% of wastewater and the rest (6%) was treated by the other WWTPs. However, Table 4.3 does not actually give an exhaustive recapitulation of the wastewater discharge in Greater Baku. Hovsan Canal is, for instance, not included in this list but its average flow is estimated at around 40 150 000 m3/year. Variations of wastewater discharged over a year are not significant as described Fig. 6.
35000
30000
25000
Storm sewers
20000 Buzovna WWTP
Sahil WWTP 15000 Hovsan WWTP
10000 Mardakan-Shuvelan WWTP
Haji-Hasan WWTP 5000
VolumeWastewater of discharged (x1000m3/month) Zigh WWTP
0
April May June July March August January February October September NovemberDecember
Figure 6: Wastewater Discharge flowrates from January to December 2008 In 1998, as part of the National Environmental Appraisal Program, a list of municipal and industrial discharge points was established as showed Pict..16. The situation is more or less the same at the moment.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 53
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Picture 16: Layout of existing WWTPs, municipal and industrial discharge sources in the Absheron peninsula (from NEAP 1998)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 54
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
4.1.5.2. Hovsan WWTP Discharge Point
The volume of wastewater discharged from Hovsan WWTP is almost constant throughout the year: it has stayed between 12 and 15 million m3/month over the 2006-2008 period. It should be mentioned that a field survey carried out between July 11th and July 15th 2009 has measured average flows between 3.37 m3/s and 3.91 m3/s, i.e. between 8.7 and 10.1 million m3/month. These figures are around 30% below of those measured by Asersu as a routine basis. Analyses of wastewater entering the Hovsan WWTP (see Fig. 7) show that:
- effluent quality is fairly constant throughout the year with regard to BOD5,COD and Suspended Solids (SS)
- wastewater is not concentrated: BOD5 from 80 to 95 mg O2/l, COD from 180 to 220 mg O2 /l and TSS from 140 to 160 mg/l)
- COD/BOD5 ratio is standard for urban wastewater (between 2 and 2.5)
250
200
150 BOD5
COD
100 Values in Values mg/l Suspended solids
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2007 2008
Figure 7: Quality of wastewater entering the Hovsan WWTP (monthly average)
Analyses of samples taken at 4 different places in the wastewater treatment line, including inlet and outlet of the works, were carried out on July 20th and 27th 2008 as part of the site analysis. Unfortunately, the WWTP was by-passed during these days and the quality of the 4 samples was quite similar, but they show that: - effluents entering the plant have different characteristics from above records (TSS is equal to 222 mg/l, BOD5 is equal to 60 mg/l and COD is equal to 86 mg/l); - the ratio COD/BOD is low (around 1.3) inconsistent with other available analysis.
Analyses of treated wastewater from Hovsan WWTP (see Fig 8) show that: - quality of treated wastewater is constant throughout the year;
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 55
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- BOD5 values are between 10 and 15 mgO2/l, which is below EU standards (25 mg/l)
- COD values are between 35 and 45 mg O2/l, which is well below EU standards (125 mg/l) - Suspended Solids concentrations are between 10 and 12 mg/l, which is below EU standards (35 mg/l) - Total N concentrations are between 8 and 10 mg/l - Phosphate concentrations are between 1.7 and 2.9 mg/l - pH values are comprised between 7.1 and 7.4.
50
45
40
35
30 BOD5 25 COD Suspended solids 20 Values in Values mg/l Phosphate
15 Total Nitrogen
10
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2007 2008
Figure 8: Quality of treated wastewater from the Hovsan WWTP (monthly average)
4.1.5.3. The Hovsan Canal
The Hovsan Canal was presumably built in the early 20th century for the discharge of industrial and domestic effluents into the sea. The Hovsan canal has a length of 12 km. The main sources of pollution and the 11 main discharge points located along the Hovsan canal are showed in Appendix 1.6. The Hovsan Canal receives wastewater from human settlements (districts Sadarak, Yeni Surakhani, Yeni Ramana, Surakhani, Bine), industries, transport and commercial facilities (airport, oil & gas production -OGPD and other offices) as well as the largest lake of Absheron Peninsula - Lake of Boyuk-Shor which itself receives numerous industrial and domestic effluents. This lake is located on the territory of three districts of Baku - Sabunchu, Binagadi and Narimanov. Surface area of the lake is 1300 ha, its length is 10 km, and its width is1.5- 2.0 km, the depth is of 4-8 m. In the early years, the lake was fed from groundwater sources, but nowadays, the wastewater flowing into the lake is estimated at 15,200 m3/day. According to the SOCAR’s Ecological Department (ED), total wastewater conveying through the Hovsan Canal is comprised between 100 000 and 120 000 m3/day.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 56
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 4.4 shows the results of physical-chemical analysis of wastewater samples, entering Hovsan Channel, taken from the 11 points of the channel along its route. These tests were performed by laboratory of SOCAR-ED in early 2009 (January-February). Incoming sewage contains large quantity of oil products: more than 154 mg/l at Point 4 and 177 mg/l at Point 5. At the discharge points of effluent into the sea from Hovsan Canal, the oil content of the wastewater was measured at 64.4 mg/l, and the concentration of phenol at 0.52 mg/l.
Table 4.4: Analyses of wastewater entering the Hovsan Canal in early 2009 (SOCAR ED) Total Dissolved Oil products Phenol, № Sample codes (discharge point) pH Solids (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) 1 Airport 7,94 30 794 20,5 0,07 2 Sadarak 7,91 2 071 10,8 0,017 3 Yeni Surakhanı 7,96 32 572 7,2 - 4 South canal 7,93 44 888 154,2 0,24 5 C.K-Yeni Ramana 6,44 1 638 177,9 0,15 6 Surakhanı 6,59 21 278 68,75 0,10 7 North canal 8,16 46 310 66,7 0,12 8 Boyuk Shor 8,89 22 738 5,8 - 9 Bine district 7,97 1 932 8,3 - 10 7th qovshag (junction area) 7,69 153 212 2,1 - 11 Sea outfall 7,82 14 012 64,4 0,52
The Hovsan Canal is one of major source of pollution of the coast of Greater Baku. It discharges into the western Hovsan Bay, less than 500 m away from the discharge point of Hovsan WWTP (see Pict. 17).
Current Hovsan WWTP pipe
Hovsan Canal Hovsan WWTP discharge point discharge point
Picture 17: View of Hovsan WWTP plume and Hovsan Canal plume from satellite view (from Google Earth picture)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 57
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
4.1.5.4. Discharge Points from Secondary WWTP
Analyses of inlet and outlet of WWTPs have been carried out by Azersu. Results of these analyses are reported in Appendix 3.2. The results of these analyses show that: - in Zigh (see Pict. 18) and Haci Hasan WWTP, the quality of wastewater does not improve much from the inlet to outlet, i.e. there is no real treatment; - in Mardakan-Shuvelan WWTP, the treatment is fairly efficient on some parameters (78% removal of BOD5, 92% removal of SS), but does not allow to met EU standards: for instance the BOD5 value is 30 mg O2/l as the EU standard is 25 mg O2/l. - in Buzovna and Sahil WWTPs, quality of wastewater moderately improves from the inlet to outlet and several parameters do not meet the EU standards As a conclusion, analysis carried out at the secondary WWTPs show that treated wastewater quality does not comply with reference standards (for instance EU standards). Consequently, a strong effort should be made to rehabilitate and upgrade these treatment facilities.
Picture 18: View of the effluent plume generated by the discharge of Zigh WWTP (from Google Earth picture, with increased contrast)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 58
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
4.1.5.5. Discharge Points from Storm Water Drainage network
Discharges through the storm water drainage network are untreated wastewater directly discharged into the environment, i.e. the Caspian Seashore. As indicated in the above Table 4.3, the total discharge of storm water network is about 130 million m3/year (nearly 350 000 m3/d). Only for the central Baku urbanized waterfront, one counts no less than five discharge points (see Pict. 19), which cause very harmful impact in summertime on people out for a stroll because of the bad smells.
Picture 19: View of the effluent plumes generated by the discharge points (red arrows) along the central Baku waterfront (from Google Earth picture, with increased contrast)
Analyses of water discharged into the sea through storm collectors indicate that some parameters such as oil products, suspended solids, BOD5 are equivalent to measurements taken at the entrance of WWTPs. For instance, Suspended solids concentrations are around 100 mg/l versus a EU standard of 35 mg/l and BOD5 concentrations are around 40 mg/l versus a standard of 25 mg/l Thus, these analyses indicate that wastewater pipes are connected to the drainage network and hence confirm the presumptions resulting from the comparison between rainfall and flow rates (see § 4.1.3). It will be necessary to check these connections in future and rectify accordingly.
4.1.6. IMPROVEMENTS SCHEDULED AND UNDERWAY
4.1.6.1. Wastewater Master Plan (1999)
According to the existing wastewater master plan which dates back in 1999, in addition to the existing WWTP that will remain and be extended in future, it was planned to implement construction of eight new wastewater treatment plants (biological treatment) in Absheron peninsula. These eight new plants are described Table 4.5 with their current status.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 59
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 4.5: WWTPs planned by the 1999 wastewater master plan
WWTP location Plant capacity (m3/day) Present status of implementation Sumgait city 200 000 Constructed Pirshagi district 30 000 Design stage Abandoned – Effluents will be Bilgah district 5 000 pumped to Pirshagi WWTP Alat district 5 000 Design stage Gobustan district 5 000 Design stage Lokbatan district 200 000 Nothing has been done to date Bibi-Haybat district 20 000 Design stage Turkan district 7 000 Nothing has been done to date
It is also planned to abandon Haji Hassan WWTP and transfer the effluents to Lokbatan WWTP. A map indicating the location of the planned WWTPs is showed in Appendix 1.7. In addition, wastewater flows conveyed by Hovsan Canal are planned to be transported by a closed system (pipe) to a new wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 200 000 m3/day. This new WWTP is planned to be built in the Hovsan shoreline area. After completion of all these WWTPs, there will be no discharge of untreated wastewater flows into Caspian Sea in accordance with State Ecological Program.
4.1.6.2. Hovsan WWTP Upgrade Program (OTV)
Azersu has awarded a contract to the French firm OTV for the rehabilitation and upgrading works of Zikh pumping station and Hovsan WWTP. This project is fully funded by the French Government. Upgrading works in Zikh pumping station consist of the following: - rehabilitation of civil works (water tightness, steel works, etc. to be carried out by Azersu - renewal of all electromechanical equipment: coarse screens, pumps, pipes, valves, etc.. The five pumps (3 running and 2 on stand by) will have a nominal flow rate of 4167 m3/h and a total head of 65 m (water column) As for Hovsan WWTP, upgrading works are based on the following flow rate assumptions: - Nominal daily flow rate: o screening and sand removal: 640 000 m3/day o biological treatment: 160 000 m3/day - Maximum hourly flow rate: o screening and sand removal: 34 667 m3/h o biological treatment: 4334 m3/h - Average hourly flow rate o screening and sand removal: 26 667 m3/h o biological treatment: 3334 m3/h
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 60
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Assumptions with respect to pollution loads of entering wastewater are described in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Water quality assumptions for upgrading works at Hovsan WWTP
Raw water Settled water Parameter Nominal loads Nominal Nominal loads Nominal (kg/j) concentrations (mg/l) (kg/j) concentrations (mg/l) COD 39 520 247 30 400 190
BOD5 18 400 115 14 400 90 SS 31 200 195 17 600 110 NTK 4 160 26 3 360 21 P total 608 3.8 560 3.5
Based on the above-mentioned assumptions, the guaranteed performance (for a water temperature equal to (or exceeding) 12°C) is as indicated Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Performance guarantee for new lines of at Hovsan WWTP Concentration in treated effluent Parameters (mg/l)
BOD5 25 COD 125 SS 25 Total Nitrogen 10 Total Phosphorus 2
Upgrading works for Hovsan WWTP are as follows: - For pre-treatment: o installation of 5 new fine screens (15 mm mesh) o installation of 5 new circular grit removal units (diameter: 7.4 m) - For biological treatment: o Installation of 2 new lines of low-load activated sludge to treat nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus: . installation of 5 new air blowers (nominal capacity : 5420 Nm3/h each) . new air distribution pipeworks for existing and new treatment lines . 4 new secondary settlers (50 m diameter) . sludge recirculation unit . sludge treatment unit using belt filters. - For disinfection: o Renewal of chlorine dosing system.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 61
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
According to the rehabilitation project described hereinabove, after completion of rehabilitation works, the WWTP will work as set out in Fig. 9.
Wastewater
640 000 m3/day
Fine screen and sand removal
Existing primary settlers (10 units ) 75 % 25 % 3 3 160 000 m /day 480 000 m /day 2 new secondary 3 existing secondary treatment lines for treatment lines for C C, N, P
640 000 m3/day Excess Excess sludge: sludge: Chlorination and discharge 8.5 Tons of 33.2 Tons Dry solids of Dry /day solids /day
New sludge treatment (1 unit)
Lagoons
Figure 9: Process flow diagram of Hovsan WWTP after upgrading works
It is worth noting that : - Hydraulic capacity of new lines could actually accommodate 200 000 m3/day instead 3 of 160 000 m /day due to the lower concentration of BOD5 than expected (75 mg/l instead of 115 mg/l expected in 2010 in the project document); - Chlorination treatment is included in the present rehabilitation project but is is recommended to phase out this in future (cf. § 6.2.2.2).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 62
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
4.1.6.3. Quality Standards Met by the Treated Wastewater Disposed by the Project
Performance guarantee of the new lines of Hovsan WWTP are described in the preceding chapter (see Table 4.7 § 4.1.6.2). Based on these performance guarantee and the quality of existing treated wastewater (see § 4.1.5.2), we have estimated that the combined flow will not exceed the values indicated in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Expected maximum concentration of pollutants in effluents from Hovsan WWTP
Parameters Concentration in treated effluent (mg/l)
BOD5 25 COD 125 Suspended Solids 25 Total Nitrogen 10 Total Phosphorus 2.3
These values can be considered as maximum values since quality of treated wastewater from the existing WWTP is better than the above figures. As for total coliforms (TC), the average concentration in wastewater after a biological treatment is generally around 106 TC/100 ml.
4.1.7. DESIGN FLOW AND POLLUTION LOADS FOR ALTERNATIVES
The Feasibility Study (FS) consultant has estimated the wastewater production and wastewater flow connected to Hovsan WWTP in three stages: Population forecast, water demand forecast, wastewater production forecast. The population forecast is based on records of population growth rates at a general scale and at a local scale. The estimated population growth for Baku area was estimated at: - + 1.55 % from 2010 to 2015 - + 1.7 % from 2016 to 2025 - + 1.6 % from 2026 to 2030 - + 1.35 % from 2031 to 2035 - + 1.05% from 2036 to 2040 - + 0.75% from 2041 to 2045 - +0.5 % from 2046 to 2050 The average population growth rate for Baku city was +0.82 % between 2000 and 2008. The summary of the population forecast is described Table 4.9.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 63
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 4.9: Population forecast as described in Feasibility Study
2009 2015 2050 Republic of Azerbaijan 8 629 000 9 432 501 13 391 439 Baku City 1 917 000 2 124 421 3 272 312
Water demand calculation is based on water consumption per capita. Existing water consumption par capita is estimated at 450 l/c/day. The FS consultant has assumed that this water consumption par capita would decrease in future to reach: 390 l/c/day in 2015 and 300 l/c/day in 2050. Base on these assumptions, the gross water demand forecast is showed Table 4.10.:
Table 4.10: Gross water demand forecast as described in Feasibility Study
2009 2015 2050 Baku City (m3/day) 875 000 928 000 981 000
Wastewater generation is based on the net water consumption of the areas drained to Hovsan WWTP. The FS consultant found that the theoretical calculated wastewater flow does not concur with measurements taken at the Hovsan WWTP inlet and attributed this difference to infiltration. Therefore, an additional 80% of calculated direct wastewater flow is received at Hovsan WWTP as infiltration. In the forecast; this infiltration rate was reduced to 15% in year 2050. Based on these assumptions as well as the expected quality of treated wastewater, the estimated flow rates and the estimated pollution loads for alternatives are described Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Maximum pollution loads of treated wastewater discharged by Hovsan WWTP
Parameter 2009 2015 2050 Average flow rate (m3/d) 464 310 503 370 600 698 Peak flow rate (m3/d) 603 603 654 381 780 907
BOD5 (kg/day) 11 608 12 584 15 017 COD (kg/day) 58 039 62 921 75 087 Suspended Solids (kg/day) 11 608 12 584 15 017 Total Nitrogen (kg/day) 4 643 5 034 6 007 Total Phosphorus (kg/day) 1 068 1 158 1 382
The values indicated in both Table 4.8 and 4.11 will be used as a basis for estimating the impact of treated wastewater discharge of sea water quality.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 64
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
4.2. PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section is mainly based on the report prepared by the Feasibility Consultant.
4.2.1. ALTERNATIVE 1 – EARLY DESIGN
In 1991, a design for the construction of sea outfall was prepared by Institute on River Transport Designing (Kiev, Ukraine). The design concept is shown on the Pict 20. It consisted in the construction of a 3.8 km long overland pipeline and of 4 offshore pipelines (1400 mm diameter) with lengths of about 8 km. Part of the inland pipe and the outfalls were constructed but part of the inland pipe was never installed and the overall system was never put into service. The overland pipeline route was initially running through unoccupied land, but nowadays, this route passes through a residential area as shown on Pict. 21.
Picture 20: Layout of Alternative 1, the historical option
The main disadvantage of this alternative is that today, the overland route passes through a new settlement area and construction works would entail a substantial amount of expropriation and resettlement and therefore important social, financial and environmental impacts to the project. The other main disadvantages of the project are listed below: - there is a forbidden zone allocated to shipping vessels’ magnetic calibration area next to the proposed sea outfall location; - according to Azersu, there would be up to 150 houses to expropriate; - the necessity to construct and operate a pumping station downstream of the WWTP due to the length of the overland and offshore pipes (3.8 + 8 km).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 65
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Picture 21: View of the terrestrial outfall route (in blue) of Alternative 1 and the location of the abandoned sea outfall (yellow and above picture) on the Hovsan beach
4.2.2. ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED DESIGN
The proposed design consists in the construction of a 1 km long overland pipeline on the south direction from Hovsan WWTP followed by a 8 km long sea outfall (see Pict. 22). This alternative has the following advantages: - this is the direct route from Hovsan WWTP to the sea - there are no housing, business or any need for land acquisition or resettlement on the proposed route of the outfall there is only one communication cable crossing the route but the Ministry of Communication and Information technology gave the Non Objection for construction of the outlet pipe while crossing the communication cable
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 66
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- there are no activities or infrastructures around that may hamper the construction of the sea outfall. The length of the sea outfall is mainly governed by the fact that there is a sand dune around 7 km off the coast and it is necessary to go beyond this point to discharge effluents. Indeed, any discharge before this point will be trapped in a zone where seawater might not be renewed at the same rate as after the sand bar as described in the attached Picture 22.
Picture 22: View of Alternative 2 (proposed alternative), along the Hovsan nearshore
Different simulations were carried out by the FS consultant to evaluate the dispersion of effluents after discharge into the sea. The visual plume of total coliforms for the following scenario is attached below :
- Summer condition (T90 = 1.5 hrs) - Speed current : 0.5 m/s - Current direction : towards the coast - Type of construction : buried pipeline
Guide value and mandatory value according to the EU regulations are indicated on the scale. The simulation indicates that the concentration of total coliforms on the coast is below acceptable limits.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 67
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Guide value
Mandatory value
Picture 23: View of plume of Alternative 2 (proposed alternative)
4.2.3. ALTERNATIVE 3 – PROPOSED DESIGN WITH A 5 KM LONG SEA OUTFALL
In the course of the EIA implementation, a new alternative came up which consists in constructing a 5km long sea outfall at the same location as alternative 2. This alternative will not be affecting the sand bar, would require less dredging which would reduce the disturbances due to re-suspension of sediment fine and polluted content and deposition of dredged materials and would reduce the cost of the project. However, a detailed circulation and renewal modelling should be carried out to ensure that there will be no accumulation of pollutants and nutrients in this zone if this outfall is constructed. These could cause sterilisation of sea bottom and eutrophication of sea water column. Discharge in this area could be acceptable if such circulation is confirmed or improved (e.g. by opening a passage in the dike/bridge between the island and the coast, as a mitigating measure) and modelling shows that the plume does not reach the coast, This alternative could have several advantages such as reduced dredging and no impact on the sand bar, apart from lower costs.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 68
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
A preliminary simulation carried out by the FS consultant indicates that the pollution plume does not reach the coast for both a 0.5 m/s and a 0.1 m/s speed current pointing towards the coast. Guide value and mandatory value according to the EU regulations are indicated on the scale.
Guide value
Mandatory value
Picture 24: View of plume of Alternative 3 (5km long outfall – Current speed : 0.5 m/s, summer condition)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 69
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Guide value
Mandatory value
Picture 25: View of plume of Alternative 3 (5km long outfall – Current speed : 0.1 m/s, summer condition)
These preliminary results however need confirmation through a detailed circulation and renewal modelling.
4.2.4. ALTERNATIVE 4 – REUSING THE EFFLUENT IN AGRICULTURE
As described on § 4.1.1, water sources for Greater Baku are very far away (more than 150 km for most of them), therefore cost of water mobilisation is expensive. In addition, water table in Absheron peninsula is high but the quality of the groundwater in not satisfactory (polluted and with high sodium content). Eventually, annual rain fall are around 200 mm/year, which is quite low. Due to these conditions, reuse of wastewater becomes a solution that should be investigated. The effluent reuse options that were considered by the FS consultant were: - reuse for irrigation; - discharge to the natural environment. Proposed reuse site by Ministry of Agriculture of Republic of Azerbaijan is on the west side of the city of Baku. This area is owned by the State. There is no vegetation at the moment, but the objective would be to cultivate animal feeds. The reuse scheme would consists in pumping the effluents to the lakes on the hills next to the propose reuse site. These lakes would be transformed into dams. From there, reused water would be fed by gravity to the irrigation area totalizing 22 000 ha.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 70
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Picture 26: Proposed wastewater reuse areas (marked in blue)and wastewater reuse network from Hovsan WWTP
The main characteristics of the reuse scheme are as follows: - 250 m of level difference between Hovsan WWTP and the natural reservoir - Distance : 50 km - Necessity to build 4 pumping and 4 pipes of 1500 mm dia - Only 12 000 ha of land can be irrigated equivalent to 340 000 m3/d - Necessity to maintain an alternative discharge when there are no needs for irrigation The pipeline profile is attached in Appendix 1.8. Cost of mobilization of treated wastewater would therefore be very costly due to site consideration. The water consumption to irrigate 12.000 ha area could be estimated as 340.000 m3/day by the FS consultant to be compared with WWTP average flow of 640.000 m3/day. Therefore, even during the agricultural season, wastewater will need to be discharged to the sea. For other seasons, the total flow of the Hovsan WWTP needs to be discharged to the sea. From the above arguments, it is seen that this alternative is neither technically, nor economically feasible.
4.3. MAIN FEATURES OF THE SEWAGE OUTFALL
4.3.1. PIPE ROUTE AND DESIGN
The land outfall pipeline starts at the WWTP outlet and runs down to the coast with a regular slope. It is a single 2.4 m internal diameter GRP. Other materials could also be
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 71
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
used such as steel pipe or HDPE pipes as long as life cycle cost is comparable or cheaper. It is totally buried. At the WWTP, pipe invert starts at –17.5 m to end at –31.7 m at the coast. This pipe is 939 meter long. The marine part of the outfall is to be a single 2.4 m internal diameter pipeline. Pipe material will be either GRP or HDPE. GRP pipes are available in Azerbaijan. HDPE pipes would come from Turkey or EU country. The sea pipeline route starts at the coastline with pipe invert set at –30.7 m. The pipe route goes approximately towards 54° geographic (about south-eastwards). The pipe profile is drawn straight with a uniform slope. The pipe is fully buried. Between 6 000 and 8 000 m from shore, the pipe crosses the submarine ridge (see longitudinal profile in Appendix 1.9). Pipe outlet takes place along the pipe last 225 m from 7 775 m to 8 000 m, where 36 risers constitute the diffuser. Port diameter is 350 mm. Outlet velocity is around 2.14 m/s. With this outfall/diffuser configuration, head loss estimated by FS consultant is equal to 8.35 m for peak flow and 5.14 m for average flow. Due to the WWTP elevation, flow will always be a gravity flow.
4.3.2. METHODOLOGY APPLIED FOR AND SCHEDULE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OUTFALL
4.3.2.1. Construction Phasing and Duration
Pipe construction will take place in several phases which are similar for the land and marine parts of the outfall: - pipe supply - construction of a temporary dyke for pipe lying at the shallow nearshore - pipe fitting (mainly for marine part) - trench excavation - pipe laying - trench backfilling For construction impact assessment, the following paragraphs assume pipe characteristics and project potential construction sequences. Assumptions made are the most probable ones from outfall construction experience, however, pipe costs, pipe availability in large diameter, contractor’s know-how, and/or construction schedule requirements may lead to slightly different options. Due to the outfall length and to the supply of pipe in short lengths, the longest phase of works may be pipe preassembly and fitting. The works duration may be estimated as follows. The land outfall will be built within a much shorter schedule than the marine outfall which sets the global work duration. - Land outfall o detailed study, material orders: 2 months office work o construction site preparation: 1 month
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 72
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
o trenching, pipe supply, fitting laying: 4 months o site restoration: 1 month
- Marine outfall o detailed studies, material orders: 3 months office work o construction site preparation: 2 months o pipe supply, construction of the dyke, preassembly and fitting: 8 months o dredging: 3 months during pipe preparation o pipe laying: 4 months, among which 2 during pipe preparation o ridge reconstruction: 2 months o stand-bys due to strong winds: 4 months (estimate from wind statistics) According to these assumptions, the total duration of the works will be nearly 2 years.
4.3.2.2. General Construction Methodology
The land outfall will be built parallel to the existing outfall, either East or West, in order not to interrupt the present discharge. The existing outfall will serve in future as an emergency discharge pipe in case of problem with the sea outfall. Methodologies for crossing the Hovsan Canal and existing 6 pipelines will determine the new outfall route. It will be a standard pipe installation except for the crossing of the above mentioned obstacles. Construction site will be established on the open land between WWTP and shore. Due to the specificity of works in a marine environment, the marine outfall construction will have to be undertaken by a specialized contractor. The outfall land part should be locally produced GRP pipes transported to site on trucks. For the marine part, the FS Consultant considers GRP pipe since it is cheaper and made locally. Other materials could be used as long as the life cycle cost is comparable or cheaper. From a technical point of view,several factors are in favour of HDPE: - HDPE is supple and adapts to variations of sea bed due either to soft sediment consolidation or irregularities in trench bottom. - the outfall being a 8 km long pipe, construction time can only remain reasonable if quite long pipe strings (several hundred of meters) may be assembled and fitted near shore, then pulled and sunk, which can be done with HDPE pipes. However, few factories are able to produce 2.4 m inner diameter HDPE pipes and GRP probably will be chosen. GRP pipes may be produced locally and will be transported to the site by train and by truck.
4.3.2.3. Pipe Fitting
Pipe pre-assembly will be done on construction sites located on land between the WWTP and the shore. It will take around 6 months for assembling the 8 km long sea outfall from 6 m or 12 m long individual pipes and preparing the required concrete weights for hydrodynamic stability.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 73
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
4.3.2.4. Trench Excavation
Trench excavation along the land part will be done with a back-hoe excavator. Excavated material will be deposited along the pipe route to be reused for backfilling the trench. In the marine part, pipe trench excavation will be done by a dredger. Dredger types differ depending on bed material to be removed: - in rock, or hard areas, bed material is broken and extracted with a bucket dredger and discharged in a barge. The barge dumps the dredged material in a spoil area. - in sand or muddy areas, dredging is done by dredgers pumping a mixture of sand and water which is discharged through a pipe a few hundred of meters offside of the trench. At Hovsan, sea bed is sandy along the whole route proposed for the outfall. Trench width will be about 5 m at the bottom with slopes between 4/1 and 7/1 depending on sand cohesion. The dredging volume is expected to be 60 to 80 m3/m for the close-to-shore trench and will reach up to 350 m3/m for the offshore ridge (sandbar) crossing. Considering that the spoil mixture will deposit with a 10/1 slope, the impacted sea bed area will be a 60 to 70 m wide band along the outfall path where deposit will be up to 2 m thick. Mud type particles will settle at a much lower rate than sand and, since currents are very low, will form a turbid cloud which will remain several hours after dredged material pumping has stopped. Volumes to be dredged and trench characteristics can be estimated to the values indicated in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12: Hydrologic features of the sewage outfall
Volumes Estimated Trench Deposit Deposit Estimated Zone to be dug or width height width deposit area dredged dredged area Land part 24 000 m3 6 m 6 000 m2 1 m -- 2 ha upper width Marine part 950 000 m3 between around 30 ha up to 3 m 60 -70 m 51 ha 31 and 66 m m
4.3.2.5. Pipe Laying
Pipe laying in the land part will be done by cranes lowering the individual pipe lengths in the trench. For the marine part, pipe strings of several hundreds of meters will be sunk with a barge and tugs.
4.3.2.6. Trench Backfilling
Along the land section, trench backfilling will be mainly done from excavated material. Along the marine section, backfilling will differ for the ―close-to-shore‖ trench and the submarine ridge (sandbar) crossing. For the close-to-shore trench, spoil material extracted from the trench will be impossible to dredge because of its spreading on the
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 74
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
sea bed and because it mostly is very fine material not adequate for backfilling. Therefore it will be necessary to extract sand of adequate characteristics from a borrow area (about 570 000 m3). For the submarine ridge (sandbar), extracted material should be of good quality and will have been deposited in a specific spoil area so that it may be dredged for backfill in order to reconstitute the ridge.
4.3.2.7. Needs for Equipment and Manpower
As concerns to the vehicles and machinery, it may be assumed the following heavy equipment will be required on site: - Land outfall : several heavy load cranes, excavators and trucks - Marine outfall : 1 or 2 barges with heavy load cranes depending on construction method, 3 tugboats, 1 dredger, 1 supply vessel, 1 bathymetric survey small craft, 1 concrete plant and some trucks During the site works, 50 to 100 workers may be employed on each construction site depending on the construction phase. The marine outfall will require the hiring of 8 to 12 professional divers.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 75
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
5. BASELINE DATA
5.1. DEFINITION OF THE STUDY AREA AND THE FIELD SURVEYS
5.1.1. THE STUDY AREA
In this report, the ―study area‖ refers to the zones which are most directly impacted by both the outfall construction and operation and so deserves to be studied in a more detailed way. According to the outfall design, the study area will be comprised of: - a terrestrial section, which is defined as the 1km wide strip covering the land located within a distance of 500m of the outfall route (i.e. a single GRP pipe with a 2.4 m internal diameter), from the higher end of the pipe, within the premises of Hovsan WWTP, down to the shoreline. The length of the terrestrial section is of 939 m. This terrestrial study area is comprised of atmospheric air, soil, surface and groundwater, fauna, flora and human settings (roads, public and public utilities, dwellings). The terrestrial study area is showed in Pict. 27. - a marine section which is defined as the 1km wide strip covering the sea bottom located within a distance of 500m of the outfall route (i.e. a single GRP pipe with a 2.4m internal diameter), from the shoreline to a distance of 500 m downstream of the outfall diffuser. Since the total length of the outfall marine section is of about 8 km, the marine study area stretches on about 8.5 km. The marine study area is comprised of the water column (from sea bed to the surface, sediments possibly the shallow bedrock inasmuch as the bedrock is excavated for laying the outfall.
The 500m distance has been chosen as a ―safety distance‖ beyond which the main negative impacts associated with construction and operation of the outfall (noise, air pollution, visual impact, and water pollution) are attenuated down to an acceptable level. Actually, on the land, this safety distance can be less: for example, a 300m distance is generally considered as influenced by the air and soil pollution generated by the vehicle traffic on a main road (French regulation). Moreover, there is no watercourse which could carry the water pollution out of the study area (Hovsan Canal flows and discharges within the study area). However, certain zones located out of the study area are likely to be deeply affected by the construction of the outfall, namely those terrestrial and marines areas from where material needed for construction will be extracted or borrowed (quarries and borrow pits) and those where spoil material generated by the works will be stockpiled or definitely disposed (dumping sites). Since these zones are not defined yet, they cannot be characterized, but these zones are most likely located within Greater Baku which has been described above. The 500m distance from the marine outfall route will contain the sea bottom area most affected by dredging, backfilling, borrow and disposal activities. Due to the cost of transport, these activities are not likely to occur faraway of the pipeline route. It is obvious that the dispersion plumes of dissolved chemicals, suspended matter and germs will stretch on very large areas, likely several km. However, theses plumes should stay within the Baku bight, which has been described herein (see. § 4.3). In addition, a detailed circulation and renewal modelling will be carried out to confirm that pollutants and nutrients will not accumulate in the zone located before the sand bar if a 5 km long sea outfall is constructed. It is obvious that if the detailed design shows an outfall route significantly different from that described in the Feasibility Study, a new analysis campaign of the sea bottom (physical, chemical and biological) shall be undertaken. Moreover, it should be noticed
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 76
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
that once the design study will be available, the Environmental Monitoring Plan (see above § 8.3.3) will provide for a new collection of baseline data in the vicinity of the actual outfall discharge point (diffuser), whatever are the route and the length of the outfall.
N
Outfall Route
Hovsan Canal
Coastal road Hovsan Current Canal Hovsan road Outlet
Picture 27: Terrestrial study area (red dashed perimeter) (from Google earth)
5.1.2. THE MARINE FIELD SURVEYS
Two specific marine field surveys have been carried out for the purpose of both Feasibility Study (FS) and the present Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The first survey was carried out in July 2009 and focused on the physical and chemical characterization of the sea water column and sea bed along the outfall route, from the sea shore to the diffuser. In addition to bathymetric and current studies, samples of water column (1m depth) and of seabed sediments (0 – 10 cm) where collected to be analysed. Furthermore, a study for determining the coliform decay rate (T90: time necessary to 10fold reduce the pathogen counting) at the sea surface was also undertaken. The water and sediment samples were taken at the following distances from the seashore along the outfall route: 0 (current outlet of discharge pipe of Hovsan WWTP), 400 m, 1500 m, 3000 m, 4500 m, 5900 m, 6100 m, 6200 m, 6500 m, 6700 m, 7200 m and 7800 m. These distances were determined as per the existing bathymetric map in order to feature more accurately the condition in the vicinity of the offshore sandbar (see § 5.3.1.1). Unfortunately, the results of the present bathymetric study have since revealed
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 77
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
that the available map, dating around 1980, is no longer right due to a change of the shoreline location. Consequently no sample has been collected at the top of the sandbar as it was originally foreseen. The parameters measured in the first surveys were the following: - for water column: pH, transparency, turbidity, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), salinity, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), NO3, NO2, NH4, phosphorus (P), petroleum products (TPH), Total Coliforms (TC) and Faecal Coliforms (FC). Micro-pollutants, namely As, Hg, Cd, Cu, Co, Pb, Ni, Cr, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (14 species), have been measured only for the samples collected at 4500, 5900 and 7800 m distances.
- for sediments: size distribution (10 classes), CaCO3, organic matter, petroleum products (TPH), As, Hg, Cd, Cu, Co, Pb, Ni, Cr, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (14 species). A second field survey was carried out in August 2009 to investigate the aquatic biota living along the outfall route. To this end, water and sediment samples were taken at three distances from shoreline: 3000 m, 6200 m and 7200 m. For the same reasons as given previously, no sample has been collected at the top of the sandbar. Zooplankton and phytoplankton were studied in the water column and macro-benthic fauna (> 0.5 mm) was studied in collected sediments. The survey consisted of identification of the main taxa, the abundance and biomass of which was determined. The results of the marine surveys are exhaustively set out in Appendix 3, they are summarized and discussed in the following paragraphs. It should be mentioned that both surveys have been commissioned by Azersu and have not been supervised by the Consultant in charge of the EIA.
5.2. TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
5.2.1. BIOPHYSICAL TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT 5.2.1.1. Climate
The climate of the terrestrial study area is described above (see § 2.2.1.2). Given that the Baku international airport is located less than 10 km away from the Hovsan WWTP and than no relief can be observed between the two sites, it can be considered that the presented airport climatic data are particularly relevant for describing the terrestrial study area. 5.2.1.2. Air Quality
Air quality within the terrestrial study area is typical from a quiet suburban area, the main polluting area being the road traffic (NOx, hydrocarbons, fine particles) and the Hovsan WWTP (H2S, NH4 and other malodorous gases). Both activities are not really of concern in terms of emissions of toxic gases given the rather low traffic (see below § 5.2.2.2) and that the air extraction system which is being installed in the new sludge process unit of Hovsan WWTP will favour dispersion of sulphured gases in such a way that they will reach very low concentration at the limit of the premises of the plant. 5.2.1.3. Land Topography
Broadly, the land of the terrestrial study area is regularly, gently slopped from the higher end (alt. -13 m) to the shoreline (alt. -27 m), with a general slope of 1.49%. However, around 490m away from the higher end the natural slope has been modified by an embankment which stretches on about 220 m along the longitudinal profile of the outfall route. The upstream part of this embankment is quite odd but the 50 m downstream have been levelled for the construction of the coastal road (see above Pict. 27). On the west side of the terrestrial study area, quite a large surface of land has been excavated, probably for a construction purpose.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 78
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
5.2.1.4. Soil
The soil in which the outfall will be buried is typical ―Grey soils‖ (see § 2.2.1.6) developed on alluvial deposits. The observed profiles (earth cuts) show buried layer of shells (see Pict. 28) revealing the former fluctuation of the sea level. These are alkaline, mineral soil, likely salted. The texture is clay/loamy clay, with impervious, depressed zones where water may accumulate. Along the sea shore, the ground is line with a few cm thick layer of white, small shells of bivalves (mainly Ceratosderma lamarckii (see Pict. 29).
Picture 28: Soil profile in the study area Picture 29 : Shells Ceratosderma on (see the clearer shell layer below) the beach
5.2.1.5. Ground and surface waters
Given the proximity of the sea and the numerous shallow pools of stagnant water which can be observed (see Pict. 31), the depth of the shallow ground water is likely to be weak and the salt content to be high. No abstraction of groundwater has been observed within the study area.
Picture 30: Water poll in the study area Picture 31 : Oily deposit on the side of (near the coast) the Hovsan Canal (near the mouth)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 79
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
The only water course which crosses the study area is the manmade Hovsan Canal (see above Pict. 27) the flow of which is during the most part of the year constituted by both domestic and industrial wastewater (see above § 4.1.5.3). Pollution of Hovsan Canal in dry season is visually obvious: in particular, pollution by oil products is clearly visible on the watercourse (iridescence) and along the sides (black oily deposit, see Pict. 31). The pollution most likely explains the absence of riverside vegetation along the Hovsan Canal.
5.2.1.6. Flora and fauna
The land of the study area is covered by patchy vegetation comprised of low herbaceous plants (see Pict. 32) mostly adapted to dryness or to salted soil (both adaptations actually involve the same physiological processes). The number of species is reduced to less than 10 dominated by 3 or 4 common plants among which Juncus acutus and Carduus arabicus. A narrow strip of green macro-algae (Enteromorpha sp.) is observed on the beach just at the edge of the sea (surf zone, see Pict. 33) due to the nutrients discharge by both Hovsan WWTP discharge pipe and Hovsan Canal. No tree can be observed in the study area except within the premises of the Hovsan WWTP (ornamental trees).
Picture 32: Typical herbaceous Picture 33: Grow of green macro-algae vegetation off the study area on the near shore (near the Hovsan WWTP outlet)
No macro-fauna of interest was observed during the field visit. Small surface area of free land, low dense vegetation, absence of trees and scarcity of shrubs, soil and water pollution and vicinity of the road traffic do not really favour the development of the big fauna. Like in the other suburban areas, the terrestrial macro-fauna should mainly consist of reptiles (presence of venomous snakes are reported by the Hovsan WWTP staff) and rodents. The only observed birds are common terrestrial birds that may be encountered in all urban areas. Seabirds such as seagull and cormorants are rare and most unlikely to find food and shelters in the study area. In short, it can be considered that no remarkable, rare, endangered or protected fauna and flora is likely to dwell, feed or spawn within the terrestrial study area.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 80
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
5.2.2. HUMAN AND SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 5.2.2.1. Land Property
The land stretching between Hovsan WWTP and the seashore where the terrestrial study area is located is the property of the State, managed by Surakhany Local Executive Authority which has rent the land to the RUSNEFT Russian Oil Company. This land is exclusively dedicated to transport of people (roads) and matters (wastewaters, oil products, steam and power). 5.2.2.2. Human Settings and Activities
The nearest housings are located at the eastern limit of the study area (see above Pict. 26), more than 450m away from the outfall route. These are mostly middle standing houses with backyards. The nearest dense housing (multi-storey buildings) are located 1 km further eastwards. The main paved road is the 2-lane coastal road (see Pict. 34) which links the central Baku to Hovsan, Turkan and Shakh Dili at the end of the peninsula. This road is subject to a moderate traffic (about 2000 vehicles/day according to a brief on-site counting). There is a secondary road leading to the entry of Hovsan WWTP and, 1 km further, to the new airport motorway. The study area is crossed by many aerial metallic pipes (see Pict.35) of different diameters and mostly oriented perpendicularly to the direction of outfall. There is also, at least, one buried oil pipe which can be seen when crossing the WWTP discharge pipe. Obviously, the current Hovsan WWTP discharge pipe and the pipe culvert enabling the Hovsan Canal to cross the coastal road are buried as well.
Picture 34: Coastal road (view toward the Picture 35 : Aerial Pipes crossing the Hovsan WWTP current discharge pipe (clear track)
Except the staff of Hovsan WWTP, there are usually no people at work within the study area. The polluted beach and shoreline are not used for recreational purpose but one fisherman and his kids were seen catching few fishes (mostly grey mullets) with a small net just at the outlet of Hovsan WWTP discharge double pipe (see Pict. 36). This fishing activity is however marginal and cannot be considered as a livelihood for the local population For the record, the main activities occurring in the vicinity of the study area are as follows: - the Hovsan WWTP, at the north-eastern limit - the Hovsan ports (grain terminal and fishing port), about 3 km away to the west
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 81
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- the Gum Island oil and gas field, about 6 km away to the south - SOCAR Drilling Works Factory and SOCAR Oil Onshore Terminal, about 2.5 km away to the south-east
Picture 36: Kids fishing with a net at the Picture 37 : Small fishes (mullets) outlet of the discharge pipe caught at the outlet of the discharge pipe
5.2.2.3. Archaeological and cultural assets
The field visits have not revealed any visible signs of archaeological and cultural assets within the study area.
5.3. MARINE ENVIRONMENT
5.3.1. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT 5.3.1.1. Topography of the Sea Bottom
The Figure 10 shows the bathymetric profile of the sea bottom along the outfall route according to the results of the first marine survey (see § 5.1.2).
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
-1 Distance to the shoreline (m)
-3
-5
Depth -7
-9
-11 Sand bar
-13
Figure 10: Bathymetric profile of the sea bottom along the outfall route
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 82
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
The profile shows successively the followings trends: - along the first 300 m (away from the shoreline), the average slope is – 6.5/1000 - along the next 3100 m, the sea bottom goes down with a lower slope: – 1.6/1000 - from 3500 m to 6000m, the sea bottom is quite flat around its lower point (– 8 m) - from 6000 m to 6700 m, the sea bottom goes up along the inner slope of an offshore sandbar (average slope + 7.3/1000) the top of which is reach from the sea shore with a depth of -2 m below the sea surface - from the top of the sandbar to the end of the outfall (diffuser site, 8000 m away from the shoreline), the sea bottom goes down along the outer slope of the sea bottom, with an average slope of – 4.8/1000. Although the sand bar is gently sloped, it will have to be excavated to maintain the downward slope of the outfall.
5.3.1.2. Local Currents
Since there is no tide in the Caspian Sea, all currents are wind generated. So far, the scheme of Caspian currents is describing sea currents as total cyclonic circulation consisting of two cyclonic water circulations at Middle and South Caspian Sea covering whole depth of sea. According to numerous observations carried out with automatic recorder south-east currents with velocity of 30-50 cm/sec, sometimes 100 cm/sec are prevailing at over 5 km distance at different wind situations along west coasts of Middle Caspian in the north from Absheron peninsula. This is one of the extensive elements of Caspian Sea water circulation. There are stable south currents between Jilov Island and Oil Fields of Absheron. In all wind directions, excluding south directed winds – stable 80 cm/sec surface currents and 50-60 cm/sec bottom currents are observed; where south winds form north currents. The characteristic feature for south of Absheron Peninsula is the presence of local anticyclone water circulation. That is the conclusion of doctor A. Sitsarev after analyzing numerous sea current observations recorded with special facilities. E. Mehdiyev discovered presence of local anticyclone in the south-west of Caspian Sea by using automatic current recorder in 1976. Formation of Caspian Sea flows occur by following factors: winds, alteration of sea water density, depth of water, submarine landscape, coastal roughness, and water flows. The major factor among specified is wind. Generally one can observe sea flows generated by mutual influence of above mentioned factors. Water circulation of Caspian Sea is explained by perennial hydro-meteorological condition. In general, system of flows is described as follows: Dominant north winds generate drift flows along west costs from North Caspian to South which move towards Absheron Peninsula branching in two wings. The stronger wing passes near Absheron enters south sector of Caspian Sea moving to Middle and North of Caspian Sea flowing along South of the sea. The second wing moves to east from Absheron Peninsula, enters east coasts, where it joins with main wing. South-east flows are dominating along west coasts of Middle of Caspian Sea. The strong north-west winds generated by roughness of coasts of Absheron peninsula causes flows moving from coast to the east, but in the open sea flows move to north-west. Flows pushed by slow winds from Absheron Peninsula towards north have low velocity of 10 - 20 cm/s, pushed by mild winds 30 - 40 cm/s and by strong winds 60 -100 cm/s.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 83
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
South flows with velocity of 10 cm/s are predominant in the region of Baku archipelago in the South Caspian zone. Here peak flow velocities (40 - 50 cm/s) were observed at strong north-west winds. Flows moving towards south are dominant in April-September months along east coasts of South Caspian Sea. Here velocity of flows in mild winds is 15 - 30 cm/s, in strong winds is 50 - 60 cm/s. Movement and direction of sea flows is basically dependant on wind regime. Therefore, flows of project area are predominantly south directed flows. Average velocity of flows in this region is 7 cm/s, maximum is 3.0 m and 7.0 m while in deeper waters it is approximately 8 cm/s. Currents in the Hovsan area are low. They are generated as secondary eddies from the main currents existing around the Absheron Peninsula. From available aerial and satellite imagery, it appears currents are globally clockwise within the bay where the present WWTP outlet is located. Currents velocity seems low, of the order of a few cm/s.
5.3.1.3. Waves
North of Caspian Sea has a different regime of waves if compared to other parts of the sea. Due to shallow waters waves reach peak levels at 15 - 20 m/s wind velocities. The highest waves are usually observed (up to 8 m) at middle of Caspian Sea, in the coastal areas during south winds. The most intensive waving of middle Caspian Sea occurs at Absheron peninsula during north-west winds while during north winds such winds are observed in north from the peninsula. Strong waving takes place on north-east of Makhachkala during south-east winds. The most alarming regions of Caspian Sea occupied by high waves are the area from Derbend up to Absheron Peninsula along coastal areas, and in the open sea rayons where water area conjoins with threshold of Absheron. Annually, storm winds of winter season in particular cause strong winds in the sea. Some researchers have carried out level of interrelation between wind velocity and wave indicators. Moreover, these studies were more implemented in the Absheron sector of Caspian sea, especially at Oil Field areas. Six meter height waves occur on Caspian Sea twice a year while 10 meter waves and beyond that take place twice in 10 years. Extremely high waves of Caspian Sea (more than 10 meters) are usually observed on Oil Fields nearer to north-west. In the south, far from Absheron peninsula waves reach 9 meter height. It is interesting that waves at eastern part of sea are 2 times less than what is observed in the western zone. Here, waves don’t raise higher than 4-5 m. Absheron water basin is also characterized by length of waves which are usually longer than other regions of sea. The length of waves of this region usually reaches 100 m. From wind data, the maximum heights of waves generated by south winds which may reach the outfall site are of the order of 2 to 2.5 meters.
5.3.1.4. Sea Water Quality
The protocol of the field survey is described above (see § 5.1.2) and the results of sea water analyses set out in Appendix 3.3, and the maximum permissible levels for the protection of aquatic life are indicated in Appendix 1.2. The main findings are summarized as follows: - Turbidity is quite high (10 to 22 NTU) from the shoreline to 3000 m away and further decreases to remain around the value of 5 NTU, which features rather clear water. The transparency follows the same trends. Suspended Solids (see Fig 11) are comprised between 6 to 9 mg/l from the shoreline to 4500 m away and further remains between 2 to 5 mg/l.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 84
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- Ammonia concentrations (see Fig 11) clearly show the discharge of Hovsan WWTP that causes a peak value (0.85 mg/l) at the discharge point. At further locations, ammonia concentrations are closed to 0.1 mg/l, which is slightly higher than NH4 measured in Caspian Sea (0.5 µM N = 0.09 mg/l NH4) in the past decade. Phosphate concentrations show the same trends (see Fig 11) as ammonia but the peak value (0. 9 mg/l) is only observed 400 m away from the shoreline. The rather low concentration (0.06 mg/l) observed at the discharge point may be explained by the fact that phosphorus of wastewater is mainly organic, included in the microbial bodies and is mineralized afterwards by the sea organisms. At further locations, the phosphate concentrations are below 0.01 mg/l. - Nitrate concentrations are about 0.05 mg/l close to the seashore and less than 0.01 mg/l at the remote locations. The peak value of 0.3 mg/l observed 3000 m away from the shoreline is difficult to explain. Nitrite concentrations are below 0.03 mg/l. - Concentrations of dissolved oxygen are variable between 4.5 mg/l (at the discharge point of WWTP) to nearly 10 mg/l. It should be mentioned that the measurements were carried out during the hot season (July) as the temperature of the nearshore water was probably high, which do not favour oxygen dissolution. - Concentration of petroleum products are comprised between 1.5 and 2 mg/l from the shoreline to 3000 m away. The further samples show concentrations of about 1 mg/l which drop under 0.5 mg/l along the sand bar. - The concentrations of inorganic micro-pollutants (arsenic and heavy metals) do not vary with the location of samples (i.e. 3000, 6200 and 7200 m away from the shoreline). The most concentrated pollutant is Cd (0.016 mg/l) and the others below 0.01 mg/l. All these substances are below the standard concentration of Azerbaijan for protecting aquatic life. - Among PAH, only naphthalene (3 locations), acenaphthylene (1 location) and chrysene (1 location) concentrations were above the detection limits. The highest concentrations was measured for naphthalene and amounted to 0.019-0.023 mg/l. The soluble PAH is most likely released from petroleum products dissolved or suspended in the sea water or adsorbed on the sediment. - Total coliforms (TC) and faecal coliforms (FC) countings clearly show the discharge of Hovsan WWTP that causes a peak values (160,000 TC and 16,000 FC/100 ml) at the discharge point (see Fig. 11). These values sharply decrease but remain of health concern (i.e. over the 2000 FC /100 ml EU standard for bathing waters) within a 4000m distance from the shoreline. Both total and faecal coliforms disappear from 6000 m away from the shoreline (sand bar inner slope). It should also be mentioned that the T90 (time for 90% reduction) for coliforms was estimated at around 90 mn during the survey period (July 2009). It is noteworthy that the pollutant concentration in sea water mainly reflects a momentary level of pollution which may vary periodically or not over the time.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 85
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Ammonia NH4 (mg/l) Phosphate (mg P/L) 0.9 1
0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 Phosphate in Water Column (mg P/L) in (mg Water Column Phosphate
0.1 0.1 Ammonium in Water Column (mg NH4/L)in (mg Water Ammonium Column 0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Distance from the coastline (m) Distance from the coastline (m)
Supspended Solids (mg/L) Faecal Colifoms (No/100 mL) 10 18000
9 16000
8 14000
7 12000 6 10000 5 8000 4 6000 3 4000 2 2000
1 Faecal coliforms in Water (No/100mL)
Total Supended Solids Solids inWater Total (mg/L)Column Supended 0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Distance from the coastline (m) Distance from the coastline (m)
Figure 11: Concentrations of some pollutants associated with wastewater discharge in sea water. Yellow points are located along the sand bar
5.3.1.5. Main Features and Pollution of Sea Bottom Sediments
In contrast to concentration in water, concentration of pollutants in sediments, especially persistent pollutants such as heavy metals or PAH reflects contamination cumulated over a certain period, contamination which could have ceased since many years. The protocol of the field survey with respect to sea bottom sediments is described above (see § 5.1.2) and the results of sediments analyses are set out in Appendix 3.4. The main findings are displayed in Fig 12 and summarized as follows: - from the grain size breakdown, it appears that mud (< 80 µm) accumulate at 3 locations, namely: (i) the discharge point (most probably settling of suspended matters carried by wastewater, (ii) at the toe of inner sandbar slope (5900 m away from the shoreline) and (iii) at the toe of outer sandbar slope (7800 m away from the shoreline). - Gravel (> 2 mm) proportion is generally prevailing except at the discharge point and around the top of the sand bar
- Calcium carbonate (CO3Ca) content varies from 10 to 45 %, the higher value being measured along the sandbar - The part of organic matter varies from 0.8 to 6.9 %, the lower values being observed along the sand bar. Actually, when comparing the concentrations of organic matters and petroleum production, it appears that from 400 to 4500 m away from the shoreline, more than 70% of organic matter is made of petroleum products. - Concentrations of petroleum products are low at the discharge point (< 0.1 mg/kg) and around the top of the sandbar (< 0.4g/kg). Far higher concentrations (3.5 to 6.2 mg/kg) are measured in between i.e. from 400 to 4500 m away from the shoreline. The concentration tends to increase (nearly 1 mg/kg) at the toe of the outer slope.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 86
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- Heavy metals can be classified into different groups according to their measured concentration and toxic levels (NOAA ERL/ERM, see table 2.3 in § 2.2.3.4): o Cadmium (Cd) concentration are all below the detection limit (< 0.4 mg/kg), which is far below the lower effect level of NOAA (1.2 mg/kg) o Lead (Pb), nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr) concentration are all below the toxic levels. Their concentrations show a peak at 4500 m (lower zone where organic matter accumulate) and a sharp drop along the sandbar. o Cobalt (Co) concentrations are comprised between 1.2 and 4.6 mg/kg, these levels are not referred of concern for the aquatic life o Copper (Cu) concentrations are moderate (less than 20 mg/kg) at 8 locations, slightly higher (34 mg/kg) at one location (4500 m) and sharply higher (645 to 910 mg/kg) at 3 locations, namely: 1500, 7200 and 7800 m away from the shoreline. These last values are far higher than the lower and the medium effect level (ERL: 34 mg/kg and ERM: 270 mg/kg). The difference between the levels is difficult to explain. o Mercury (Hg) concentration are higher of the lower effect level (ERL: 0.15 mg/kg) at 4 locations (0, 3000, 5900, 7200 and 7800 m) and higher than the medium effect level (ERM: 0.71 mg/kg) for one location, namely 4500 m away from the shoreline (1.2 mg/kg). - Unlike heavy metals, arsenic (As) show higher concentrations along the sandbar. This different behaviour can be explained by the fact that As is most often present in anionic form (as heavy metals are mostly cationic). Consequently, as heavy metal have high affinity with organic matter (electronegative), As has more affinity with electropositive minerals like iron or aluminium oxides. On the other hand, the presence of As is not likely due to pollution (difficult to explain) but rather to the geochemical nature of the sandbar. At one location (6200 m), the As concentration (11.2 mg/kg) is slightly above the lower effect level (ERL: 8.2 mg/kg). - Among the 14 PAH measured, only naphthalene, pyrene, fluoranthene and benzo(b)fluoranthene show concentration above the detection limit. The individual and cumulated concentrations of these PAH remain below the effect level.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 87
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Petroleum Products (mg/kg) PAH (µg/g) 7 800
6 700
600 5
500 4 400 3
300 in sediment (µg/kg) in sediment
2 200 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
1 100 Petroleum products in sediment (g/kg) in sediment products Petroleum 0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Distance from the coastline (m) Distance from the coastline (m)
Chromium mg/kg Nickel (mg/kg) 45 20 40 18 35 16
30 14
25 12 10 20 8 15 6
10 Nickel (mg/kg) in sediment 4 Chromium in sediment (mg/kg) in Chromium sediment 5 2
0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Distance from the coastline (m) Distance from the coastline (m)
Lead (mg/kg) Copper (mg/kg) 18 1000
16 900 800 14 700 12 600 10 500 8 400
6 300 Lead in sediment (mg/kg) in sediment Lead 4 (mg/kg) in sediment Copper 200
2 100
0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Distance from the coastline (m) Distance from the coastline (m)
Mercury (mg/kg) 1.4 Arsenic (mg/kg) 12
1.2 10
1 8
0.8 6
0.6 4
0.4
Arsenic (mg/kg) in sediment 2 Mercury in sediment (mg/kg) in Mercury sediment 0.2 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 Distance from the coastline (m) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Distance from the coastline (m)
Figure 12: Concentrations of some pollutants in sediments. Yellow points are located along the sand bar. Dashed purple line is lower effect lever (NOAA ERL)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 88
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
5.3.2. BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
As mentioned above (see § 5.1.2), water and sediment samples were taken at three distances from shoreline: 3000 m, 6200 m and 7200 m. To ease the description of biologic environment, the denominations will be used hereinafter to refer to the different samples: - 3000 m: Hovsan Bay - 6200 m: inner slope (of the sandbar) - 7200 m : outer slope (of the sandbar) Zooplankton and phytoplankton were studied in the water column and macro-benthic fauna (> 0.5 mm) was studied in collected sediment. Detailed results are displayed in Appendix 3.5. The following paragraphs summarize the main findings for each categories of biota. It is recalled that the plankton basically refers to microscopic organisms that are suspended or swim in the water column, but the movements of which are small as compared to water movements (river flow, sea currents, waves, tides, etc.). Phytoplankton is made up by microscopic algae, mostly unicellular/colonial organisms. Zooplankton is made up by microscopic or (small-sized) macroscopic animals, protozoa and metazoans, adults or in roe/larvae stages. Benthos refers to attached, creeping or burrowing plants and animals living on or in the sea bottom. Macro-benthos refers to organisms of more than 0.5 mm.
5.3.2.1. Phytoplankton
The phytoplankton species which were identified during the field survey in August 2009 fall into four taxonomic categories that are: Cyanophyta (blue-green algae), Bacillariophyta (diatoms), Chlorophyta (green algae) and Dinophyta (flagellate algae). The contribution of each taxon to the phytoplankton biomass is showed Fig 13.
35000
30000
25000 Dinophyta 20000
Cholorophyta 15000
Biomass(mg/m3) Bacillariophyta 10000
5000 Cyanophyta
0 Hovsan Bay Inner Slope Outer Slope
3000 m 6200 m 7200 m Sample (distance from the shoreline)
Figure 13: Biomass and distribution of taxa in phytoplankton organisms for the 3 sea water samples The total measured biomass of phytoplankton amounts to about 32 g/m3 in Hovsan Bay and about 25 g/m3 above inner and outer slopes. These values are very high as
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 89
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
compared with values measured off-shore in Middle and Southern Caspian Sea which generally do not exceed 100 mg/m3. So the sampled sea water can be considered as eutrophic or mesotrophic. Higher biomass in Hovsan Bay than at remote locations can be as well explained by a higher trophic level. All the identified species are photosynthetic (autotrophic) but some Dinophyta may be also mixotrophic (both autotrophic and heterotrophic). Phytoplankton is dominated by Bacillariophyta (diatoms) among which the large diatom Rhizosolenia calcaravis is highly prevailing in the Hovsan Bay and above inner slope: 80- 90% of the diatom biomass and around 30 % of the total phytoplankton biomass and Chaetoceros wighamii is prevailing above outer slope. Predominance of both Rhizosolenia calcaravis and Chaetoceros wighamii among Middle and South Caspian Sea phytoplankton has been reported by authors. Large diatom Rh. calcaravis has been introduced accidentally during acclimatization of gray mullets from Azov Sea in the 1930s. Since then, it has dramatically developed, especially after the rise of sea level in 1993. Because of its large size (up to 1000 µm), this diatom cannot be eaten by usual zooplankton and the dead bodies sink to the sea bottom where they are processed by bacteria. Ch wighamii has a smaller size and is prayed on by zooplankton. Dinophyta is the second dominating taxa with two main species: Prorocentrum cordatum (= Exuviaella cordata) and Gonyaulax digitale. Prorocentrum cordatum is an autochtonous species which used to largely dominate the Caspian phytoplankton before the introduction of Rh. calcaravis. Actually; it still dominates the diatom in terms of abundance (3 million/m3 against 0.6 million/m3 in Hovsan Bay) but not in terms of biomass. Gonyaulax digitale is species originating of Atlantic Ocean which has been involved in harmful algal bloom called ―red tides‖, with production of toxins. Such G. digitale blooms have not been reported in Caspian Sea so far. Chlorophyta are dominated by Pediastrum duplex, a worldwide spread colonial green algae, which is frequently cited in the literature as usual inhabitant of the Caspian Sea. Cyanophyta are dominated by Microcystis pulverea, a brackish-fresh-water cosmopolite colonial, blue-green algae. Some species of Microcystis genus are known to cause toxic algal bloom but this does not seem to have occurred with M. pulverea.
5.3.2.2. Zooplankton
The zooplankton species which were identified during the field survey in August 2009 fall into five categories that are: Rotatoria, Cladocera, Copepoda, Ctenophora and roes of Mollusca, Balanus and Copepoda. The three first taxa constitute the ―basic‖ zooplankton as Ctenophora refers only to the introduced comb-jelly fish Mnemiopsis leidyi (macro- planktonic species) The contribution of Rotatoria, Cladocera and Copepoda to the biomass of mobile meso- zooplankton (without M. leidyi) is showed Fig 14. Basic zooplankton biomass (wet weight) varies from 2.0 g/m3 above inner slope to 2.8 g/m3 in Hovsan Bay. These values are rather high even if the sampling was made in summer, when the zooplankton is most abundant. The mobile meso-zooplankton is dominated by Copepoda in Hovsan Bay and above inner slope and by Cladocera above outer slope. Both taxa belong to the Crustacea Class. Cladocera are mainly represented by Cercophagis pengoi (29% to 47% of the total biomass of mobile meso-zooplankton). C .pengoi is an endemic species of Caspian Sea, feeding mainly on smaller Crustaceans, the population of which is regulated by fish predation, as well as by the predation of Mnemoipsis. Its abundance in the sample varies from 4 to 8 individuals/m3 which is considered as a low density for the Caspian Sea. The introduced Caladocera Pleopsis polyphenoïdes presents a lower abundance and biomass than C. pengoi but seems to be less vulnerable to comb-jelly fish.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 90
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
3
2.5
2 Copepoda
1.5
Biomass(g/m3) 1 Cladocera
0.5
Rotatoria 0 Hovsan Bay Inner Slope Outer Slope
3000 m 6200 m 7200 m Samples (distance to the shoreline)
Figure 14: Biomass and distribution of taxa in mobile meso-zooplankton organisms for the three sea water samples
Copepoda are dominated by Acartia tonsa (29 to 39 % of biomass of mobile meso- zooplankton). A. tonsa has been introduced recently (1981) from Atlantic in the ballast waters of ships and has taken over Caspian native Copepoda such as Heterocope caspia, Eurytemora grimmi and Calanipead aque-dulcis. A. tonsa mainly feeds on phytoplankton such as Prorocentrum cordatum (cf. § 4.3.2.1) and micro-zooplankton. It is a major food reserve for kilka (protected anchovy-like fish, Caspian autochthon and consumed by Caspian Sea) of which it may constitute from 75 to 90% of the stomach content. Eurytemora grimmi is a food competitor of A. tonsa and other Copepoda. It is also favourable food for fishes owing to its high nutritive value. In 2000, because of Mnemiopsis leidyi invasion, the number of E. grimmi was 10fold reduced in the Middle Caspian and it disappeared from the South Caspian Sea. Rotatoria (= Rotifera) are animals of very small size (most often < 1 mm) which stay at a lower level of the food chain (praying on unicellular organism) and are generally not considered as key plankton species. The two Rotatoria species that have been identified (Keratella trpica and Synchaeta stylata) are very cosmopolite organism that can be encountered in both fresh and brackish waters Within zoo-plankton, the survey identified roes produced by miscellaneous Mollusca and Copepoda, as well as roes of Balanus genus, benthic organisms referred to in the above paragraph. Mnemiopsis leidyi is an invasive macro-zooplanktonic species which has been described above (see § 2.1.4.3). The density measured by the survey was of 40 individuals/m3 at each sampling location. This density is low as compared with 2001 figures. However, the population of Mnemiopsis is regulated by the availability of meso-zooplankton.
5.3.2.3. Benthic Macro-organisms
The macro-benthos species which were identified during the field survey in August 2009 fall into six taxonomic categories that are: Polychaeta (Annelida), Cirripedia (Crustacea), Amphipoda (Crustacea), Decapoda (Crustacea), Bivavia (Mollusca) and Bryozoa. The contribution of each taxon to the zoobenthos biomass is showed Fig 15.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 91
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
160
140
120 Bryozoa 100 Bivalva 80 Decapoda
60 Amphioda Biomass(g/m2) Cirripedia 40 Polychaeta 20
0 Hovsan Bay Inner Slope Outer Slope
3000 m 6200 m 7200 m Samples (distance to the shoreline)
Figure 15: Biomass and distribution of taxa in macro-zoobenthos organisms for the three sea water samples The total measured biomass of zoobenthos amounts to about 80 g/m2 in Hovsan Bay, about 110 g/m2 above the inner slope and about 145 g/m2 above the outer slope. Although the biomass increases together with the distance to the shoreline, the numbers of individuals do not vary to a large extend in the three samples (respectively 1400, 1560 and 1400 ind/m2). Moreover, as the five taxa are present in Hovsan Bay, only three are present above inner and outer slopes. Polychaeta are the dominant taxon and their dominance increase with the distance to the shoreline. Polychaeta are represented by two Nereis (ragworms) species: Nereis diversicolor and N. succinea. N. diversicolor dominates all the benthic organisms in terms of both abundance (850 to 900 ind/m2) and biomass (32 to 83 g/m2). N. succinea is the second dominate specis of the benthos fauna (310 to 460 ind/m2 and 12 to 34 g/m2). Actually, the maximal biomass measured above the outer slope is not due to a higher abundance but to a bigger size of the ragworms (according to number/biomass ratio). Both Nereis are Mediterranean species which have been introduced in Caspian Sea around 1940 to improve the food reserves for sturgeon. Then ragworms found an almost empty ecological niche in the Caspian Sea bottom and could easily spawn and rapidly colonized the all sea. Moreover, the ragworms are known to be tolerant to anoxia and pollution, especially to heavy metals contamination. For instance, they may colonize wastewater and industrial sludge deposited onto the sea bottom. This tolerance enhanced their competitiveness among other benthic organisms in the numerous polluted zones of the Caspian Sea (including Baku Bight). Nereis are endo-benthic, detritivorous worms which dig and inhabit a more-or-less permanent and complex gallery network that can extend down to 30 cm depth. The resulting mixing of sediments, which is referred to as bioturbation, accelerate the microbial metabolism of organic matters and strongly influence the production, mobilisation and accumulation of contaminants. The only species of Decapoda identified is the small crab Rithropanopeus harrisi tridentate, which was introduced from Atlantic Ocean around 1958 through shipping activities (fouling). This crab is only present in Hovsan Bay, with an abundance of 40 ind/m2 and a biomass of 18 g/m2. The absence of this crab in the remote location cannot be explained readily. Bivalvia are represented by three species: Mytilaster lineatus (mussel), Cerastoderma lamarcki (cockle) and Abra ovata (small clam). The first one is present at the three sampling locations (40 ind/m2), the second one at the two remote locations (80 and 12 ind/m2 and the third one only above the inner slope (80 ind/m2). The three species have been introduced from Mediterranean Sea more or less recently (5000 years for Cerastoderma and less than 100 years for the other ones, see § 2.1.4.3). Mytilaster dwells on the top of the sea bottom and filters the sediment waters to feed on
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 92
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
microplankton. In contrast, Cerastoderma and Abra burry themselves down to few cm in the sediment. These detrivorous organisms grasp by the means of long siphons organic particles and microscopic algae from the surface of the sea bottom. All these bivalves are rather tolerant to anoxia, but Mytilaster seems to be more tolerant than the others. This tolerance, in addition to the fact that mussels do not have to burry in polluted sediment can explain that Mytilaster is the only one to be found in the closest sample (Hovsan Bay). Anyway, it is noteworthy that the size of all bivalves were very small (max 0.28 mg/ind for Mitylaster, 0.18 g/ind for Cerastoderma and 0.4 g/ind for Abra). These bivalves provide food for bentophagous fishes (among which several sturgeon species). Due to its thin shell, and its nutritive flesh, Abra ovata is very appreciated by fishes. Cirripedia (barnacles) are represented by Balanus improvisus introduced from Atlantic Ocean in the 1960s. This species is only present in the closest sampling location (Hovsan Bay) with an abundance of 40 ind/m2 and a weight of 3.2 g/m2. Amphipoda (scuds) are only represented by Niphargoides (=Pontogammarus) maeoticus, an autochtonous species which feed on protozoa and micro-algae growing at the sediment surface. Its abundance varies from 40 to 80 ind/m2 and the biomass from 0.1 to 0.2 g/m2. Bryozoa (pearlweed) represented by the Conopeum seuratii, introduced from the Mediterranean Sea in the 1960s, are mainly present in remote sampling zones (inner and outer slopes), with a biomass close to 2 g/m2. Like other bryozoans, it forms encrusting colonies of individual animals called ―zooids‖ and fitted with tentacles, which feed on suspended phytoplankton and micro-organisms. With regard to benthos communities, which are most likely to be affected by the construction of the outfall, it can be stated that these communities are almost fully comprised of introduced species. The predominance of alien benthos species has been established for the all Caspian Sea, but the particular context of the Baku Bight, characterised by a high pollution level, has even more favoured these alien species against native species. However, most of the benthos species show very small body sizes.
5.3.2.4. Consideration about the Upper Marine Fauna
The upper marine fauna (fishes and seals) has not been investigated for the purpose of the project. However, it is established that the presence of upper fauna is linked to the local state of the flora and lower fauna on which the upper fauna feeds (see Pict. 4 in § 2.1.4.1). The high pollution level of both sea water and sediments which most likely dates back several decades and the low biomass of benthic fauna (due to both pollution and invasive comb-jelly fishes) render the marine study area not very attractive for the upper fauna, especially the protected sturgeons and Caspian seal, for feeding and spawning. Moreover, the study area is not located on the migration routes of both sturgeons and seals. Furthermore, breeding zones of Caspian seal are exclusively located in the North Caspian Sea and sturgeons spawn in fresh river waters (anadromous fishes). Subsequently, the study area is not a critical zone for the protected, rare or endangered fauna of the Caspian Sea. The current discharge of treated wastewater on the seashore attracts opportunistic detritophagous fishes such as grey mullets (introduced species) around the outlet of the Hovsan WWTP where they may be caught by nets of non professional fishermen (see § 5.2.2.2).
5.3.3. MARINE HUMAN SETTING AND ACTIVITIES 5.3.3.1. Sub-marine Pipes
Give the importance of hydrocarbon extraction, transport and processing sectors which have been developed for many decades within Greater Baku, many pipes, still operational or abandoned, are presently lying on the sea bottom. The Feasibility Study
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 93
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
has reported that 5 pipelines crossing the survey zone were observed, most likely, laid as part of the infrastructure of the SOCAR Qum Adası Production Unit.
5.3.3.2. Marine Transports and Fishing
This aspect has been addressed previously (see § 2.3.3). It is just remembered that, in spite of the vicinity of Hovsan commercial and fishing ports, no ships are allowed by the regulation to move across the marine study area.
5.3.3.3. Recreational activities
As stated above (see § 5.2.2.1) the terrestrial study area is privately managed by a Russian Oil company. Moreover the visible pollution and gas odours originating in both Hovsan WWTP outlet and Hovsan Canal mouth is definitely repellent for population. No public and private recreational activities occur neither along the seashore and nor on the nearshore. Only non professional fishermen are likely to catch fishes at the outlet of Hovsan WWTP. Other rare fishermen have been observed using fishing lines from the seaside out of the study area, to the east.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 94
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6.1. METHODOLOGY OF IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
6.1.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING
Based on field visits, initial consultation of stakeholders and reviewing of the relevant documentation, especially the interim Feasibility Report, a preliminary environmental scoping of the project has been performed with a view of pointing out potentially serious, important and moderate impacts that would need to be mitigated. These preliminary statements helped to identify the relevant sources of impacts which have been thereafter confronted with the environmental components of the project in order to bring out the potential impacts which require an assessment. The results of this environmental scoping are set out in Table 6.1.
6.1.2. ASSESSING AND RANKING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In line with standard environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice and the World Bank guidelines, the impacts identification covers the direct effects and any indirect, secondary cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the sea outfall during its construction and operation. The significance of the impact is assessed on the basis of both following criteria: - the magnitude of the impact on a receptor (e.g. human beings, benthic communities) or environmental resource (elements of the existing natural or built environment which are essential, or of value, to the functioning of human or natural systems) as a result of the project, and - the importance and/or sensitivity of the impacted receptor or environmental resource.
As it is set out in Fig.16, the criteria can be used to determine four levels of overall significance of each identified impact: - an impact is deemed ―serious‖ when, if not mitigated, it is potentially sufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project. - an impact is deemed ―significant‖ when it requires mitigation to prevent significant damage or nuisance to major environmental component - an impact is deemed ―moderate‖ when its mitigation is desirable but not essential - an impact is deemed ―not significant‖ when it affects weakly or just for a short while an environmental receptor of very low importance/sensitivity. Mitigation of this kind of impact is often considered not cost-effective and thus not necessary.
Albeit important, the probability of the impact is used as a criterion for determining the impact significance because it is considered that even an uncertain impact deserve to be mitigated if it affects significantly the environment. It is recalled that for sanitation project, the main adverse impacts most often arise from disruption or breakdown of the treatment system.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 95
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Importance/Sensitivity of the receptor
Very High High Medium Low Very Low
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
Very High SERIOUS SERIOUS SIGNIFICANT MODERATE MODERATE (5)
High SERIOUS SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT MODERATE MODERATE (4) Magnitude Medium of the SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT MODERATE MODERATE (3) impact
Low MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE Not Significant (2)
Very Low MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE Not Significant Not Significant (1)
Figure 16: Criteria for impact assessment ands ranking
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 96
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 6.1a: Results of environmental scoping of the Hovsan sewage outfall project Indirect potential impact Component Potential impact Source Activity induced
Construction phase Movement and work of heavy Rise of noise and vibration level Engines Disturbance of fauna machinery Movement and work of heavy Adverse effects on public health Emission of exhaust gases Air machinery and welfare Air pollutant emissions Movement and work of heavy Adverse effects on public health Emission of dust machinery, transport of spoil and welfare material Loss of natural soil Soil excavation Trench digging Destruction of flora and fauna Soil Spillage of lubricant, fuel and Movement and work of heavy Pollution on surface and ground Pollution of soil solid waste machinery, fueling operation waters Movement and work of heavy Fresh water Pollution on surface and ground waters Spillage of lubricant and fuel machinery, fueling operation Destruction of terrestrial vegetation Scouring, soil excavation Trench digging Terrestrial flora and fauna Destruction and disturbance of terrestrial Soil excavation Trench digging and backfilling fauna Spillage of lubricant, fuel and Movement and work of ships and Adverse effects on marine life solid waste from ships and barges barges Seawater Seawater pollution Re-suspension of polluted Submarine trench digging and Adverse effects on marine life sediment backfilling Pollution of sea water by re- suspension of contaminated Seabed removal Seabed excavation Submarine trench digging sediment, destruction of benthic Seabed fauna Contamination by deposited spoil Seabed pollution Submarine trench digging marine material Transport of pipes by ships from Changes in pelagic and/or benthic Introduction of alien invasive species Pipe supply foreign countries communities Covering the sea by rock material Dike construction Changes in benthic communities Seabed excavation Submarine trench digging Marine life Disposal of spoil marine material Submarine trench digging Movement and work of heavy Changes in pelagic communities Seawater pollution machinery, fueling operation, trench digging and backfilling
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 97
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 6.1b: Results of environmental scoping of the Hovsan sewage outfall project (continuing)
Construction phase (continuing) Destruction of private goods (underground Soil excavation Trench digging pipelines, cables,…) Excavation of the road Disruption to road traffic Trench digging embankment Human and socio- Movement and work of heavy Adverse effects on health, welfare and of Emission of noise, vibration, dust Adverse effects on public health economic environment machinery, fueling operation, the nearby population and air pollutants and welfare trench digging and backfilling Movement and work of heavy Disruption to public services Crossing power lines machinery, fueling operation, trench digging and backfilling
Operation phase Emissions of noise and vibrations Sewage transport Outfall normal operation Terrestrial environment Air pollutants emissions Sewage transport Outfall normal operation Discharge of treated wastewater Outfall normal operation Sea water pollution and nutrient by the diffuser Seawater Adverse effects on marine life enrichment Discharge of untreated Outfall operation with WWTP wastewater by the diffuser breakdown Discharge of treated wastewater Outfall normal operation by the diffuser Seabed Seabed pollution Adverse effects on marine life Discharge of untreated Outfall operation with WWTP wastewater by the diffuser breakdown Discharge of treated wastewater Changes in benthic communities Nutrient enrichment by the diffuser Marine life Nutrient enrichment and Discharge of treated wastewater Changes in pelagic communities deposition of suspend solids by the diffuser contained in wastewater Effects on exploitation of marine Discharge of treated wastewater Changes in fishes population Loss of income for fishermen resources by the diffuser Worrying populations, questioning Human and socio- Bad perception of outfall by the riparian Lack of knowledge among the Bad image of the sea outfalls from NGO and community based economic environment and local tourist population population organizations Effects on terrestrial and coastal Visible headworks Adverse effects on public welfare landscape
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 98
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
6.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS
6.2.1. DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE
6.2.1.1. Direct employment of local staff
The construction phase will create job opportunities for both unskilled and skill manpower recruited within Greater Baku. The main staff-demanding activities will be civil works and construction of concrete rings. More specifically, about 100 jobs are foreseen to be created for nearly 2 years.
6.2.1.2. Induced commercial activities
In addition to jobs, the activities relating to the outfall construction will increase the need for small equipment, material and services which will increase the economic activity of Greater Baku.
6.2.2. DURING OPERATION PHASE
Foreword
Before describing the positive impacts of the sewage outfall, in comparison with the present discharge onto the shoreline, it is noteworthy to remember that the project will not, unfortunately, drastically reduce chemical and micro-biological contamination of the Baku Bight, and not even of the Hovsan Bay. The two main reasons for this are: - in the one hand, that the present contamination of sediments by persistent pollutant accumulated for several decades of industrial and oil extraction and relating activities will not disappear in the short term unless a comprehensive cleaning programme - in the other hand, the treated wastewater discharged by the Hovsan WWTP, are far to be the only pollution source of the Hovsan Bay. For example, the discharge of wastewater by the Hovsan Canal amount to 25% (in flow) of that of WWTP and as the canal wastewater are untreated, the pollution load could be nearly equivalent. If the all Baku Bight is considered, many discharge points of wastewater to the shoreline have been identified (see § 4.1.5.5) and the wastewater collected by the Hovsan WWTP likely accounts for less than 50% of the total wastewater produced within Greater Baku. However, the sewage outfall will keep the wastewater away from the Hovsan shoreline and the people who use it for recreational purpose, limiting thereby the health risk associated with faecal pathogens and, possibly, toxic contaminants. Furthermore, it will accelerate the purification and dispersion of effluent by discharging them into an open, deeper marine zone subject to currents and enabling them to integrate the marine ecosystem without nutrient accumulation and the subsequent eutrophication risk.
6.2.2.1. Improvement of public health (infectious diseases)
In the framework of the Feasibility Study (awarded to another Consultant), a plume modelling has been carried out to determine the risk of contamination of the shoreline by faecal germs. This modelling was based on the following factors:
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 99
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- faecal germs concentration of treated sewage (238,000 FC/100 ml) and die-off rate associated with temperature and solar radiation, determined in situ to T90 = 1.5 hour - water circulation mainly associated with local currents (0.5 m/s for the fastest currents) - design of outfall and diffuser The modelling demonstrated that in summer, under the combined dilution (primary and secondary) and die-off, the concentration of faecal germs will reach 540 FC/100 ml at the distance of 500 m away from the diffuser. This value being below the international standard of FC 1000/100 ml, and the diffuser being located more than 6 km away from the shoreline (as the crow flies) it makes it sure that the bathing and recreational waters, located within 500m of the shoreline, will not receive health concerning quantities of faecal germs from the Hovsan WWTP. Actually, the modelling shows that this statement would still be true in case of disruption to primary and secondary treatments, which would result in a 100-fold increase of FC concentration in sewage. Accordingly, as compared with the present sewage discharge onto the shoreline, the effect on public health is indubitably beneficial. However, it is reminded that other pollutions sources may contaminate recreational waters up to health concerning levels, but the Hovsan WWTP will not be responsible for this.
6.2.2.2. Environmental and health benefits from elimination of chlorination
The remote outfall discharge will prevent the need for chlorination of treated wastewater which is currently operated, albeit not continuously. In Hovsan WWTP, chlorination is made with gaseous chlorine (Cl2) so a small quantity of free chlorine, which is known to be toxic to aquatic organisms including fishes, remains in the wastewater discharged into the sea. Moreover, the reaction of chlorine with organic compounds contained in treated wastewater generates many different compounds which may be harmful for aquatic life such as chloramines and chlorinated organic compounds (halomethanes like chloroform). In addition to their harmful effect to the aquatic fauna, these compounds often caused adverse effect on human health which may be sub-lethal (respiratory problems) or lethal (cancer). However, it is true that the exposure of the riparian population to these toxic substances through sea water ingestion or inhalation is very low. Even if the quantities and acute chemical speciation of chlorinated compounds produced by the disinfection of wastewater are difficult to determine, the harmful effect of these compounds comes on top of the pre-existing harmful compounds such has pesticides. This cumulative adverse effect will be thus cancelled by the outfall project. In the other hand, the effectiveness of chlorine for wastewater disinfection is weaken by the high level of organic matters, which transforms a part of the free chorine into chloramines. In the other hand, some parasitic species have shown resistance to low doses of chlorine, including oocysts of Cryptosporidium parvum, cysts of Endamoeba histolytica and Giardia lamblia, and eggs of parasitic worms.
6.2.2.3. Improvement of quality of life
The secondary treatment of wastewater dramatically diminishes the level of bad smelling sulphur-reduced compounds such as H2S and mercaptans, and hence reduces the bad odours of effluents. However, some bad odours may remain at the outlet of the current discharge pipe of the Hovsan WWTP which will definitely disappear with the outfall project.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 100
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
6.3. POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS
6.3.1. DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE
6.3.1.1. Impact on terrestrial environment 6.3.1.1.1. Impact on air
Rise of noise and vibration levels The works, especially those relating to digging, laying and trench filling will require machines such as bulldozers, tractors, graders and trucks that will produce high levels of noise. Noise from this ling equipment can reach 90 dBA each at 15 meters distance. It is clear that the noise level of the worksite will rise significantly for the duration of works, but since the closest settlements are located more than 400 m away from the main work sites, noise and vibrations are expected to be attenuated to an almost imperceptible level. This impact is deemed insignificant.
Air pollutant emissions As mentioned above (see § 5.2.1.2), the level of air pollutants in the study area is typical of a sub-urban and sub-industrial area. The windy climate of the Absheron Peninsula also favours the pollutant dispersion. Two main sources of air pollution will occur during the construction works: - earthworks (trench digging and filling and transport of material) may generate large quantities of dust during the (long) dry season. These particles are non toxic, but deposit on the plant leaves and affect photosynthesis. - movements/operation of vehicles (including ships) and heavy machinery involved in the works, that will cause emission of toxic exhaust gases and fine particles The extent of these emissions will be in all cases limited to the vicinity of the sources, which may be moving over the duration of works. The potential impact of emitted dust will be linked to the density of population in the immediate surroundings of work sites that is close to zero. This impact is deemed insignificant.
6.3.1.1.2. Impact on soils
Loss of natural soil Loss of soil will be caused by digging the trench which will be nearly 1000m long, 6 wide and 4m deep. In total a surface of 6000 m2 and a volume of 24 000 m3 of natural soil will be excavated. A part of this soil, about 6000 m3, will be reused for trench back-filling, and hence recover its soil and the other part deposit in a disposal area. The final volume of removed soil is thus quite limited. Moreover, since the soil is young, has a low fertility and a very thin organic layer (see § 5.2.1.4), it is expected it can recover quite quickly its former property as a support for flora and fauna. For these reasons, this impact is deemed moderate.
Pollution of soils Soil contamination by spills of hazardous material may occur if oily products from engines are spilled along the outfall route due to improper disposal of used oils, lubricants or
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 101
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
waste. Spill of wastewater onto or into the soil may occur during the works when the connexion between the WWTP and the pipe will be made. The surfaces and volumes of soil likely to be affected by these kinds of spills are very limited, so the impact is deemed moderate.
6.3.1.1.3. Impact on terrestrial waters
Pollution of surface and ground waters The only watercourse running through the study area is the Hovsan Canal which is highly polluted (see § 4.1.5.3). Risk of accidental spill of pollutants such as lubricant, fuels or solid waste cannot be ruled out, but these spills are not likely to significantly increase the pollution level of the Hovsan Canal The shallow groundwater could be polluted by transfer of chemical pollutants spilled onto the ground. Pollutants can readily get through the top layer that is not impervious albeit rich in clay minerals, down to the shallow brackish water table. The extent of this kind of pollution should stay very small. Accordingly, the impact on both surface and ground freshwaters is deemed moderate.
6.3.1.1.4. Impact of living organisms
Destruction of terrestrial vegetation Destruction of vegetation will occur by land clearance and trench digging. The natural vegetation in place is rather poor in biodiversity, limited to herbaceous plants tolerant to salt and dryness (see § 5.2.1.6). These plants play however a significant role in soil stability and fight against wind erosion, and to a small extent, in landscape aesthetics. They provide also shelters and food for animal life (however limited to small size animals). The terrestrial vegetation will be totally destroyed on about 6000 m2. In addition, the vegetation will be damaged by the movements of vehicles and heavy machinery. The scoured surfaces will be restored by the contractor to their original conditions after completion of works and will be likely recovered by the existing vegetation after several years. Given the small extension of the destruction and the low richness of local fauna, this impact is deemed moderate.
Destruction and disturbance of terrestrial fauna On work site, displacements of vehicles and operation of machinery will generate disturbance for macro-fauna (birds, rodents, reptiles) and destroy meso-fauna and micro- fauna (insects, worms, etc.). No species of interest (protected, rare or endangered) is likely to be affected by these activities. This impact is thus considered moderate.
6.3.1.2. Impact on coastal and marine environment 6.3.1.2.1. Impact on sea water
Seawater pollution Pollution of seawater during the works may be associated to: - spill of polluting substances (lubricant, fuel and wastewater) and solid waste from the ship and barge - disposal of HDPE debris coming from the pipe assembling works
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 102
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- re-suspension of polluted sediment in the water column by sea bottom excavation and spoil sediment disposal This kind of pollution will involve mainly petroleum product, heavy metal like mercury which shows high concentration in sediments as well as plastic (HDPE) floating debris. The polluting activities can occur not only in the polluted area (inner Hovsan Bay) but also in the less polluted area such as the outer slope of the sandbar. For this reason, this impact is deemed potentially significant.
6.3.1.2.2. Impact on sea bottom
Sea bed excavation For digging the trench where the outfall will be laid to, a total of 950 000 m3 of sea sediment and/or bedrock will have to be excavated on a total surface of 51 ha (see table 4.13 in § 4.3.2.4). The tremendous volume of excavation is mostly due to the crossing of the sand bar, the top of which being about 6 m above the surrounding ground. At this stage of the project, the need for excavating any hard bed rock underlying the sandbar is not known. If not restored, the excavation of the sandbar may affect significantly the water and sediment circulation between the offshore zone and the Hovsan Bay. For this reason, this impact is deemed potentially significant.
Sea bed pollution Disposal of polluted sediment, with high levels of petroleum products and mercury, for example, onto less polluted areas of sea bed will significantly affect the quality of the sea bed and its role in benthos productivity of the disposal areas. Given that the marine disposal areas are not known at this stage of the project, this impact will be deemed potentially significant.
6.3.1.2.3. Impact on marine life
Introduction of invasive alien species As long sections of HDPE pipe are mostly manufactured in Scandinavian countries, it is likely that the pipe section will be imported from these remote countries and transported by ships though several seas, namely: Baltic Sea, North Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, Azov Sea and finely Caspian Sea via the Volga-Don Canal. Given the outstanding length of the sub-marine outfall (about 2 x 8 km), several international ship trips may be needed. The damage caused by the introduction of invasive alien species, the figurehead of which being the comb jelly fish Mnemiopsis leidyi, to both Black Sea and Caspian Sea has been pointed out previously (see § 2.1.4.3). Even if it can be argued that the invasion has already occurred, but the risk of worsening cannot be ruled out as reckoned by the Caspian Environmental Program, which considers the fight against the introduction of alien species is of highest priority (see § 3.1.3.1). Albeit not certain this impact is deemed potentially significant.
Changes in benthic communities The benthic communities will be affected by: - construction of the dyke, which will cover a surface of about 0.5 ha. - sediment excavation, which will cover a surface of about 11 ha (see Table 4.13 in § 4.3.2.4) - disposition of spoil sediment, which will cover a surface of about 34 ha m2
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 103
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
The total surface of benthos affected amounts to 45 ha. Actually, only a part of the benthic fauna will be destroyed by these activities. For instance, very mobile animals such as ragworms may survive during spoil material depositing. For this reason and the poor richness of the benthic fauna showed previously (see above § 5.3.2.3), this impact will be deemed moderate.
Changes in pelagic communities As regards phyto- and zooplankton the magnitude of physical, and chemical changes in the water column cannot be accurately determined but these changes will be localized in space because of the weakness of local currents and thus should not modify for the long term the abundance and richness of planktonic communities. As regards the macro-fauna (nekton), the marine phonic and visual disturbance caused by marine works will most likely keep the biggest fishes far away from the working sites. Damage to benthic fauna by deposition of spoil sediments will also impact adversely, but very locally, benthophagous and detritophagous fishes like mullets (Liza sp.). In the other hand, the release of benthonic species, especially ragworms (Nereis sp.), into the water column by excavation works may attract the fishes when activities have ceased (at the end of the working hours, for example. Because of the spatial and time limits of impacts, and the fact that the work site do not accommodate or provide food to species of interest, this impact will be deemed moderate.
6.3.1.3. Impact on human environment
Destruction of private goods (for the record) The land affected by the project is the property of the State (see § 5.2.2.1). However, this land is rent through a long term contract to a Russian oil company. It is supposed that the contract provides for the possibility to undertake works for the public interest on the land provided that the industrial settings, namely pipes, are not damaged. This impact is deemed insignificant.
Disruption to road traffic Since the outfall pipe crosses the coastal road, this road will have to be cut during a few weeks, while the trench will be dug out, the pipe laid and the trench backfilled and the pavement restored. However in case of total cutting of the coastal road, the Hovsan town and port, as well as the eastern remote places of the Absheron Peninsula will stay reachable by using other roads (for example, the airport motorway), but the length and duration of the journey will notably increase. Accordingly, the impact will be deemed moderate.
Adverse effects on health and welfare of the nearby population The nearby Hovsan dwelling population might be affected by noise, dust and air pollutant generated with the works. However, thanks to the distance between housing and population work places, these effects cannot be considered significant. The risk of accidents at works sites involving general population is also very low, except with regards to the vehicle circulation on the coastal road when the works will reach it: car accidents may occur, especially during the night, because of lack of suitable road signs. For this last reason, this impact is deemed potentially significant.
Disruption to public services The outfall route is crossed by two high/medium voltage lines which may be cut during short periods for safety reasons. It is not likely that electric polls need to be displaced. In this case, some neighbourhoods and facilities of Greater Baku may experienced short power cut-off if other power sources cannot be used. Accordingly, this impact will be deemed moderate.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 104
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
6.3.2. DURING OPERATION PHASE
Foreword: different situations which may observed during the operation phase
For the following impact assessment, it is supposed that the pipe will be constructed according to relevant rules book, in particular the material will be of the requested quality and the welding carried out with care in such a way that not leakage may occur during the life of the outfall. Furthermore, regular annual inspections will be done to detect possible leakage. Having said this, the four following situations can be observed during operation of the outfall: - normal (routine) functioning of the system comprising both the treatment plant and the outfall discharge through the diffuser. This situation is supposed to occur most of the time. - ―impaired treatment‖ situation in which the wastewater treatment will not be completed because of a technical breakdown or a power cut-off at WWTP. These situations are not predictable but may occur at most few times in a year, generally for short durations. In this case, basically, the untreated wastewater is discharged on the shoreline through the existing discharge double pipe. - ―heavy rain‖ situation in which the WWTP should be by-passed because of wastewater flow rate, dramatically increased by the rainwater, exceeds the treatment capacity. This situation is generally observed at least 5 to 10 times in a year, particularly during the rainy season. In these cases, the diluted wastewater is discharged on the shoreline through the existing discharge double pipe. It is worth noting that along the wastewater collecting system, several overflow system have been set up for diverting the diluted wastewater towards the drainage system in case of heavy rain. - ―accidental damage‖ situations in which the outfall would be broken (open breach) in its terrestrial section (by the activity of heavy machinery crossing the outfall route, for example) or in its marine section (damage made by an anchor, for example). This situation shall be controlled by relevant practices applied according to the rule book. These practices comprise burying the entire terrestrial section and burying a part of the marine section and covering with rocks the other marine section. Accordingly, in the following impact assessment, only ―normal‖ and ―impaired treatment‖ situation will be considered. The ―impaired treatment‖ situation will be mentioned in the case of the impact are significantly different from that of the normal situation.
6.3.2.1. Impact on terrestrial environment)
Noise and vibration Noise and vibration generated by the outfall and its headwork will not be perceptible by the riparian population as well as the persons driving on the coastal road. This impact is consequently deemed not significant.
Air pollutants emissions Both terrestrial and marine sections of the outfall will be totally sealed, air and waterproof. Even in case of leakage or damage to the pipe (very unlikely for a buried pipe), the odour emission will be low because the wastewater will have undergone secondary treatment. This impact is consequently deemed not significant.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 105
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
6.3.2.2. Impact on marine environment
Seawater pollution The impact assessment on the sea water pollution will be conducted on the basis of the initial dilution (near field dilution), i.e. the dilution of the treated wastewater discharged by the outfall from the diffuser to the water surface. According to the preliminary feasibility study report, the average initial dilution will be estimated to 20. Following this primary dilution, a secondary dilution will occur under the influence of winds and current, which will increase progressively the dilution together with the distance to the discharge point. Table 6.2 shows the existing concentration of pollutant, as measured during the first field survey at a distance of 7800 m away from the shoreline, the expected concentrations of pollutants in the treated wastewater, according to the treatment performance or the standards for discharge of effluent in the public network and the expected concentrations after the 1/20 dilution of treated wastewater to the surrounding sea water.
Table 6.2: Expected pollutant concentrations after initial 1/20 dilution of treated wastewater in the surrounding sea water at the diffuser place Final concentration Existing Concentration in of sea water after concentration of Parameters treated effluent discharge of sea water (mg/l) treated effluent (mg/l) (*) (with 1/20 dilution) As 0.016 0.032 (**) 0.017 Cd 0.03 0.002 (**) 0.03 Cu 0.06 0.005 (**) 0.06 Co 0.04 0.001 (**) 0.04 Cr - 0.005 (**) <0.001 Hg 0.01 0.01 (**) 0.01 Ni 0.02 0.02 (**) 0.02 Dissolved oxygen 6.5 3.1 (**) 6.33
BOD5 - 25 (***) 1.25 COD - 125 (***) 6.25 Suspended solids 3.9 25 (***) 4.96 Total Nitrogen 0.07 10 (***) 0.57 Total Phosphorus <0.01 2.3 (***) 0.15 (*) from the analysis of sea water located 7900 m away from the shoreline in the first field survey (**) from the Hovsan WWTP wastewater analysis in the first field survey, These values do not take into account the abatement of heavy metals during the different treatment steps. (***) given by the contract performance of the upgraded Hovsan WWTP It appears that the concentration of heavy metals will not increase perceptibly with the discharge of treated wastewater. The Total Suspended Solids will increase by less than 30% and will stay under 5 mg/l, so the transparency of the water is not likely to be significantly reduced. The increase of both BOD and COD and the decrease of DO will meet the Azerbaijan standards for protecting the aquatic life (cf. table 3.5 in § 3.2.3.2). Albeit reduced by the wastewater treatment and the dilution, nitrogen and phosphorus levels are significantly higher than in the surrounding seawater, but they will disappear quickly after metabolisation by micro-organisms (see the impact on plankton below) According to the previous observation, this impact is deemed moderate.
Sea bed pollution
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 106
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
The sea bed will receive part of suspended solids contained in the treated wastewater which will deposit by gravity. However, it has been shown in Table 6.2 that the pre- existing level of suspended solids in the seawater is not significant, which reveals that water movements hamper the deposition of suspended particles and hence favours their transportation towards remote areas. In addition, the dilution of treated wastewater will not increase significantly the concentration of suspended solids in the sea water. In terms of particle size, it is recalled that the primary treatment will retain in the sludge the particles of more than 50µ. Some studies on sewage outfalls have shown that less than 10 of the total amount of suspended solids discharges can be refund in the surrounding sediments. It is sure that the level of sediment will slightly increase around the diffuser but without major change in the sediment profile. All the more so since the primary treatment will remove a large part of insoluble heavy metals which will mostly stay in the primary sludge. Accordingly, this impact is deemed moderate.
Changes in benthic communities Mobile (ragworms, Apmphipoda) and less mobile (burrowing Mollusca such as Abra sp. or Ceratosderma sp.) benthic fauna may not be significantly affected by the sedimentation of wastewater particles due to both relatively low concentration and low deposition speed of these particles, which will also increase their dispersion. In contrast, organic matter borne by the particles will provide additional food, either directly or indirectly through increasing of the phytoplankton to the macro-benthic communities. Non mobile benthic species like mussels, barnacles or bryozoans may, to a limited extent, be affected by the sedimentation, but they are not very developed and are not of significant importance in terms of biodiversity in the area (see § 5.3.2.3). Anyway, if the benthic biomass, especially detritophagous fauna, will likely increase thanks to deposited particles containing organic matter, the richness (number of different species) of this ecosystem is not expected to rise. For these reasons, this impact is deemed non significant.
Changes in pelagic communities Increase of nutrients N and P concentrations in sea water will favour the development of phytoplankton. According to the N/P ratio either prokaryotic blue-green algae (Cyanophiceae) or eukaryotic algae will dominate phytoplankton. However, dramatic, harmful increase of plankton biomass, also referred to as ―algal bloom‖ is not likely to occur given the limited nutrients concentrations. Both organic particles borne by wastewater and induced increase of phytoplankton biomass will favour development increase of zooplanktonic fauna, which will regulate the algal population. Then, planktonivorous fishes will regulate the planktonic population. In any case, the abundance of certain species will increase but the richness of ecosystem may slightly decrease. In addition, large marine animals such as salmons, sturgeons and seals will not be significantly affected by the discharge. For these reasons, this impact is deemed moderate. In case of impaired treatment, the higher concentration of nutrients will be more likely to cause harmful algal bloom (―red tide‖ or ―green tide‖). If the past and present situation, with partially treated waters discharged directly onto the shoreline, are considered, it can be argued that no algal bloom have never been observed, but just the limited development of green macro-algae (see § 5.1.1.6). Macro-algae growing, also referred to as macro-algae eutrophication, is associated with a continuous, regular but not excessive (or not resulting in high concentrations) release of nutrients. However, the present situation cannot be used as a ―reductio ad absurdum‖ to rule out the bloom algal risk because the presence of free chlorine or toxic substances, possibly released by the Hovsan canal, may locally limit phytoplankton growing. In case of impaired treatment, this impact hence is deemed significant. Proper operations and maintenance procedures are therefore needed at the treatment works to ensure that the risk of plant shut-down is minimized, but emergency plan with additional investments (like a buffer reservoir to store wastewater while solving the problem) is not needed.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 107
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
In conclusion, the impact of the outfall operation will stay limited owing to: - on the one hand, the low biodiversity value of the benthic habitat, in terms of richness (number of species, abundance (number of individuals), biomass and endemism (dominance of alien introduced species)), It may be assumed that the biodiversity has never been of uppermost importance in the Baku Bight because of the lack of big river estuaries. However, the long-lasting pollution by oil extraction activities and, later by the heavy industry has been indubitably the main pressure on the living organisms dwelling the sea bottom. - on the other hand, the wastewater treatment, comprising preliminary, primary, secondary and tertiary processes which will reduce the quantity and the size of the suspended particles, remove a large part of heavy metals, remove a large part of the organic matter as well as phosphorus and soluble nitrogen. This will result in a minor change of water quality of the sea water once the primary dilution, caused by the difference of density between wastewater and sea water, occurs Moreover, the location of the outfall discharge point is designed in "open sea", where dilution/dispersion of treated wastewater will be favoured by local currents.
6.3.2.3. Impact on human environment
Effects on exploitation of marine resources
Since the discharge of wastewater at the current outlet of the discharge double-pipe will cease, the catch of the very few non professional local fishermen (see § 5.2.2.2) will decrease. According to the limits of fishing zones, professional fishermen will be kept away from more than 10 km of the outfall diffuser, in such a way that the caught fish is not likely to be affected neither quantitatively nor qualitatively. For these reasons, this impact is deemed not significant.
Bad perception of outfall by the riparian and local tourist population Even if submarine outfalls and their outlets are not physically perceptible by the nearby population, they can suffer from a bad image which often surpasses in the eyes of the public the beneficial outcomes of this sanitation way. The bad image is exacerbated for the closed or nearly closed water bodies (Mediterranean Sea, for example), which is understandable. Actually, the bad image is due to the lack of knowledge and the feeling that every kind of effluent, including harmful or toxic, can be discharged into the sea without control. The bad image most frequently shared among people such as members of environmental NGO, fishermen and local population using the nearby sea shore for recreational purpose. Because the bad, undeserved reputation of marine outfall may be a ground for contest movement among certain population, the impact will be deemed significant.
Effects on terrestrial and coastal landscape
If visible headwork needs to be constructed, it will be in the premises of the Hovsan WWTP. Since the outfall will be buried on the whole terrestrial section and marine section, it will not be seen from the coastal road, the seashore or the closest dwellings. Given the low level of suspended solids, the dispersion plume of effluents will not be visible from the sky as well. For these reasons, this impact is deemed non significant.
6.3.3. SUMMARY OF INDIRECT IMPACTS
Potential indirect impacts of the construction phase will mostly affect population safety, especially road safety associated with works across the coastal road and population welfare with respect to the possible disruption of power and communication network.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 108
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
These impacts can be however efficiently mitigated by proper and simple prevention measures. The operation of the outfall will directly cause "nutritional enrichment" of the surrounding sea water and sea bottom. Subsequently, the expected indirect impacts are change in biological communities living in/on both habitats, including those organisms feeding on these communities, and the human population which exploit these habitats and organisms (fishermen). It should be remembered that the Baku Bight and especially the Hovsan Bay where the outfall will be laid is heavily polluted as a result of oil extraction and industrial development formerly conducted without regard to the environment. This pollution has markedly decreased the chemical quality of the sea bottom and reduced its biodiversity as well as, to a certain extent, its biomass. Moreover, before the pollution period, alien, more competitive animal species which had been continuously introduced to the Caspian Sea had progressively and almost totally replaced the autochthonous/endemic ones. As a result the benthic macrofauna is now markedly dominated by introduced ragworm species which are very mobile, detritophagous and particularly tolerant to pollution. As a consequence, it can be expected that the enrichment caused by the discharge of treated wastewater will not affect the existing, poor biodiversity but increase the biomass of the dominant ragworms. Because of the treatment processes undergone by wastewater, eutrophication is not likely to occur but the zooplankton is likely to increase the biomass. This may result in an increase of fish biomass, especially detritophagous/benthophagous like mullets, unless it causes a Mneniopsis bloom. The influence of large size organisms like salmon, sturgeons or seals is difficult to assess but should stay very moderate given the current very low abundance of these organisms in the area. The impacts on incomes coming from fishing should not be significant because the area is not, and shall stay not, allowed for fishing.
6.4. CONCLUSIONS
The positive impacts of the project will be associated with the lower risk of infectious disease among the population using the nearshore water for recreational activities as well as the improvement of environmental condition on the Hovsan seashore. The construction of the outfall will not cause major negative impact on land because the scoured surfaces and the excavated volumes will stay limited. On the marine outfall route, the re-suspension of polluted sediments associated with sea bottom excavation and spoil sediment disposal may significantly increase contamination of sea water as well as less polluted sediment presently lying in the remote areas. Excavation of sea bottom and spoil sediment disposal will destroy large surface of benthic life, which render the impact significant even if the benthos is moderately developed along the outfall route apart from the mobile ragworms. Human environment is not likely to be significantly affected by the construction except by the works on the coastal road which may cause disruption to road traffic and increase the risk of car accident. During the outfall operation, the discharge of treated wastewater will change the chemistry of the surrounding water (primary dilution zone) and subsequently affect both pelagic and benthic organisms. But the advanced treatment undergone by the wastewater in Hovsan WWTP will minimize the concentration of nutrients and the suspended particles, which will make moderate the overall impact on the Caspian Sea water and bottom. In other words, normal operation of both Hovsan WWTP and outfall will not cause significant damage to the Caspian Sea ecosystems. In contrast, repeated or long term impairments of treatment by WWTP caused by power cut-off, breakdown of treatment equipment etc., may increase the risk of eutrophication of the sea water. At the end, it should be recalled that the outfall often present a bad image which stems from lack of knowledge among population and of transparency from operator. This bad image may induce contest of population and their representatives. The results of assessment of the main negative impacts are recapitulated in the impact mitigation matrix (see Table 8.3 in § 8.3.2 ).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 109
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
7. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
7.1. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (FOR THE RECORD)
For more than one century, the pollution of Baku Bight has been caused by industrial pollution, mostly related to the oil sector. However, during the last twenty years, as the industrial sector have embarked several environmental improvement programs including shutting down the out-dated facilities and upgrading the processes to render the other ones compliant with the environmental standards, the urban sanitation system should have faced the challenge of a dramatically fast increasing population. The main failures which can be presently observed in the sanitation system are: - a wastewater collection system not fully separated from the rain water drainage system - ineffective wastewater treatment, due to the obsolescence and the bad state of most of the treatment works - discharge of wastewater, treated or not, onto the seashore, causing both environmental and public health related nuisance. The Hovsan WWTP is the main treatment works of Greater Baku and has already commissioned upgrading activities including the replacement or rehabilitation of the main defective equipments to provide a full secondary treatment followed by tertiary nitrogen and phosphorus removal processes. However, domestic wastewater undergoing such an advanced treatment still contains faecal germs at a health concerning level. The treated, but still septic, wastewater is presently discharge to the Hovsan shoreline which is thereby contaminated by faecal germs that may reach the recreational waters of the eastern Hovsan beach. The way to disinfect the treated waters before discharge has been so far the chlorination with gaseous chlorine. But this method generated many compounds likely to be harmful to environment or even toxic for fauna and human being. Moreover, most of these compounds are persistent and may accumulate in the sediments or through the food chain bio-concentration, in the flesh of protected species like sturgeons or Caspian seals. In addition, the zone where the effluent is discharged can be compared to a closed shallow creek because of the presence of a dyke to the east and an offshore ridge (sandbar) to the south. Thus, the moderate movement of seawater within this kind of pool slows down the decay of the chlorinated substances and the die-off rate of faecal germs. Accordingly, if the project is not implemented, the upgraded Hovsan WWTP will be responsible for two alternative nuisances: either the health risk related to the release of large amounts of faecal germs on the seashore or the environmental/ecological damages associated to chlorination. Even if safer disinfection methods (for example UV) can be proposed to replace chlorination, the configuration of the receiving, nearly closed, basin will stay not favourable to pollutant dispersion, decay or self purification. Consequently, environmentally concerning or harmful events such as eutrophication are likely to occur in the medium term.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 110
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
7.2. OUTFALL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE (EARLY DESIGN)
The only outfall route alternative proposed by the Feasibility Study (FS) was the early outfall route which was designed in 1991 by an Ukrainian company (former Soviet Union) and is described in § 4.2.1. This alternative entails resettlement of quite numerous populations which is a major negative impact trigging specific World Bank safeguard policy (O.P. 4.12). Moreover, as former, abandoned soviet pipes cannot be recovered, the alternative is not cost effective. With regard to specific environmental adverse impacts, the two following can be pointed out: - the discharge of effluent will be closer to the recreational waters and so increase the risk of health adverse effects - the outfall will start from a beach which is used by local population and which may rise the concern of population with respect to the outfall Furthermore, the outfall will not be very far away from the maritime route towards the Hovsan port which will increase the risk of damage to the pipe.
7.3. 5 KM LONG SEA OUTFALL
The alternative related to the outfall length of 5km needs a detailed circulation and renewal modelling to confirm that pollutants and nutrients will not accumulate in this zone. If this is confirmed, then, this solution would have several advantages as compared to the proposed option : It will not be affecting the sand bar; would require less dredging which would reduce the disturbances due to re-suspension of sediment fine and polluted content and deposition of dredged materials; and it would reduce the overall cost of the project.
7.4. REUSE ALTERNATIVE
As indicated in § 4.2.4, this alternative is not technically and economically feasible. However, this alternative has been compared with the preferred solution from an environmental point of view, In a region experiencing a semi-arid climate with scarce and endangered fresh water resources, the potential reuse of treated wastewater for land irrigation or other relevant utilizations should be considered. With regards to the reuse of Hovsan WWTP effluents, only agricultural irrigation has been considered as an outlet. The two first reservations for the reuse of treated wastewater in agriculture are (i) the availability of suitable land and (ii) the assurance that the water used for irrigation is not likely to cause salinization or/and alkalinisation of the irrigated soil. The former reservation was lifted by the identification of a 22,000 ha large, state owned peace of land located on the west side of the city of Baku. This land is presently free and could be valorised by suitable crops, but quite far away from Hovsan WWTP (50 km ) and located at a higher altitude (250 m above sea level) The later reservation can be lifted on the basis of the electric conductivity (EC) of water, which is a measurement of salinity, and Ca, Mg and Na concentration in water, matched together in the Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR). According to both EC and SAR, the suitability of water for irrigation is determined through the Riverside Diagram (see Fig. 17)
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 111
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
SAR (Sodium Absorption Ratio)
Ec (µS/cm/cm) Figure 17: Riverside diagram (red diamond: Hovsan wastewater)
The analyses of treated wastewater carried out in July 2009 place the water quality at the limit between C3.S1 and C3.S2 Riverside categories (see Fig. 17), which are described as follows: - C3 category water is not suitable for irrigating soil with low internal drainage (i.e. soil with low porosity like clayey soils). Even on well drained soil, only salt-tolerant crops can be cultivated and the soil salinity has to be monitored. - S1 category water can be used on any soil without risk of alkalinisation (which cause pH rising and adverse effects on soil structure). - S2 category water may cause alkalinisation (which cause pH rising and adverse effects on soil structure) of soils rich in clay or with high exchange capacity. In short, irrigation with treated wastewater produced by Hovsan WWTP can only be undertaken with salt-tolerant crops such as date palm tree (most tolerant), olive tree, fig tree or pomegranate tree on well-drained soil and, for certain types of soil, there may be a risk of soil alkalinisation. Other environmental concerns are associated with the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation within the Absheron Peninsula, namely: - as the irrigation is supposed to be made by gravity from existing lakes in which the treated wastewater will be discharged (see § 4.2.3), the impacts of ecosystem and public health need to be assessed; - the health risk for agricultural workers which are not used to use wastewater and for the consumer needs to be properly managed; - even if the water is suitable for irrigation, the perched water table caused by a continuous watering may reach the existing shallowest water table, which is often brackish, and so cause the salt growing up to the top soil. Then soil salinization can occur, not because of the irrigation water but because of the brackish groundwater.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 112
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Before concluding about the reuse alternative, it is worth noting that (i) this alternative cannot replace in the short and middle term the outfall alternative because of the tremendous flow of wastewater which will need environmentally sound disposal and (ii) the reuse is not an exclusive alternative to the outfall and both may be technically combined. In conclusion, it can be stated that, first, treated wastewater reuse is not economically and technically feasible and second, even from an environmental point of view, this alternative presents risks that should be assessed before any reuse scheme is implemented.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 113
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
8. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
8.1. MITIGATION MEASURES
8.1.1. THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF MITIGATION MEASURES
From an implementation point of view, the environmental impact mitigation measures of the wastewater outfall project will be divided into the four following categories: - Measures forming part of good environmental practices of a works contractor, such as environmentally sound lubricant management, internal regulation for workers, etc.. For many reasons, and especially time or cost related reasons, the contractor is often reluctant to follow these good environmental practices. Implementation of this kind of measures should be therefore ensured by including a set of environmental clauses directly into the contract documentation. These clauses will then be taken into account by the tenderers when they will prepare their bid for the project. - Measures consisting of additional works, such as construction of additional equipment. In most cases, these additional works are to be undertaken by the construction contractor. Accordingly, they have to be included into the contract documents and taken into account in the BOQ. - Accompanying measures. These activities are not related to the construction works per se (for example sensitisation of resident population) and cannot generally be undertaken directly by the contractor. They should be commissioned to specialized private companies, NGOs, government organisations or agencies. - General recommendations for the middle term address a larger field than this specific outfall project but are indicated to point out certain constraints which may hinder the environmental mitigation. However, these recommendations will not be applied in the framework of this impact mitigation plan. Each of these measures is discussed below for the specific case of the Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project.
8.1.2. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTORS AND SUPERVISORS
Because many different types of works should be undertaken during the construction and the setting of a sea outfall, several companies usually create a Consortium for tendering and, afterwards, implementing the project. Hereinafter, the word Contractor will refer to the Company which will be the team leader of the Consortium, but every following requirements will concern all the Consortium members as well as their sub-contractors. i. Ballast waters management If the pipes are conveyed by ships up to the Caspian Sea via other seas, the conveying ships shall be fitted with adequate ballast water treatment to prevent transporting alien species, such as screen filters. This kind of equipment has been promoted through the Convention on the Management of Ballast Water and Sediment (in short BW Convention), adopted in February 2004 by members of International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which included Azerbaijan since 1995. The regional Workshop of the Caspian Environment Program (CEP, see § 3.1.3.1) hold in Baku in March 2007 was
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 114
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
dedicated to this issue. The accordance with this requirement shall be proved by the Contractor to the Supervisor. ii. Work camp and facilities siting The Contractor shall request approval of the Supervisor prior to start occupying of the site. The boundaries of camps/yards shall not be located within: - 30 m of a paved road; - 50 m of any river, stream and sea shore - 100 m of any sensitive receptor such as housing, school and health centre The site must be provided with adequate water drainage network avoiding areas of stagnant water. Access to and movements inside the sites must not generate dust that can be harmful to workers and riparian population. iii. Management of staff, hygiene and safety In addition to his executive technical staff, the Contractor shall hire, as much as is possible, labour from Greater Baku, insofar as the required staff is available locally. The regulations governing the site installations must specifically mention safety regulations and strictly prohibit the consumption of alcohol during working hours. The Contractor shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of his employees including those of his sub-contractors and of all other persons on the camps, facilities and work site. The Contractor shall report details of any accident to the Supervisor and the Police, if appropriate, as soon as possible after its occurrence iv. Management of hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances Hydrocarbon storage areas and refuelling areas must be concrete made and located away from any watercourse. Tanks above ground must be placed on a watertight concrete made area and fitted with a retention basin. v. Waste management The Contractor should place proper containers within the construction camp and permanent work sites in order to collect all kinds of common solid waste such as: glass, paper, cardboard and plastic waste and packaging. Common waste will be transferred to the containers of the company responsible for general domestic waste collection or by the Contractor towards a dumping site which is formally used for domestic waste. If HDPE pipes are used, a particular attention should be paid to plastic waste generated from pipe fitting which should not be disposed onto sea or river waters but carefully collected and sent to landfill if it is not possible to recycle (at best) or to incinerate them. Special waste such as batteries, oil filters, etc., generated by both terrestrial and marine vehicles and machinery, shall be collected in special containers proof for any leakage/spillage of toxic liquid/solids and then conveyed in relevant vehicles toward the landfill dedicated to hazardous waste. vi. Abandoning the facilities on completion of the work On completion of the work, the Contractor shall ensure that the site is restored to its natural state. He shall recover all his equipment, machinery and materials. The temporary dyke will be removed from the seashore and the hard material (rocks) conveyed to suitable places to be, if possible, subsequently used for civil works (embankment, riprap, etc.).
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 115
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
vii. Control of vegetation, tree felling, protection of public and private equipments Clearing must be done manually. Cutting trees above 4 m high or with aesthetic shall request authorization of the Supervisor. Open burning of plant waste or any waste is strictly prohibited. When crossing public or private equipments and roads (in particular, the coastal road), the Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to avoid causing damage to water pipes, industrial pipes and to electricity or phone lines. If disruption of services is necessary, the affected population shall be informed about the type, extension and duration of disruption. viii. Protection of Air Quality Vehicle with an open load-carrying area used for transporting potentially dust- producing material shall have properly fitting side and tailboards. Materials having the potential to produce dust shall not be loaded to a level higher than the side and tail boards, and shall be covered with a clean tarpaulin in good condition. The tarpaulin shall be properly secured and extend over the edges of the side and tailboards. Machinery, vehicles and equipment will be fitted with pollution control devices, which will be checked at regular intervals to ensure that they are in working order. Best available pollution control technologies will be required. Water sprays shall be used within 200 m of housing and paved roads during the delivery and handling of materials when dust is likely to be created and during dry and windy weather. ix. Protection of Quality of Sea and Fresh Waters All wastewater arising on the work sites shall be collected by the Contractor and disposed off at the inlet of the Hovsan WWTP to be treated together with the domestic wastewater. Wastewater and waste oil generated by barges, dredgers and tugboats will be pumped and transported to the land to be disposed with other wastewater. The Contractor shall not discharge or deposit any waste and matter arising from the execution of the Work into any water (including sea water) except with the permission of the Supervisor and the regulatory authorities concerned. x. Management of spoil material on land The spoil material is to be collected and transported to be disposed into an adequate stockpiling zone. The stockpiling zone shall be proposed by the Contractor to the Supervisor which should approve them in accordance with the following criteria: - stockpiling zones should not be located in a wooded or cultivated area - stockpiling zones should be located on flat or very gently sloped area with a view of limiting the risk of erosion/loss of soil by runoff - material disposed onto stockpiling zone should not be likely to contaminate watercourses by land sliding or runoff of rain water. - material disposed onto stockpiling zone should not be likely to hinder the natural runoff of rain water xi. Management of marine spoil material (excavated sediments) The Contractor shall dispose the excavated sediment in such a way that they do not increase contamination of the covered seabed. With this aim, it is required that the sediments excavated within 6000 m of the shore line (polluted area) shall be disposed within the same distance.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 116
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
xii. Noise Management Generally speaking, the Contractor shall consider noise as an environmental constraint in his planning and execution of the works and try as much as possible to attenuate this constraint by: - using equipment conforming to international standards and directives on noise and vibration emissions - maintaining exhaust systems in good working order, properly designing engine enclosures, using intake silencers where appropriate and regularly maintain noise- generating equipment Moreover, within 300 m of any housing, heavy machinery will be used only during the usual working time (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). xiii. Protection of Public and Private Utilities The Contractor shall take into account in his program the periods required to locate, access, protect, support and divert such services, including any periods of notice required to effect such work in consultation with local owners, population and authorities operating such services. The Contractor shall take all measures to avoid damage to or interference with public services and assume responsibility for any damage and for full restoration of the damage. xiv. Management of Traffic The Contractor shall enforce speed limit for its vehicles and those of its sub-contractors. The recommended speed limit is of 40 km/h inside populated areas and 50 km/h outside populated areas. The Contractor shall ensure the safety of the users of coastal road and all paved and unpaved roads during the period of works. With this aim, he shall provide the Supervisor with a written and clear traffic control plan which is to include when and where flagmen shall be employed and when and where traffic cones or other devices such as barricades and/or lights will be used. All the work sites on or in the close vicinity of roads shall be properly signposted with adequate marks and tools such as cones and coloured bands. As much as possible, the Contractor shall ensure the continuity of the traffic on the coastal road. If traffic interruption is necessary, the information of the concerned population shall be ascertained by the Contractor with a proper schedule in order to attenuate disturbance. Relevant diversion roads will be indicated.
8.1.3. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS
xv. Restoration of the offshore ridge (sandbar) The excavation of the offshore sandbar which will be necessary to lay the outfall pipe at more than 7 m below the sea surface may create a very wide breach into this ridge and increase the communication between the polluted area (Hovsan bay) and the off-shore less polluted area. Moreover, the top of the ridge may provide a particular shallow habitat, well oxygenated and exposed to the sun light, to benthic species. The restoration of the sandbar will be made with material excavated from the sandbar top, the sandbar outer slope or borrowed beyond the sand bar, in a less polluted area. The present shape and height of the sandbar shall be recreated as much accurately as possible in order not to split up this particular submarine ridge.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 117
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
xvi. By-pass for sending the effluent to the outfall in case of impairment of Hovsan WWTP Wastewater flow entering Hovsan WWTP arrives from (i) Zikh pumping station and (ii) by gravity from a portion of Baku city. The WWTP has been designed in such a way that there is a complete by-pass of the WWTP starting upstream of the pre-treatment units and connected to the outlet channel. In case of emergency (plant shutdown, power failure, etc.) or excess flow, there is an overflow at the inlet of the plant and discharge of raw effluents on the seashore. The by-pass is indeed not equipped with any device. As an improvement to the existing design, it would be advisable to collect the flow from the by-pass and to send it into the outfall (up to the capacity of the outfall) in order to reduce pollution of the seashore. Sending raw effluents into an outfall is not advisable since you may have objects in water that could block the diffusers. There are two ways to pre-treat the effluents, either to open a by-pass after the existing pre-treatment units or to install equipments on the existing by-pass. The first option is rather complicated since capacity of pretreatment buildings and equipment will need to be increased to accommodate additional flows, this will entail a complete shutdown of the plant and additional works on the newly reconstructed buildings. The other option is independent from the main stream of the WWTP. Works can be carried out while the plant is still in operation. A manual coarse screen and a manual fine screen could be installed in series on this by-pass (in case of global power failure, these two equipments would still function). That would protect the outfall from intrusion of debris and rubbish into it.
8.1.4. ACCOMPANYING AND SOFT MEASURES
xvii. Ensuring the suitable quality of raw effluents treated by Hovsan WWTP: industrial sensitisation program The present impact assessment has been conducted on the basis of a well functioning wastewater treatment, including the advanced secondary treatments which have both biological nitrogen and phosphorus removals. Short-duration impairments of the treatment processes can be managed but the less frequent they are, the lower is the environmental adverse impact. It is hence critical to ensure that the quality of the entering raw wastewater is suitable for the biological treatment, i.e. does not contains high concentration of heavy metals and other toxic substances which may inhibit growth of micro-organisms. National standards have been issued more than 10 years ago for the quality of wastewater to be discharged into public sewers (see Table 3.6 in § 3.2.3.2) but it happens that often this kind of regulation is not observed by industrial facilities as long as enforcement measures are not taken by the relevant authorities. To favour the observance of these standards, the implementation of a sensitisation program is proposed according to the following approach: - reviewing of the Azersu data base with a view of identifying the polluting industrial facilities likely to be connected to the public sewer ending up to Hovsan WWTP. By ―polluting facilities‖ it is meant facilities which use toxic substances such as cyanide, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. - sending to the identified facilities a questionnaire about the nature and quantities of toxic substance used and/or produced and the engineered treatment systems in operation to abate pollution before discharging the effluent into the public sewer. - visiting the most concerning facilities and those that will not have filled up the questionnaire. - proposing to the facilities which are not compliant with the standards a methodology to clean their effluent and help them to get financing support to acquire the relevant treatment systems.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 118
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
The first results of this program will be to identify the pollutants on which the effluent monitoring in Hovsan WWTP should focus on.
xviii. Ensuring the treatment performance through a middle term Technical Assistance In a few months, the rehabilitation project of Hovsan WWTP will be completed. A training program has been carried out by the contractor to help in the taking-over of plan operation and maintenance. However, we do believe that this training program is not sufficient for the operators to fully and efficiently take in charge this WWTP. We do believe that a technical assistance should be put in place to help local operators in the setting up and follow up of proper operations and maintenance practices. This technical assistance could in the form of a staff secondment of an experienced wastewater treatment plant manager assisted by specialists in process, maintenance, electromechanical. Operations and maintenance procedures could be set up during this period and local people properly trained. This would also minimize the risk of environmental pollution due to improper operations of the treatment plant. xix. Shutting down the chlorination at Hovsan WWTP Chlorination of the treated wastewater will be no longer necessary once the sea outfall will be operational. Moreover, the chlorination of wastewater is known to be harmful to the environment as demonstrated previously (see § 6.2.2.2). So it is strongly recommended to cease wastewater chlorination as soon as the outfall is in operation. xx. Regulation for the protection of the terrestrial outfall route Albeit buried, the terrestrial section of the outfall should be protected from any risk of damage due to earthwork associated with construction/setting up of private or public utilities. In particular, the present user (a Russian oil company) shall be informed of the constraints linked to the presence of the outfall. The outfall route with its ―right of way‖ will be well signposted with clear signals. xxi. Regulation for the protection of the marine outfall route Outfall outlets (diffusers) are known to attract fishes due to the rise of organic particles and zooplankton (see § 6.3.2.2). Accordingly, some fishermen (professional or not) may try to steer their boat to the diffusers surroundings in order to take advantage of the increased fish density. In this case, the risk of damage to the outfall by anchors or fishing nets cannot be ruled out. The outfall is not located within a fishing zone, so large fishing boats are not likely to come close to it. Moreover, the fishes that will be found at the outlet are mainly mullets, which are not of high value. The main risk will be thus associated with small fishing boats, which are more difficult to detect and to call to order. It is proposed that a safety perimeter will be set up around the outfall and its diffuser delimiting a safety distance of 500 m to each side of the outfall and 1 km radius around the diffuser. This safety perimeter will be forbidden to all vessels except those which are used for the maintenance and the monitoring. The coordinates of the perimeter and its regulation (including fines for trespassing) shall be distributed to all boat owners of the Absheron Peninsula. These activities should be obviously undertaken in liaison with the maritime authorities. xxii. Communication on the treatment works and wastewater outfall As mentioned above (see § 6.3.2.3), the bad image of the wastewater outfall is generally due to the lack of knowledge, often associated with the lack of transparency from the operating company. The public consultation process associated with this environmental assessment will be a first step in explanation of the rationale of the project, the expected impacts and their mitigation but only a limited audience is likely to be involved. Moreover, the outfall construction will start up at the earliest 1 year and will be completed between 3 or 4 years after the public consultation.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 119
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
To prevent any rumour spreading, adverse publicity, contest or just unjustified concern among the near shore users, it is proposed to launch an information campaign aiming at: - explaining the need for a wastewater disposal system and the advantage of the wastewater outfall - presenting the advanced treatment process and the quality of the disposed wastewater - setting out the monitoring plan and how the results will be available for the public Furthermore, it is advisable that Azersu organizes guide tours of the Hovsan WWTP for the school children, students, community based organisation in order to show the operation of the all treatment process as well as the sensorial quality of the treated effluent.
8.1.5. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MIDDLE TERM
Drinking and Wastewater Master Plan for the whole Absheron Peninsula Azerbaijan, and Greater Baku in particular, has undergone a rapid economic growth during the recent years. This has entailed tremendous changes in the city development. The water and wastewater master plans that were carried out in the late 90’s are now outdated. It is of the utmost importance that a new global water resources management plan be carried out in Absheron Peninsula. This global water resources management would include a water, wastewater and drainage master plans and would be based on the urban master plan which is under progress. The specific points that should be addressed are: - the reinstatement of the networks to its original design (separate networks for wastewater and for rainwater in the city centre) or the change into a combined network with the necessary modifications for interception. This is to prevent discharge of wastewater into Baku Bight through the drainage system; - the rehabilitation and extension of the wastewater treatment plants since many of them cannot meet quality standards for treated wastewater at the moment; - the possibility to reuse wastewater for either industrial usage or irrigation; - the possibility to build sea outfalls to prevent discharge of treated wastewater onto the sea shore; - the upgrading of collection and transfer system to cater for additional flows; - the interception and treatment of all wastewater discharge points that are now untreated, in particular Hovsan Canal; - the development of sewerage system in newly developed areas, Hovsan city for instance. Without such a Master Plan, it would be hopeless to clean the polluted waters of the Baku Bay and thus significantly enhance the quality of life within the Capital City of Azerbaijan.
Phasing out the chlorination of Treated (and Untreated) Wastewater in All WWTP Operated by Azersu Given it is well established that wastewater chlorination is harmful to environment as well as public health, it is recommended to phase out this process in all WWTP of Absheron Peninsula. Where it will demonstrated that the disinfection of wastewater is necessary, other technology, not producing toxic, persistent compounds, will be used.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 120
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Regulation about wastewater discharge It has been noticed (see § 3.2.3.2) that the regulation on wastewater discharge onto the water courses, water bodies and Caspian Sea is not very clear and uneasy to apply. This is of concern given the pollution which can be seen everywhere over the whole Absheron Peninsula. Pending new national standards addressing this topic, it is recommended that Azersu elaborates clear, simple and realistically applicable regulation on waste water discharge into the water courses, water bodies and Caspian Sea in close collaboration with Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the Caspian Environmental Program.
8.2. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
8.2.1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING UNIT (EMU)
The Consultant recommends the creation of an Environmental Monitoring Unit (EMU), a multi-sectoral committee which will be responsible in coordinating and supervising the implementation of all recommended environmental measures and in assessing in a proactive manner the environmental impacts of the project. The EMU will be constituted of: - the Chief of the Baku Sanitation Service of Azersu JSC, Chairman - the Head of the Construction Supervision team, during the outfall construction stage - the Environmental Supervision Officer (ESO, see below § 8.2.2.3), during the outfall construction stage, - an Impact Monitoring Officer, during the outfall operation stage, - a representative of Caspian Complex Environmental Monitoring Department (CCEMD) of the MENR - a representative of the Department of Environmental Policy and Environment Protection of the MENR - a representative of the Epidemiology Department of Ministry of Health - a representative of the Municipality of Baku - a representative of a skilled and relevant environmental NGO If the need arises, other institutions, such as SOCAR Ecological Department, Department of Fisheries, Maritime Authorities, professional organisations, thematic experts, etc., may be asked to take part in the meetings of EMU. The EMU shall be established before the elaboration of bidding documents in order to verify the incorporation of the environmental requirements. The main tasks of the EMU will be the following: - check that the measures related to the good environmental practices (environment requirements) and the additional works are incorporated in the tender documentation and in the contract documentation - elaborate, validate the environmental requirements and incorporate them into the bidding documents for both Contractor and Supervisor
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 121
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- ensure, with the help of the Supervision consultant, that the mitigation measures are properly implemented by the contractor during construction. - review works reports, and notably environmental related chapters - notify Azersu of any noticed breach of implementation of mitigation measures (notably environmental practices) by the contractor. In this case, the EMU should propose to Azersu adequate remedial measures to be undertaken by the contractor or the institution in charge - approve the report of environmental acceptance of works - review and approve monitoring reports (monitoring stage). In case of unexpected impacts, the EMU could suggest remedial measures to the concerned Authorities. The EMU will be operating from the bidding stage until the end of the initial monitoring stage (see § 8.3.2) i.e. 3 years after the end of the construction stage. The EMU should meet at least every 6 months during the construction stage and every year during the initial monitoring stage (only once a year for the 2 last years). However, on a justified request of any member, extraordinary EMU meetings might also be held. The cost related to the EMU meetings will be borne by Azersu.
8.2.2. STAKEHOLDERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
8.2.2.1. Responsibility and Tasks of Azersu JSC
Azersu JSC is the contracting authority. As a state-governed company, it should ensure compliance of the project with the national policy and regulations related to the protection of the environment. Since the present wastewater outfall project is likely to impact negatively the environment, the duty of Azersu is to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed at every stage of the project, i.e. feasibility (i.e. present stage), design, construction, and operation. In the short term, Azersu shall ensure that EIA results are properly taken into account by the supervision consultant and the construction contractor. Azersu shall also directly contract or come to arrangements with relevant operators to undertake the so called accompanying measures. Once the outfall is properly built, Azersu shall ascertain the adequacy of the mitigation measures issued by the EIA and implement an impact monitoring plan, as it is set out in detail in this chapter. The implementation of the impact monitoring plan will be the assignment of a competent Impact Monitoring Consultant (IMC). The IMC with be in charge of: - elaborating the TOR for the internal and external monitoring - assisting the Environmental Supervision Officer (ESO, see below § 8.2.2.3) - in collaboration with the EMU members, especially the staff of the CCEMD, evaluating the tender documents for monitoring and proposing the best tendering operator to Azersu for awarding the monitoring works. The IMC will pay particular attention to the capacity of the operator in terms of equipment, skill and quality approach (ISO certification will be required) in order to ensure compliance with relevant guidelines for sampling and analyses (see § 8.3.2). - supervision of the monitoring campaigns until the end of the 3-year initial monitoring stage - reviewing the monitoring reports and advising the EMU on possible changes in monitoring protocols or replacement of operator if not satisfying
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 122
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- presenting the commented report to the EMU - preparing the reports to be sent to the MENR and kept in archives - organizing and running the final workshop (see hereinafter ) The Impact Monitoring Consultant (IMC) should be preferably a national person with a Master Degree in natural science, preferably marine biology. It should have a proven knowledge of Caspian Sea ecosystems. The IMC shall be contracted by Azersu at the beginning of the marine works for a 4 to 5 year period. The IMC’s work planning is detailed Table 8.1. During its short-term missions, IMC will be accommodated in a Environmental Monitoring Office provided by Azersu either within the Hovsan WWTP or in another Azersu building. This office will be equipped with a computer and a printer and all data relating to the environmental monitoring will be archived. Table 8.1: Planning of the Impact Monitoring Consultant (IMC) Total Duration Phase Phase Duration Frequency of Assignment 7 working months (likely 11-12 calendar Outfall construction months because of 1 day/week 30 days (marine works) stand-by due to the strong winds) 3 days for TOR elaboration + Bid for monitoring - 6 days 3 days for reviewing monitoring tender evaluation First monitoring campaign (before - 10 days 10 days outfall operation) Outfall operation (initial monitoring 3 years 10 days/year 30 days stage) 1 calendar year for 30 days for preparation and Workshop 30 days preparation running TOTAL 106 days
At the end of the initial monitoring stage, Azersu shall organize a regional workshop on the outfall monitoring in Caspian Sea with the following outline agenda: - monitoring programs over the Caspian Sea - general environmental state of the Caspian Sea, especially Middle Caspian Sea - sea outfall: suitable way for wastewater disposal in the Caspian Sea large coastal Cities ? - the experience of Hovsan wastewater outfall - other outfall experiences in other closed water bodies (Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, etc.) The workshop organization will be mainly funded by Azersu through the present project supported by the World Bank but other funds will be sought such as from the Caspian Environmental Program and other regional organisations.
8.2.2.2. Responsibility and tasks of the MENR (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources)
Since the Caspian Sea is the most important environmental asset potentially affected by the project implementation, it is critical that the Caspian Complex Environmental Monitoring Department (CCEMD) of the MENR be closely involved in the environmental management process. It should be involved in the monitoring process as stated in the previous section. In addition, it would be profitable that a marine specialist of CCEMD be
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 123
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
directly involved in the environmental supervision and collaborate with the Supervision team.
8.2.2.3. Responsibility and tasks the Supervision Consultant
The Supervision Consultant shall make sure that the construction contractor properly implements the environmental requirements specified in the contract documentation and in the Contractor Environmental Management Plan (CEMP, see below). Since the environmental supervision needs to be carried out on a daily basis, the Supervision Consultant team should include a half-time Environmental Supervision Officer (ESO). The Environmental Supervision Officer (ESO) will be in charge of: - the sensitisation of construction workers - the establishment of linkages with the local communities and with other stakeholders likely to be affected by the project (fishermen) - the approval of the Contractor Environmental Implementation Plan - the monitoring of the contractor environmental practices (in association with the IMC). The ESO will be particularly responsible for approving the sites for disposal of spoil sediments - the elaboration of the environmental chapter of the monthly works progress report - taking part in Environmental Monitoring Unit At the end of the works, the ESO shall carry out a final environmental audit of the works. The result of the audit will be taken into account for the final acceptance of the outfall construction works. It is highly recommended that the ESO frequently liaises with the marine specialist to have his opinion about the environmental contractor’s practices. The ESO should be a national/regional civil engineer, with preferably a postgraduate specialization in environmental engineering. An experience in environmental supervision of infrastructure projects would be an asset.
8.2.2.4. Responsibility and tasks of the Construction Contractor
The Contractor (or the leader of the Consortium of contractors) shall appoint one responsible member of his staff to act part-time as Site Environment Health and Safety Officer (SEHSO), and he shall notify the Supervisor of such appointment. The SEHSO shall be experienced in all matters relating to environmental management, health and safety on work sites and facilities and shall be familiar with all relevant environmental and safety regulations and legislation in force in industrialised countries. The SEHSO shall have the power to receive instructions from the Supervisor on matters relating to the health and safety of personnel on sites and the environmental management of sites. The SEHSO shall also be involved in training of employees on environmental/safety practices and sensitization of population affected by the project. The Contractor shall propose the Curriculum Vitae of the SEHSO to the approval of the Supervisor within two months following the formal assignment. In addition, and to avoid any ambiguity, the contractor (and more particularly the SEHSO), will be required to prepare, as soon as appointed, and before beginning building his construction camp, a Contractor’s Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The CEMP shall include the following documents:
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 124
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
1) Accommodation procedures for employees (if required) 2) Treatment of ballast waters for the vessels transporting the pipes (if justified) 3) Health and safety procedures 4) Solid waste, fuel, lubricants and wastewater management procedures 5) Noise management procedures 6) Air quality management procedures 7) Sandbar restoration procedures 8) Spoil sediments management procedures 9) Road traffic, public and private utilities management procedures All these procedures should comply with the environmental requirements included in the tender and contract documentation and shall be provided to the Supervision Consultant within two months following the formal assignment.
8.2.3. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
According to the previous provisions, the environmental documentation of the project will be comprised of: - the present EIA report - the environmental requirement to be incorporated in the tender and contract documentation - the Contractor’s Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) - the environmental components of the Monthly Work Progress Reports - all the letters issued by the Supervisor, the Contractor or Azersu pertaining to the environmental management of work - the environmental acceptance report - the monitoring reports - the minutes of meeting of the EMU All this documentation should be carefully archived. It could constitute a reference file for the management of other wastewater outfall project in Azerbaijan.
8.3. ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERVISION AND MITIGATION PLAN
8.3.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERVISION OF WORKS
The environmental supervision will be carried out by the Environmental Supervision Officer (ESO) mentioned above. The supervision should be mainly based on - frequent visits of work sites, work camp and facilities - discussion with the Contractor’s staff, especially the Site Environment, Health and Safety Officer (SEHSO) - discussion with the riparian population and other stakeholders
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 125
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
- monitoring of supervision indicated, some examples of them are indicated Table 8.2.
Actually, it is difficult to propose only quantitative indicators for supervision, except for additional environmental works which should be monitored as the other (core) works, because environmental practices are a set of behaviours the assessment of which is subjective. The qualitative indicators set out in Table 8.2 will be considered as items of check-list and the ESO will have to review and comment each item and to establish, if the need arises, a non-compliance note to be slot in the monthly supervision reports.
Table 8.2: Supervision indicators to be monitored by the Environmental Supervision Officer Environmental measures to be Supervision indicators: to be assessed by the implemented by the Contractor Environmental Supervision Officer Ballast waters management Ballast water treatment system Siting of work camp and facilities Distance to housing, road, sea and water courses Environmental sensitivity of the site Protection of the existing trees Health and safety of workers Individual safety equipment Safety related to the contractor’s vehicles and machinery Accidents at work Management of hydrocarbons and Fuel storage and recovering hazardous substances Imperviousness of fuel and maintenance areas Waste oil collection and storage Waste management Collection and elimination of domestic solid waste Collection and elimination of hazardous waste Safety of works site and Overall assessment based on field visit management of traffic Number of accidents (*) Restoration of abandoned work Removal of equipment and waste camps/facilities Safety restoration Tree felling Number of felled trees (*) Justification of felling Protection of air quality Overall assessment based of field visit Control of dust emission Use of tarps on the hauling trucks Protection of sea and fresh waters Collection of waste oil produced by barges and boats Management of terrestrial spoil Compliance/approval of stockpiling area material Overall assessment based on field visits Management of marine spoil Volume of polluted sediment (< 6000 m) excavated (*) material Proportion of polluted excavated sediment(< 6000 m) disposed on less polluted area (> 6000 m) (*) Noise management Overall assessment based of field visits Control of working hours Complaints from riparian population (*) Protection of public and private Number of incidents (*) utilities Complaint from the owners and affected populations (*) Traffic management Speed limitation Relevant road signs Number of incidents/accidents (*) Frequency/number of traffic jams (*) Number of traffic disruptions (*)
(*) Quantitative indicators
8.3.2. RECAPITULATION OF IMPACT MITIGATION PLAN
The Impacts Mitigation Plan is recapitulated in Table 8.3. For each identified moderate or significant impact, a set of mitigation measures is proposed with the way to implement the measures and to ensure that the measures are adequately implemented.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 126
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.3a: Environmental Mitigation Plan of the Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project
Impact Way of implementation Way of supervision Mitigation measures Negative impact Activities Characterisation Period (see details in § 8.1) Means of (potential level) Operator Means Operator Indicator verification Construction phase Noise management by (i) use of equipment conforming to international standards and directives on noise and vibration emissions, (ii) maintaining of exhaust systems in good working order, properly Rise of noise and Movement and work of heavy machinery Not significant designing engine enclosures, using intake silencers TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR vibration levels where appropriate and regularly maintain noise- generating equipment Heavy machinery to be used only during the usual working time (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) Pollution control by th use of machinery, vehicles and equipment to be fitted with pollution control devices Movement and work of heavy machinery, Air pollutant emissions Not significant Vehicle with an open load-carrying area used for TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR transport of spoil material transporting potentially dust- producing material shall have properly fitting side and tailboards Management of terrestrial spoil material to be collected, transported and disposed off into an TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR Trench digging, disposal of spoil material and adequate stockpiling zone Loss of natural soil MODERATE set up of work facilities On completion of the work, the site is to be restored to its natural state TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR
Management of hydrocarbons and hazardous waste by the use of hydrocarbon storage areas and refuelling areas must be concrete made, watertight TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR Movement and work of heavy machinery, (for above ground tanks) and located away from any Pollution of soils MODERATE fueling operation watercourse Proper solid waste management by use of proper containers within the construction camp and TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR permanent work sites including special wastes All wastewater generated by the work sites to be collected by the Contractor and disposed off at the Pollution of surface Movement and work of heavy machinery, inlet of the Hovsan WWTP to be treated together with MODERATE TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR and ground waters fueling operation the domestic wastewater No discharge or deposit of any waste and matter arising from the execution of the work into any water For work camp and facility siting, clearing must be done manually NCS, TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO MWR Open burning of plant waste or any waste is strictly No of felled trees Destruction of Trench digging MODERATE prohibited terrestrial vegetation Management of tree felling : Cutting trees above 4 m high or with aesthetic shall request authorization of Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR the Supervisor For work camp and facility siting, clearing must be done manually TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR Open burning of plant waste or any waste is strictly prohibited Destruction and Management of tree felling : Cutting trees above 4 m disturbance of Trench digging and backfilling MODERATE high or with aesthetic shall request authorization of TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR terrestrial fauna the Supervisor On completion of the work, the site is to be restored to its natural state TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 127
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.3b: Environmental Mitigation Plan of the Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project (continuing)
Impact Way of implementation Way of supervision Mitigation measures Negative impact Activities Characterisation Period (see details in § 8.1) Means of (potential level) Operator Means Operator Indicator verification Construction phase (continuing) Protection of sea water quality by proper collection of wastes generated by boats and barges Movement and work of ships and barges Wastewater and waste oil generated by barges, MaCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR dredgers and tugboats to be pumped and transported to the land to be disposed with other wastewater Seawater pollution SIGNIFICANT Management of marine spoil material to be disposed Vol. of excavated off in such a way that they do not increase polluted sediment Re-suspension of polluted sediment contamination of the covered seabed (sediments MaCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO Prop of poll. sed. MWR excavated within 6000 m of the shore line (polluted deposit in less area) shall be disposed within the same distance) polluted area
Sea bed excavation Submarine trench digging SIGNIFICANT Restoration of off-shore ridge after excavation MaCoS Contractor AEW SC Attachments MWR Vol. of excavated polluted sediment Management of marine spoil material as indicated Sea bed pollution Submarine trench digging SIGNIFICANT MaCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO Prop of poll. sed. MWR above deposit in less polluted area NCS Introduction of Pipe supply (transported by vessels from Treatment of ballast waters if the pipes are conveyed SIGNIFICANT MaCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO . MWR invasive alien species foreign countries) by ships to the Caspian Sea via other seas
Dike construction Destruction of temporary dyke at the end of the works MaCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR Changes in benthic Management of marine spoil material as indicated MODERATE MaCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR communities above Submarine trench digging Restoration of off-shore ridge after excavation MaCoS Contractor AEW SC Attachments MWR Changes in pelagic Movement and work of heavy machinery, MODERATE Protection of sea water as indicated above MaCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR communities fueling operation, trench digging and backfilling Management of road traffic with a written and clear traffic control plan (use of flagmen, traffic cones, lights, signposts,...) Disruption to road Excavation of the road embankment MODERATE As much as possible, the Contractor is to ensure the TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR traffic continuity of the traffic on the coastal road and in case of traffic interruption, relevant diversion roads are to be indicated Management of road traffic as indicated above NCS, No of Excavation of the road embankment TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO MWR accidents Noise level Noise management as indicated above TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR Management of staff, health and safety by application Adverse effects on Safety of works of local and international regulations on health, safety TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR health, welfare and of SIGNIFICANT and welfare at work the nearby population Emission dust and air pollutants Air pollution management as indicated above TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR Protection of public and private utilities by avoiding damage to or interference with public services, and Crossing power lines TeCoS Contractor ERC/CEMP ESO NCS MWR by assuming responsibility for any damage and for full restoration of the damage Period: TeCoS: Terrestrial Construction Stage- MaCoS: Marine Construction Stage – OutOp : outfall operation Means of implementation: ERC: Environmental Requirements of the Contract – CEMP: Contractor’s Environmental Management Plan AED: Additional Environmental Works Operator for supervision EMU: Environmental Monitoring Unit. ESO: Environmental Supervision Officer (Supervision team) SC: Supervision Consultant Indicators: NCS: non compliance Statement (to be incorporated into the Work monthly report) Means of verification: MWR: Monthly Works Reports
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 128
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.3c: Environmental Mitigation Plan of the Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project (continuing)
Impact Way of implementation Way of supervision Mitigation measures Negative impact Activities Characterisation Period (see details in § 8.1) Means of (potential level) Operator Means Operator Indicator verification
Operational phase Industrial sensitization program to ensure that No of industries TeCoS SC1 SepCont EMU Report industrial effluents comply with the regulations addressed Technical assistance at Hovsan WWTP to ensure taht the wastewater treatment plan is properly OutOp SC2 SepCont Azersu Duration of TA TA report Seawater pollution Discharge of treated wastewater by the diffuser MODERATE operated Shutting down chlorination of WWTP to avoid Chlorine WWTP generation of harmful substances into the OutOp Azersu - EMU consumption report environment No of industries Industrial sensitization program as indicated above TeCoS SC1 SepCont EMU Report addressed Sea bed pollution Discharge of treated wastewater by the diffuser MODERATE Shutting down chlorination of WWTP as indicated Chlorine WWTP OutOp Azersu - EMU above consumption report No of industries Industrial sensitization program as indicated above TeCoS SC1 SepCont EMU Report Changes in pelagic addressed Discharge of treated wastewater by the diffuser MODERATE communities Technical assistance at Hovsan WWTP as indicated OutOp SC2 SepCont Azersu Duration of TA TA report above Toxic substances in wastewater inhibiting the No of industries grow of micro-organisms involved in the Industrial sensitization program as indicated above TeCoS SC1 SepCont EMU Report addressed Changes in pelagic treatment process communities (impaired SIGNIFICANT Technical assistance at Hovsan WWTP as indicated Difficulties to managed upgraded processes OutOp SC2 SepCont Azersu Duration of TA TA report treatment above Discharge on the seashore in case of WWTP By-pass for sending the effluent to the outfall in case TeCoS Contractor AEW SC Attachment MWR breakdown of impairment to avoid seashore pollution Effects on exploitation Regulation for protection of marine outfall route with Infraction Discharge of treated wastewater by the diffuser Not significant OutOp Azersu - EMU No of infractions of marine resources the setting up of a safety perimeter around the outfall reports Communication campaign to explain the rationale of No of press and Press and Lack of knowledge among the population the project, the expected impacts and the mitigation TeCoS SC3 SepCont EMU Bad perception of TV releases TV SIGNIFICANT and monitoring measures outfall Regulation for protection of terrestrial outfall route by Infraction Breach in the terrestrial outfall OutOp Azersu - EMU No of infractions setting up of a ―right of way‖ with clear signals reports Period: TeCoS: Terrestrial Construction Stage- MaCoS: Marine Construction Stage – OutOp : outfall operation Means of implementation: ERC: Environmental Requirements of the Contract – CEMP: Contractor’s Environmental Management Plan AED: Additional Environmental Works Operator for supervision EMU: Environmental Monitoring Unit. ESO: Environmental Supervision Officer (Supervision team) SC: Supervision Consultant Indicators: NCS: non compliance Statement (to be incorporated into the Work monthly report) Means of verification: MWR: Monthly Works Reports
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 129
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
8.3.3. MONITORING PLAN, INDICATORS, PROTOCOLS AND OPERATORS
The monitoring plan will be defined for the initial monitoring stage which will start from the end of the outfall construction and will end after 3 years of outfall operation.
8.3.3.1. Defining Relevant Indicators
Monitoring will address parameters associated with the main potential impacts of the project on the environment during the construction, but mostly the operation phase. The indicators for the monitoring phase are called ―supervision indicators‖ and have been set out in the previous paragraph. Operation phase indicators, shortly called ―impact indicators‖ will be related to: - the quality of raw and treated wastewater of the Hovsan WWTP, in particular the concentration of toxic substances, faecal germs, organic matters and nutrients, and solid particles - the quality of the most sensitive of impacted environmental components which are the sea water and the sea bottom together with their dwelling biota. Phytoplankton and zooplankton species will be not surveyed because of their quick variations (turnover) over the year. Nevertheless, chlorophyll-a measurement will inform about eutrophication. Moreover, public health indicators such as microbiological quality of bathing water at nearby beaches (in particular Hovsan beach) will not be included in the monitoring program for the following reasons: - these parameters are already monitored as a routine by the Ministry of Health - the discharge of Hovsan WWTP wastewater is not the only source of pollution of the coastal water, so the operation of the wastewater outfall may not reduced significantly the contamination of coastal water as long as the other pollution sources such as Hovsan Canal, drainage network outlets or contaminated watercourses will not be treated. It is recalled that the monitoring campaigns will be supervised by the Impact Monitoring Consultant (IMC, see § 8.2.2.1).
8.3.3.2. Wastewater Quality Monitoring
The following parameters will be determined at the indicated frequency for both entering raw wastewater (WWTP inlet) and fully treated wastewater before being discharged through the outfall (WWTP outlet): a) Continuous
(i) Flow – reported as m3/s (included in routine monitoring of WWTP)
b) Daily:
(ii) Quantity – reported as m3 per day (included in routine monitoring of WWTP)
c) Weekly:
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 130
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
(iii) pH – reported as pH units;
(iv) Dissolved oxygen DO – reported as mg/l
(v) Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, BOD5 - reported as mg O2/l
(vi) Total Suspended solids TSS – reported as mg/l
(vii) Total Coliforms – reported as No/100ml
(viii) Faecal Coliforms – reported as No/100ml
(ix) Escherichia coli – reported as No/100ml
d) Two Weekly:
(x) Nitrate Nitrogen NO3-N – reported as mg/l
(xi) Nitrite Nitrogen NO2-N – reported as mg/l
(xii) Ammonium Nitrogen NH3-N – reported as mg/l
(xiii) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TKN – reported as mg/l
(xiv) Total Phosphorus TP – reported as mg/l
e) Six Monthly:
(xv) Arsenic – reported as mg/ m3
(xvi) Cadmium – reported as mg/ m3
(xvii) Chromium –reported as mg/ m3
(xviii) Copper –reported as mg/ m3
(xix) Lead –reported as mg/ m3
(xx) Nickel –reported as mg/ m3
(xxi) Zinc –reported as mg/ m3
(xxii) Mercury- reported as mg/ m3 All metal analysis shall be for total metals only
f) Annually
(xxiii) Organochlorine pesticides – reported as µg/l
(xxiv) Polychlorinated biphenyls – reported as µg/l
(xxv) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons reported as µg/l
(xxvi) Salmonella - reported as No/100ml
(xxvii) Giardia - reported as No/l
(xxviii) Cryptosporidium - reported as No/l
(xxix) Human Enterovirus - reported as No/l The samples should be taken along a full day and pooled to be representative. Sampling of outlet wastewater should be made the same day, or the day after of that of inlet wastewater. Analyses should be carried out according to reference standards for example ISO or EPA standards.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 131
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
8.3.3.3. Caspian Sea Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring of Caspian Sea is proposed at four points symmetrically located 500 m away from the middle of the diffuser, two points being on the line of the outfall, the two others being on a perpendicular line. This point will be accurately positioned with GPS. For each point, samples will be triplicate (three separated vessels for three separate analyses) in order to avoid odd results because of contamination. Sampling will be made: annually, always on the same week, preferably in spring (May or June), always around noon (between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.), at a depth of 1m below the water surface The following parameters will be measured:
(i) Temperature – reported as °C
(ii) Salinity – reported as mg/l
(iii) Dissolved oxygen DO – reported as mg/l
(iv) Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, BOD5 - reported as mg O2/l
(v) Total Suspended solids TSS – reported as mg/l
(vi) Chlorophyll a – reported as µg/l
(vii) Arsenic – reported as µg/l
(viii) Cadmium – reported as µg/l
(ix) Chromium – reported as µg/l
(x) Copper – reported as µg/l
(xi) Lead – reported as µg/l
(xii) Nickel – reported as µg/l
(xiii) Zinc – reported as µg/l
(xiv) Mercury – reported as µg/l
(xv) Total Coliforms – reported as No/100ml
(xvi) Faecal Coliforms – reported as No/100ml
(xvii) Escherichia coli – reported as No/100ml
In addition, visual observations for scum, foams or other floatable material will be reported.
8.3.3.4. Sediment Chemistry and Benthic Life Monitoring
Sediment and benthic life monitoring is proposed at six sites: - three sites located on the top of the offshore ridge (sandbar) among which on located overhanging the virtual outfall route (i.e. on the restored ridge), one located 500 m east of the first site and the other one 500 m west of the first site (these two sites are supposed to be on undisturbed part of the sand bar) - a fourth site located 500 m away from the end of the diffuser, on the line of the outfall - a fifth and a sixth point, symmetrically located 500 m away from the middle of the diffuser on a line perpendicular the outfall route.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 132
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Each site will be positioned with GPS. At each site, a 50x50 m grid will be identified around the site (i.e. 25m in each direction). This grid will be used to identify a random sampling location. This position will be used to position the vessel in the field. Sampling will be carried out according to the guidelines of the Caspian Environment Program as described in the document named ―Monitoring Programme: protocols and specifications‖ which is easily available on-line. The following methodological guidelines are drawn from this document. Macro-benthos will be sampled using a standard grab with a sampling area of 0.1 m2 and a sampling depth of approximately 15 cm. A Van Veen or similar grab would be suitable. We will define macro-benthos as those organisms which are retained on a 0.5 mm sieve. For macro-benthos, 5 replicate samples per station should be collected on each sampling occasion. The purpose of replication is not primarily for statistical reasons, but because many benthic species are over-dispersed or clustered, and are therefore likely to be under-sampled if only a single sample is taken. The primary data requirements are:
(i) identification of species present in samples
(ii) estimate of abundance of species present in samples
(iii) estimate of biomass of major taxonomic groups present (eg, Bivalvia, Gastropoda, Amphipoda, Cumacea, Oligochaetes, Polychaeta, Bryozoa, etc) The determination of mollusc biomass will require standardisation of methods, since carbonate shell material represents a significant proportion of ―total’ biomass. For bivalves, it is practicable to remove the flesh from the shell, and to obtain an estimate of the average value of this proportion. For gastropods, it is not practicable to do this; in this case, it is more effective to determine total biomass and then oxidise the organic material at approximately 450 °C. Samples for physicochemical measurement will be collected using the same methodology as for benthos, at the same time and at the same locations. Three replicate samples should be collected at each site. Sediment samples intended for physical and heavy metal analysis should be placed in polyethylene bags, while samples intended for organics analysis should be placed in clean aluminium containers. The physicochemical parameters measured in sediments will be the following:
(i) Physical composition – particle size, silt/clay content, organic content, carbonate content – reported as % of dry matter
(ii) Total Organic Carbon – reported in mg C/kg
(iii) Total petroleum hydrocarbons (extracted in dichloromethane) – reported in mg/kg
(iv) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (16 compounds) – reported in µg/kg
(v) Arsenic – reported as µg/kg
(vi) Cadmium – reported as µg/kg
(vii) Chromium – reported as µg/kg
(viii) Copper – reported as µg/kg
(ix) Lead – reported as µg/kg
(x) Nickel – reported as µg/kg
(xi) Zinc – reported as µg/kg
(xii) Mercury – reported as µg/kg
(xiii) Organochlorine pesticides – reported as µg/kg
(xiv) PCB – reported as ng/kg
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 133
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Both sampling for macro-benthos and sediment physicochemical parameters will be performed with an annual frequency, as much as possible in the same period, preferably in spring (May – June). A first sampling will be made between the end of the work and the start of the outfall operation.
8.3.3.5. Monitoring Operators
A monitoring operator should be selected according to its experience, its equipment and the skill of its staff. ISO 9000 certification and other quality references will be taken into account in selection. Operator for sea water may be different from operator for sediment physicochemical and biological measurements but the sample treatment and traceability are critical to ensure reliability of analysis. Separating sampling operator from analysing operator is not recommended. Operators will be private or public laboratories from Azerbaijan or from other countries of the region. As the frequency of sampling are annual (except for those samples collected within Hovsan WTTP), foreign operators might be competitive. Operator for benthic shall have standard species list, standard keys for taxonomy, centralised reference collections, and periodically attend to workshops to ensure taxonomic consistency. All laboratories should prepare reference specimen collections for each individual survey, and keep a separate reference collection containing a complete set of specimens of all organisms found during the monitoring programme execution. A central reference collection will be maintained, and periodically each laboratory should send duplicate specimens from their master reference collections to ensure that the central collection contains a complete set of all species recorded.
8.3.3.6. Recapitulation and Later Monitoring Activities by Azersu
Table 8.4 recapitulates the monitoring indicators, sampling frequencies, number of sampling sites and operators in charge of environmental monitoring. It is obvious that it is the duty of Azersu to keep on monitoring after the 3-year initial monitoring stage. In the long term, it is possible that just a two-year frequency is sufficient to monitor the change in ecosystems. According to the results obtained during the 3 year initial monitoring period, it will be decided the most relevant indicators, the best monitoring frequency and methodology for the later years.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 134
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.4: Impact Monitoring Plan for the initial monitoring stage Environmental Sampling Parameters Frequency Operators component point 2 Azersu Flow Continuous (Hovsan (inlet + outlet) WWTP staff) 2 Azersu Quantity Daily (Hovsan (inlet + outlet) WWTP staff) pH, DO, BOD5, TSS, Total 2 Azersu Colif. Faecal Colif, Weekly (Hovsan Escherichia coli (inlet + outlet) WWTP staff) Hovsan WWTP Azersu inlet and outlet 2 NO , NO , NH , TNK, TP Two weekly (Hovsan wastewater 3 2 4 (inlet + outlet) WWTP staff) 2 Public/private As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg Six monthly certified (inlet + outlet) laboratory TPH, Organochlorine pesticides, PCB, PAH, 2 Public/private salmonella, Giardia, Annually certified Cryptosporidium, Human (inlet + outlet) laboratory Enterovirus T°, Salinity, DO, BOD5, TSS, Total Colif. Faecal Public/private 4 sites x 3 Caspian sea water Colif, Escherichia coli Annually certified replicates Chlorophyll a, laboratory As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg, Macro-benthic species, Public/private 6 sites x 5 abundance, Annually certified replicates biomass laboratory Caspian Sea Particle size composition, sediment TOC, TPH, , Public/private 6 sites x 3 As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg, Annually certified replicates Organochlorine pesticides, laboratory PCB, PAH
8.4. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The planning of implementation of environmental management plan is detailed in Table 8.5.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 135
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.5: Project Environmental Management Plan Implementation Schedule (only specific environmental activities are reported) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 to 6 Operator Environmental stages and activities (before works) Quarter Quarter Quarter Year Work Stages 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Contractor Detailed studies Contractor Site preparation (terrestrial) Contractor Land outfall construction, digging and laying Contractor Site preparation (marine) Contractor Marine pipe fitting Contractor Marine outfall construction, digging and laying (including stand by for strong winds) Azersu Outfall operation Azersu + IMC Initial Monitoring Phase Activities Azersu Establishment of Environmental Unit (EMU) EMU Incorporation of environmental requirement in bidding documentation EMU Recruitment of the Impact Monitoring Consultant (IMC) Contractor Elaboration of the Contractor’s Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) ESO Review and approval of the CEMP EMU Elaboration, launching bids and selection of operators for accompanying measures EMU + IMC Elaboration, launching bids and selection of operators for impact monitoring Contractor Implementation of CEMP Supervision Firm Environmental supervision by the Environmental Supervision Officer ESO Environmental approval of works SC1 (*) Industrial sensitisation SC2 Public communication about treatment works and outfall SC3 Middle-term Technical Assistance at WWTP IMC + SC4 Monitoring campaign (No) 1 1 1 1 IMC Working days of IMC (may change the first year according to stand by for strong winds) 8 8 13 17 10 10 10 30 Azersu + IMC Regional Workshop 1 EMU EMU meetings (No) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(*) Specialised Consultant
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 136
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
8.5. ENVIRONMENTAL COST ESTIMATES
8.5.1. COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
8.5.1.1. Costs Related to the Restoration of the Offshore Ridge
The restoration of the sandbar will be made with material excavated from the sandbar crest. To cross the sand bar, the estimated volume of sand to excavate and to reinstall is 200 000 m3. During dredging operations, sand should be piled on each side of the excavated in order to reuse he same sand for backfilling. Unit cost for backfilling is estimated at US$ 4 to 6 per m3. If the mean unit cost of US$ 5 taken, the total cost for the restoration of the offshore ridge is thus estimated to 200 000 * US$ 5 = US$ 1 000 000.
8.5.1.2. Cost Related to the Creation of a By-pass at Hovsan WWTP
At the moment, the existing by-pass at Hovsan WWTP is not equipped with any device (coarse or fine screen). To connect this by-pass to the sea outfall, pre-treatment should be carried out to protect it. The cost related to the construction of an equipped by-pass for sending the effluent to the outfall in case of impairment of Hovsan WWTP is given in the Table 8.6. The total cost of the by-pass is estimated to US $ 1 400 000.
Table 8.6: Cost of construction of a by-pass at Hovsan WWTP Unit cost Total Cost Item Quantity US$ US$ Civil works* 1 700 000 700 000
Mechanical works (fine screen) (*) 1 700 000 7500 000
TOTAL 1 400 000
(*) These costs are rough estimates as the technical solution is not yet defined.
8.5.2. COSTS OF ACCOMPANYING AND SOFT MEASURES
8.5.2.1. Cost of Industrial Sensitisation Program
The implementation of an industrial sensitisation program is proposed to improve the quality of effluents entering Hovsan WWTP, and therefore the quality of treated wastewater. The estimated cost of industrial sensitisation program is estimated at US $ 500 000.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 137
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
8.5.2.2. Cost of Middle Term Technical Assistance
To minimize the risk of environmental pollution due to improper operations of the treatment plant, a middle term technical assistance is proposed. The cost of a staff secondment with its assistance during two years is estimated at: US$ 35 000 /Month * 24 months: US$ 840 000.
8.5.2.3. Cost Related to Communication on the Treatment Works and Wastewater Outfall
The cost related to information campaign (creation of leaflet, publicity in papers and/or TV, tour of the treatment plant, creation of an institutional video, creation of a visitor room at Hovsan WWTP…) on the treatment works and wastewater outfall is estimated at US$ 100 000.
8.5.3. COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERVISION
The environmental supervision will be operating for all the duration of the works i.e. 2 calendar years. The monthly salary of the half time Environmental Supervision Officer (engineer/master degree, local staff of the Supervision Consultant) is estimated to US$ 2 000 per month. It will be provided with a vehicle and office equipment. The total cost of the environmental supervision is itemized in Table 8.7. The total cost en environmental supervision is estimated to US $ 110 000
Table 8.7: Cost of Environmental Supervision Unit cost Total Cost Item Unit Quantity US $ US $ Wage of Environmental Supervision Officer month 24 2 000 48 000 (local staff of the Supervision Consultant) Vehicle purchase lump sum 1 40 000 40 000
Vehicle operation month 24 500 12 000 Office equipment (including computer and lump sum 1 10 000 10 000 printer) TOTAL 110 000
8.5.4. COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
8.5.4.1. Cost Associated with the Impact Monitoring Officer
As estimated above (see Table 8.1 in § 8.2.2.1), the assignment of the Impact Monitoring Officer (IMC, local staff) is of 106 working day. With a rate of US$ 500/day (all included), the total cost of this consultant is 106 x US$ 500 = US$ 53 000. A lump sum of US$ 7000 will be dedicated to office equipment of the monitoring office (provided by Azersu). The total cost will be thus of US$ 60 000.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 138
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
8.5.4.2. Cost of the Monitoring Campaigns
According to the real cost of the analyses carried out for the present EIA, the cost estimate for the monitoring plan is based on the following assumptions: - the cost analyses made by the Hovsan WWTP as a routine monitoring are integrated in general WWTP operational cost - the cost of measuring basic parameters (T°, DO, BOD, TSS, salinity, Total Coliforms, Faecal Coliforms, Escherichia coli) is estimated to US$ 15/analysis - the cost of measuring heavy metals is estimated to US$ 25/analysis - the cost of measuring TOC/TPH/ Chlorophyll a is estimated to US$ 90/analysis - the cost for measuring HAP/PCB/pesticide is estimated to US$ 120/analysis - the cost for counting specific pathogens (salmonella, Giardia, Cryotosporidium, Enterovirus) is estimated to US$ 120/counting - the cost for particle size composition (sediment) is estimated to US$ 130/analysis - the cost of macro-benthos analyses is estimated at US$ 500 per sample - the cost for sampling in WWTP is estimated to US$ 100 per campaign - the cost for sampling sea water and sediments is estimated to US$ 500 per campaign The cost for monitoring is detailed in Table 8.8. The total cost of the initial monitoring stage is estimated to US$ 159 490, which can be rounded to US$ 160 000.
Table 8.8: Cost of monitoring campaigns for the initial monitoring stage Quantity = Unit cost Total Cost Component Parameter category parameters x sites x US $ US $ samples x campaign Basic parameters - (*) (*) Heavy metals 7 x 1 x 2 x 7 = 98 25 2 450 TPH 1 x 1 x 2 x 7 = 14 90 1 260 Wastewater HAP/PCB/pesticide 3 x 1 x 2 x 7 = 42 120 5 040 Pathogens 4 x 1 x 2 x 7 = 56 120 6 720 Sampling campaigns 7 100 700 Basic parameters 8 x 4 x 3 x 4 = 384 15 5 760 Heavy metals 7 x 4 x 3 x 4 = 336 25 8 400 Sea water Chlorophyll a 1 x 4 x 3 x 4 = 48 90 4 320 Sampling campaigns 4 500 2000 Particle size 1 x 6 x 3 x 4 =72 130 9 360 Heavy metals 7 x 6 x 3 x 4 = 504 25 12 600 TOC/TPH 2 x 6 x 3 x 4 = 144 90 12 960 Sediment HAP/PCB/pesticide 3 x 6 x 3 x 4 = 216 120 25 920 Macro-benthos fauna 1 x 6 x 5 x 4 = 120 500 60 000 Sampling campaigns 4 500 2 000
TOTAL COST 159 490
(*) included in WWTP operational cost
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 139
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
8.5.4.3. Cost Associated with the Regional Workshop
The cost of the regional workshop is estimated to US$ 80 000, which can be breakdown in: - US$ 30 000: invitation of Regional experts - US$ 30 000: general organisation - US$ 20 000: editing and spreading the proceedings
8.5.5. RECAPITULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
The project environment related costs are itemized in the Table 8.9. They amount to US $ 4 250 000, which is about 3% of the project total cost.
Table 8.9: Recapitulation of Environmental costs of the Hovsan Wastewater Outfall Project Cost Component Sub-component US$ Restoration of off-shore ridge 1 000 000 Additional environmental works By-pass at Hovsan WWTP 1 400 000 Industrial sensitisation program 500 000 Accompanying and soft measures Middle-term technical assistance 840 000 Communication on treatment works 100 000 Environmental officer 48 000 Environmental Supervision Vehicle, office equipment 62 000 Impact Monitoring Officer 60 000 Environmental Monitoring Monitoring campaigns 160 000 Regional workshop 80 000
TOTAL 4 250 000
8.6. RECAPITULATING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLANS
In order to better set out the environmental management plan of the project, both mitigation and monitoring plans together with the associated costs are shown in the following Table 8.10 to 8.13.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 140
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.10a: Mitigation Plan for the Outfall Construction Phase Potential Environmental Institutional Project Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures Cost US $ Impact Responsibility Terrestrial environment The equipment used will be recent, fit with well functioning noise abatement system. Within 300 m of housings, heavy duty machinery will be used only Cannot be estimated Movement and work of heavy Rise of noise and vibration during the usual working hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). If the need arises, overtime but to be included in Contractor machinery levels will be done only under the authorization of the Supervisor. During dry, hot the contractor’s season, water sprays will be used to control fugitive dust within 100 m of tender/contract prices housing and paved roads. Movement and work of heavy The equipment used will be recent, fit with pollution abatement system. machinery, transport of spoil Air pollutant emissions Transport of dusty material (borrow and spoil material) will be made by trucks Contractor Same as above material covered with tarp. Soil of abandoned work facilities will be restored. Spoil material will be Trench digging, disposal of disposed on flat or gently sloped area. Spoil material will not be disposed on spoil material and set up of Loss of natural soil Contractor Same as above woody and cultivated areas. The excavated soil will be reused for trench work facilities backfilling. Hydrocarbon storage areas and refuelling areas will be concrete made and located away from any watercourse. Tanks above ground will be placed on a watertight concrete made area and fitted with a retention basin. Proper containers will be placed within the construction camp and permanent work sites in order to collect all kinds of common solid waste such as: glass, paper, cardboard, plastic waste and packaging. Common waste will be transferred to Movement and work of heavy Pollution of soils the containers of the company responsible for general domestic waste Contractor Same as above machinery, fueling operation collection or by the Contractor towards a dumping site which is formally used for domestic waste. Special waste such as batteries, oil filters, etc., generated by both terrestrial and marine vehicles and machinery, will be collected in special containers proof for any leakage/spillage of toxic liquid/solids and then conveyed in relevant vehicles toward the landfill dedicated to hazardous waste. Movement and work of heavy Pollution of surface and Work camp and facilities will be located at least 50 m. away from steams. See Contractor Same as above machinery, fueling operation ground waters also above the measures to control pollution of soils. Clearing will be done manually. Cutting trees above 4 m high or with aesthetic Trench digging, disposal of Destruction of terrestrial shall request authorization of the Supervisor. Open burning of plant waste or spoil material and set up of Contractor Same as above vegetation any waste will be strictly prohibited. See also above the measures to control work facilities loss of soils.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 141
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.10b: Mitigation Plan for the Outfall Construction Phase (continuing) Potential Environmental Institutional Project Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures Cost US $ Impact Responsibility Terrestrial environment (continuing) Cannot be estimated Trench digging and backfilling Destruction and but to be included in disposal of spoil material and disturbance of terrestrial See above measure to protect terrestrial fauna Contractor the contractor’s set up of work facilities fauna tender/contract prices Speed for contractor’s and subcontractor’s vehicles will be limited to 40 km/h Trench digging and backfilling Road safety Contractor Same as above inside populated areas and 50 km/h outside populated areas. If traffic interruption is necessary, the concerned population will be informed Trench digging and backfilling Disruption to road traffic with a proper schedule in order to attenuate disturbance and diversion roads Contractor Same as above will be indicated Work camp and facilities will be located more than 100 m away from housing, Adverse effects on health, school and health centre. If disruption of services is necessary, the affected All construction works welfare and of the nearby Contractor Same as above population shall be informed about the type, extension and duration of population disruption. See also above measure to control air pollution and noise emission Marine environment Movement and work of ships Wastewater and waste oil generated by barges, dredgers and tugboats will be and barges, submarine trench Seawater pollution Contractor Same as above pumped and transported to the land to be disposed with other wastewater. digging The excavated sediment will be disposed in such a way that they do not increase contamination of the covered seabed. With this aim, it is required that Submarine trench digging Sea bed pollution Contractor Same as above the sediments excavated within 6000 m of the shore line (polluted area) shall be disposed within the same distance. If the pipes are imported by ships through other seas than Caspian Sea, the Introduction of invasive Pipe supply conveying ships shall be fitted with adequate ballast water treatment to Contractor Same as above alien species prevent transporting alien species, such as screen filters. Movement and work of ships Changes in pelagic and barges, submarine trench See above measure to control seawater pollution Contractor Same as above communities digging The dike will be destructed and its building material removed and transported to adequate landfill after the completion of works. See above measure to Contractor Same as above control sea bed pollution Dike construction, submarine Changes in benthic The offshore ridge (sandbar) will be reconstructed with material excavated trench digging and backfilling communities from the sandbar top, the sandbar outer slope or borrowed beyond the sand bar, in a less polluted area. The present shape and height of the sandbar will Contractor 1 000 000 be recreated as much accurately as possible in order not to split up this particular submarine ridge.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 142
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.11: Mitigation Plan for the Outfall Operation Phase Project Activity Potential Environmental Proposed Mitigation Measures Institutional Cost US $ Impact Responsibility Terrestrial environment Damage to pipe caused Relevant rules and signing will be set up with a view to prevent land users to Included in Azersu Terrestrial outfall route by vehicles circulation or Azersu cause damage to the outfall. operational cost earth works A communication campaign on the treatment works and wastewater outfall directed towards the Baku population, especially Hovsan dwellers, will be implemented with the aim of preventing any rumour spreading, adverse Skilled Outfall operation (discharge of Bad perception of outfall publicity, contest or unjustified concern related to the outfall. The main communication 100 000 treated wastewater) by the population contents will be (i) explanation about the need for marine outfall, (ii) firm presentation of the advanced treatment of wastewater in Hovsan WWTP and (iii) setting out the monitoring plan. Guide tours within the WWTP will be organized for children, students, community based organisations. Marine environment A safety perimeter will be set up in liaison with the marine authorities with the Damage to pipe or diffuser Included in Azersu Marine outfall route view of preventing any boat or ship to reach the vicinity of outfall route, Azersu caused by boats or ships operational cost especially the diffuser Outfall operation (discharge of Effects on exploitation of A safety perimeter will be set up in liaison with the marine authorities with the Included in Azersu Azersu treated wastewater) marine resources view of preventing any fishing in the vicinity of the diffuser operational cost A sensitisation program for connected industries will be implemented with a view of ensuring the suitable quality of raw effluents treated by Hovsan Skilled WWTP. This program will comprise identification, characterization of facilities, engineering 500 000 processes and discharged pollutants, and proposition of relevant ways to company clean effluent to the non-compliant facilities and possible financing support. Seawater and sea bed A middle-term technical assistance will be provided for training the Hovsan Outfall operation (discharge of pollution, changes in WWTP staff in order to ensure the performance of the wastewater treatment: Skilled treated wastewater) pelagic and benthic staff secondment of an experienced wastewater treatment plant manager engineering 840 000 communities assisted by specialists in process, maintenance, electromechanical, setting up company of relevant operations and maintenance procedures. The chlorination of treated wastewater will be stopped at Hovsan WWTP in such a way to limit the release of persistent, toxic chlorinated organic Azersu - substances. A by-pass fitted with coarse and fine screens will be constructed for sending Changes in pelagic Outfall operation (discharge of the effluent to the outfall in case of impairment of Hovsan WWTP in such a communities (impaired Azersu 1 400 000 treated wastewater) way that the dilution will be always maintained rather than to disposed treatment) untreated wastewater onto to the seashore (as presently)..
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 143
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.12a: Monitoring Plan for the Outfall Construction Phase
Project activities responsible for What? When? Where? How? By whom? Cost US $ potential impacts
Distance to housing, road, sea Before construction Environmental Siting of work camp and water courses, environmental Visual control, reporting in of work camp and On the concerned sites officer (EO) of the and facilities sensitivity of the site the work monthly reports facilities supervision team Protection of the existing trees Both EO and Ballast waters At each arrival of Visual control, reporting in Ballast water treatment system In the conveying boat Impact monitoring management pipes the work monthly reports officer (IMO) Individual safety equipment Continuously Environmental Health and safety of Safety related to the contractor’s Visual control, reporting in during the On the work sites officer (EO) of the workers vehicles and machinery the work monthly reports construction phase supervision team Accidents at work Management of Fuel storage and recovering 110 000 Continuously Both EO and hydrocarbons and Imperviousness of fuel and Visual control, reporting in during the On the work sites Impact monitoring hazardous maintenance areas the work monthly reports (for the total construction phase officer (IMO) substances Waste oil collection and storage environmental Collection and elimination of supervision of Continuously Both EO and domestic solid waste Visual control, reporting in works) Waste management during the On the work sites Impact monitoring Collection and elimination of the work monthly reports construction phase officer (IMO) hazardous waste Safety of works site Overall assessment based on field Continuously Visual control, consultation Environmental and management of visit during the On the work sites of the registers, reporting in officer (EO) of the traffic Number of accidents construction phase the work monthly reports supervision team Restoration of Environmental Removal of equipment and waste After work Visual control, reporting in abandoned work On the work sites officer (EO) of the Safety restoration completion the work monthly reports camps/facilities supervision team Environmental Number of felled trees Before trench Visual control, reporting in Tree felling On the work sites officer (EO) of the Justification of felling digging the work monthly reports supervision team
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 144
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.12b: Monitoring Plan for the Outfall Construction Phase (continuing)
Project activities responsible for What? When? Where? How? By whom? Cost US $ potential impacts
Overall assessment based of field Continuously Environmental Protection of air visit Visual control, reporting in during the On the work sites officer (EO) of the quality Control of dust emission the work monthly reports construction phase supervision team Use of tarps on the hauling trucks Continuously Both EO and Protection of sea and Collection of waste oil produced Visual control, reporting in during the On the work sites Impact monitoring fresh waters by barges and boats the work monthly reports construction phase officer (IMO) Compliance/approval of Management of Continuously Environmental stockpiling area Visual control, reporting in terrestrial spoil during the On the work sites officer (EO) of the Overall assessment based on field the work monthly reports material construction phase supervision team visits Volume of polluted sediment (< 6000 m) excavated Continuously Both EO and 110 000 Management of Visual control, reporting in Proportion of polluted excavated during the On the work sites Impact monitoring marine spoil material the work monthly reports sediment(< 6000 m) disposed on construction phase officer (IMO) (for the total less polluted area (> 6000 m) environmental Overall assessment based of field supervision of visits Continuously Visual control, meeting with Environmental works) Noise management Control of working hours during the On the work sites riparian population reporting officer (EO) of the Complaints from riparian construction phase in the work monthly reports supervision team population (*) Visual control, meeting with Number of incidents Continuously Environmental Protection of public riparian population and Complaint from the owners and during the On the work sites officer (EO) of the and private utilities concerned persons reporting affected populations construction phase supervision team in the work monthly reports Speed limitation Relevant road signs Continuously Environmental Visual control, reporting in Traffic management Number of incidents/accidents during the On the work sites officer (EO) of the the work monthly reports Frequency/number of traffic jams construction phase supervision team Number of traffic disruptions
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 145
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.13a: Monitoring Plan for the Outfall Operation Phase
Environmental Cost US $ What? When? Where? How? By whom? impact (3 years pilot stage) Cost included in the At Hovsan WWTP Sampling (pooled sample) Azersu water monitoring operational cost of Flow Continuously (inlet and outlet) and analysis of water. laboratory Hovsan WWTP (routine water quality monitoring) Cost included in the At Hovsan WWTP Sampling (pooled sample) Azersu water monitoring operational cost of Quantity Daily (inlet and outlet) and analysis of water. laboratory Hovsan WWTP (routine water quality monitoring) Cost included in the pH, dissolved O , BOD , 2 5 At Hovsan WWTP Sampling (pooled sample) Azersu water monitoring operational cost of TSS, Total Coliforms, Faecal Weekly (inlet and outlet) and analysis of water. laboratory Hovsan WWTP (routine Coliforms, E. coli water quality monitoring) Cost included in the NO , NO ,NH , TKN, total At Hovsan WWTP Sampling (pooled sample) Azersu water monitoring operational cost of Wastewater quality 3 2 4 Two weekly phosphorus (inlet and outlet) and analysis of water. laboratory Hovsan WWTP (routine water quality monitoring) Referenced private or At Hovsan WWTP Sampling (pooled sample) TPH Six monthly public laboratory 1250 (inlet and outlet) and analysis of water. (certified ISO 9000) Referenced private or Heavy metals: As, Cd, Cr, At Hovsan WWTP Sampling (pooled sample) Six monthly public laboratory 2450 Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg (inlet and outlet) and analysis of water. (certified ISO 9000) Referenced private or At Hovsan WWTP Sampling (pooled sample) HAP/PCB/pesticide Annually public laboratory 5040 (inlet and outlet) and analysis of water. (certified ISO 9000) Pathogens: Giardia, Referenced private or At Hovsan WWTP Sampling (pooled sample) Salmonella,Cryptosporidium, Annually public laboratory 6720 (inlet and outlet) and analysis of water. Enteroviruis (certified ISO 9000)
Cost of sampling campaigns 700
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 146
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Table 8.13b: Monitoring Plan for the Outfall Operation Phase (continuing)
Environmental Cost US $ What? When? Where? How? By whom? impact (3 years pilot stage) Temperature, salinity, pH, Annually Referenced private or dissolved O , BOD , TSS, (1 campaign before 4 sites around the Sampling and analysis 2 5 public laboratory 5760 Total Coliforms, Faecal outfall operation, 3 diffuser of water (3 replicates) (certified ISO 9000) Coliforms, E. coli camp. after) Annually Referenced private or (1 campaign before 4 sites around the Sampling and analysis Chlorophyll a public laboratory 4320 outfall operation, 3 diffuser of water (3 replicates) (certified ISO 9000) Sea Water Pollution camp. after) Annually Referenced private or Heavy metals: As, Cd, Cr, (1 campaign before 4 sites around the Sampling and analysis public laboratory 8400 Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg outfall operation, 3 diffuser of water (3 replicates) (certified ISO 9000) camp. after)
Cost of sampling campaigns 2000
Annually 6 sites around the Sampling and analysis Referenced private or Heavy metals: As, Cd, Cr, (1 campaign before diffuser and on the top of sediments (3 public laboratory 12600 Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn, Hg outfall operation, 3 camp. of the sand bar replicates) (certified ISO 9000) after) Annually 6 sites around the Sampling and analysis Referenced private or (1 campaign before Particle size composition diffuser and on the top of sediments (3 public laboratory 9360 outfall operation, 3 camp. of the sand bar replicates) (certified ISO 9000) after) Sea Bed Pollution Annually 6 sites around the Sampling and analysis Referenced private or (1 campaign before TOC, TPH diffuser and on the top of sediments (3 public laboratory 12960 outfall operation, 3 camp. of the sand bar replicates) (certified ISO 9000) after) Annually 6 sites around the Sampling and analysis Referenced private or Organochlorine pesticides, (1 campaign before diffuser and on the top of sediments (3 public laboratory 25920 PCB, PAH outfall operation, 3 camp. of the sand bar replicates) (certified ISO 9000) after) Annually 6 sites around the Sampling and analysis Referenced private or (1 campaign before Macro-benthos fauna diffuser and on the top of sediments (5 public laboratory 60 000 outfall operation, 3 camp. Changes in benthic of the sand bar replicates) (certified ISO 9000) fauna after) Cost of sampling campaigns (for both seabed sediment and fauna) 2000
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 147
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
9. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
9.1. INTRODUCTION
WB procedure for EIA as well as Azeri legislation for EIA imposes public consultations in the course of EIA implementation. For all Category A projects, during the EIA process, WB imposes that the borrower consult project affected groups and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) about the project’s environmental aspects and take their views into account. Such consultations should be initiated as early as possible. For Category A projects, these groups should be consulted at least twice: (a) shortly after environmental screening and before the terms of reference for the EA are finalized; and (b) once a draft EA report is prepared. In that respect, the consultant has organized together with Azersu an initial public meeting on June 24, 2009 and a final public meeting will be organized as soon as Azersu and the WB have reviewed the draft EIA.
9.2. INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING
Public consultation on the Environmental Impact Assessment for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Deep Sea Outfall Construction was held in the conference hall of ―Azersu‖ JSC on June 24, 2009 at 15:00 AM. The meeting lasted around 2 hours. The public was informed about the meeting in advance. On June 17, 2009 the invitations were sent to the 6 NGO’s, Executive Power of Surakhani district and Municipality of Hovsan settlement and representatives of Surakhani district in the Hovsan settlement. Representatives of the following NGOs were present at the meeting: ―Ecoscope‖, ―Green Movement‖, ―Nature and Life‖, and ―National Center of Environmental Prognosis‖. The consultant opened the meeting and gave brief information about the EIA. He also informed participants about the importance of the project and that the proposals given during the discussions would be considered and that the WB would be briefed about them. EIA presentation was carried out by the consultant. He described the project objective, the context of the study, the main tasks to be carried out and steps of their implementation. He also urged stakeholders for support and mutual cooperation in the process of this EIA. The EIA presentation is attached in Appendix 4. The presentation was followed by discussions about the project, the alternatives that should be studied, the industrial wastewater, and the impact of the project on local population. The questions and suggestions raised during the discussions are given in the minutes of meeting in Appendix 4.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 148
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
9.3. FINAL PUBLIC MEETING
The final public meeting was held in the conference hall of ―Azersu‖ JSC on November 12, 2009 at 15:00 AM. The meeting lasted around 2.5 hours. The public was informed about the meeting in advance through newspaper announcement on November 6, 2009, and attached in appendix 4. On November 5, 2009, invitations were sent to five NGO’s, Executive Power of Surakhani district and Municipality of Hovsan settlement and representation of Surakhani district in the Hovsan settlement. Attendance list is attached in Appendix 4. On November 6, 2009, the draft final EIA report in Azeri version was posted on Azersu’s website. Representatives of the following NGOs were present at the meeting: ―Green Movement‖, ―Nature and Life‖, and ―Ecology and birds protection‖. The consultant opened the meeting and gave brief information about the draft final EIA report. He mentioned the importance of this project for improvement of environmental conditions of the Absheron peninsula and Caspian Sea and expressed gratitude to various ministries and departments that had submitted the necessary materials for its implementation, as well as participants of the presentation. EIA presentation detailed the main sections of the project including project setting, policy, legal, and administrative framework, Baku sewage disposal project, baseline data, environmental impacts and analysis of alternatives, Environmental Management Plan and steps of its implementation and summarized conclusion. The EIA presentation is attached in Appendix 4. The presentation was followed by broad discussions about the project, industrial pollution, environmental protection of Hovsan Bay,… The questions and suggestions raised during the discussions are given in the minutes of meeting in Appendix 4.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 149
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
10. CONCLUSION
Although the construction of the Hovsan wastewater outfall will not result in cleaning the highly polluted Baku Bight, this project can be considered as a first step of a comprehensive process of management of wastewater produced in entire Greater Baku or even in the entire Absheron Peninsula. With this project, the wastewater treated in the bigger WWTP of Baku will be kept away from the coastal water used by the Baku population and hence protects the public health. With this aim, a marine outfall with a 1km-long land section and an 8 km-long marine section will be constructed. The very long marine section is justified by the fact that an offshore ridge, this side of which the sea water is very calm and favour accumulation of pollutants and beyond which the current favour the dispersion of pollutants has to be crossed by the outfall. Moreover, a certain depth needs to be reached by the outfall to obtain a better primary dilution. Albeit threaten by industrial and oil pollution as well as by introduction of alien invasive species, the Caspian Sea remains a very rich and unique ecosystem of highest ecological interest, especially because accommodating famous icon species that are sturgeons and Caspian Seal. Thanks to the advanced treatment which is undergone by the wastewater in Hovsan WWTP (including nitrogen and phosphorus removal), the discharge of the treated wastewater into the Caspian Sea water is not likely to cause major change in the marine life in the surrounding of the discharge point (diffuser). As the impact could be more significant in case of impairment at the WWTP, some measures have been recommend to avoid as much as possible such impairment such as ensuring the compliance of the quality of entering wastewater with the treatment processes and providing technical assistance to help the present WWTP staff to manage the upgraded works and processes. Above all, it is highly recommended to shut down the chlorination of treated wastewater in order to avoid the release of toxic organo-chlorine compounds into the Caspian Sea. With regard to the impacts associated with the construction phase, the affected seabed is already so highly polluted, that no major damage in benthic life may be expected from dig-and-lay activities. However, the offshore ridge needs to be restored because its slopes are less polluted than the nearshore sea bottom and its elevation may create particular ecological conditions for the dwelling of marine life. The Hovsan outfall is the only long outfall of Azerbaijan and most probably one of the longest outfalls of the whole Caspian Sea. Accordingly, the project may be considered as a flagship project which can serve as a reference for the following ones. That is why that the environmental monitoring is very critical for proving or confirming the relative harmlessness of environmental impacts of this kind of treated water disposal. So it is highly recommended to Azersu which will operate the outfall to ensure the high quality and reliability of the monitoring process and analyses which will not have to suffer from criticism from the scientific communities. Of course, the monitoring is a never ending activity that Azersu should integrate to its operational cost. Regional workshop will help rising awareness about the relevance of outfall among the other riparian large cities of the Caspian Sea. Other recommendations has been made for the middle term, at first the elaboration of a comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan for the entire Absheron Peninsula, including Greater Baku, taking into account the present demographic/economic situation and environmental demand from the population, in order to stop the pollution of the whole Baku Bight, develop/improve leisure activities on the Caspian Sea shore and protect public health and fisheries.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 150
Environmental Impact Assessment study for Hovsan Wastewater Treatment Plant Sea Outfall Construction Section 1- Environmental Impact Assessment study
Phasing out the chlorination at all existing WWTP and improving regulation on wastewater discharge into the water courses, water bodies and Caspian Sea will also ease the cleaning up of the Baku Bight.
December 2009 Seureca - ASPI 151