NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
17 November 2017
Linde AG
Mott MacDonald 71 Sadovnicheskaya Embankment Moscow 115035 Russia
T +7 (495) 981 5665 F +7 (495) 981 5666 mottmac.com
NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA
386570
Volume II Mott– MacDonaldImpact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald R LLC registered in Russia number 1077758264165, INN 7706664782. A member of the Mott Linde AG MacDonald Group.
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Issue and Revision Record
Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A 2 Sep 2017 S Goncharov S Goncharov R Watson First Draft ESIA for Client review E Petruneva C Mills A Strokina M Coroi J Brookes J Dottridge W Kerr A Monk-Steel N. Francis A Dal Mut T Ellis B 06 Oct 2017 S Goncharov S Goncharov Second Draft ESIA for Client E Petruneva C Mills review A Strokina M Coroi J Brookes J Dottridge W Kerr A Monk-Steel N. Francis A Dal Mut T Ellis C 17 Nov 2017 S Goncharov R Watson Third revision Draft ESIA for A Strokina Lenders Disclosure
Document reference: 386570
Information class: Standard
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-capti oned project onl y. It shoul d not be r elied upon by any other par ty or used for any other purpose.
We accept no r esponsibility for the consequences of this document being reli ed upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containi ng any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data suppli ed to us by other parties.
This document contai ns confi denti al infor mation and pr opri etar y intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parti es without consent from us and fr om the party which commissioned it. This report has been prepared solely for use by the party which commissioned it (the ‘Client’) in connection with the captioned project. It should not be used for any other purpose. No person other than the Client or any party who has expressly agreed terms of reliance with us (the ‘Recipient(s)’) may rely on the content, information or any views expressed in the report. We accept no duty of care, responsibility or liability to any other recipient of this document. This report is confidential and contains proprietary intellectual property.
No representation, warranty or undertaking, express or implied, is made and no responsibility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Client or any Recipient(s), as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report. For the avoidance of doubt this report does not in any way purport to include any legal, insurance or financial advice or opinion.
We disclaim all and any liability whether arising in tort or contract or otherwise which it might otherwise have to any party other than the Client or the Recipient(s), in respect of this report, or any information attributed to it.
We accept no responsibility for any error or omission in the report which is due to an error or omission in data, information or statements supplied to us by other parties including the client (‘Data’). We have not independently verified such Data and have assumed it to be accurate, complete, reliable and current as of the date of such information.
Forecasts presented in this document were prepared using Data and the report is dependent or based on Data. Inevitably, some of the assumptions used to develop the forecasts will not be realised and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Consequently Mott MacDonald does not guarantee or warrant the conclusions contained in the report as there are likely to be differences between the forecasts and the actual results and those differences may be material. While we consider that the information and opinions given in this report are sound all parties must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it.
Under no circumstances may this report or any extract or summary thereof be used in connection with any public or private securities offering including any related memorandum or prospectus for any securities offering or stock exchange listing or announcement.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description ACs − Affected communities ZoI − Zone of influence CLO − Community Liaison Officer Consultant − Mott MacDonald Limited E&S − Environment and social EHS − Environmental, health and safety EIA − Environmental impact assessment EP − Ethylene plant EPRP − Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan EqPs − Equator Principles ESIA − Environmental and social impact assessment ESMMP − Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan GRI − Global Reporting Initiative HSRA − Health and safety risk assessment IFC − International Financial Corporation km − kilometres KTA − Thousand tons per year LTP − Local wastewater treatment plant MD − Municipal District MML − Mott MacDonald Limited NKNK − Public Joint Stock Company “Nizhnekamskneftekhim” NTS − Non-Technical Summary OECD − Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OHS − Occupational health and safety PFO − Privolzhsky Federal Okrug PE − Polyethylene PMC − Permissible maximum concentrations of pollutants PP − Polypropylene PSs IFC Performance Standards RT − Republic of Tatarstan SEP − Stakeholder Engagement Plan SPZ − Sanitary Protection Zone WWTP − Wastewater treatment plant
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Contents
1 Introduction 1 1.1 General Information and Background 1 1.2 Project Parties 1 1.3 Financing of the Project 1 1.4 Purpose of this Document 2 1.5 Structure of the ESIA Report 2
2 Project Description 4 2.1 Overview 4 2.2 Project Location 4 2.3 Project Components 6 2.3.1 Main Production Sections 6 2.3.2 Advantages of Steam Cracking 7 2.3.3 Material Balance 8 2.3.4 EP-600 Feed Stock 8 2.3.5 EP-600 Products 10 2.3.6 Transportation 10 2.3.7 Project Local Wastewater Treatment Plant 11 2.3.8 Waste Management 11
3 Need for the Project and Analysis of Alternatives 12 3.1 Introduction 12 3.2 Project Need 12 3.2.1 Overview 12 3.2.2 Ethylene Uses and Markets 13 3.2.3 Global Ethylene Consumers and Producers 13 3.2.4 Future Ethylene Production in Russia 14 3.3 ‘No Project’ Alternative 15 3.3.1 Overview 15 3.3.2 Environmental Perspective 15 3.3.3 Economic Perspective 15 3.3.4 Social Perspective 16 3.3.5 Conclusions 16 3.4 Location for the Project 16 3.4.1 Overview 16 3.4.2 Availability of Feedstock 16 3.4.3 Existing Infrastructure 16 3.4.4 Environmental Perspective 17 3.4.5 Conclusion 17
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
3.5 Assessment of Project Technology Selection 17
4 Legal and Institutional Framework 19 4.1 Introduction 19 4.2 National Requirements 19 4.2.1 Environment Protection 19 4.2.2 Best Available Techniques 20 4.3 Regional Legislation of the Republic of Tatarstan 21 4.4 National EIA Process 21 4.5 Labour Legislation 21 4.6 Cultural Heritage 22 4.7 Applicable International Requirements 22 4.7.1 Introduction 22 4.7.2 Euler Hermes and OECD Requirements 22 4.7.3 International Finance Corporation 22 4.7.4 Equator Principles 23
5 Assessment Scope and ESIA Process 24 5.1 Introduction 24 5.2 Scoping Phase 24 5.3 Scoping and ESIA site visits 24 5.4 Potential Impacts 25 5.4.1 Overview 25 5.4.2 Air Quality 25 5.4.3 Noise and Vibration 25 5.4.4 Hydrology 26 5.4.5 Hydrogeology / Land Contamination 26 5.4.6 Ecology 26 5.4.7 Waste 26 5.4.8 Social Impact Assessment 26 5.4.9 Traffic and Transport 27 5.4.10 Cultural Heritage 27 5.4.11 Landscape and Visual 27 5.4.12 Cumulative Effects 28 5.5 Impact Assessment Methodology 28 5.5.1 Introduction 28 5.5.2 Baseline 28 5.5.3 Spatial scope 28 5.5.4 Temporal scope 29 5.5.5 Zone of Influence 29 5.6 Assessment of Effects 29 4.6.1 Overview 29 5.6.1 Magnitude 29 5.6.2 Sensitivity of Recipients 30
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
5.6.3 Impact Evaluation and Determination of Significance 30 5.6.4 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts 31 5.6.5 Proposals for Monitoring 31
6 Information Disclosure, Consultation and Participation 32 6.1 Overview 32 6.2 Principles of Consultation 32 6.3 Consultation Requirements 33 6.3.1 Overview 33 6.3.2 National Consultation Requirements 33 6.3.3 International Consultation Requirements 35 6.4 Stakeholder Identification 36 6.5 Project Consultation Activities and Outcomes 40 6.5.1 Overview 40 6.5.2 Local Community Representatives 40 6.5.3 Web Resources 40 6.5.4 Community Liaison Officer 40 6.5.5 ESIA Consultation and Disclosure 40 6.5.6 Consultation Planned throughout the Lifetime of the Project 44 6.6 Project Grievance Redress Mechanism 44 6.6.1 Overview 44 6.6.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity 44 6.6.3 Grievance Reporting and Resolution 44
7 Social Impact Assessment 47 7.1 Introduction 47 7.1.1 Overview 47 7.1.2 General Approach 47 7.1.3 Spatial Scope of Assessment 47 7.1.4 Temporal Scope of Assessment 51 7.1.5 Structure of the SIA Chapter 51 7.2 Relevant National Legislation, Regulations and Lenders’ Requirements 51 7.2.1 Overview 51 7.2.2 National Legislation and Regulations 52 7.2.3 International Requirements 54 7.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 56 7.3.1 Desk Study and Field Reconnaissance 56 7.3.2 Determining Significance of Impacts and Effects 57 7.4 Baseline Description 59 7.4.1 Overview 59 7.4.2 Demography 59 7.4.3 Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples, Religion and Language 61 7.4.4 Health 63 7.4.5 Employment and Economy 66
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
7.4.6 Education 68 7.4.7 Access to Social Services 70 7.4.8 Project Land Status and Use 72 7.4.9 Transportation Infrastructure and Public Transport Services 73 7.4.10 Gender Relations 74 7.4.11 Deprivation and Vulnerable Groups 74 7.5 Assessment of Impacts 75 7.5.1 Construction Phase Impacts 75 7.5.2 Operational Phase Impacts 77 7.5.3 Decommissioning or Rehabilitation Phase Impacts 78 7.5.4 Potential Risks to be Mitigated and Managed 78 7.5.5 Cumulative Impacts 81 7.6 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 81 7.6.1 Overview 81 7.6.2 Employment Generation and Localised Economic Development 81 7.6.3 Managing Retrenchment 82 7.6.4 Safeguarding the Wellbeing and Health and Safety of Workers 82 7.6.5 Safeguarding the Health, Safety and Wellbeing of Communities 85 7.6.6 Influx of Workers and Population Changes 86 7.6.7 Managing Disturbance Impact 86 7.7 Residual Impacts 86 7.8 Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 94 7.8.1 Annual Sustainability Reporting 95
8 Air Quality 96 8.1 Introduction 96 8.1.1 Overview 96 8.1.2 Key Pollutants 96 8.2 Relevant Standards and Guidelines 97 8.2.1 Overview 97 8.2.2 National Requirements 98 8.2.3 Local Regulations 98 8.2.4 Applicable International Lender Requirements 98 8.2.5 Summary 99 8.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 100 8.3.1 Baseline Assessment Methodology 100 8.3.2 Zone of Influence for Air Quality 101 8.3.3 Construction Phase 101 8.3.4 Operational Phase 102 8.4 Impact Assessment Criteria 109 8.4.1 Overview 109 8.4.2 Construction Phase 109 8.4.3 Significance Criteria – Operational Phase 110 8.5 Baseline Description 111 8.5.1 Overview 111
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
8.5.2 Available Data on Existing Concentrations 111 8.5.3 Monitoring Results 112 8.5.4 Baseline Concentrations Assumed for Modelling 113 8.6 Assessment of Impacts 113 8.6.1 Construction/Decommissioning 113 8.6.2 Operation Emissions – Public Health 114 8.6.3 Operation Emissions – Occupational Heath 117 8.7 Mitigation Measures 117 8.7.1 Construction Phase 117 8.7.2 Operational Phase 117 8.8 Residual Impacts 118
9 Ground Conditions 119 9.1 Introduction 119 9.2 Legislation 119 9.2.1 National Legislation 119 9.2.2 Applicable International Requirements 120 9.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 121 9.3.1 Evaluation of Baseline Conditions 121 9.3.2 Site Reconnaissance 121 9.3.3 Ground Investigation and Monitoring 121 9.3.4 Soil Quality Assessment Criteria 121 9.3.5 Groundwater Baseline Assessment Criteria 123 9.3.6 Determination of Impact Significance 124 9.3.7 Data Limitations 126 9.4 Baseline Description 126 9.4.1 Overview of Existing Ground and Groundwater Conditions 126 9.4.2 Geology 127 9.4.3 Soils 128 9.4.4 Hydrogeology 131 9.4.5 Historic and Potential Future Contamination Sources 132 9.4.6 Value of Geology, Soils and Groundwater 133 9.5 Assessment of Impacts 134 9.5.1 Potential Impacts of the Project 134 9.5.2 Construction Phase 134 9.5.3 Operation Phase 135 9.6 Mitigation Measures 137 9.6.1 Overview 137 9.6.2 Mitigation of Risks to Workers Health 137 9.6.3 Construction Mitigation Requirements 138 9.6.4 Operation Mitigation Requirements 139 9.6.5 Decommissioning Mitigation Requirements 139 9.7 Residual Impacts 139
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
10 Water Resources and Water Quality 141 10.1 Introduction 141 10.2 Legislation 141 10.2.1 National 141 10.2.2 Applicable International Requirements 142 10.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 143 10.4 Baseline Description 145 10.4.1 Surface Water Resources 145 10.4.2 Water Quality 145 10.4.3 Flood Risk 147 10.4.4 Existing Water Use 147 10.5 Assessment of Impacts 150 10.5.1 Identification of Receptors 150 10.5.2 Construction Phase 150 10.5.3 Operational Phase 151 10.5.4 Decommissioning Phase 154 10.6 Mitigation Measures 155 10.6.1 Construction Phase 155 10.6.2 Operational Phase 155 10.6.3 Decommissioning Phase 155 10.7 Residual impacts 155
11 Ecology and Biodiversity 158 11.1 Introduction 158 11.2 Legislation, Policy, and Third-Party Requirements 158 11.2.1 International Law 158 11.2.2 National Legislation and Policy on Biodiversity 158 11.2.3 Applicable International Requirements 159 11.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 160 11.3.1 Zone of Influence for Biodiversity 160 11.3.2 Baseline Conditions Methodology 161 11.3.3 Assessment of Impact Significance 166 11.3.4 Data Limitations 167 11.4 Baseline Description 167 11.4.1 Ecoregions and Biomes 167 11.4.2 Areas Protected for Nature Conservation 168 11.4.3 Industrial Hub Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ) 169 11.4.4 Habitats 169 11.4.5 Flora 173 11.4.6 Mammals 175 11.4.7 Birds 175 11.4.8 Reptiles and Amphibians 177 11.4.9 Fish 178
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
11.4.10 Invertebrates 178 11.4.11 Ecosystem Services 179 11.5 Assessment of Impacts 180 11.5.1 Construction Impacts 180 11.5.2 Operation Impacts 181 11.5.3 Decommissioning Impacts 183 11.6 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures 184 11.6.1 Mitigation 184 11.6.2 Monitoring 187 11.7 Cumulative Impacts 188 11.8 Residual Impacts 188
12 Material and Waste Management 193 12.1 Introduction 193 12.2 Legislative Requirements 193 12.2.1 National Requirements 193 12.2.2 Applicable International Requirements 194 12.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 195 12.3.1 Overview 195 12.3.2 Site Visit 195 12.3.3 Waste Classification 195 12.3.4 Spatial Scope 195 12.3.5 Temporal Scope 195 12.3.6 Assessment of Impact Significance 196 12.4 Baseline Description 196 12.5 Assessment of Impacts 197 12.5.1 Overview 197 12.5.2 Construction 197 12.5.3 Operation 200 12.5.4 Storage of Generated Products 205 12.5.5 Decommissioning Waste Streams 205 12.5.6 Impact Significance 205 12.5.7 Cumulative Impacts 206 12.6 Mitigation Measures 206 12.6.1 General Requirements 206 12.6.2 Construction and Operational Waste Management Plans 207 12.6.3 Materials Storage, Handling and Use 208 12.6.4 Proposed Monitoring 208 12.7 Residual Impacts 209
13 Traffic and Transport 212 13.1 Introduction 212 13.2 Applicable Legislation and Requirements 212 13.2.1 National Legislation 212
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
13.2.2 Applicable International Requirements 213 13.3 Methodology 213 13.3.1 Overview 213 13.3.2 Baseline Description 214 13.3.3 Traffic Survey 215 13.4 Assessment of Impacts 216 13.4.1 Construction Phase 216 13.4.2 Operations Phase 217 13.4.3 Decommissioning Phase 218 13.4.4 Cumulative Impacts 218 13.5 Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures 219 13.6 Residual Impact 219
14 Noise and Vibration 221 14.1 Introduction 221 14.2 Legislation and Guidance 221 14.2.1 National Legislation 221 14.2.2 Applicable International Guidelines 222 14.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 223 14.3.1 Significance Criteria 223 14.3.2 Sensitivity of Receptors 223 14.3.3 Magnitude of Impacts 223 14.4 Baseline Description 224 14.5 Assessment of Impacts 227 14.5.1 Construction Phase 227 14.5.2 Operational Phase 228 14.5.3 Miscellaneous 229 14.6 Mitigation Measures 229 14.6.1 Construction Phase 229 14.6.2 Operational Phase 230 14.7 Residual Impacts 230
15 Greenhouse Gas Assessment 231 15.1 Introduction 231 General Approach 231 15.1.1 Scope 232 15.2 Policy and Reference Emissions 232 15.2.1 Background 232 15.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 233 15.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 233 15.3.1 Overview 233 15.3.2 Calculation Methodology 234 15.3.3 Inputs 234 15.3.4 Assumptions 235
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
15.3.5 Assessment of Impact Significance 235 15.4 Assessment of Impacts 236 15.4.1 Estimate of GHG Emissions 236 15.4.2 Summary 236 15.5 Mitigation Measures 237 15.6 Summary 237
16 Cultural Heritage 238 16.1 Introduction 238 16.2 Legislation 238 16.2.1 Russian Federation 238 16.2.2 Republic of Tatarstan Standards 238 16.2.3 International Finance Corporation Standards 238 16.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria 239 16.3.1 Spatial and Temporal Scope of Assessment 239 16.3.2 Impact Assessment Criteria 239 16.4 Baseline Description 240 16.4.1 Site location 240 16.4.2 Archaeological and Historical Background 240 16.4.3 The Volga-Bulgarian Period 241 16.4.4 The formation of the Kazan Khanate 242 16.4.5 Sixteenth Century AD- Twenty-first Century AD 242 16.4.6 Key Gaps in Information Regarding Baseline Conditions 243 16.4.7 Conclusion 243 16.5 Assessment of Impacts 243 16.5.1 Construction 243 16.5.2 Operation 243 16.5.3 Decommissioning 243 16.6 Mitigation Measures 243 16.6.1 Abnormal or Emergency Conditions 243 16.7 Residual Impacts 244
Appendices 245
A. ESIA Stakeholder Consultation 246
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 1 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
1 Introduction
1.1 General Information and Background
PJSC “Nizhnekamskneftekhim” (NKNK) is developing a new grassroots naphtha cracker capable of producing 600,000 tonnes of ethylene per year (hereafter referred to as EP-600 Plant or the ‘Project’) at their existing industrial site located approximately 8.5km from Nizhnekamsk in the Republic of Tatarstan (RT) in Russia. Mott MacDonald Limited (MML) is acting as the independent International Environmental Consultant (the Consultant) to undertake an international Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for the Project.
NKNK is seeking to reach Financial Close for the Project prior to the national permitting requirements for the Project being completed, including the decision from the State Environmental Expertise. The ESIA process therefore has been conducted prior to commencement of the Detailed Design phase of the Project and therefore will be finalised in advance of the national Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the design documentation required under Russian regulations.
The EP-600 Plant will be designed by Linde AG (Germany) and will include two main production sections:
● Furnace section ● Separation section. Linde AG commissioned MML to prepare the ESIA Report in line with international requirements to support obtaining international finance for the Project.
1.2 Project Parties The key Project parties involved in the development of the EP-600 Plant are described in below.
Table 1: Key Project Parties Project Party Role PJSC Project developer who will be responsible for the development and operation of the Project. NKNK will “Nizhnekamskneftekhim” also be responsible for the Project’s environmental and social performance when it becomes operational. Linde AG NKNK has commissioned Linde AG to perform engineering design for the proposed Project. Linde AG will also be responsible for producing the Design Documentation including EIA documentation. Linde AG will also be responsible for contracting the Project construction contractor and ensuring the contractor implements appropriate environmental and social performance during the construction phase. Mott MacDonald Limited MML has been commissioned by Linde AG to act as the International Environmental Consultant (IEC) (MML) to conduct an international standard Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and associated Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan (ESMMP) of the Project. National Environmental NEC has been commissioned by MML to undertake national air and noise modelling for the Project in Company (NEC) accordance with Russian requirements / approach, to provide additional context for local stakeholders. NEC modelling results are included in Volume III of the ESIA Report, along with the results of the air and noise modelling conducted by MML in line international standards.
Other parties will be selected and involved in the Project preparation during the Detailed Design Phase of the Project which is expected to commence after achieving Financial Close for the Project.
1.3 Financing of the Project International lenders for the Project have not been confirmed, however the current understanding is that lenders will be signatories to the Equator Principles. Whilst the funding plan is not yet final, the financial risks
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 2 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
of the Project will be secured via Euler Hermes which refers to compliance with the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) requirements in project preparation and implementation.
Therefore, to address the potential environmental and social requirements of a range of potential banks, the ESIA has been undertaken in line with the following international requirements (hereafter referred to as the “applicable international requirements”):
● OECD Common Approaches (2016) ● The Equator Principles III (2013) ● International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards (2012) ● Applicable World Bank Group environmental, health and safety (EHS) guidelines.
1.4 Purpose of this Document This volume of the ESIA Report provides a detailed overview of the Project including its description, need and why the choice of technology is most appropriate. It also assesses the environmental and social impacts of the Project in accordance with the defined assessment approach. The purpose of this volume of the ESIA Report is to evaluate and promote the Project’s compliance with applicable international requirements as noted above for which the Project is to be assessed against.
By fulfilling this purpose, the ESIA procedure does the following:
● Identifies and assesses the potential environmental and social impacts that the Project may have on the environment and communities within its area of influence (AoI) ● Avoids, or where avoidance is not possible, minimises, mitigates or compensates for adverse impacts on the environment and communities ● Ensures that affected communities are appropriately engaged on issues that could potentially affect them ● Promotes improved social and environmental performance through the effective use of management systems. Other ESIA documents that are produced in support of the financing requirements of the Project, and that should be read in conjunction with this Impact Assessment Report, include:
● Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) ● ESIA Scoping Report (issued in July 2017) ● Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan (ESMMP) (volume IV) ● Non-Technical Summary (NTS) document (volume I).
1.5 Structure of the ESIA Report The ESIA Report is comprised of four volumes organised as follows:
● Volume I: Non-Technical Summary; ● Volume II: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (this volume) – Chapter 1 – Introduction – Chapter 2 – Project Description – Chapter 3 – Need for the Project and Analysis of Alternatives – Chapter 4 – Legal and Institutional Framework – Chapter 5 – Assessment Scope and EIA Process – Chapter 6 – Information Disclosure, Consultation and Participation – Chapter 7 – Social Impact Assessment
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 3 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
– Chapter 8 – Air Quality – Chapter 9 – Ground Conditions – Chapter 10 – Water Resources and Water Quality – Chapter 11 – Ecology and Biodiversity – Chapter 12 – Materials and Waste Management – Chapter 13 – Traffic and Transportation – Chapter 14 – Noise and Vibration – Chapter 15 – Greenhouse Gas Assessment – Chapter 16 – Cultural Heritage. – Appendices: ○ A. ESIA Stakeholder Consultation ● Volume III: Appendices and Supporting Documents ● Volume IV: Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan. Contact details for enquires on this ESIA are given below:
Project Proponent Information Name of Company PJSC "Nizhnekamskneftekhim" Address Nizhnekamsk 423574, Tatarstan Republic, Russia Telephone +7 (8555) 37-78-64; or 37-74-92; or 37-92-93 E-mail [email protected] Website www.nknh.ru
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 4 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
2 Project Description
2.1 Overview This Chapter provides a description of the proposed EP-600 Plant which will be located within the existing NKNK industrial area in Nizhnekamsk. Details are provided on the Project location, the processes, feed stock, products and key components of the Project. It also describes the existing infrastructure that the Project will use. The Project will produce: ● 600 thousand tons per year (KTA) of ethylene ● 270 KTA of propylene ● 110 KTA of pyrolysis fuel ● 248 KTA of benzene ● 89 KTA of butadiene. In addition, smaller volumes of other hydrocarbon products including raw C5 and C9 fractions and raffinate will be produced. Most of the products produced via the EP-600 Plant will be used in the existing facilities within the NKNK industrial area. Excess products, which cannot be utilised or stored will be sold and transported away from the NKNK industrial area via existing pipelines or the existing railway which links the industrial area to the regional rail network’.
2.2 Project Location The Project is located within the Nizhnekamsk region of the Republic of Tatarstan, located in the Privolzhsky Federal District of the Russian Federation. Nizhnekamsk is located approximately 800 kilometres (km) to the east of Moscow and approximately 170km east of Kazan, the Republic of Tatarstan capital. The selected Project site is located in the existing NKNK industrial area, located within the Nizhnekamsk industrial hub approximately 8.5km eastward of Nizhnekamsk city (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Existing Industrial Hub and Project Location
Source: www.kosmosnimki.ru/permalink.html?8QJ43
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 5 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
In line with Russian requirements the NKNK industrial area has an existing individual Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ) in place which provides an area that should be kept free from development of any residential buildings and certain other activities for the protection of human health.
In 2008, an overall SPZ was calculated for the whole industrial hub. The overall SPZ summarises impacts of all production sites located within the industrial hub including NKNK sites and covers a greater area overall. This overall SPZ is used as the basis for the impact assessments in the ESIA.
Figure 2 presents the existing NKNK individual SPZ and the overall SPZ for the industrial hub and the location of the closest settlements to the industrial hub.
Figure 2: Overall and Individual SPZs and Local Communities Neighbouring the Industrial Hub
Source: NKNK
A number of residential settlements are located close to the existing SPZs. Information on population and distances from the NKNK individual SPZ to closest settlements and Nizhnekamsk city are provided below:
● Nizhnekamsk – 237,250 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 2.9-3.2km ● Stroiteley – 1,247 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 2.8km ● Alan – 0 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 1.3km ● Prosti – 659 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 3.8km ● Klyatle – 83 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 4.0km ● Balchykly – 216 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 4.0km ● Ishteryakovo – 547 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 3.7km ● Martysh – 12 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 1.8km
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 6 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Avlash – 128 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 4.6km ● Nikoshnovka – 30 people, distance from NKNK SPZ – 5.4km. Two existing villages, Alan and Martysh are located within the overall SPZ. Recognising this, all the industries located in the industrial hub supported the local Sanitary Authority and municipalities of Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky Municipal Districts (MDs) in the resettlement of these villages to locations outside of the SPZ.
All the residents of Alan’ and most residents of Martysh have been successfully resettled, however 12 residents of Martysh remain who are currently refusing to leave the village. It remains the responsibility of the Sanitary Authority and the municipalities to oversee the resettlement of the remaining residents. The resettlement is not the responsibility of NKNK and it is not connected to the development of the proposed Project. Although the process of resettlement is ongoing, the ESIA has assumed a precautionary approach and included the villages of Martysh and Alan’ as receptors. It is not expected that the Project will create a change to the SPZ and therefore would not lead to any additional resettlement.
In addition to the aforementioned settlements, a prison (FKU IK-4) is located within the industrial hub approximately 600m to the north east of the EP-600 site and this has also been included as a key receptor in the ESIA.
In general land to the east and the south of the industrial hub is woodland. The industrial hub is located on the highest area of land within the study area at approximately 200 metres above sea level. The surrounding settlements are generally located at heights of 50-130 metres above sea level.
There are various watercourses within the Project area, the Project will use the largest of these, the Kama River for water abstraction and Tungucha River for discharge purposes. The Kama River which is a tributary to the Volga River flows to the north of the industrial area and is located approximately 6km away at its nearest point. There are also some smaller rivers located close to the industrial hub, these include the Strelochny Log River located to the north of the industrial hub which is a tributary of the Kama River, and the Tungucha River which is located to the south of the industrial hub and is a tributary to the Avlahska River.
2.3 Project Components The proposed Project consists of an ethylene plant (EP-600 Plant) which will be located within one main development site within the NKNK industrial area. During the operational phase of the Project, NKNK will maximise the use of the existing infrastructure operated by NKNK including the water abstraction facility, water filtration station, natural gas supply system, landfill and storm water discharge point at Tungucha River. The Project will not result in any of this existing infrastructure having to be redesigned or expanded.
The following sections provide a detailed overview of the production facility.
2.3.1 Main Production Sections The EP-600 Plant will be designed by Linde AG and will include two main production sections:
● Furnace section ● Separation section. The following process units and facilities are key features of the EP-600 Plant and will be located within the EP-600 Plant site boundary:
● Ethylene Unit ● Butadiene Extraction Unit ● Benzene, Toluene and Xylene Extraction Unit ● Supporting and storage facilities.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 7 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Figure 3 presents the location of the main components of the Project.
Figure 3: Main production sections of the EP-600 Plant
Source: Mott MacDonald (adapted from Linde AG)
2.3.2 Advantages of Steam Cracking The key elements of the steam cracking process based on the equipment to be supplied by Linde are:
● Six identical high capacity cracking furnaces with a production capacity of approx. 120 KTA ethylene per furnace will be installed to maintain 100% plant capacity during decoking of one furnace ● Two quench oil cycles for maximum heat recovery at a high temperature level. For lighter feeds such as C3 or C4, or for a dual feed cracker, there might be only one quench oil cycle ● Quench water section with high level of heat integration ● Low pressure process steam generation with optimum process water treatment for maximum fouling mitigation ● Front-end hydrogenation with an isothermal reactor provides excellent performance in the areas of safety, yields, and operability ● Front end de-ethanizer system to remove all heavy hydrocarbons upstream of the integrated cold train and de-methanizer system ● Integrated cold train and de-methanizer system is a uniquely compact process configuration and features both simplicity and efficiency ● Open loop ethylene refrigeration cycle leads to considerable savings in investment costs and energy consumption.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 8 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
2.3.3 Material Balance Figure 4 presents the overall material balance for the EP-600 Plant. More information about feedstock and Product given in sections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5.
Figure 4: EP-600 Material Balance
C2-Recycle 16401 kg/h C3-Recycle 1962 kg/h C6-C8-Raffinate 4612 kg/h Feeds C4/C5 from BdEU 60 kg/h
C2/C3-Fnc. (C2/C3) 17954 kg/h Products
SR-Naphtha 179390 kg/h NT-Fnc.'s (Naphtha) 226361 kg/h Ethylene 75001 kg/h
SG-Naphtha 41888 kg/h Propylene 33752 kg/h
Hydrogen 1330 kg/h
Fuelgas 38124 kg/h
Sourgas 67 kg/h
Butadiene 11164 kg/h Furnacesection C4-Raffinate1 8127 kg/h
C4-Acetylenes 887 kg/h
Raw C5-Fraction 8109 kg/h
Separation section Separation Benzene 30980 kg/h
# 244315 Raw C9 4629 kg/h # Light Fuel Oil 3529 kg/h
Heavy Fuel Oil 5579 kg/h 8161
Total 221278 kg/h 221278 kg/h
Source: Linde AG
2.3.4 EP-600 Feed Stock Naphtha The key feedstock for the EP-600 Plant is naphtha, which is fed into the pyrolysis furnaces at the start of the production process. This feedstock is currently produced by the two existing oil refineries located within the industrial hub which are owned and operated by TAIF-NK and TANEKO respectively.
When the EP-600 Plant will become operational it is expected that approximately 1,770 KTA of naphtha will be used. Naphtha is stored within existing NKNK storage facilities within the existing industrial area. The existing naphtha storage facility is located approximately 1.5km from the EP-600 Plant and it currently supplies the existing ethylene plant operated by NKNK which produces approximately 600 KTA of ethylene.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 9 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Cracking furnaces convert high molecular hydrocarbons to olefins at high temperatures in the presence of water steam with further fast cooling of products. Pyrolysis of naphtha allow to produce a wide range of hydrocarbons whereas pyrolysis of propane or butane is limited with ethylene production.
Natural gas is used in the combustion process in the furnaces and will lead to emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the flue gas of the cracking furnaces and the HP Boilers. These emissions will be reduced by the implementation of application of low-NOx burner technology. The decoking waste gas which occurs during the discontinuous decoking of cracking furnaces cracked gas coils and downstream heat exchangers will be sent to decoking waste gas separators (cyclones) for control of the particulate emissions before discharge to the atmosphere. For control of fugitive emissions of VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) or HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants) a range of measures are also considered, which are described later in Chapter 8.
Process components supply The production process will demand a number of additional process components or materials such as ceramic, carbon and aluminum adsorbents, catalysts, caustic soda, ion exchange resin, oil, natural gas for steam boilers and others. Most of these raw materials will be supplied to the site via the existing railway line connecting the NKNK production area with the regional railway network. Fine chemicals such as oil will be supplied via existing road networks by lorries. Natural gas will be supplied via existing pipeline from regional oil and gas pipeline.
Water supply Process water for the EP-600 Plant will be abstracted from the River Kama using the existing water intake infrastructure and will be supplied via existing pipelines. The water intake is located on the southern bank of the river approximately 10km to the north west of the industrial hub and 12.5km to the north west of the Project area. Process water will be additionally supplied from Project Wastewater Treatment Plant (refer to Section 2.3.7), the recycling of process water reduces the overall water demand of the Project.
Potable water will be supplied from the existing filtration station located in industrial hub via existing distribution system.
The total clarified river water demand of the Project will be approximately 1,300 m3/h (excluding fire water if required) and will be predominantly used as make-up water for the cooling towers. Project water balance is represented below:
● Potable water – 25m3/h from current city filtration station ● Cooling tower make-up – 1,100m3/h (840 m3/h fresh water from river and 260 m3/h treated water from Project Wastewater Treatment Plant) ● Demineralised water make-up – 35m3/h (max 110m3/h) treated water from Project Wastewater Treatment Plant ● Service water (utility stations) – 30m3/h fresh water from river and treated in Project Water Purification Plant ● Total treated process water from Project Wastewater Treatment Plant – 480m3/h max (295m3/h normal operation) to process water make-up (reuse) In addition, fire water supply from city filtration station will consist 4,000m3/h (replenishment of firewater tank if required).
Heat and Power Supply During the construction period a low voltage temporary supply will be obtained via overground power lines from existing NKNK substations which will meet the construction demands and workers accommodation needs.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 10 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
When operational, the Project is expected to have a total energy demand of approximately 368MW annually. This energy will be supplied from the existing Begishevo 110KW substation operated by OJSC TGK-16 Nizhnekamskaya TETS and the Nizhnekamskaya 110KW substation. Local substation will be constructed for low-down and distribute power between Project production units.
Process heating will be delivered from three Project steam boilers with a capacity of 110 tons of steam per hour per each boiler.
2.3.5 EP-600 Products This section provides further details on the products produced from the EP-600 plant and their expected volumes. It also provides a description of how they will be transported from the Project site and where they will be used.
The Project will produce the following types of products which are also currently being manufactured at the existing EP-600 Plant in the NKNK industrial area:
● Ethylene – 75,001 kg/h ● Raw C5-Fraction – 8,109 kg/h ● Fuel gas – 38,124 kg/h ● Raw C9- Fraction – 4,629 kg/h ● Propylene – 33,752 kg/h ● Heavy Fuel Oil – 5,579 kg/h ● Benzene – 30,980 kg/h ● Light Fuel Oil – 3,529 kg/h ● Butadiene – 11,164 kg/h ● Hydrogen – 1,330 kg/h ● C4-Raffinate – 8,127 kg/h ● C4-Acetylenes – 887 kg/h ● Sour gas – 67 kg/h
The products from the Project will primarily be used by industries and manufacturers within the existing industrial hub. Excess products will be sold and transported from the Project using existing pipelines or the existing railway connection to the NKNK industrial area, it is expected that the majority of products will be transported using pipelines where possible.
2.3.6 Transportation Construction Equipment for the construction phase will be delivered to the existing dock on the Kama River by sea-river barges and then transported 17km by trucks to the Project site. NKNK has budgeted improvements for the existing access road inside the NKNK industrial area and rehabilitation works are currently under way. This road rehabilitation project is not included in the ESIA study.
Operation Transportation of many of the products will use new and existing pipeline infrastructure within the industrial area to transfer products to other parts of the NKNK industrial area for use. Where new pipelines are constructed to transport various products to existing storage areas, existing pipe racks will be used. Only a small amount of vegetation clearance will be required for a new pipe rack and pipeline to connect the Project area with the proposed new storage area. The ESMMP provides appropriate construction management steps to ensure that appropriate construction management is in place to minimise the risk of damage to the existing pipelines and pipe racks to prevent damage and any potential leaks spills. During operation, the EP-600 Plant will utilise some existing pipelines within the industrial area. All pipelines used for the EP-600 Plant will be regularly inspected to monitor for leaks. The ESMMP includes appropriate methods and actions for undertaking operational monitoring of both existing and new pipelines.
In some cases, a new pipeline will be required to transport products from intermediate storage tanks within the EP-600 site to a tie-in point with the existing pipe network. Where existing pipe racks are not available a new rack will be constructed. Any new pipe racks will be short in length and where possible located within the
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 11 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
existing industrial area. Impacts from these new pipe racks are not considered likely to be significant and therefore have not been included within the assessment chapters. However appropriate construction management requirements have been included within the ESMMP that will address any potential general construction issues.
2.3.7 Project Local Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Project will construct and operate a new industrial wastewater treatment plant to treat wastewater, and minimize the water consumption of the Project. The wastewater treatment plant will allow the reuse of approximately 480m3/h of its treated water in the production processes (feed water for the cooling tower and Demin water unit). The Project wastewater treatment plant will be constructed at the existing open storage ground adjacent to the Project site owned and operated by NKNK (Figure 3).
Storm water to maximum volume of 5,100m3/h will be separately treated at the Project wastewater treatment plant tanks and discharged to the clarification ponds located near of Tungucha River for mechanical treatment prior to discharge to Tungucha River.
2.3.8 Waste Management The Project will generate a number of different types of wastes including domestic wastes, industrial wastes, and wastewater treatment sludge. Hazardous wastes generated through the operation of the plant are expected to include spent chemicals, catalysts, adsorbents, and waste oils.
Domestic and other non-hazardous wastes generated during the construction and operational phases will be reused onsite or transferred to licensed company (landfill) for recycling or disposal. Hazardous wastes which cannot be recycled will either be incinerated at the Project incinerator (hydrocarbons, oils etc.); disposed at the NKNK or other appropriate landfill; or transferred to a licensed company for recycling. Decommissioning strategy to be produced prior to decommissioning phase, including consideration of appropriate safe disposal of wastes and opportunities for reuse and recycling of project components.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 12 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
3 Need for the Project and Analysis of Alternatives
3.1 Introduction This Chapter discusses the needs case for the Project in the context of economic, socio-economic and market factors in order to evaluate whether there are sufficient drivers to justify development of the scheme. It also provides analysis of the suitability of the site selection and potential alternatives.
The significant alternatives considered for the Project are broadly categorised as follows, and discussed in more detail below:
● Project need ● No project alternative ● Location for the Project and associated infrastructure ● Options and alternatives for key technical and process aspects of the Project.
3.2 Project Need
3.2.1 Overview NKNK is one of the leading petrochemical companies in Russia, producing and selling a wide range of petrochemical products. Geographically, half of the Company's sales are within Russia and about 48% are exports (to Europe, Asia and neighbouring countries) to more than 50 countries. The main product so far are synthetic rubbers. Over one-third of sales revenue come from plastics sales. Other types of products account for over 20% of sales revenue.
NKNK has gained the status of the leading producer of olefins used for downstream ethylene products within the Russian petrochemical sector. Nevertheless, current olefins production does not compete with NKNK’s main products in terms of sales and revenues since currently NKNK operates only one ethylene plant located at the same industrial hub with a total capacity of 600,000 tons of ethylene per year. The currently produced ethylene is used as feedstock in existing industrial facilities for polypropylene and polyethylene and other plants operated by NKNK.
The Russian Federation has strategic plans to significantly expand ethylene, polyethylene, and polypropylene capacities to meet increased national demand. The Project will support these national plans by increasing production of the raw materials required for production of high-margin polymers (polyethylene, polypropylene, etc.) and rubber.
The Project is part of the Long-Term Corporate Development Strategy that adheres to objectives of the National 2030 Strategy for Chemical and Petrochemical Development of the Russian Federation adopted on April 8, 2014 and amended in March 2016, as well as the Regional 2030 Strategy for Social and Economic Development of the Republic of Tatarstan (RT) adopted by the RT President on June 17, 2015. The Project will promote local development and will contribute to phasing out dependence on petrochemical imports which are aims of the National 2030 Strategy. This investment project will allow PJSC "Nizhnekamskneftekhim" to become the largest producer of ethylene in Russia.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 13 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
3.2.2 Ethylene Uses and Markets The context of the current ethylene market within Russia and globally has also been considered by the Project, including various uses of products produced by the Project.
In 2016 global demand of ethylene was estimated at 150 million1 tons. Ethylene is a valuable commodity hydrocarbon and is largely consumed as a raw material in the manufacturing of various products such as plastics, fibres and other organic chemicals that are ultimately consumed in the packaging, transportation, and construction industries, as well as a multitude of industrial and consumer markets. Ethylene is commonly used in the production of:
● Polyethylene (PE) ● Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ● Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ● Polystyrene (PS). Together these end uses represent about 72% of world ethylene consumption.
The global ethylene consumption for the production of PE accounts globally for nearly 62%2 of total ethylene consumption. PE markets include film, packaging, containers and articles for home and light industrial use. Over the next four years, PE will continue to be the largest consumer of ethylene, growing at an average rate of 4% per year to account for more than 63% of the ethylene market in 2021.
Pure ethylene is also used for the production of ethylene oxide (EO), ethylene dichloride and ethylbenzene. EO, the second-largest derivative market for ethylene, is used in the production of ethylene glycol which is a pre-product for PET which is used in polyester fibres, bottles and polyester film. In 2016, EO accounted for 15% of total world consumption of ethylene. EO market is also expected to grow at about 2.6% per year for the next four years. There is an ever-increasing demand for EO, party driven by the considerable increase in polyester fibres businesses throughout the Indian Subcontinent and South-east Asia.
Ethylene dichloride (EDC) accounted for 9% of the world ethylene market in 2016. Ethylene consumption for ethylene dichloride is primarily for vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride resin and it will be growing at an average annual rate of about 2%, with the United States, the Indian Subcontinent, and the Middle East, accounting for more than 60% of the increased ethylene consumption.
Ethylene is a key raw product for the manufacture of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) used in the production of plastic bottles as well as linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) used in the production of foil and bags.
3.2.3 Global Ethylene Consumers and Producers Ethylene Consumers During 2011–2016, world ethylene consumption grew at an average rate of about 3% per year, while capacity increased at a slower rate of about 2%, leading to higher demand for ethylene on the global market.
Globally the major consumers of ethylene are North America, Middle East, China and Western Europe, accounting for the largest share in the global ethylene market. In the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions ethylene consumption has grown significantly in recent years and is expected to continue growing at a similar rate in the future. It is anticipated that eventually China will become the largest consumer and producer of ethylene. In 2016 consumption of ethylene in China exceeded consumption in Western Europe. Currently the USA remains the largest ethylene consumer (around 27 million tons of ethylene per annum). In Western Europe, Germany is the biggest ethylene consumer accounting for approximately 19% of the European market.
1 Mitsubishi Chemical Techno-Research. Global Supply and Demand of Petrochemical Products. May 2017. 2 Chemical Economics Handbook. Ethylene. May 2017. Available at https://www.ihs.com/products/ethylene-chemical-economics-handbook.html
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 14 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
According to current forecasts, the worldwide demand for downstream ethylene products will continue growing at a rate of approximately 3.6% per year up to 2025, indicating a global need for additional ethylene production facilities to meet the growing demand.
The most important regions in terms of growth are India (about 11% average annual growth), the CIS and Baltic States (about 8% average annual growth), the United States (about 5.8% average annual growth), China (about 5.6% average annual growth), and the Middle East (2.5% average annual growth). These five regions will account for 89% of the volume growth between 2016 and 2021. Western Europe and Japan are expected to consume less ethylene in the next five years, as their regional markets are mature and their production is based on less-economic feedstocks (naphtha/heavy feeds), making it increasingly difficult to compete in the global ethylene derivative export market.
Ethylene Producers 2016 world ethylene production totals at 146 million3 tons. The major sources of ethylene production are naphtha (44%) and ethane (36%). The world’s largest ethylene producing regions are the Middle East (19% share), United States (18% share) and China (15%). Western Europe production share of ethylene is 13% (in 2016).
Globally ethylene production is forecast to grow over the next ten years with the highest average annual rate forecasted for China (5.7%).
3.2.4 Future Ethylene Production in Russia Currently Russia has a very small share of the global ethylene market and produces slightly above 2% of the worldwide ethylene production.
However, Russia is one the world’s largest producers of oil and natural gas, which are the raw materials needed for ethylene production. The large reserves of these materials provide Russia with the potential to expand its production capacity to meet its domestic demand and contribute further to meeting global demand for ethylene and its derivatives.
The petrochemical industry has been one of the booming sectors in the Russian economy over the past few years. Lower oil prices have been broadly beneficial to the petrochemical industry and facilitated lower feedstock costs. A major petrochemical project is under construction in West Siberia, where a 1.5 million tons per annum cracker is scheduled for completion by 2019. Key projects are being developed in East Siberia and the Russian Far East. SIBUR, Russia’s largest integrated gas processing and petrochemicals company, is considering the construction of a similar complex in Tobolsk in the Amur region close to the Chinese border where Gazprom is currently constructing the gas processing plant. Rosneft is in the process of constructing a large refinery and petrochemical complex at Nakhodka in the Russian Far East, whilst other petrochemical projects are being evaluated by Rosneft and Chinese partners for East Siberia. Petrochemical and fertiliser plants in the eastern regions of Russia can provide huge export opportunities to China and other parts of Asia.
Over the past three years, Russia has experienced a rise in ethylene production. In 2016, Russia produced 2,823,322.4 tons of ethylene, which is 1.3% higher than the previous year. The leader in the production of ethylene for 2016 is the Privolzhsky Federal Okrug (PFO) with a share of about 75.6%.
The main suppliers of ethylene to the Russian domestic market are Nizhnekamskneftekhim (GC TAIF), Gazprom Nefthim Salavat (Gazprom) and Angarsk Polymer Plant (Rosneft).
Ethylene is supplied to "Kazanorgsintez" (TAIF), the Russian leader in PE production, "Caustic", "Ufaorgsintez" (Bashneft) and Sayanskkhimprom. PE is also produced by Tomskneftekhim (PJSC SIBUR Holding), Stavrolen (PJSC Lukoil).
3 Mitsubishi Chemical Techno-Research. Global Supply and Demand of Petrochemical Products. May 2017.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 15 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Due to the many uses that ethylene has and its current demand, Russia is actively trying to increase its production capacities and the proposed PE-600 Plant will seek to further drive up production and increase the export potential to other countries.
3.3 ‘No Project’ Alternative
3.3.1 Overview The ‘no project’ alternative considers the position that the proposed Project does not proceed and the existing supplies of feedstock, and any additional future supplies of feedstock generated by other developments available within the industrial area are not utilised.
If the EP-600 Plant did not proceed the industries located within the industrial area and the region that require ethylene as a feedstock would have to continue to or increase their import levels of ethylene and other monomers that will be produced by the EP-600 Plant to allow for continuing operation or any future expansion.
If the PE-600 Plant is not constructed national production levels of ethylene will not increase at the desired rate and there is a risk that Russia will not achieve its strategic targets and priorities in developing the petrochemical sector.
3.3.2 Environmental Perspective The proposed Project site is located within an existing industrial hub and is part of the NKNK’s industrial area which includes an existing ethylene, polyethylene and polypropylene production as well as numerous other industrial facilities. There are no environmentally or culturally sensitive areas within 20km of the site. The EP- 600 Plant would utilise the existing sources of naphtha as feedstock. The ethylene and other products manufactured by the Project produced will primarily be used as the main raw material for NKNK’s existing plants within the industrial hub, and excess products, if produced, will be sold.
Although the Project has some minor environmental effects, it will significantly contribute to the national ethylene production targets and will assist in meeting the rising demand for polyethylene in the domestic and international markets using ethylene as a raw material. The Project design has been developed in line with best practice to meet both national and applicable international environmental standards. For all potential environmental impacts identified a range of appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce residual impacts to a negligible significance. These measures are summarised in the Project Environmental and Social Management and Monitoring Plan (ESMMP) covering the construction and operation phases of the project life.
A number of new ethylene plants will need to be constructed to meet the Government’s production targets. Given the existing industrial nature of the proposed site it is considered that the proposed Project site is preferable to a previously undeveloped area with the potential to impact on a larger number of environmentally sensitive receptors.
3.3.3 Economic Perspective Over its operational lifetime, the Project will contribute to an increase in revenue for NKNK directly increasing its tax duties to the municipal, regional and federal budgets. This will ultimately provide each of these levels of government with increased funds to be used for the benefit of the municipality, region or the whole country.
Once operational the Project would contribute to the national ethylene and polyethylene production targets. It is expected that all ethylene produced will be used within existing PE and PP plants within the NKNK’s industrial area while excessive products are exported to other industries within the existing industrial hub or elsewhere. The growth in PE production will reduce the need for imports and will also allow high value monomer products to be exported compared to the currently exported raw gas and oil which will have a positive effect on the economy.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 16 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
The development of the Project would further strengthen the NKNK’s position and will promote development of other industries located within the existing industrial hub who rely on products that the EP-600 Plant will produce. Thus, the proposed EP-600 Plant would ensure that the existing industries would have a secure local feedstock available.
3.3.4 Social Perspective The Project will result in significant job opportunities during the construction phase and approximately 700 new jobs during the operational phase. The Project will provide good quality direct employment and training opportunities for local people as well as other people within Tatarstan and elsewhere in Russia. The Project will also allow approximately 200 existing NKNK employees to transfer jobs. Improved skills of the existing workforce resulting from training initiatives associated with the Project will improve their standard of living. The Project will also stimulate secondary economic activity of local suppliers and service providers that will be supported by the increased income of people working at the Project.
With a ‘no project’ alternative the current situation would remain and none of these benefits would be realised.
3.3.5 Conclusions The general conclusion is that a ‘no Project’ alternative would not contribute to the economic growth of the Republic of Tatarstan and the Russian Federation as a whole. Opportunities for new jobs in Nizhnekamsk would be lost as well as added security for the existing industry that is already located within the industrial area. Environmental impacts from the Project would be carefully managed during the design stage and carefully mitigated during construction and operation through the implementation of the ESMMP developed for the Project.
3.4 Location for the Project
3.4.1 Overview This section provides analysis of the chosen site location and the potential for project alternatives.
3.4.2 Availability of Feedstock The main feedstock for the Project is naphtha. Naphtha is a liquid product which is produced during the oil refining process and is generated in large quantities since Russia is one of the world’s largest producer of oil.
The availability of existing naphtha supplies for the Project was one of key factors in determining the Project location. Within the existing Nizhnekamsk industrial hub there are two existing oil refineries owned and operated by TAIF-NK and TANEKO, both of which produce large quantities of naphtha during the refining process. In addition, TAIF is in the process of developing an additional refinery that will increase the production capacity of naphtha within the industrial area. This additional supply will be available for the Project and used to produce ethylene which will be used as the primary feedstocks for the PE plants.
The proposed Project site is also located in the immediate vicinity to an existing railway line and siding which has the appropriate facilities to enable offloading of materials. If for any reason feedstock from the local refineries is not available naphtha could be sourced from Lukoil who would provide it via the existing rail infrastructure.
3.4.3 Existing Infrastructure The proposed Project site is located within the existing NKNK’s industrial area of the industrial hub and has sufficient space to accommodate the Project and its associated infrastructure, including the Project wastewater treatment plant (LTP). Moreover, being located within the existing industrial hub the Project has the benefit of being able to make use of the following existing infrastructure:
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 17 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Two gas-fired power plants operating within the industrial hub have sufficient capacity to supply the energy demand of the Project ● Existing natural gas supplies to the industrial hub have sufficient capacity to meet the Project demand ● Existing water supply system abstracts water from the Kama River and has sufficient capacity to meet the required demand for the Project ● Existing landfill owned and operated by NKNK has sufficient capacity for disposing waste that will be generated by the Project.
3.4.4 Environmental Perspective As identified in section 3.3.2 the proposed Project will have some environmental impacts however these will be mitigated to have negligible residual impacts on environment. Environmental advantages of locating the Project within the existing industrial hub and NKNK’s industrial area using existing land plots owned by NKNK, include:
● There are no environmentally designated areas within 20km of the industrial hub ● There are no known historical or cultural heritage sites neither within the site boundary or around the existing industrial hub ● The Project will not result in the extension of the NKNK’s individual sanitary protection zone (SPZ) nor the overall SPZ of the existing industrial hub ● There are no local communities within the NKNK individual SZP who may be impacted by the Project ● The land on which the Project will be built has been allocated specifically for industrial needs ● NKNK maintains an environmental management system (EMS) certified against ISO 14001:2004 to operate the Project under the best international standards ● Having most of the required infrastructure available, minimal construction activities will occur beyond the Project area compared to when a similar facility being built outside a dedicated industrial zone.
3.4.5 Conclusion The proposed Project location is on land which is owned by NKNK and located adjacent to their existing operations. The selected site has demonstrated major advantages particularly related to environmental impact and therefore no alternative locations have been considered.
3.5 Assessment of Project Technology Selection The Project has been designed based on steam cracking of a hydrocarbon feedstock which is the most appropriate method of producing ethylene. There are different technology providers available who can supply the appropriate technology required within the EP-600 plant.
The new plant has been selected to operate a naphtha cracker designed by Linde AG that thermally breaks down naphtha into olefins (ethylene, propylene and butadiene). These are then used as feedstocks for manufacturing various plastics.
The key advantages of the proposed technology result from specific process units and their special arrangement in the process sequence, including:
● A record of short trouble-free start-ups ● High reliability ● Long run lengths ● Minimum air emissions
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 18 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Six identical high capacity cracking furnaces with a production capacity of approximately 120 KTA ethylene per furnace will be installed to maintain 100% plant capacity during decoking of one furnace ● High level of heat integration ● Optimum process water treatment for maximum fouling mitigation ● Excellent performance of isothermal reactor in the areas of safety, yields, and operability ● The front end de-ethanizer system removes all heavy hydrocarbons ● Compact process configuration, simplicity and efficiency of operation ● Considerable savings in investment costs and energy consumption. Due to these reasons Linde AG technology has been selected for the EP-600 Plant and is considered to be the best available and therefore appropriate for the Project.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 19 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
4 Legal and Institutional Framework
4.1 Introduction The Project will need to ensure compliance with applicable national and regional laws and standards as well as meet the applicable international requirements for the Project. This Chapter provides a brief overview of the requirements, standards, laws and regulations to be applied to the Project, both nationally and internationally.
4.2 National Requirements
4.2.1 Environment Protection Environment protection and conservation in Russia is regulated by the following forms of regulations:
● International contracts, conventions, agreements, and other international legal acts wherein the Russian Federation is a participant (assignee) ● Russian Federation Constitution (1993) ● Russian Federation Codes and Federal Laws ● Russian Federation Presidential Decrees ● Regulations (Orders) of the Government of the Russian Federation ● Russian Federation Subjects' Laws ● Orders issued by the heads of executive bodies of Russian Federation subjects ● National sanitary and hygienic norms and rules (SanPiN, GN), State Standards (GOSTs) and Building Codes (SNiPs) ● Branch Standards (OSTs, RD, etc.) ● Interdepartmental and departmental research documentation. National requirements require the provision of state expertise (review) of technical design documentation to assess whether the proposed designs meet the appropriate technical and other applicable regulations. This includes inter alia review and compliance of the following aspects:
● Environmental protection ● Industrial and occupational safety ● Public safety ● Protection of cultural and archaeological heritage ● Fire safety, etc. The Russian Federation’s environmental protection legislation is a collection of normative acts regulating relations between society and nature aimed at benefiting the quality of environment. The main environmental and public health protection legal acts include:
● Federal Law No.7-FZ dated January 10, 2002 "On Environmental Protection". This law sets forth the legal basis of the environmental policy to ensure a balance between addressing socio-economic and environmental objectives ● Federal Law No.219-FZ dated July 21, 2014 “On Introduction of Amendment into Federal Law "On Environmental Protection" and a Number of Legislative Acts of Russian Federation ● Federal Law No.52-FZ dated March 30, 1999 "On Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of Population". This Law sets forth the rights of citizens to health care and good environment
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 20 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Federal Law No.68-FZ dated December 21, 1994 "On Protection of Population and Territories against Emergency Situations of Natural and Man-Made Origin" sets forth, equality throughout the Russian Federation, institutional and legal provisions for the protection of the population, land, water and air space against emergencies. There are a number of specific environmental and public health protection acts and regulations which should be considered within the environmental impact assessment, including the above mentioned and the following documents:
● Federal Law No.96-FZ dated May 4, 1999 "On Atmospheric Air Protection" sets forth the legal framework in the area of atmospheric air protection ● Federal Law No.74-FZ dated March 03, 2006 "The Water Code of the Russian Federation" regulates the use and conservation of water bodies ● Federal Law No.89-FZ dated June 24, 1998 "On Industrial and Domestic Waste" regulates industrial and domestic waste management ● Federal Law No.52-FZ dated April 24, 1995 "On Protection of Fauna" regulates protection and use of wildlife, conservation and restoration of wildlife habitats for promoting biological diversity ● Federal Law No.33-FZ dated March 14, 1995 "On Protected Territories" sets forth the system of protected areas and details the requirements on their use and protection of species diversity, etc. The key legislation regulating environmental procedures is the Federal Law No.7-FZ dated January 10, 2002 “On Environmental Protection”. This Law formulates general principles for administrative and other protective norms for components of nature and their systems. The Law details the rights and obligations of all parties concerned including government authorities, users of the environment, and the public.
The Federal Law No.7-FZ dated January 10, 2002 “On Environmental Protection” designates the following environmental features and natural resources to be protected against pollution, depletion, degradation, damage, loss, or other negative impacts of business and other activities:
● Lands, subsoil resources, soils ● Surface and underground waters ● Forests and other vegetation, animals and other organisms and their genetic stock ● Atmospheric air, the ozone layer of the atmosphere and near-Earth space. Other specific environmental and public health and safety regulations that should be referred to in the ESIA assessment include:
● Federal Law“On protection of population and territories against natural and man-caused emergencies” No.68-FZ dated December 21, 1994 ● SanPiN 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03“Sanitary protection zones and sanitary classification of enterprises, structures and other facilities” ● SanPiN 2.1.7.1287-03“Sanitary-epidemiological requirements for soil quality” ● SanPiN 2.1.2.2645-10“Sanitary-epidemiological requirements for living conditions in residential buildings and accommodation facilities.”
4.2.2 Best Available Techniques There is a new national requirement for implementation of best available techniques and limited levels of impacts in the Russian Federation. The new national reference document on best available techniques “ITS18- 2016 Production of Basic Organic Chemicals” became effective on July 1, 2017. Technical solutions of the Project should be compared against requirements to technology referred in this document.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 21 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
4.3 Regional Legislation of the Republic of Tatarstan In addition to the national requirements described above, the requirements of the regional legal framework are to be considered and met by the Project, including Environmental Code of the Republic of Tatarstan No.5- ZRT, dated January 15, 2009 which regulates interaction between the society and nature in terms of environmental impacts.
4.4 National EIA Process Legal requirements for the national EIA procedure are established in the Regulation No.372 on Environmental Impact Assessment in the Russian Federation which was issued by Goscomecologia on 16 May 2000. This must be used as a practical tool for establishing social and environmental impacts and mitigation of projects.
According to the Law “On Environmental Protection”, “environmental impact assessment is required in relation to proposed economic or other activities which may impact the environment directly or indirectly, irrespectively of legal form of organisation of business and other operations”.
The national EIA procedure is broadly compatible with the EIA process applied by other countries and incorporates:
● A description of the development ● A characterisation of the existing environment and its components ● Effect predictions and assessment of the significance of effects ● Details of proposed mitigation measures. Statutory and public consultations are expected throughout the preparation of the EIA. The National EIA consultation procedures are broadly similar in most respects to those adopted by international institutions including the World Bank Group. However, there are differences in the scope, methodology and style of the two approaches.
4.5 Labour Legislation The Labour Code adopted by the Federal Law No.197, dated 31 December 2001 provides articles and guidance notes to comply with state guarantees in relation to labour rights and freedom, ensuring a good working environment and protecting rights and interests of employees and employers. The Labour Code covers all the key aspects of labour relations and provides necessary safeguards to protect the labour force from potential arguable situations and hazards. The Labour Code covers key issues such as:
● Collective bargaining ● Conclusion, modification and termination of labour agreements ● Working hours, breaks, leave and wages, labour norms ● Guarantees and compensations ● Labour discipline ● Employee rights to labour protection ● Special procedures for female employees and employees with family responsibilities. The Labour Code provides a wide range of substantial protection measures to safeguard the interests of workers’ labour and working conditions through its regulatory and legal requirements.
At the time of writing, Russia has ratified 69 conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO), including all fundamental conventions.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 22 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
4.6 Cultural Heritage The key Russian Federation law regulating cultural heritage protection is Federal Law No.73-FZ, dated 25.06.2002 “On cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the Russian Federation nations”.
This Federal Law regulates issues in relation to conservation, use, promotion and state protection of the cultural heritage (monuments of history and art) of the Russian Federation people. The law is aimed at implementation of the peoples’ constitutional right for access to the cultural values and everybody’s constitutional responsibility to care for the conservation of the historical and cultural heritage, to protect historical and cultural monuments, as well as implementation of nations’ or other ethnical communities rights in the Russian Federation for conservation and development of their cultural-national identity; protection, restoration and conservation of the historical-cultural environment; protection and conservation of information sources on the culture origin and development. Conservation of cultural heritage in the interests of the present and future generations is guaranteed in the Russian Federation.
State protection of the cultural heritage is subject for joint responsibility between the Russian Federation and Russian Federation regions.
4.7 Applicable International Requirements
4.7.1 Introduction In addition to ensuring national and regional compliance, NKNK intends to seek external international financing for the Project and therefore would need to meet requirements of international lenders. Whilst the funding plan is not yet final, the financial risks of the Project will be secured via Euler Hermes. The ESIA study has therefore been undertaken in line with the following applicable international requirements.
4.7.2 Euler Hermes and OECD Requirements Euler Hermes requires that loan applications are supported by ESIA documentation, however it does not have its own categorisation of projects to define the required level of assessment. Euler Hermes recognises environmental and social assessment reports that meet OECD requirements.
The OECD guideline “Recommendation of the council on common approaches for officially supported export credits and environmental and social due diligence (2016) (the "common approaches”)” specifies that chemical and petrochemical industries should be considered as facilities associated with the most significant environmental and social impacts (category A projects). Detailed environmental and social studies and impact assessment in line with International Finance Institutions (IFIs) requirements shall apply to category A projects.
To meet this requirement, the Consultant has prepared an ESIA Report for the Project in line with the IFC Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability, 2012 (described below).
4.7.3 International Finance Corporation The IFC is a member of the World Bank Group and is recognised as an international leader in environmental and social sustainability policy. As a part of the ‘positive development outcomes’ outlined in the IFC’s Policy on Social and Environmental Sustainability, the corporation applies a comprehensive set of social and environmental Performance Standards in its project review process. The revised IFC Policy and Performance Standards (PSs) on Social and Environmental Sustainability came into force in January 2012.
There are 8 IFC Performance Standards:
● IFC PS1 – Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts ● IFC PS2 – Labour and Working Conditions
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 23 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● IFC PS3 – Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention ● IFC PS4 – Community Health, Safety and Security ● IFC PS5 – Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement ● IFC PS6 – Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources ● IFC PS7 – Indigenous Peoples ● IFC PS8 – Cultural Heritage. In addition to IFC Performance Standards the following World Bank Group environmental, health and safety (EHS) guidelines are applicable to the Project:
● Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines. General Guidelines (2007) ● Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines. Large Volume Petroleum-Based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing (2007).
4.7.4 Equator Principles The Equator Principles (EqPs) III (June 2013) are a financial industry benchmark for determining, assessing, and managing social and environmental risk in project financing. EqPs signatories use these principles to ensure that the projects they finance are developed in a manner that is socially responsible and reflect sound environmental management practices.
Currently EqPs have been officially adopted by 90 financial institutions in 37 countries, covering over 70% of international project finance debt in emerging markets. EqPs are applied to the expansion or upgrade of an existing project where changes in scale or scope may create significant environmental and social risks and impacts, or significantly change the nature or degree of an existing impact.
This Project will be assessed against ten principles used by international financial institutions as a common baseline and framework. These include as follows:
● Principle 1: Review and Categorisation ● Principle 2: Environmental and Social Assessment ● Principle 3: Applicable Environmental and Social Standards ● Principle 4: Environmental and Social Management System and Equator Principles Action Plan ● Principle 5: Stakeholder Engagement ● Principle 6: Grievance Mechanism ● Principle 7: Independent Review ● Principle 8: Covenants ● Principle 9: Independent Monitoring and Reporting ● Principle 10: Reporting and Transparency. The EqPs are based on the IFC Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability and the World Bank Group EHS Guidelines.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 24 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
5 Assessment Scope and ESIA Process
5.1 Introduction In line with international requirements for E&S assessment, the scope of works for the ESIA includes:
● Environmental, social, labour, gender, health, safety, risks and impacts ● The Project and related facilities ● Risks and impacts that may arise for each key stage of the Project cycle, including pre-construction, construction, operations and decommissioning or closure ● Role and capacity of the relevant parties including government, contractors and suppliers ● Potential third-party impacts including supply chain considerations. The ESIA has identified negative and positive, direct and indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Project related to the bio-physical and the socio-economic environment.
The definition of the Project includes all infrastructure and facilities that are directly part of the proposed development. No associated development that exists specifically for or as a result of the Project has been identified and assessed.
This Chapter presents the general methodology followed to produce this ESIA to meet international standards.
5.2 Scoping Phase For the first step in the ESIA process, the Consultant produced a Scoping Report (July 2017) that sets out the potential environmental and social issues associated with the Project. This was produced using information from the Project documentation, available documentation, a scoping site visit and consultations undertaken in June 2017. The Scoping Report established the scope and methodology of the potentially significant environmental and social impacts of the Project.
A summary of the potential environmental and social issues associated with the Project is provided in Section 5.4 based on reviews of available documentation, site visits conducted during the scoping and ESIA process (refer to Section 5.3) and consultations held with the regional environmental, social welfare, health and employment authorities and local community representatives in Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky MDs.
Detailed consideration of all potential impacts is reported in the subsequent individual assessment chapters of this ESIA. It has been considered that decommissioning impacts would be similar in nature to those identified within the construction phase.
5.3 Scoping and ESIA site visits The scoping site visit took place in June 2017. Two members of the Consultant’s team travelled to the Project site, inspected the Project area, consulted with relevant local authorities and communities' representatives (Appendix A), and discussed the Project with representatives of NKNK and Linde AG.
Site visits during the ESIA assessment phase were undertaken in July, August and September of 2017 during which the following activities were conducted:
● An ecological survey (flora and fauna) ● Assistance to the local laboratory regarding the methodologies required for air and soil sampling and noise measurement ● Traffic survey
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 25 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Discussions with NKNK engineers on plant and process specifications ● Discussions regarding the Project with the representatives of affected communities ● Visit the Project site and the effluent discharge point ● Discuss proposed mitigation measures with NKNK.
5.4 Potential Impacts
5.4.1 Overview Potential impacts from the proposed Project and its associated facilities were considered by the Scoping Study for each of the environmental and social disciplines identified below. Detailed consideration of the potential impacts is provided in the subsequent corresponding chapters of the ESIA Report.
5.4.2 Air Quality The EP-600 plant has the potential to contribute to existing air pollution levels during all phases of the Project. Construction and decommissioning impacts are assessed using a qualitative risk based approach to determine effects of construction dust and construction emissions. During the operational phase, the Project will emit combustion related pollutants including oxides of nitrogen and will contribute to the existing ground level pollutant concentrations.
These operational emissions are assessed in line with applicable international requirements using dispersion modelling software approved by IFC to calculate future pollutant concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors and results comparison against applicable international requirements.
For the purposes of representing results for local stakeholders, the ESIA also includes results of dispersion modelling in line with national Russian methodology requirements. These are presented as an Appendix and include: ● Results of dispersion modelling using software approved in Russian Federation ● Comparison results against Russian requirements for air quality. Existing background pollutant concentrations and ambient air quality data used to inform the dispersion modelling has been obtained from existing air quality monitoring undertaken by Roshydromet and by the NKNK laboratory as part of their environmental monitoring programme.
5.4.3 Noise and Vibration The proposed Project has the potential to contribute to existing noise levels and vibration during all phases of the Project. During the construction phase the main sources of noise and vibration will be from construction machinery and from activities such as piling. For the construction phase, calculations of predicted noise are made based on the likely construction plant, the percentage of time that plant are likely to be in operation, and their operating position in relation to receptors. The Project plant equipment will be the main source of noise during the operational phase. Operational noise levels have been assessed using:
● Methods approved by IFC and based on sound power levels for the type of equipment that will be installed ● Methods approved by Russian requirements to compare results with national requirements and estimate possible effect of the Project on the SPZ size (as an Appendix). Noise levels are calculated at nearby receptors and on the site boundary and compared to relevant national and applicable international requirements.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 26 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
5.4.4 Hydrology The proposed Project has the potential to contribute to hydrological impacts during all phases of the Project. The predominant potential impacts of the Project relate to water abstraction and storm water discharge to and from the existing water bodies. An assessment has been undertaken estimating the changes in the volume of water abstracted as a result of the Project in relation to existing river flow. In addition, consideration of potential effects of the discharge from the Project was made.
5.4.5 Hydrogeology / Land Contamination It is considered unlikely that the Project will have any significant effects on ground water quality and soil quality during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases. An assessment has been undertaken based on the existing baseline monitoring data from the Brannan Environmental Baseline Study (2012) and regular monitoring undertaken by NKNK.
5.4.6 Ecology Given the proposed Project is being developed within the existing industrial hub, future impacts during the construction and operational phases are expected to be negligible as the proposed site is located predominantly within a dedicated industrial area. In addition, there are no ecologically designated areas within 20km of the existing industrial hub. An ecological survey of the surrounding area has been conducted to verify the stability of neighbourhood habitats compared with the results from historical surveys.
5.4.7 Waste The proposed Project has the potential to contribute to waste generation during all phases of development. An assessment of the types of waste to be generated and their proposed method of disposal has been undertaken. Where possible, waste from the Project will be sold for commercial use or recycled. Any remaining hazardous waste will be removed by a suitable licenced waste contractor. Additional waste that cannot be dealt with using the methods described will be sent to the existing NKNK landfill or another landfill for disposal or burned in Project incinerator. All methods of waste handling used at the EP-600 site have been assessed and evaluated in accordance with national law and lenders requirements.
5.4.8 Social Impact Assessment
Social Impact Assessment Focus The key social issues explored in the ESIA are:
● Employment and retrenchment ● Community health, safety, security and wellbeing ● Occupational health and safety ● Vulnerable groups ● Influx of workers and population changes ● Economic development ● Status of previously undertaken resettlement (unrelated to the Project development). These issues have been considered and their related impacts are outlined in the ESIA Report along with an assessment of their significance and identification of appropriate management measures. The most significant issues during the construction and operational phases are related to employment, occupational health and safety, community health, safety and security, including exposure to industrial hazards, as well as vulnerable groups in affected communities.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 27 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement All land plots needed for the Project are owned by NKNK since 2012 when the site was originally selected for the NKNK expansion. It is anticipated that no more land will be required for the Project. However, there are still a few people living within the overall SPZ of the industrial hub. The Project potential impact on their health and safety has been assessed.
Indigenous Peoples There are no any populations of Indigenous Peoples living in the area around the Project site and therefore lenders requirements in relation to indigenous peoples will not apply to the Project. There are some community groups which are identified as vulnerable and their needs have been considered in the Project planning and consultation processes.
Stakeholder Consultation and Information Disclosure To fully inform the local communities and key stakeholders about the Project and to allow them to read and comment on the findings of the ESIA, information have been disclosed throughout the ESIA process. A Stakeholder Engagement Plan has been prepared for the Project to guide disclosure and consultation activities as outlined within the lenders requirements.
The Consultant has also prepared a Project Non-Technical Summary document with simple and concise description of the Project, its potential environmental and social impacts and proposed mitigation. The NTS document is used to disclosure of Project information to local communities and other stakeholders in Russian language.
ESIA consultations were undertaken in two phases:
● Initial consultation was completed during the Scoping Study in June 2017 ● Disclosure of the draft ESIA Report at the Project exhibition event in Nizhnekamsk in October 2017.
5.4.9 Traffic and Transport It is anticipated that abnormal load deliveries have the potential to contribute to traffic levels for the Project construction phase. During the operational phase, it is unlikely that the existing NKNK vehicle fleet will be expanded to accommodate the additional workforce. Any possible additional vehicle movements have been considered within the ESIA.
5.4.10 Cultural Heritage There are no areas of cultural importance within the Project area. As the Project site is within an existing industrial area the potential for effects on sites of historical and cultural heritage are very low. Nevertheless, an assessment has been undertaken to confirm this and a chance finds procedure has been included in the ESMMP for completeness.
5.4.11 Landscape and Visual The proposed Project is being developed within the existing industrial area and therefore the risk for landscape and visual impacts is very low. The most recent developments within the existing industrial hub confirmed during the Scoping site visit, including a new TANECO Plant constructed in the immediate vicinity to the Project site, suggest that no landscape and visual effects will be associated with the Project and therefore this impact has not been assessed further in the ESIA study.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 28 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
5.4.12 Cumulative Effects Each of the environmental and social disciplines described above has also been assessed cumulatively considering the existing impacts from the industrial hub. There are plans to further develop other sections of the existing industrial hub in the future although currently no such plans are sufficiently advanced to require them to be included within the ESIA. Any future developments would be required to be assessed against national requirements as a minimum.
5.5 Impact Assessment Methodology
5.5.1 Introduction Following scoping and identification of likely environmental effects, specialist assessments have been carried out in order to predict potential impacts associated with the Project and propose measures to mitigate the effects as appropriate. Each assessment chapter follows a systematic approach, with the principal steps being:
● Identification of relevant legislation and guidelines ● Description of assessment methodology used and identification of the spatial and temporal scope of potential impacts (zone of influence) ● Description of baseline conditions ● Impact assessment and determination of significance of the impacts ● Identification of appropriate mitigation measures as required ● Assessment of residual environmental and social effects.
5.5.2 Baseline The baseline information used for the ESIA has been established using the following sources of environmental and social information: ● Baseline studies undertaken by the Consultant or sub-contractors ● Findings of environmental surveys conducted by the local certified laboratory, accredited in line with national (GOST R) and international (ISO) standards for water, air and soil sampling and laboratory investigations, and operates modern labware ● Statistical data ● Data from local communities ● Data, including monitoring data provided by NKNK and Linde AG ● Data provided by local authorities and regulators ● Publicly available information ● Consultation with Project stakeholders. Relevant baseline information used to support the assessment process is referenced / summarised in the relevant impact assessment chapters.
5.5.3 Spatial scope The spatial extent of the ESIA is described by the geographical area. The definition of the spatial scope has taken account of the:
● Nature of the existing baseline environment ● Manner of impact (e.g. effects on air quality may extend over some distance) ● Area affected (positively and negatively) by impacts ● Geographical boundaries of the political and administrative authorities.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 29 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
5.5.4 Temporal scope The ESIA address both positive and negative effects arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project as follows:
● Construction effects may arise directly from construction activities (e.g. piling) but also from the temporary use of land (e.g. construction sites and lay down areas) or from associated changes in traffic movements (e.g. diversions in and around the industrial area) ● Operational effects may arise from facility operations (e.g. activities of the Project or associated facilities) ● Effects associated with decommissioning of Project facilities (e.g. recycling and or disposal of Project infrastructure). Construction effects are assessed throughout the duration of the construction period. The significance of the effects (both positive and negative) is based on any changes compared to the baseline conditions (i.e. those conditions which would exist if the proposals did not go ahead).
5.5.5 Zone of Influence The Zone of Influence (ZoI) indicates where proposed works, including related facilities and infrastructure will have a direct or indirect impact on the physical and social environment. This can result from aspects such as the physical land-take or as a result of the potential impact that extend beyond the development physical boundary such as noise emissions or air emissions to air. The ZoI can also vary according to the stage of the Project that is being assessed such that construction impacts may have a greater area of impact than for operation.
For each impact assessment chapter, the spatial and temporal zones of influence are defined.
5.6 Assessment of Effects
4.6.1 Overview The assessment of the significance of effects and identification of residual impacts has taken account of any incorporated mitigation measures adopted by the Project, and is largely dependent on the extent and duration of change, the number of people or size of the resource affected and their sensitivity to the change. The criteria for determining significance is specific for each environmental and social aspect but generally for each impact the magnitude is defined (quantitatively where possible) and the sensitivity of the receptor is defined. Generic criteria for defining magnitude and sensitivity are summarised below.
5.6.1 Magnitude The assessment of magnitude has been undertaken in two steps. Firstly, the key issues associated with the Project have been categorised as beneficial or adverse. Secondly, the magnitude of potential impacts has been categorised as major, moderate, minor or negligible based on consideration of the parameters such as:
● Duration of the impact: ranging from beyond decommissioning to temporary with no detectable impact ● Spatial extent of the impact: within the site and boundary to regional, national, and lenders requirements ● Reversibility: ranging from permanent requiring significant intervention to return to baseline to no change ● Likelihood: ranging from occurring regularly under typical conditions to unlikely to occur ● Compliance with legal standards and established professional criteria: ranging from substantially exceeds national standards and limits / lenders guidance to meets or exceeds minimum standards or lenders guidance. Table 2 outlines the criteria for determining magnitude for this assessment.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 30 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 2: Criteria for determining impact magnitude Magnitude Description (beneficial or adverse) Major Fundamental change to the specific conditions assessed resulting in long term or permanent change, typically widespread in natural or social environment, and requiring significant intervention to return to baseline; exceeds national standards and limits Moderate Detectable change to the specific natural and social environment conditions assessed resulting in non- fundamental temporary or permanent change Minor Detectable but minor change to the specific natural and social environment condition assessed Negligible No perceptible change to the specific natural and social environment condition assessed Source: Mott MacDonald
Typical criteria for determining sensitivity of receptors are summarised below.
5.6.2 Sensitivity of Recipients Sensitivity is generally site specific and criteria have been developed from the baseline information gathered. The sensitivity of a receptor will be determined based on review of the population (including proximity / numbers / vulnerability) and presence of features on the site or the surrounding area. Generic criteria for determining sensitivity of receptors are outlined in Table 3. The assessment will define sensitivity in relation to their topic.
Table 3: Criteria for determining sensitivity (positive or negative) Magnitude Definition (positive or negative) (duration of the impact, spatial extent, reversibility and ability of comply with legislation) High Vulnerable receptor (human or terrestrial) with little or no capacity to absorb proposed changes or minimal opportunities for mitigation (or with very little or no access to alternative similar sites or services) Medium Vulnerable receptor (human or terrestrial) with limited capacity to absorb proposed changes or limited opportunities for mitigation (or with little access to alternative similar sites or services) Low Non-vulnerable receptor (human or terrestrial) with some capacity to absorb proposed changes or moderate opportunities for mitigation (or with some access to alternative similar sites or services) Negligible Non-vulnerable receptor (human or terrestrial) with good capacity to absorb proposed changes or and good opportunities for mitigation (or with good access to alternative similar sites or services) Source: Mott MacDonald
5.6.3 Impact Evaluation and Determination of Significance The objective of this ESIA is to identify the likely significant effects on the environment and people of the Project. Likely impacts have been evaluated taking into account the interaction between the magnitude and sensitivity criteria as presented in the impact significance matrix in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5: Impact Significance Matrix
Magnitude
Adverse Beneficial
Major Moderate Minor Negligible Minor Moderate Major
High Major Major Moderate Negligible Moderate Major Major
Sensitivity Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Moderate
Negligible Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor
Source: Mott MacDonald
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 31 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
For each aspect, the significance of impacts has been discussed before and after mitigation (i.e. residual impact). Impacts that have been evaluated as being ‘moderate’ or ‘major’ are significant effects and will be identified as such in the ESIA specialist chapters. Impacts that are ‘minor’ or ‘negligible’ are not significant.
Where feasible the following hierarchy of mitigation measures will be applied to significant impacts to reduce, where possible, the significance of impacts to acceptable levels:
● Mitigation / elimination through design ● Site / technology choice ● Application of best practice. For non-significant effects mitigation and good practice measures will be recommended where appropriate.
Uncertainty Any uncertainties associated with impact prediction or the sensitivity of receptors due to the absence of data or other limitation has been explicitly stated. Where applicable, the ESIA makes commitments concerning measures that should be put in place with monitoring and / or environmental or social management plans to deal with the uncertainty. This is summarised in the Project ESMMP.
5.6.4 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those effects that may result from the combination of past, present or future actions of existing or planned activities in a project’s zone of influence. While a single activity may itself result in an insignificant impact, it may, when combined with other impacts (significant or insignificant) in the same geographical area and occurring at the same time, result in a cumulative impact that is significant.
The assessments within this ESIA have included, where relevant, an assessment of the cumulative impact of the Project with other present developments within in the zone of influence.
The ESIA takes account of the existing industrial area within each of the assessment chapters through characterisation of the existing baseline conditions. Potential cumulative impacts may occur in relation to emissions to air, construction traffic, construction workforce and noise. However, our assessments have concluded that the Project will not result in any significant impacts following mitigation, and in many cases the impact are below relevant standards. Therefore, the risk of a cumulative impact being significant, with perhaps the exception of construction traffic and work force, is considered low.
5.6.5 Proposals for Monitoring Where appropriate, proposals for future monitoring have been put forward within the assessment chapters. These proposals for monitoring have been designed to evaluate the accuracy of the impact prediction and the success of the implemented mitigation measures. All future monitoring has been committed within the ESMMP.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 32 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
6 Information Disclosure, Consultation and Participation
6.1 Overview This Chapter outlines the information disclosure, consultation and participation activities that have been undertaken as part of the ESIA process. This Chapter reports the outcomes of these activities, as well as those activities planned for future phases in the lifecycle of the Project as detailed the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) which can be found at www.nknh.ru.
The Chapter consists of the following sub-sections:
● Principles of Consultation ● Consultation Requirements ● Core Stakeholders and Consultees ● Project Consultation Activities and Outcomes ● Project Grievance Redress Mechanism.
6.2 Principles of Consultation Early and ongoing consultation, disclosure and meaningful stakeholder engagement are key requirements for projects financed by international lenders. The ESIA is informed by the outcomes of consultation activities included in the SEP that is produced to guide stakeholder engagement and disclosure process for the lifecycle of the Project (last update as of September 2017).
The Project SEP has been designed to guide public consultation and disclosure activities up to the completion of the ESIA Report and through the construction and operational phases of the Project. It is a strategic document for planning meaningful and appropriate consultation with key stakeholders that will be periodically updated as the Project progresses. Stakeholders are defined as persons and entities who are interested in, are affected by, or can affect the outcome of the Project. Specific objectives of the SEP are to provide a consultation strategy for the Project to:
● Ensure all legal and international finance requirements related to consultation are addressed ● Involve a full range of stakeholders in the planning of the Project to improve the acceptability of the Project design, implementation and monitoring ● Encourage an open dialogue with affected communities (ACs) where the Project is located ● Keep all interested and affected stakeholders informed of Project progress ● Provide a grievance mechanism for ACs to raise complaints that are appropriately addressed by the Project. The SEP is underpinned by the principles that community engagement should be free of external manipulation, interference, coercion and intimidation and conducted on the basis of timely, relevant, understandable and accessible information. Consultation activities should always be well planned and based on principles of respectful and meaningful dialogue.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 33 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
6.3 Consultation Requirements
6.3.1 Overview This Section provides an overview of the national and international disclosure, consultation and stakeholder engagement requirements applied to the Project with respect of information disclosure and public consultation. It is anticipated that financing for the Project will be sought from Equator Principles lenders meaning that the Project will have to adhere to the IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability that are referred to within the EqPs. Whilst the funding plan is not yet final, the financial risks of the Project will be secured via Euler Hermes that refers to the compliance with the OECD requirements in project preparation and implementation. These requirements have been considered in planning stakeholder engagement and have guided the consultation process of the Project as described below.
6.3.2 National Consultation Requirements
General Requirements and Principles To receive the consent to proceed with the Project from Russian regulatory authorities, a national environmental impact assessment (EIA or OVOS in Russian abbreviation) procedure is required to comply with national legislation. Public involvement is required by Russian law as part of the process for preparing the OVOS. Specifically, the provisions of the following will be applicable:
● Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993) ● Urban Construction Code of the Russian Federation (2004) ● Regulation on the Content of Design Documentation (2008) ● Federal Law on Environmental Protection (2002), and ● Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment in the Russian Federation (2000) ● Federal Law General Principals of Local Governance in the Russian Federation No.131-FZ (2003).
Local Requirements Applied to the Project In line with the requirement to respect human rights for favourable environment and legitimate interests of land owners established in Federal Law No.131-FZ (2003), municipalities may hold community consultations to discuss projects that involve construction of new facilities or the rehabilitation or extension of the existing ones.
Local municipalities procedure for arranging and undertaking such community consultations provide early notification to the local communities about the time and venue of the consultation event; early disclosure of the project documentation to be discussed during consultation; and, other measures to promote participation of local communities in decision making, including disclosure of consultation results.
Nizhnekamsky MD sets up a respective requirement for community consultation in Nizhnekamsky MD Council Decision No.448 of October 13, 2006 "On the Procedure for Arranging and Undertaking Public Hearing Events in the Nizhnekamsky Municipal District of the Republic of Tatarstan." Such public events may be initiated either by the local communities or the Nizhnekamsky MD Council or by the Head of the Nizhnekamsky MD. A respective resolution should be issued by the MD Council or respective decision of the Head of the Nizhnekamsky MD to indicate (a mandatory requirement):
● Topic(s) for discussion ● Who initiates the event ● Time and venue of the event ● Contact person details who will collect proposals and comments on issues discussed during the community consultation or who will register applications to participate in the community consultation event.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 34 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
A decision on the community consultation must be taken no later than 20 days prior the event. This decision and the project documentation to be discussed during consultation must be disclosed no later than 7 days prior the event (unless otherwise is specified by law).
Consultation Procedure during the National OVOS Process In line with OVOS by-laws, the OVOS preparation process and public consultation involves three major phases as described below:
1. Notification, strategic assessment and OVOS Terms of Reference (ToR) A Project Developer (in this case, the Developer’s contractor, Linde AG) is responsible for that strategic assessment is completed and OVOS ToR is prepared based on the key assessment findings. The Project Developer will identify key stakeholders of the OVOS process, will notify local communities and stakeholders and undertake preliminary consultations. The findings of the strategic assessment and draft OVOS ToR will be disclosed and discussed with key stakeholders. The draft OVOS ToR will be updated and approved by the Project Developer.
2. OVOS assessment studies and Draft OVOS Report The final OVOS ToR will serve as a basis for OVOS investigations, studies and surveys as well as meetings with the project stakeholders. The findings of the OVOS assessment and stakeholder consultations must be documented and included in the Draft OVOS Report to be disclosed to the key stakeholders for their comments and proposals. Generally, this OVOS phase will involve public hearing events which are a form of public participation in decision making used under Russian law and are related to citizens’ rights to healthy environment. The public hearing process is detailed below. Comments will be collected prior to and during the public hearing event, reviewed and necessary updates and modifications will be incorporated in the OVOS Report.
3. Final OVOS Report Findings of assessment investigations and studies, stakeholders’ comments and proposals will be used to formulate the Final OVOS Report. The final OVOS document will be submitted within the design documentation package to the State Expertise (Review). Stakeholders will be updated on the final project options.
Public Hearing Events as a Form of Consultation According to Russian legislative requirements detailed in the Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment in the Russian Federation (2000), stakeholders will have the opportunity to discuss the Project during the public consultation process. Public hearing events are the most popular and frequently used form of consultations. This process involves the following:
● Information to stakeholders on the time and venue of the upcoming public hearing event via mass media (not later than 30 days prior to the public hearing event) ● Project information to stakeholders including the OVOS Report and Non-Technical Summary (NTS) document (within 30 days, but not later than 2 weeks prior to the public hearing event) ● Public hearing event ● Grievances and / or concerns, lodged by stakeholders (within 30 days after the public hearing event) ● Final OVOS documentation including outcomes of consultation as part of the project design documentation package for the State Review.
National OVOS Process for the Project Since the national OVOS procedure will commence at the Detailed Design Phase following Financial Close of the Project, the international ESIA process has been initiated prior to the OVOS process and public
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 35 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
consultation has been undertaken in compliance with international requirements (refer to section 6.5). A public exhibition event was arranged in Nizhnekamsk mid-October 2017. The outcomes and feedback received during this public exhibition event will be included in the Final ESIA Report prepared to international standards. Further consultation will be conducted as part of the national OVOS process for the Project as described in Section 6.3.2.
6.3.3 International Consultation Requirements
Equator Principles Equator Principle 5 states that for Category A projects the borrower must demonstrate effective stakeholder engagement as an ongoing process in a structured and culturally appropriate manner with ACs and, where relevant, other stakeholders. For projects with potentially significant adverse impacts on ACs, an informed consultation and participation process will be conducted and the consultation process should be tailored to:
• Risks and impacts of the project • Phase of the project development • Language preferences of the ACs • ACs decision-making processes • Needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. This process should be free from external manipulation, interference, coercion and intimidation.
To facilitate stakeholder engagement, the project risk and impacts should be considered and assessment documentation made available to the AC, and other stakeholders so that their concerns and comments are adequately incorporated.
The results of the stakeholder engagement process, including any actions agreed resulting from the process should be taken into account and documented. For projects with environmental or social risks and adverse impacts, disclosure should occur early in the assessment process and in any event before the project construction commences, and on an ongoing basis.
Equator Principle 6 requires Category A projects to establish a grievance mechanism designed to receive and facilitate resolution of concerns and grievances about the Project’s environmental and social performance.
For projects located within non-OECD countries such as Russia, the EqPs state that the relevant IFC PS must be adhered to.
IFC Requirements The IFC, established in 1956, is known as the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. Public consultation, disclosure and stakeholder engagement are key requirements of the IFC’s Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability embodied within the Performance Standards (2012) (IFC PSs).
The eight IFC PSs are applicable to private sector projects in emerging markets. Each PS has specific consultation requirements and these are embedded in the general requirements specified in PS 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts. These requirements specifically refer to the need for and means of achieving community engagement, disclosure of relevant project information, appropriate consultation processes, grievance mechanisms throughout the project lifecycle and on-going reporting to ACs. The requirements for stakeholder engagement in projects are:
● Start as early as possible in the project cycle ● Continue throughout the life of the project ● Be free of external manipulation, interference, coercion, or intimidation
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 36 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Where applicable enable meaningful community participation ● Be conducted on the basis of timely, relevant, understandable, and accessible information in a culturally appropriate format. IFC PSs seek to provide accurate and timely information regarding Project investment and advisory activities. IFC’s Access to Information Policy states that for Category A projects proposed for financing, a summary of review findings and recommendations must be disclosed and include as a minimum the following information:
● Reference to the Performance Standards and any applicable grievance mechanisms, including the compliance advisor/ombudsman ● The rational for IFC’s categorisation of the project ● A description of the main social and environmental risks and impacts of the project ● Key measures identified to mitigate those risks and impacts, specifying any supplemental measures and actions that will need to be implemented to undertake the project in a manner consistent with the Performance Standards ● Electronic copies or weblinks to any relevant environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) prepared by the developer ● Any additional documents such as Action Plans, Stakeholder Engagement Plans, Resettlement Action Plans etc.
OECD Guidelines The OECD aims to promote good environmental and social practice, as embodied within the guidance document ‘Recommendation of the Council on Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environment and Social Due Diligence’ (2016). These ‘common approaches’ contain stakeholder engagement requirements and require projects to be carried out in line with international standards as represented by the IFC PSs described above.
For Category A projects, the ‘common approaches’ require public disclosure of project information, including project name, location, description of project, environmental and social impact information and details of where additional information (e.g. ESIA report and its summary) may be obtained. Further updates on environmental and social impact information should be disclosed annually.
Project proponents should also undertake consultations with interested parties and local communities directly affected by the project, or their representatives. For the purposes of the consultations, environmental and social impact information should be made available in an appropriate language. The results of consultations should be recorded in the ESIA for Category A projects and any ongoing disclosure and consultation should be outlined in the project Action Plan. The Action Plan itself should also be disclosed.
6.4 Stakeholder Identification This chapter identifies the stakeholders who are persons or groups who are directly or indirectly affected by a project, as well as those who may have interests in a project and/or the ability to influence its outcome, either positively or negatively. Stakeholders for the Project include locally affected communities and their formal and informal representatives, national or local government authorities, civil society organisations and groups with special interests, the academic community, or businesses.
At this phase, the Project has identified key groups of stakeholders. An analysis of key Project stakeholders, their interests, and suggested communication and consultation method for each group is summarised in in Table 4.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 37 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 4: Identification of Stakeholders and Consultation Methods
Stakeholder Identified
face meeting face
-
to
-
cuments
Affected Interested maker Decision Face event Public exhibition meeting community Targeted related Project of Disclosure do CLO with Engagement Project of Disclosure job and policy recruitment advertisement grievance Community mechanism TU and liaison Workers’ liaison committee monitoring and Progress report website Project Project affected communities, vulnerable and marginalised groups Residents of: x x x x x x x ● Nizhnekamsk, including Stroiteley settlement ● Rural settlements in the Nizhnekamsky MD4 ● Rural settlements in the Tukaevsky MD5 Physically and / or economically displaced households; single parents; elderly headed households x x x x x x x x Employees, job seekers and non-employee workers and their representatives ● Construction workers x x x x x ● Operation phase employees ● Prospective employees ● Non-employee workers ● United Trade Unions of NKNK (97% of all NKNK employees are TU members) x x x x x x x x ● NKNK Veterans’ Council of (about 8,000 people) ● Council of young specialists (about 5,000 people) Local and Regional Governments and Authorities ● City Council of Nizhnekamsk x x x x x x x ● Local rural governments in Nizhnekamsky MD (Afanasovo, Prosti and Shingalchi rural settlements) ● Local rural governments in Tukaevsky MD (Ishteryakovo and Biklyan’ rural settlements) ● Government of the Nizhnekamsky MD x x x x x x ● Government of the Tukaevsky MD ● Government of the Republic of Tatarstan x x x x x x
4 Prosti (Prosti village); Afanasovo (Bolshoe Afanasovo and Nizhnee Afanasovo villages); Shingalchi (Shingalchi, Balchykly, Klyatle, Klyuch Truda villages) 5 Biklyan (Biklyan, Nikoshnovka and Kyzyl-Yul villages); Ishteryakovo (Ishteryakovo, Avlash and Martysh villages)
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 38 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Stakeholder Identified
face meeting face
-
to
-
cuments
Affected Interested maker Decision Face event Public exhibition meeting community Targeted related Project of Disclosure do CLO with Engagement Project of Disclosure job and policy recruitment advertisement grievance Community mechanism TU and liaison Workers’ liaison committee monitoring and Progress report website Project ● Zakamskoye Local Authority of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of x x x x x x Tatarstan ● Regional Authority of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Welfare in the Republic of Tatarstan (Local Office for the Nizhnekamsky MD and the city of Nizhnekamsk) ● Regional Authority of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Russian Federation for the Nizhnekamsky MD ● Watershed authorities ● Protected nature areas authority ● Cultural heritage authority ● Nizhnekamsky MD Health Authority of the Health Ministry of the Republic of Tatarstan x x x x x x ● Tukaevsky MD Health Authority of the Health Ministry of the Republic of Tatarstan ● Social Welfare Authority for the Nizhnekamsky Municipal District of the Ministry of Labour, Employment x x x x x and Social Welfare of the Republic of Tatarstan ● Social Service Centre “Charity” ● “Vesta” Centre for Social Support for Families and Kids ● Regional Welfare Assistance Centre for the Nizhnekamsky MD (Branch Office No.31) ● Employment Centre of Nizhnekamsk x x x x x ● Employment Centre of Naberezhnye Chelny Municipal fire, health, police and security services x x x x Civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private sector ● Nizhnekamsky Municipal District Community Council x x x x ● Tukaevsky Municipal District Community Council ● Deputy Councils of local communities in the Nizhnekamsky MD (Afanasovo, Prosti, Shingalchi rural settlements) ● Deputy Councils of local communities in the Tukaevsky MD (Ishteryakovo and Biklyan rural settlements) ● Local environmental NGOs x x x x ● Local NGOs for protection of consumers rights: Interregional NGO “Consumers’ Rights Protection”
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 39 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Stakeholder Identified
face meeting face
-
to
-
cuments
Affected Interested maker Decision Face event Public exhibition meeting community Targeted related Project of Disclosure do CLO with Engagement Project of Disclosure job and policy recruitment advertisement grievance Community mechanism TU and liaison Workers’ liaison committee monitoring and Progress report website Project ● Local NGOs for industries and businesses: Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs; Russian Union of Chemists; Mendeleev Russian Chemical Society; Nizhnekamsk Union of Students (local) ● Local NGOs for the disabled and elderly: All Russian Association of the Disabled (local branch), All Russian Association of the Blind (local branch), All Russian Association of the Deaf (local branch), Council of Elders of Nizhnekamsk and Nizhnekamsky MD (local) ● Local NGOs for women: Nizhnekamsk office of “Large Families of the Republic of Tatarstan” NGO ● Others to be identified through SEP disclosure. Business partners, local suppliers and other businesses (to be identified through SEP disclosure x x x x International Lenders ● Euler Hermes x x x x x ● Equator Principles Financial Institutions Higher education institutions, vocational training organisations, media and other stakeholders ● Nizhnekamsky Chemical-Technological Institute (Branch) of the Kazan National Research and x x x x Technological University ● Kazan National Research and Technological University. ● Nizhnekamsk Petrochemical College x x x x ● Nizhnekamsk Technology College ● Technical School of Petrochemicals and Refineries ● Public newspapers: “Neftekhimik”, “Хезмэттэш авазы” “Nizhnekamskoe Vremia”; “Nizhnekamskaya x x x x Pravda”; “Republic of Tatarstan”; “Vatanym Tatarstan”; Nizhnekamsk Times; “We are from Nizhnekamsk”; ● Radio: Neftekhim-105.1; Retro FM ● TV channels and broadcasting companies: Neftekhim; Russia 1; TNV; NTR; Efir
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 40 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
6.5 Project Consultation Activities and Outcomes
6.5.1 Overview This Section presents the activities undertaken during the ESIA process and their outcomes, and summarises those activities planned throughout the remainder of the Project’s lifecycle in accordance with the SEP and the requirements outlined in Section 6.3.
6.5.2 Local Community Representatives Each rural settlement (small collection of neighbouring villages) in the Project local area of influence (AoI) has one Head who chairs the Executive Committee of the settlement and is supported by the Council of Deputies who are trusted elected representatives of the community.
In order to reach members of villages near to the Project site who do not have access to the internet, such as the elderly or poor households, NKNK will liaise with the local community representatives to request their assistance and cooperation in stakeholder engagement activities. The local community representatives will hold hard copies of project documentation (ESIA Scoping Report, SEP, ESIA/OVOS Report and NTS document all in Russian language, and where appropriate NTS in Tatar, if relevant) and / or make them available in local public buildings so that when announcements are made in the media villagers can easily access further information.
Local community representatives will be requested to encourage community participation in the consultation process and also receive feedback from their communities and pass this on to the Project via the Community Liaison Officer (CLO) appointed by NKNK. The CLO role is explained further in Section 6.5.4.
6.5.3 Web Resources NKNK website www.nknh.ru will be used to advertise the availability of ESIA/OVOS documentation and to publish relevant news of interest to the public about the Project. This is aimed at including younger populations with internet access in the consultation process.
6.5.4 Community Liaison Officer NKNK have identified a CLO who will be responsible for community liaison and arranging communications with project affected communities. Ms. Irina F. Notfulina will be the CLO throughout the Project preparation and operation and will be largely responsible for implementation of the SEP, particularly receiving and channelling comments and concerns during the ESIA phase and management of the grievance mechanism during the operational phase.
The CLO will attend and record stakeholder engagement activities and maintain lines of communication with the ACs (discussed in Section 6.5.4). Contact details of the CLO are identified in Section 6.6.3. The CLO for the construction phase of the Project will be identified by the selected main contractor.
6.5.5 ESIA Consultation and Disclosure
Project Information Disclosure NKNK has been disclosing information about the Project since 2016 via print media, television and radio including regional and federal mass media. Details of the recent publications disclosing NKNK’s plans regarding the Project are provided in the SEP.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 41 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Consultation Undertake during the ESIA Scoping Phase In line with international best practice and requirements, consultation has been undertaken to inform both the ESIA process and the SEP.
In June 2017, initial consultation as part of the ESIA scoping phase for the EP-600 Project was undertaken with: ● Local municipality and the rural settlements where communities are affected ● Local employment body ● Local environmental management authority ● Local social welfare authority ● Regional consumer rights and population wellbeing authority ● Local health authority. These meetings were used to disclose information about the Project, engage key stakeholders in the ESIA process, identify additional potential and key stakeholders, determine key opportunities and listen to any concerns raised about the Project to be addressed during the ESIA process.
Appendix A summarises the consultation activities undertaken (June-August 2017). It provides an overview of dates, participants and key issues raised. All of these activities were in the form of face-to-face meetings and involved representatives from NKNK, Linde AG and the ESIA Consultant.
The consultations identified interests and views on the Project and contributed to assigning forms of stakeholder engagement and communication, as detailed in the SEP.
Draft ESIA Disclosure One month prior to the Draft ESIA presentation at the public exhibition events (in the week commencing September 30, 2017) announcements were placed in newspapers, radio and television to advertise dates and locations of the disclosed ESIA documents and the public exhibition events in local communities. Two weeks prior to the public exhibition adverts were posted again. Respective letters of invitation were communicated in writing to the heads of the ACs and Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky MDs (refer to Volume III Appendices).
Two weeks prior to the public exhibitions (starting from 16 October 2017 for one month) the Draft ESIA Report, NTS and SEP was disclosed in Russian via the NKNK website (www.nknh.ru) and in hard copies in public buildings in the ACs in the following locations:
● Nizhnekamsk city museum, Nizhnekamsk ● Arts Centre, Nizhnekamsk ● Administration office in Afanasovo rural settlement, Nizhnekamsky MD (Bolshoye Afanasovo village) ● Administration office in Prosti rural settlement, Nizhnekamsky MD (Prosti village) ● Administration office in Shingalchi rural settlement, Nizhnekamsky MD (Shingalchi village) ● Administration office in Ishteryakovo rural settlement, Tukaevsky MD (Ishteryakovo village) ● Administration office in Biklyan’rural settlement, Tukaevsky MD (Biklyan village). All locations have been provided with comments boxes and feedback forms to allow for anonymous comments to be submitted.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 42 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Figure 6: Draft ESIA documentation and Figure 7: Draft ESIA documentation and comments box in the Nizhnekamsk Arts Centre comments box in Shingalchi village
Source: Nizhnekamskneftekhim PJSC Source: Nizhnekamskneftekhim PJSC
Presentation of the Draft ESIA Report at the Public Exhibition Events In line with the applicable international requirements, public exhibition events were arranged in the ACs (Nizhnekamsk city, and Ishteryakovo and Prosti rural settlements) between 30 and 31 October 2017. The public exhibitions presented the Project to local communities, described the Project status, disclosed the ESIA findings and the management and mitigation measures proposed for the Project.
Figure 8: Public exhibition event in Nizhnekamsk Figure 9: Comments box at the public exhibition in Nizhnekamsk
Source: Nizhnekamskneftekhim PJSC Source: Mott MacDonald
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 43 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Over 140 residents of Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky MDs participated in the public exhibitions in the ACs. Exhibitions in rural settlements were targeted at residents who may have difficulties with internet access (the elderly, low-income families, unemployed).
In Nizhnekamsk, 100% of local residents who participated in the public exhibition event represented the local labour force (including 37% of women), while in rural settlements the majority of participants were beyond the working age (in Ishteryakovo village, 39% of participants are local labour force against 49% in Prosti village). The females participating in the exhibitions accounted for 68% in Ishteryakovo village and 47% in Prosti village. An interpreter attejded the public exhibition in Ishteryakovo rural settlement where Tatars account for 92% of the local residents.
The public exhibition events provided information on the need for the Project and its current status, the technology selected, details of the Project construction phase, the ESIA findings, as well as the Project’s potential risks. Mitigation proposed in the ESIA to address or prevent potential risks and adverse impacts of the Project were also discussed. Local communities had the opportunity to raise questions, provide comments and share their concerns. The comments received and issues raised and considered during the public exhibition events are detailed in the meeting minutes (refer to Volume III Appendices).
The ACs had an opportunity to comment on the Project and ESIA findings until November 15, 2017 via the CLO, the NKNK hotline numbers, or in writing to NKNK via the Project grievance mechanism, or through comments boxes located in the locations where the ESIA documentation was disclosed. To date, (prior to and during the public exhibition events) over 30 written comments have been received.
All comments and questions received from the ACs to date may be summarised under the following main categories: ● Significant advantages of the Project – primarily for the ACs (increased payments to the municipal budget, infrastructure development and job opportunities) ● Potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project – air pollution, discharge of wastewater in local rivers, the existing NKNK wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operation ● Potential adverse social impacts of the Project – community health impacts, construction phase impacts on the ACs, including influx of workers and population changes ● Charity and patronage – specific requests for charity have been received from the local children dance team and request for patronage of the local kindergarten and school in the Prosti village.
Figure 10: Project and ESIA Exhibition event in Figure 11: Project and ESIA exhibition event in Ishteryakovo village, Tukaevsky MD Prosti village, Nizhnekamsky MD
Source: Nizhnekamskneftekhim PJSC Source: Nizhnekamskneftekhim PJSC
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 44 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
All comments and concerns of the local communities will be taken into account when planning further consultation and disclosure for the upcoming public hearing event during the national EIA/OVOS process at the Project design phase.
Disclosure of the Final ESIA Report The ESIA will be finalised after the 30 days draft report disclosure period and when stakeholder comments and queries are incorporated and addressed in the ESIA Report. The Final ESIA Report and documentation will be disclosed in the local communities and via the NKNK website.
6.5.6 Consultation Planned throughout the Lifetime of the Project The Project SEP outlines ongoing stakeholder engagement throughout the Project’s lifecycle including construction, operation and decommissioning phases. Activities include communications as necessary with village representatives, information disclosure to local communities at key project milestones such as the beginning and end of construction, regular updating of the Project website and social media, updating the SEP and annual Project reporting.
6.6 Project Grievance Redress Mechanism
6.6.1 Overview A grievance can be defined as an actual or perceived problem that might give grounds for complaint. As a general policy, NKNK will work proactively towards preventing grievances through the implementation of impact mitigation measures (as identified by the ESIA Report and ESMMP) and community liaison.
Anyone will be able to submit a grievance to the Project if they believe a practice is having a detrimental impact on the community, the environment, or on their quality of life. They may also submit comments and suggestions. The sections below consider confidentiality and anonymity and the project’s grievance resolution process.
6.6.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity The Project will aim to protect a person’s confidentiality when requested and will guarantee anonymity in annual reporting. Individuals will be asked permission to disclose their identity. Investigations will be undertaken in a manner that is respectful of the aggrieved party and the principle of confidentiality. The aggrieved party will need to recognise that there may be situations when disclosure of identity is required and the Project will identify these situations to see whether the aggrieved party wishes to continue with the investigation and resolution activities.
6.6.3 Grievance Reporting and Resolution The main steps for handling grievances are: receive, categorise, acknowledge, investigate, respond, allow for recourse/appeal and follow-up, and close out.
Grievances will be logged in a formal logging system for which the CLO will be responsible. People may register grievances using the grievance form in the SEP or by contacting the CLO, reporting to their village representative or online using the NKNK website (www.nknh.ru). Contact details for the CLO will be included in appropriate Project communication materials such as the Non-Technical Summary document.
The CLO will classify grievances according to Table 5. Where investigations are required, Project staff and outside authorities as appropriate, will assist with the process. The CLO will collaborate with the NKNK management to identify an appropriate investigation team with the correct skills to review the issue raised. The investigation will also aim to identify whether the incident leading to the grievance is a singular occurrence or
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 45 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
likely to reoccur. Identifying and implementing activities, procedures, equipment and training to address and prevent reoccurrence will be part of the investigation activities.
Table 5: Grievance classification criteria Classification Risk Level Response (to health, safety or environment) Low No or low The grievance may not be related to Project performance, it may be a comment, or a request. CLO will acknowledge complaint within 7 days and conduct an investigation if required. The CLO will document findings and provide a response within 30 days of receiving. Response is likely to have minimal cost in addition to time spent on addressing the issue. Medium Possible risk and likely a one-off CLO will acknowledge complaint within 7 days. The CLO and an appropriate event investigation team will conduct investigation. The Site Manager or Occupational Health and Safety Manager may decide to stop work during the investigation to allow the corrective preventive actions to be determined. The CLO will provide a response within 30 days of receiving complaint. The corrective action is likely to be straight forward involving changing a piece of equipment or procedure which does not take long or have substantial cost implications to implement. High Probable risk and could reoccur CLO will acknowledge the complaint within 7 days and will get the Project Manager to organise a major investigation team for prompt investigation and resolution. Work may be stopped in the affected area. The CLO will provide a response within 30 days of receiving complaint. If more time is needed to complete the investigation this will be communicated to complainant within 30 days of receiving complaint. As necessary the response will include a press release. The corrective action may be complex or sensitive involving changing equipment or a procedure which requires training of staff and has substantial cost implications.
The CLO will explain in writing to the complainant (or where literacy is an issue orally) the review process, the results, any changes to activities that will be undertaken to address the grievance and how the issue is being managed to meet appropriate environmental and social management systems. In some cases it will be appropriate for the CLO to follow up at a later date to see if the person or organisation is satisfied with the resolution or remedial actions. The grievance will be closed out in the register as:
● Resolved. The resolution has been communicated, agreed and/or implemented. ● Unresolved. The complainant did not accept the proposed resolution and has appealed to other entities for resolution. ● Abandoned. The complainant is no longer contactable and efforts to trace whereabouts have been unsuccessful. The CLO will summarise grievances weekly during construction and bi-annually during operation removing identification information to protect the confidentiality of the complainant and guaranteeing anonymity. The procedure will be at no cost and without retribution to Project affected persons and stakeholders. The grievances processing procedure is depicted in Figure 12.
During the planning and operation phase of the Project, NKNK has nominated Ms Irina F. Notfulina as the CLO and point of contact for grievances and comments. Grievances and comments should be sent to the contacts below (Table 6), where possible by using the form provided in the SEP.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 46 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Figure 12: Flowchart for Processing Grievances
Flowchart for Processing Grievances
Grievance received (in Record the date verbal or written in the Grievance format) Register
Acknowledge all complaints within 7 days
Categorise and YES NO organise investigation of grievance. Immediate action to satisfy complaint Identify any preventive and corrective actions required Record the date in the Grievance Register Inform complainant of the proposed actions or clarify why action is not required - within 30 days
Inform complainant of Implement the actions preventive and and carry out any corrective actions follow-up
Record action and date in the Grievance Register
Close out Grievance Register (resolved, unresolved, abandoned)
During the construction phase, the Main Contractor will nominate the CLO who will act as point of contact for grievances. Grievances may also be raised via NKNK in the construction phase. When this occurs, NKNK will forward grievances to the Main Contractor’s CLO for management.
Table 6: CLO contact details for preparation and construction phases CLO Details Construction Phase Operation Phase Attention: TBN Mrs. Irina F. Notfullina – Head of the Laboratory for Social and Psychological Studies and Reviews Company: Main contractor PJSC "Nizhnekamskneftekhim" Address: Nizhnekamsk 423574, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia Tel: +7 (8555) 37-93-33 E-mail: [email protected]
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 47 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
7 Social Impact Assessment
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 Overview This Chapter describes the approach, social baseline, predicted likely impacts, mitigation and enhancement measures, and the conclusions of the Social Impact Assessment (SIA). The Chapter looks at how people and communities may be affected as a result of the Project in terms of the way they live, work and interact with one another on a day-to-day basis.
The broad objectives of the SIA is to ensure that key potential socio-economic and community impacts have been identified, assessed, mitigated and managed in a consultative and constructive manner. The primary purpose of the SIA is to safeguard the wellbeing of Project Affected Communities (ACs) and where possible, bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment as a result of the Project, including sharing of Project benefits with local communities wherever possible.
7.1.2 General Approach The national regulatory requirements for the national EIA/OVOS will be part of the Detailed Design Phase and will start after Financial Close to be addressed in a separate document. The SIA undertaken for this international ESIA has been carried out to meet the requirements of IFC, Equator Principles and the OECD. The approach and methodology draws on the Guidance Note for Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). The IAIA conceptualises social impacts as changes to one or more of the following:6
● People’s way of life – how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a day-to-day basis ● Their community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities ● Their culture – their shared beliefs, customs, values and language use ● Their environment – the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and quality of the food they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to; the adequacy of sanitation; their physical safety; and, their access to and control over resources ● Their health and wellbeing – whereby health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity; perceptions of safety ● Their personal and community property rights – access issues; how people are economically affected and experience personal disadvantage or advantage. The spatial scope of assessment is presented below.
7.1.3 Spatial Scope of Assessment Defining the spatial scope of assessment where social receptors (people and communities) and resources (their assets and support services and infrastructure) is complex because many different types of communities overlap and merge seamlessly into one another. There is a range of characteristics which can be used to define communities including geographical (defined by specific distances measured for example on a metric scale or by walking distance), administrative (defined by local government boundaries), socio-cultural (defined by shared interests, values or bonds such as religion or class status or family) and economic or business
6 IAIA. Social Impact Assessment: Guidance: Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects, April 2015.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 48 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
(defined by financial interdependencies and relationships). This SIA has used geographical and administrative boundaries to define the Project’s “areas of influence” (AoI) respectively. These AoIs are:
● The wider AoI: consisting of Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky MDs7 in the Republic of Tatarstan in the Privolzhsky Federal Okrug (PFO) and Russia as a whole. ● The local AoI: the most directly affected area consisting of the City of Nizhnekamsk, and 14 villages, nine of which are located in Nizhnekamsky MD and five in the Tukaevsky MD, including the closest affected community of Martysh village which is 4km from the EP-600 site. More detail about the local AoI and the most directly affected communities therein is presented below.
7.1.3.1 Local Area of Influence The local AoI (see Figure 13) has been determined from consideration of communities most likely to be affected and includes villages and settlements within 2km of the overall SPZ of the existing industrial hub as well as those:
● Where people may be interested in employment on the Project ● Near to workers’ accommodation ● Near roads to be used by construction traffic.
Figure 13: Existing rural settlements and the overall SPZ
Source: Mott MacDonald
7 Russia is a federal semi-presidential constitutional republic comprised of 85 federal entities. Although a democratic constitutional state with its own president, government and parliament, the Republic of Tatarstan is obliged to adhere to Russian legislative, executive and judicial authority, whilst also having its own laws.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 49 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
The administrative centre of Nizhnekamsky MD is the city of Nizhnekamsk. Notably Nizhnekamsk has no administrative districts however is comprised of estates (microdisticts), residential quarters and villages (Stroiteley, Akhtuba and Krasny Klyuch). Nizhnekamsk City with Il’inka and Dmitrievka villages form the Nizhnekamsk urban settlement.
The administrative centre of Tukaevsky MD is the city of Naberezhnye Chelny. However, Naberezhnye Chelny has a city of republic status, which means that it is also an independent administrative unit with equal status to that of the municipal districts.
The MDs themselves are composed of smaller units referred to as rural or urban settlements, which in turn consist of several villages. Each rural settlement in the Project area is represented by an elected Head who, jointly with the elected Council of Deputies, form the governing body of that rural settlement.
As well as the City of Nizhnekamsk (including Stroiteley village located along the road that will be used by the Project during the construction phase), 14 villages have been identified within the local AoI as potentially affected by the Project.
Table 7 below provides an overview of the identified Project affected communities, their approximate distances from the Project site as well as their administrative districts.
Table 7: Potentially affected communities within the local AoI Community Distance from Rural / urban settlement Municipal district EP-600 site (km) Nizhnekamsk City 9.8 Nizhnekamsk Urban Settlement Nizhnekamsky Municipal District Bolshoye Afanasovo village 12.1 Afanasovo rural settlement Nizhnee Afanasovo village 10.3 Prosti village 7.3 Prosti rural settlement Klyatle village 8.2 Shingalchi rural settlement Balchykly village 9.4 Klyuch Truda village 8.8 Ishteryakovo village 6.1 Ishteryakovo rural settlement Tukaevsky Municipal District Martysh village 4.0 Avlash village 6.1 Former Nikashnovka village 6.6 Biklyan’ rural settlement Nikashnovka railway station 5.0 Bakhchisaray village 9.2 Kyzyl-Yul village 7.3 Source: Mott MacDonald Social Baseline Study (June-September 2017) Notes: a Administratively is part of Nizhnekamsk city Two villages, Alan’ (Figure 16) and Martysh (Figure 17) – the closest village to the EP-600 site – within the local AoI have been successfully resettled to locations outside of the industrial hub overall SPZ. This resettlement has been undertaken in relation to the wider operations of the industrial hub and is not related to the Project. However, 17 residents of Martysh are currently refusing to leave the village and remain there. It is the responsibility of the Sanitary Authority and the municipality of Tukaevsky MD to oversee the resettlement of the remaining residents and this is not the responsibility of NKNK and it is not connected to the proposed Project development. Despite this, information on the current status of Martysh village and remaining residents has been included in the baseline to inform the assessment.
Some community gardens (called Il’inka, Prosti, Bakhchasaray and Neftekhimik) labelled in Figure 13 within the local AoI have been excluded from the baseline analysis because the ESIA investigation has established that people do not live there permanently, rather they visit to use the garden space.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 50 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Figure 14 to Figure 21 provide an impression of local communities and non-residential gardens located within the Project’s local AoI.
Figure 14: Nizhnekamsk residential areas Figure 15: Houses in Stroiteley village
Source: Mott MacDonald Source: Mott Macdonald
Figure 16: Former Alan’ village Figure 17: Remaining houses in Martysh village
Source: NKNK Source: Mott MacDonald
Figure 18: Houses in Ishteryakovo village Figure 19: Houses in Prosti village
Source: NKNK Source: Mott MacDonald
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 51 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Figure 20: Biklyan’ Forestry Farm Figure 21: Houses in Biklyan’ village
Source: Mott MacDonald Source: Mott MacDonald
7.1.4 Temporal Scope of Assessment The Project has been assessed by comparing the existing social conditions (ascertained by document review and site visits) with the change expected over time as a result of the Project. The temporal scope of assessment includes the following Project phases:
● Site preparation, which is expected to commence in autumn 2018 ● Main construction phase, which is expected to last up to 4 years ● Operation, which is expected to commence towards mid-2022 ● Decommissioning, the plant is expected to have a lifetime of at least 25 years and an assessment of any works necessary to keep the plant operating will be undertaken at that time. The baseline conditions are those assumed to be prevailing immediately prior to the start of site preparation.
7.1.5 Structure of the SIA Chapter The remainder of this Chapter is structured to address:
● Relevant national legislation, regulations and lenders’ requirements ● Methodology and assessment criteria ● Baseline description ● Assessment of impacts ● Mitigation and enhancement measures ● Residual impacts ● Proposed monitoring and reporting.
7.2 Relevant National Legislation, Regulations and Lenders’ Requirements
7.2.1 Overview This sub-section presents a description of the relevant national legislation including that of the Republic of Tatarstan (RT), and applicable international lenders’ requirements.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 52 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
7.2.2 National Legislation and Regulations
Labour and Occupational Health and Safety Laws The main law governing labour and working condition is the RF Labour Code (No.197-FZ of 30.12.2001, amended on 29.07.2017) and RF Constitution (12.12.1993). The Labour Code contains provisions relating to the banning of discrimination at work and of forced labour, labour relations, collective negotiations and agreements, labour contracts, hours of work, rest and leave, wages, guarantees and compensations to workers, discipline, vocational training, and the right to a safe working environment. It also contains special provisions for women and persons with family responsibilities, migrant workers, workers under the age of 18 years and seasonal workers amongst others. Occupational health and safety (OHS) issues are regulated via an elaborated system of OHS standards.
The Federal Law (No.68-FZ of 21.12.1994 as amended on 23.06.2016) “Оn Protection of Population and Territories from Natural and Man-Made Emergency Situations” sets forth an institutional and legal framework for the protection of people, land, water and air space against emergencies. As per this law, organisations shall:
● Plan and implement measures required for the protection of employees of organisations as well as assets and social facilities from emergency situations ● Plan and implement measures aimed at strengthening the sustainability of organisations and provision of vital needs of their employees in emergency situations ● Provide for, prepare and make available both the workforce and means to be applied in emergency prevention and response, train employees on how to implement protection techniques and which actions to take during emergency situations ● Create and maintain in constant readiness local emergency alert systems ● Provide an emergency response and other immediate efforts with regards to assets and social facilities in the case of an emergency in accordance with emergency prevention and response action plans ● Finance measures to protect employees against emergency situations ● Create financial and material reserves for emergency response ● Submit, as established, information about protection of the population and territories against emergency situations, and inform employees about the risk of or actual occurrence of emergency situations.
Community Health and Safety Laws The Federal Law (No.52-FZ of 30.03.1999 as amended on 29.07.2017) “Оn Sanitary and Epidemiological Wellbeing of the Population” sets forth the rights of citizens to health care and a healthy environment. As per Article 11 thereof, businesses and legal entities shall:
● Comply with the national sanitary and public health requirements and standards ● Develop and implement (preventive) sanitary and public health actions ● Provide for safety of works and services and goods and products during their manufacture, transportation, storage and distribution to local populations ● Execute industrial control over compliance with sanitary requirements in works and services ● Carry out works to justification of public safety of new products and technologies, environmental safety and/or harmlessness criteria and develop methods to control environmental factors ● Inform the population, local government and government authorities in charge of the sanitary and epidemiological supervision in a timely manner about emergency situations, suspense of production, and breakdown in technological processes that threaten sanitary and epidemiological welfare of population ● Provide training in occupational hygiene for employees.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 53 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
The Federal Law (No.116-FZ of 21.07.1997 as amended on 07.03.2017) “On Industrial Safety of Hazardous Production Facilities” determines legal, economic and social basis for provision of safe operation of hazardous production facilities, emergency prevention and ensuring preparedness of the operators of hazardous facilities for post-emergency management.
SanPiN 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03 Sanitary Protection Zones (“SPZs”) and Sanitary Classification of Industries, Facilities and Other Objects (as amended on 25.04.2014) discusses the types of buildings allowed within SPZs. The only buildings allowed are non-residential premises for emergency personnel, administrational buildings, design offices, research labs, medical centres, closed sports and health facilities, trade offices, public canteens, hotels, garages and sheds, power substations and utilities, etc. Importantly, this regulation allows residential premises for workers on a rotational basis only, which can be occupied for no more than two weeks at one time.
Security Laws There is a set of legal documents regulating provision of secure operations of industrial facilities and community security in Russia, including the following documents applicable to PET plants and similar facilities:
● Federal Law (No.390-FZ of 28.12.2010 as amended of 05.10.2015) “On Safety” ● Federal Law (No.116-FZ of 21.07.1997 as amended of 07.03.2017) “On Industrial Safety of Hazardous Industrial Facilities” ● Law (No.2487-1 of 03.11.1992 as amended on 03.07.2016) “On Private Detective and Security Services in the Russian Federation”, and ● A set of sectoral regulations and guidelines for chemical industries These legal documents govern an approach for ensuring security of assets as well as use of security services and applicable requirements to their functioning.
Land Laws The RF Land Code (Federal Law No.136-FZ of 25.10.2001 as amended on 23.08.2017) sets forth a legal framework for the use and protection of land resources in Russia. The law determines that land use and land protection are regulated based on the concept that land is a natural asset. Land is protected as the key integral component of nature, i.e. a natural resource used for agricultural production and forestry and being the basis for commercial and other activities. The Land Code considers land as a fixed asset, subject to property rights and other rights.
The RF Civil Code, Part I (Federal Law No.51-FZ of 30.11.1994 as amended on 06.08.2017) clarifies the essence of title to natural resources, and allocates environmental and other mandates between the RF and RF subjects and municipalities.
Legislation of the Republic of Tatarstan The Land Code of Tatarstan Republic (No.1736 of 10.07.1998 as amended on 10.07.2017) states that land relations in the Republic are regulated by the RF Constitution, RT Constitution, the RF Land Code and by other regulatory acts of the Russian Federation and Republic of Tatarstan.
The RT Law (No.42-ZRT dated 20.06.2006 as amended on 12.06.2014) “On Sanitary and Epidemiological Wellbeing of the Population” is aimed at providing a healthy environment and sanitary and epidemiologic wellbeing of the population. It outlines the authorities of the RT State Council and the RT Cabinet of Ministers in maintaining sanitary and epidemiological wellbeing of the population and implementing measures to prevent and respond to emergency situations. It also states that regulation of air pollution prevention or reduction measures and requirements on zones for sanitary protection of water are within the competence the RT Cabinet of Ministers.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 54 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
7.2.3 International Requirements The SIA has been undertaken to promote the Project’s compliance with the Equator Principles, IFC Policy and Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, the IFC Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) guidelines and OECD requirements.
Equator Principles This Project has been assessed against ten principles used by international financial institutions as a common baseline and framework in project financing. These include:
● Principle 1: Review and Categorisation ● Principle 2: Environmental and Social Assessment ● Principle 3: Applicable Environmental and Social Standards ● Principle 4: Environmental and Social Management System and Equator Principles Action Plan ● Principle 5: Stakeholder Engagement ● Principle 6: Grievance Mechanism ● Principle 7: Independent Review ● Principle 8: Covenants ● Principle 9: Independent Monitoring and Reporting ● Principle 10: Reporting and Transparency. For projects located within non-OECD countries such as Russia, the EqPs state that the relevant IFC Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability and the World Bank Group EHS Guidelines (as detailed below) must be adhered to.
IFC Performance Standards and EHS Guidelines At the Scoping stage, a number of IFC Performance Standards were considered to be potentially relevant to this SIA, namely:
● IFC PS1 – Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts ● IFC PS2 – Labour and Working Conditions ● IFC PS4 – Community Health, Safety and Security ● IFC PS5 – Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement ● IFC PS7 – Indigenous Peoples. PS1, PS2, PS4 and PS5 are considered to remain applicable. PS7 is not applicable. The requirements of these PSs and further details on the reasons why PS7 is considered non-applicable are summarised below and later in this Chapter.
PS1 – Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts PS1 establishes the importance of: (i) identifying and evaluating environmental and social risks and impacts of the project; (ii) adopting a mitigation hierarchy to anticipate and avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimise impacts; (iii) promoting improved environmental and social performance through the effective use of management systems; (iv) ensuring appropriate response and management of grievances from ACs and external communications from other stakeholders; and (v) promoting and providing means for adequate engagement with ACs throughout the project cycle on issues that could potentially affect them and to ensure that relevant environmental and social information is disclosed and disseminated.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 55 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
PS2 – Labour and Working Conditions PS2 recognises that economic development should be balanced with workers’ rights. PS2 aims to: promote the fair treatment, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity of workers; establish, maintain, and improve the worker-management relationship; promote compliance with national employment and labour laws; protect workers, including vulnerable categories of workers such as children, migrant workers, workers engaged by third parties and workers in the client’s supply chain; promote safe and healthy working conditions and the health of workers; and to avoid the use of child and forced labour.
PS4 – Community Health, Safety and Security The two key aims of PS4 are to: anticipate and avoid adverse impacts on the health and safety of the AC during the project life from both routine and non-routine circumstances; and to ensure that the safeguarding of personnel and property is carried out in accordance with relevant human rights principles and in a manner, that avoids or minimises risks to the ACs.
PS5 – Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement The main aim of PS5 is to avoid, and when avoidance is not possible, minimise displacement by exploring alternative project designs. Where displacement occurs, PS5 aims to avoid forced eviction or where avoidance is not possible, minimise adverse social and economic impacts from land acquisition or restrictions on land use; improve, or restore, the livelihoods and standards of living of displaced persons; and improve living conditions among physically displaced persons through the provision of adequate housing with security of tenure at resettlement sites. PS5 requires mitigation or compensation for informal land users and users of natural resources that are affected by restriction of access to land or natural resources.
PS7 – Indigenous Peoples Two of the main objectives of PS7 are to: (i) ensure that the development process fosters full respect for the human rights, dignity, aspirations, culture, and natural resource-based livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples; and (ii) anticipate and avoid adverse impacts of projects on communities of Indigenous Peoples, or when avoidance is not possible, to minimise or compensate for such impacts. PS7 has been scoped out of the SIA as there are no Indigenous Peoples meeting the definition in PS7 within the wide or local AoI of the Project and there are no known nomadic groups traversing the Project area. This is discussed further in Section 7.4.3.
IFC Environment Health and Safety Guidelines PS2 and PS4 in relation to occupational and community health and safety respectively require reference to be made to the relevant IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines. These are technical reference documents with general and industry-specific examples of Good International Industry Practice (GIIP). The following IFC EHS Guidelines are considered applicable to the Project:
● General EHS Guidelines (April 2007) ● Large Volume Petroleum-based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing (April 2007). This SIA outlines mitigation measures aimed to ensure compliance with these guidelines in Section 7.6.
OECD and ILO Requirements The OECD provides guidance on human rights which acknowledges the responsibility of States to protect human rights. OECD also requires enterprises to work within the framework of internationally recognised human rights and the international human rights obligations of the countries in which they operate, as well as relevant domestic laws and regulations. This includes:
● Respecting human rights, which means they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 56 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Within the context of their own activities, enterprises should avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and address such impacts when they occur ● Seeking ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their business operations, products or services by a business relationship, even if they do not contribute to those impacts ● Having a policy commitment to respect human rights ● Carrying out human rights due diligence as appropriate to their size, the nature and context of operations and the severity of the risks of adverse human rights impacts ● Providing for or co-operating through legitimate processes in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts where they identify that they have caused or contributed to these impacts. The OECD also has guidance on disclosure of information which is summarised in Chapter 6.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) of the United Nations is responsible for overseeing compliance with international labour standards (‘conventions’ that national governments are signatories to). The ILO conventions reflect common values and principles on work-related issues and Member States can choose whether or not to ratify them. The ILO regularly monitors the implementation and the application of the conventions as well as developments in countries generally, whether or not they have chosen to ratify ILO conventions.
Russia has ratified the ILO’s core labour standards which are comprised of 19 conventions:
● Freedom of association and collective bargaining (Conventions 87 and 98) ● Elimination of forced and compulsory labour (Conventions 29 and 105) ● Elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation (Conventions 100 and 111) ● Abolition of child labour (Conventions 138 and 182) ● Hours of work, rest and leave (Conventions 14, 47 and 52) ● Labour relations (150 and 156) ● Occupational health and safety (Conventions 77, 78, 148, 155 and 162) ● Employment of the disabled (Convention 159).
7.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria
7.3.1 Desk Study and Field Reconnaissance Information for this SIA has been obtained from a number of sources including data of site visits, the National OVOS prepared for the EP-1000 plant in 2013, NKNK operational and environmental permitting documentation, formal information requests to local government organisations and communities. A Social Baseline Study for this Project was undertaken by Mott MacDonald in June-September 2017. Village level information for the Social Baseline Study was obtained directly from rural settlements via formal information requests and informal interviews with village representatives. Further information has also been gained through the consultation activities with key Project stakeholders detailed in Chapter 6, as well as through in-depth structured interviews by Mott MacDonald with NKNK environmental, social, human resources and security managers and representatives of the Trade Union Committee and NKNK’s Training Centre. These sources have been supplemented with widely available literature, data from websites and other official sources of information, including:
● RF Federal Service of National Statistics (Rosstat) ● Regional Statistics Authority for the Republic of Tatarstan (Tatarstanstat) ● World Health Organisation (WHO) ● CIA World Factbook
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 57 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● UNAIDS ● International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs ● World Economic Forum ● OECD Library. Socio-economic data for the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tatarstan, Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky Municipal Districts, and Nizhnekamsk City have been collected and reviewed in the assessment. Where data is presented for Nizhnekamsky MD, it represents data on the rural areas of the Municipal District and does not include that of the population of Nizhnekamsk City. Such an approach allows to compare socio-economic data presented for the Tukaevsky MD which is entirely rural. Where available, data for Nizhnekamsk City are provided separately as its residents are also considered to be potentially affected by the Project. Additionally, where available, village level data for communities in the local AoI are used to provide more detail and depth. Where village level data are presented, it has been sourced through information requests or interviews with village representatives and can be considered as estimated, but valuable, information.
7.3.2 Determining Significance of Impacts and Effects Determining the significance of socio-economic and community impacts and their effects has enabled the identification of necessary mitigation and benefit enhancement measures as well as an indication of the related financial costs associated with the social impacts of the Project. Consideration has been given to identification of both potentially beneficial and adverse social impacts which have been assessed by comparing the quality of the baseline conditions with the predicted quality of the social environment once the Project is in place.
The significance of an effect has been determined by the interaction between its magnitude, and the sensitivity of receptors affected, as depicted in the significance matrix shown in Chapter 5. Professional judgement has been used by appropriately qualified social scientists when assigning significance.
The use of these two concepts for this SIA is outlined below.
Sensitivity Criteria The sensitivity of receptors has been estimated through consideration of their socio-economic vulnerability, measured by their capacity to cope with social impacts that affect their access to or control over additional or alternative social resources of a similar nature, ultimately affecting their wellbeing. Sensitive or vulnerable receptors are generally considered to have less means to absorb adverse changes, or to replicate beneficial changes to their resource base than non-sensitive or non-vulnerable receptors.
When considering sensitivity, the type of resources in question varies between receptors. For example, a community’s vulnerability has generally been measured in terms of its resilience to loss of community facilities, whereas an individual’s vulnerability has generally been considered in relation to their resilience to deprivation and loss of livelihood assets or opportunities (such as jobs, productive land or natural resources). Impacts that increase impoverishment risks contribute to vulnerability. Impoverishment risks include landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalisation, increased morbidity and mortality, food insecurity, loss of access to common property resources and social disarticulation. Table 8 below presents the guideline criteria that have been used to categorise the sensitivity of receptors.
Table 8: Sensitivity criteria Sensitivity of Receptors Definition High An already vulnerable social receptor with very little capacity and means to absorb proposed changes or with very little access to alternative similar sites or services. Medium An already vulnerable social receptor with limited capacity and means to absorb proposed changes or with little access to alternative similar sites or services. Low A non-vulnerable social receptor with some capacity and means to absorb proposed changes and with some access to alternative similar sites or services.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 58 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Sensitivity of Receptors Definition Negligible A non- vulnerable social receptor with plentiful capacity and means to absorb proposed changes and with good access to alternative similar sites or services. Source: Mott MacDonald
Assessment of sensitivity considers duration of the impact, spatial extent, reversibility and ability of comply with the legislation and applicable requirements.
Magnitude Criteria The magnitude of an impact has been determined by consideration of the extent to which it results in social receptors gaining or losing access to or control over socio-economic resources resulting in a beneficial or adverse effect on their individual and collective wellbeing. Wellbeing is considered as the financial, physical and emotional conditions and quality of life of people and communities.
For beneficial impacts, the extent to which local wellbeing is likely to be enhanced has been considered. This is in accordance with the international movement in SIA practice towards an increased focus on enhancing long-term development benefits for local communities’ sustainability, as opposed to only considering mitigation of adverse effects. As such, the magnitude criteria include consideration of the extent to which benefits are shared with and or realised by local people and communities.
The assessment of magnitude has been undertaken in two steps. Firstly, key social impacts associated with the project and their related beneficial and adverse, direct and indirect, and cumulative effects have been identified. Secondly, the magnitude of impacts and effects have been categorised as either major, moderate, minor or negligible based on consideration of the parameters listed below along with professional judgement:
● Likelihood ● Duration ● Number of people or groups affected ● Spatial extent ● Local benefit sharing. Table 9 summarises the typical varying degrees of impact magnitude.
Table 9: Magnitude criteria Magnitude Definition (Beneficial or Adverse) Major A highly likely impact that would have implications beyond the project life affecting the wellbeing of many people across a broad cross-section of the population and affecting various elements of the local communities’, or workers’, resilience. Moderate A likely impact that continues over a number of years throughout the project life and affects the wellbeing of specific groups of people and affecting specific elements of the local communities’, or workers’, resilience. Minor A potential impact that occurs periodically or over the short term throughout the life of the project affecting the wellbeing of a small number of people and with little effect on the local communities’, or workers’, resilience. Negligible A potential impact that is very short lived so that the socio-economic baseline remains largely consistent and there is no detectable effect on the wellbeing of people or the local communities’ or workers’, resilience. Source: Mott MacDonald
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 59 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
7.4 Baseline Description
7.4.1 Overview The following sub-sections within this section review baseline date in relation to:
● Demography ● Ethnicity, religion and language ● Health ● Employment and economy ● Education ● Access to services ● Project land status and use ● Transportation infrastructure and public transport services ● Gender ● Deprivation and vulnerable groups.
7.4.2 Demography With a total population of 146,8 million, Russia is the ninth8 most populous country in the world. However, due to its internal climatic differences, it is densely populated in some regions while sparsely populated in others. As the country is so large in area, Russia has the 15th lowest population density in the world (8,36 people per km²). Population is densest in European Russia with approximately 78% of residents living in the European part of Russia that occupies 25% of the total area of the country. Russia’s population growth rate tends to be increasing (by 3% between 2012 and 2017). The population increase of 2,600,357 people (or 1.8%) in 2014 was not due to migration and natural growth only, but also due to constitution of two new RF entities – the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. Population growth in 2016 is estimated at 0.2% while in the PFO, population increased by 0.13% or 37,070 people.
The urban population makes up 74% (as of start of 2017) of the Russian population, while the other 26% live in rural areas. Nationally, 46% of the population is male and 54% is female.
Within the Republic of Tatarstan there is a population of 3.9 million people and a slightly greater percentage (76.6%) live in urban areas than the national average (as of start of 2017). The population of Nizhnekamsk City is 237,250. Within the rural Tukaevsky MD there are 40,522 people in total. Between 2012 and 2017 the population of the Republic of Tatarstan increased by 2.1% (this is slightly less than the average population growth rate across the country), while it increased in Nizhnekamsk City by 0.9% and by 0.7% in Nizhnekamsky MD. Population growth rate for the same period in Tukaevsky MD makes up 10%. The main contributing factor to the population increases in the Republic of Tatarstan and Tukaevsky MD appears to be migration as there has been consistent net positive in-migration between 2012 and 2017 mostly from other regions within Russia while natural growth has predominantly been positive in the city of Nizhnekamsk and Nizhnekamsky MD being the key factor in population growth.
As shown in Table 10, approximately 245,921 people live within the ACs and the gender ratio varies widely between villages, from 20% to 60% male with a trend that the female population prevails in majority of the ACs. Information obtained from the heads of rural settlements suggests that young working-age population migrate from small villages to Nizhnekamsk or Naberezhnye Chelny seeking for jobs whilst some families migrate in villages near these two cities where it is easier to purchase houses and land for cultivation. Most of such families have non-resident status in the villages as they have registered properties elsewhere.
8 CIA World Fact book, 2017
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 60 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 10: Population in ACs, as of 1 July 2017 Municipal Urban/Rural Settlements ACs Population Gender Ratio (%) District Male Female Nizhnekamsky Nizhnekamsk urban settlement Nizhnekamsk City 237,250 47 53 MD Prosti rural settlement Prosti village 659 55 45 Shingalchi rural settlement Klyatle village 83 31 69 Balchykly village 216 20 80 Sarsaz-Bli village 68 34 66 Klyuch Truda 39 41 59 Kyzyl-Yul Forestry Farm1) 35 46 54 Biklyan’ Forestry Farm1) 45 33 67 Afanasovo rural settlement Bolshoe (Big) Afanasovo village 3,460 48 52 Nizhnee (Lower) Afanasovo village 306 44 56 Ishteryakovo rural settlement Ishteryakovo village 547 51 49 Martysh village 12 58 42 Avlash village 128 50 50 Tukaevsky MD Biklyan’ rural settlement Biklyan’ village 1515 No data No data Nikoshnovka railway station 30 601) 401) Kzyl-Yul 29 581) 421) Bakhchisaray 67 471) 531) Total ACs 245,981 N/A N/A Source: Data sourced from rural settlements and national statistics Notes: 1) 2013 data. 2) Including non-residents living in the rural settlement.
The population in Nizhnekamsky MD is relatively young and its mean age is 36.79 years. The mean age of population in Tukaevsky MD is 40.59 years (or 38.47 years mean age of male population and 42.6810 years mean age of females).
According to international criteria, the population is considered old if proportion of people aged 65 and older exceeds 7% of the total population. As of start of 2017, population aged 65 years and older in Nizhnekamsk makes up 10%11 of the total population in the city. In Tukaevsky MD this criterion is twice as high (15%12 of the total population) and it means that every sixth resident in the MD is of the pension age.
Table 11 shows that most of the rural ACs have higher percentages of pensioners than the average for Tatarstan.
Table 11: Population in the ACs by age Location1) Population under working Labour force (%) Pensioners13 (%) (male age (aged 0-15), % > 60 and female > 55) Russia14 18 57 25
9 Official web-site of Nizhnekamsky Municipal District: Results of the Socio-economic Development – http://e- nizhnekamsk.ru/infrastruktura/economica/itogi.php 10 Local Authority of the Federal Service for National Statistics for the Republic of Tatarstan in Tukaevsky Municipal District. Socio-economic Development Indicators of Tukaevsky Municipal District in Six Months of 2017. 11 Local Authority of the Federal Service for National Statistics for the Republic of Tatarstan. Population in Cities and Municipal Districts of the Republic of Tatarstan by Gender and Age at the Start of 2017. Statistics Book. Kazan, 2017. 12 Local Authority of the Federal Service for National Statistics for the Republic of Tatarstan in Tukaevsky Municipal District. Socio-economic Development Indicators of Tukaevsky Municipal District in Six Months of 2017. 13 In Russia, male population retires at the age of 60 while female population retires at 55. 14 FR Federal Service of National Statistics.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 61 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Location1) Population under working Labour force (%) Pensioners13 (%) (male age (aged 0-15), % > 60 and female > 55) Republic of Tatarstan15 including: 19 57 24 Nizhnekamsky MD 20 58 22 Tukaevsky MD 19 54 27 ACs in Nizhnekamsky MD Nizhnekamsk City 20 60 20 Prosti village 20 532) 27 Bol’shoe Afanasovo village 13 62 25 Nizhnee Afanasovo village 2 76 22 Klyatle village2) 15 Est. 47 39 Balchykly village2) 16 No data No data Sarsaz-Bli village2) 15 Est. 28 57 Klyuch Truda village2) 15 Est. 56 28 ACs in Tukaevsky MD Ishteryakovo 17 55 28 Martysh 25 33 42 Avlash 13 49 38 Biklyan’ village 23 Nikoshnovka railway station 23 77 0 Kzyl-Yul village 28 Bakchasaray 33 Source: Social Baseline Study and Stakeholder Consultations (June – September 2017) Notes: 1) No data for Stroitelei village (part of Nizhnekams City), Kzyl-Yul and Biklyanskoye Forestry Farms. 2) Estimated.
7.4.3 Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples, Religion and Language According to the 2010 All-Russian Population Census16 nearly 200 national and ethnic groups are represented in Russia where the Russians account for 77.7% of the total country population while the Tatars represent the second largest ethnicity (3.7%). Eight ethnic groups accounting for over 10,000 people (the Tatars, Russians, Chuvash, Udmurt, Ukrainians, Mordovians, Mari and Bashkirs)17 are represented within the Republic of Tatarstan. The Tatars are the largest ethnic group that accounts for 53.2% of the population while Russians account for the second largest ethnicity (39.7%). Other ethnicities within the Republic of Tatarstan included Chuvash (3.1%), Udmurt (0.6%), Mordovians (0.5%), Mari (0.5%) and others (2.3%).
Similar to the regional trend the Tatars (50.1%) including Kryashens, Mishars and Siberian Tatars represent the largest ethnicity across the Nizhnekamsky MD while Russian account for (43.9%).
The majority of population within the ACs of Ishteryakovo, Avlash, Klyatle, Balchykly, Biklyan’ and Kyzyl-Ul are Tatars (92%-97%). Russian is the main ethnicity in the villages of Bolshoe Afanasovo, Nizhnee Afanasovo and Prosti and these communities are more mixed, including Tatars, Maris, Chuvashs, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz and Mordovians. Heads of Biklyan’, Ishteryakovo, Shingalchi and Afanasovo reported that there are no ethnic conflicts nor social unrest or tension in the villages, people live in peace and respect each other religions and there are inter-ethnic marriages in the ACs.
15 Regional Statistics Authority for the Republic of Tatarstan. 16 CIA World Fact book, 2017 17 Tatarstanstat, 2010 All-Russian Population Census.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 62 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
The formerly abolished Nikoshnovka village located close to Ishteryakovo village used to be a small community of approximately 30 Gypsies18 who lived in five households separately from other ethnic groups. The village was not an officially recognised settlement but was rehabilitated to give home to three Gipsy kumpania. Accommodation standards of the Gypsies were very basic. Residents of Ishteryakovo have assisted the Gypsy families in the past by helping to build basic housing of wood construction for them and the residents of Nikoshnovka village partake in cultural events with Ishteryakovo villagers. Two years ago, the Gypsies moved away from the village and it is known that two camps are now based in Naberezhnye Chelny and one camp is somewhere else. Since there are no more residents in the Nikoshnovka village this community was scoped out from the assessment.
Within Russia, 40 ethnic groups are legally recognised as ‘indigenous.’ The criteria for the status are that a population group has no more than 50,000 members, maintains a traditional way of life, inhabits certain remote regions of Russia and identifies itself as a distinct ethnic minority.19 The Project is not located in any of the RF subjects where indigenous communities – as defined by Russian live. Moreover, none of the groups of minorities identified as being present in the ACs are recognised as indigenous peoples in Russian law.20
IFC PS7 uses the term “Indigenous Peoples” in a wider sense to refer to a distinct social and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees:
● Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others ● Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories ● Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the mainstream society or culture or ● A distinct language or dialect, often different from the official language or languages of the country or region in which they reside. It means that PS7 applies to communities or groups of Indigenous Peoples who maintain a collective attachment, i.e., whose identity as a group or community is linked, to distinct habitats or ancestral territories and the natural resources therein. It may also apply to communities or groups that have lost collective attachment to distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the Project area, occurring within the concerned group members’ lifetime, because of forced severance, conflict, government resettlement programs, dispossession of their lands, natural disasters, or incorporation of such territories into an urban area. It has been determined that none of the ethnic minorities present in the ACs are identified as Indigenous Peoples as per IFC PS7 criteria. As such, the issues regarding Indigenous Peoples has been scoped out of further analysis in this ESIA.
Approximately 41% of the population in Russia follow the Russian Orthodox Church while 6.4% are of Islam religion (including 1.7% of Sunni). A large proportion of Russia’s population are non-practicing believers (25%) or non-religious (13%).21 Within the Republic of Tatarstan, Islam has the largest following (55%), followed by the Russian Orthodox Church (46%).
Currently there are a few faith-based organisations, religious groups and sabbath schools operating in Nizhnekamsky MD as detailed in below.
18 Gypsies are classified as an ethnicity within the Russia’s census. 19 International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, from http://www.iwgia.org/regions/arctic/russia 20 Federal Law No.104-FZ of 20.07.2000 (as amended on 28.12.2013) "On the General Principles of the Organization of Communities of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation". 21 The 2010 All-Russian Population Census.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 63 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 12: Religion in Nizhnekamsky MD, 2016 Type of faith-based community Islamic Orthodox Other confessions Faith-based organisations 24 19 7 Religious groups 2 1 1 Sabbath schools 14 7 1 Source: 2016 Progress Report by the Executive Committee of the Nizhnekamsky Municipal District
Both Russian and Tatar are the official languages of the Republic of Tatarstan in accordance with the Constitution and people in the ACs speak both languages. NKNK issues newspapers in Russian and Tatar and the Company’s radio station also caters for both languages. In the ACs there are no other groups with their own language.
7.4.4 Health The total life expectancy of 70.5 years22 estimated for 2015 gives Russia a World Life Expectancy ranking of 107 out of 228 countries. Available national statistics show that life expectancy in Russia differs significantly for male and female population. While in 2015 the life expectancy in Russia was estimated (by national statistics) as 71.39 years male life expectancy was still drastically lower than female — 65.92 years compared to 76.71 years.23 PFO is ranked 5 in total life expectancy among eight Federal Okrugs of Russia with the life expectancy of 71.39 years for men (65,66 years) and women (77 years). Life expectancy in Tatarstan increased from 69.0 to 72.81 years between 2006 and 2016 and is higher than the national average, although it displays a similar extent of difference for males (67.05 years) and females (78.38 years), with women expected to live 11.33 years longer.
The infant mortality rate24 for Russia was estimated at 6.90 deaths/1,000 live births in 2016 and Russia is ranked 148th out of 224 countries in the world, where a high ranking means high infant mortality. Infant mortality rate (5.7) in Nizhnekamsky MD increased in 2016 against 4.6 in 2015 whilst dropping over a period of three years by 24% between 2014 and 2016. Total mortality in Tatarstan is rated at 11 in 2016 while in Nizhnekamsky MD it reduced by 1.1% between 2014 and 2016 from 9.3 to 9.1. In 2016 the total mortality rate in Tukaevsky MD (11.8) is higher than in Nizhnekamsky MD although it displays a similar trend to reduction (by 16%) between 2014 and 2016.
Approximately 0.8-1.4% of people aged 15-49 are infected with HIV.25 Available national statistics26 show that the total number of people infected with human immunodeficient virus (“HIV”) and registered in Russia in 2015 amounted to 581,716 residents including 15% of first time diagnosed. Among them, men account for 61% and women for 39%. This is low compared to developing countries but slightly higher than most countries in Western Europe. HIV in Russia is spread mainly among the urban population (74%). Regional statistics indicated that 571 people were registered as infected with HIV across Tatarstan over the period of January- June 2017 against 654 people over same period in 2016.
In high-income countries, urban outdoor air pollution ranks in the top ten risk factors to health and is the first environmental risk factor. Evidence from epidemiological studies has shown that exposure to urban air pollution is linked, among others, to three important diseases:
● Respiratory infections in young children (estimated in under 5 years of age) ● Cardiopulmonary disease in adults (estimated above 30 years) ● Lung cancer in adults (estimated above 30 years).
22 World Health Organisations Web-resource via http://www.who.int/ 23 Federal Service of National Statistics of the Russian Federation. Russia’s Annual Statistics Digest, 2016. 24 CIA World Factbook. Web-resource available via https://www.cia.gov/ 25 UNAIDS estimate, 2011 26 Federal Service of National Statistics of the Russian Federation. Russia’s Annual Statistics Digest, 2016.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 64 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
With a rate of 13.6 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in 2016, Russia had the third highest outdoor air pollution death rate (98 deaths per 100,000 capita) after China and India compared to 184 countries as measured by WHO.27
The most common diseases in the wider Project area are respiratory diseases. According to the data in Table 13 the rate of respiratory diseases is high in Nizhnekamsky MD compared with Tukaevsky MD, Tatarstan and mean rate for Russia. The rate of nervous system diseases, skin diseases and congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities, ocular (eye) diseases, neoplasm (cancer), diseases of the digestive system and diseases of the circulatory system in Nizhnekamsky MD was also comparatively high. Rates of diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and of the genitourinary system are higher in Tukaevsky MD.
Table 13: Morbidity by main diseases first time diagnosed, per 1,000 capita Disease classes Nizhnekamsky MD Tukaevsky MD Tatarstan Russia (urban & rural data) 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2015 Respiratory diseases 468.6 452.8 245.5 149 345.8 337.9 Injury, poisoning and other complications 108.3 123.3 No data No data 107.3 90.4 caused by external factors Skin diseases 66.9 54.9 No data No data 47.8 44.0 Health complication after pregnancy, 102.1 61,8 No data No data 90.1 73.6 childbirth and postnatal period Nervous system diseases 60.9 63.1 No data No data 16.0 15.4 Diseases of the musculoskeletal system 102.1 61.8 No data No data 37.4 30.1 and connective tissue Congenital malformations, deformations 2.5 3 No data No data 1.6 2.0 and chromosomal abnormalities Neoplasm 40.1 41.3 3.6 4.12 10.7 11.4 Circulatory system diseases 11.3 7.7 No data No data 7.4 4.7 Endocrine diseases 10 25.4 No data No data 10.9 13.3 Ocular diseases 19.4 21.5 No data No data 26.5 33.3 Diseases of the ear 33.1 22.9 No data No data 22.7 26.6 Digestive system diseases 21.4 39.2 No data No data 33.3 35.3 Genitourinary system diseases 38.3 38.7 No data No data 43.1 46.4 Infections and infestations 28.5 40.3 No data No data 27.0 28.1 Source: Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky Municipal Districts Health Authorities of the Health Ministry of the Republic of Tatarstan, Tatarstanstat and Federal Service of National Statistics of the Russian Federation
Based on the data of the Russian Federal Information Fund (FIF), Tatarstan is categorised as a risk zone for total morbidity of adult population (18 years old and older) and for abnormalities during the peri-natal period of children under the age of one year, amongst others. However, according to the FIF data Tatarstan is not categorised as a risk zone (above average for the Russian Federation) for total mortality, infant mortality and cancer mortality factors.
Available health data regarding main diseases in ACs show a higher rate of respiratory diseases in Afanasovo rural settlement and digestive system diseases in Shingalchi rural settlement. Morbidity rates for endocrine, musculoskeletal system and connective tissue diseases, and circulatory system diseases in Afanasovo are higher than in other ACs in the local AoI while neoplasm rate is higher in Ishteryakovo.
27 World Health Organisation, Global Health Observatory Data Repository, 2012
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 65 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 14: Morbidity in ACs by main diseases first time diagnosed, per 1,000 capita in 2017 Disease classes Nizhnekamsky MD Tukaevsky MD Rural settlements Afanasovo Prosti Shingalchi Ishteryakovo Biklyan’ Respiratory diseases 131.2 No data 2.6 31.1 39.6 Digestive system diseases 130.8 No data 162.8 No data No data Diseases of the musculoskeletal 126.9 No data 4.5 No data No data system and connective tissue Circulatory system diseases 105.5 No data 8.9 No data No data Endocrine diseases 38.6 No data 25.6 No data No data Diseases of the genitourinary 17.5 No data 3.2 No data No data system Neoplasm 2.6 No data 0.0 3.9 1.4 Source: Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky Municipal Districts Health Authorities of the Health Ministry of the Republic of Tatarstan
In addition to the above conditions, malignant tumours diagnosed in Tatarstan for the first time exceeded 15,010 patients in 2015. Dynamics for the five-year period (2011-2015) indicate a general growth in malignant tumours morbidity in Tatarstan of 12%. In general, there are over 35,000 people with mental disabilities in the region. Mental diseases are on the third place after malignant tumours and circulatory system diseases in Tatarstan. Since 1987 over 800 cases of HIV have been identified with 542 people being subject to regular medical check-up In Nizhnekamsky MD.
The total mortality rate in the wider AoI demonstrates different trends for the two municipal districts affected by the Project (Table 15).
Table 15: Total mortality rate in the wider AoI, per 1,000 capita Location 2014 2015 2016 6 months 2017 Nizhnekamsky MD 9.3 14.3 14.0 11.1 Tukaevsky MD, including: 14.1 13.9 11.8 6.1 Ishteryakovo 12.0 13.9 5.8 3.9 Biklyan’ 11.8 13.7 10.8 8.8 Source: Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky Municipal Districts Health Authorities of the Health Ministry of the Republic of Tatarstan
In 2016, the mortality rate in Nizhnekamsky MD reduced by 22% against 2015, however it remains higher (11.1) than mortality rate in 2014 (9.3). The 2016 mortality rate in Tukaevsky MD is lower than in Nizhnekamsky MD and dropped by over 16% between 2014 and 2016. This reduction may be associated with the resettlement of Martysh village since people moved from Tukaevsky MD to neighbouring cities and municipal districts since a similar trend (reduction in mortality rate by over 50% between 2014 and 2016) is reported for Ishteryakovo rural settlement where Martysh village is located.
Major health problems reported in the data are consistent with those identified by WHO as being linked to air pollution. A search has been carried out by the Consultant to identify epidemiological studies for the Project area however none has been found either in English or in Russian.
The locally affected people who are currently most vulnerable to air quality health impacts are the prisoners (29 as of 2013) and staff working in correctional custody facility titled FKU IK-4 of the Federal Penitentiary Service in the Republic of Tatarstan (referred to as the “Prison”). These are the only people who are living within the industrial area itself and therefore are the most exposed to high levels of air pollutants within this area.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 66 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
7.4.5 Employment and Economy Labour market and employments With a labour force of 76.9 million28 Russia is ranked the eighth in the country comparison to other 233 countries in the world. About 3%29 of the Russia’s labour force is residing in Tatarstan (Table 16). Between 2012 and 2016 the labour force in Tatarstan slightly increased (by 0.4%) against the overall drop in labour force (by 1.6%) in the macro region of PFO.
Table 16: Labour force dynamics in Russia, 000’people Location 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Russia 75676.1 75,528.9 75,428.4 76,587.5 76,636.1 Privolzhsky Federal Okrug 15,715.1 15,605.0 15,515.7 15,502.2 15,457.3 Tatarstan 2,050.9 2,042.1 2,056.7 2,062.2 2,058.2 Source: Federal Service for National Statistics of the Russian Federation
In 2016 the employment rate in Russia made up 65.7%, including 71.6% for males and 60.4% for females. The employment rate in PFO (65.9%) is comparable with the country level statistics whilst being higher in Tatarstan (68.7%).30
The 2016 unemployment rate (5.5%) slightly dropped in Russia against 2015 (5.6%). Then 2016 unemployment rate for male population (5.7%) is higher than for females (5.3%).31 By July 2017 the unemployment rate in Tatarstan is reported by employment authorities to be 0.64% and it remains relatively low in the wider Project AoI (Table 17).
Table 17: Unemployment rates in the Project area, July 2017 Location Unemployed population Unemployment rate Labour market demand rate32 Tatarstan 14,620 0.64% 0.4 Nizhnekamsky MD 1,366 0.93% 0.5 Tukaevsky MD 105 0.61% 3.5 Source: Employment Centres of Nizhnekamsk and Naberezhnye Chelny
The labour force in the Republic of Tatarstan (population aged 15-72) averaged at 52.8%33 of the total population of Tatarstan between May-July 2017. 96.5% of the workforce is engaged in the economy and 3.5% has no occupation, but are actively seeking it (according to the ILO methodology they are classified as unemployed).
Official unemployment rates (as of July 2017) in the ACs are lower compared to the average unemployment rates for the region and the wider Project AoI, or even zero (in Ishteryakovo rural settlement). However, data provided by the Afanasovo rural settlement indicate that there are 20 unemployed residents (0.8% of the community’s labour force) in the village (as of July 2017) and this means that actual unemployment rates in the Project area may differ from the rates officially reported. According to the ACs representatives, unemployment rates remain low or decrease further over recent three years. The gender profile of registered unemployment as summarised in Table 18 shows that share of the unemployed female population in the ACs varies from 44% to 100%. Among the unemployed population the largest unemployment is among men and
28 CIA World Fact Book, 2017 29 Federal Service for National Statistics of the Russian Federation. Labour Force in Russia’s Federal Entities, Mean Annual, April 2017. 30 Federal Service of National Statistics of the Russian Federation. Employment Rates in Russia’s Federal Entities, Mean Annual, April 2017. 31 Federal Service of National Statistics of the Russian Federation. Decent Work Indicators, April 2017. 32 Labour market demand rate is a ratio between the registered unemployed population and available jobs. 33 Территориальный орган Федеральной службы государственной статистики по Республике Татарстан. Комплексный информационно- аналитический доклад «Социально-экономическое положение Республики Татарстан» // Занятость и безработица. Август 2017.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 67 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
women of 30-49 years and preretirement age in Afanasovo, Prosti and Shingalchi rural settlements of Nizhnekamsky MD. All male population has jobs in Prosti village.
Table 18: Work force status in the ACs, July 2017 Indicator Nizhnekamsky MD Tukaevsky MD Afanasovo Prosti Shingalchi Ishteryakovo Biklyan’ Total population 3,766 659 1,941 664 1,730 Working age population 63% 40% 51% 54% 50% Unemployed population, 9 (0.4%) 3 (1.1%) 6 (0.6%) 0 (0%) 5 (0.6%) including: ● male population 5 (56%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) - No data ● female population 4 (44%) 3 (100%) 4 (67%) - No data Unemployed population by age groups: 16-19 years - - - - No data 20-29 years 1 (11%) 1 (33%) 1 (17%) - No data 30-49 years 2 (22%) 2 (67%) 2 (33%) - No data 50 years and older 6 (67%) - 3 (50%) - No data Source: Employment Centres of Nizhnekamsk and Naberezhnye Chelny
The majority of the unemployed in the ACs are people with university degrees or skilled labour force who may provide labour resources for the Project. A similar trend is noticed in Tukaevsky MD with higher share (22%) of the unemployed with secondary general education (Table 19). Since the unemployed are not registered in Ishteryakovo rural settlement while no data is available for Biklyan’ rural settlement the education profile of the unemployed in Tukaevsky MD is summarised for the whole district.
Table 19: Education profile of the unemployed in the ACs, July 2017 Indicator Nizhnekamsky MD Tukaevsky MD Afanasovo Prosti Shingalchi Education status of the unemployed population: 9 3 6 105 (100%) ● with university degree 2 (22%) - 2 (33%) 35 (33%) ● skilled workforce 5 (56%) 2 (67%) 3 (50%) 37 (35%) ● with secondary general education - 1 (33%) - 28 (27%) ● with basic general education 2 (22%) - 1 (17%) 5 (4.8%) Source: Employment Centres of Nizhnekamsk and Naberezhnye Chelny
Majority of the Russia’s labour force (63%) is engaged in the services sector while 27.6% of labour force is occupied in industry and 9.4% in agriculture.34 Regional statistics for 2015 indicate that most of population in Tatarstan is engaged in processing industries, wholesale and retail sector, goods and vehicles maintenance and repairs (Table 20). There are few construction sector companies operating across the region.
Table 20: Employment by sector, 2015 Economic Sector Russia Tatarstan Agriculture, hunting and forestry 9.2 9.5 Fisheries and fishing 0.2 0.0 Mining 1.6 2.2 Processing industries 14.4 17.2 Power and gas generation and transmission, and water treatment and supply 2.8 2.5
34 CIA World Fact Book, 2017.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 68 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Economic Sector Russia Tatarstan Construction 8.3 9.7 Wholesale and retail sector, goods and vehicles maintenance and repairs 18.8 17.4 Hotels and restaurants 2.0 2.2 Transport and communications 8.0 7.0 Financial sector 1.9 1.9 Real estate and renting services 8.8 8.4 Civil and military services, social insurance 5.5 4.2 Education 8.1 8.8 Healthcare and provision of social services 6.6 5.7 Other utility, social and personal services 3.7 3.4 Source: Tatarstanstat35
Residents in the ACs are occupied in public, social, retail and education organisations, in construction, services and agriculture sectors, and industries, including large industries operating in the Nizhnekamsk industrial hub that accommodates 7 large industries with 23% share of products generated in Tatarstan including NKNK, Nizhekamskshina, Nizhnekamsky Mechanical Plant, TAIF-NK, TANEKO, Nizhnekamsktechuglerod, and TGK- 16 that operates Nizhnekamsk CHP-1000 Plant (branch of Tatneft). The Nizhnekamsky industrial hub provides about 41,500 jobs, including over 16,000 jobs within NKNK. The agribusiness is not well presented in the Project AoI.
Wages and incomes In 2016 the average monthly nominal wage in Russia paid in organisations made up RUB36 36,70937 with a consistent trend to increase (by 38% compared to 2012). Nominal wages paid in June 2017 in PFO are lower than the average in the country by 18% with the highest average monthly nominal wages being paid in Perm Kray (RUB 33,877) and the Republic of Tatarstan (RUB 33,433). Monthly nominal wages in Tatarstan are higher in the oil refinery industries (RUB 57,015), mining industries (RUB 54,336) and scientific researches (RUB 62,781).38
Wages are higher in Nizhnekamsky MD and Nizhnekamsk City (42,000) than those of Tukaevsky MD (RUB 33,260). The lowest wages in Tukaevsky MD are noticed in operations to maintain non-residential premises, in crop production" and vehicles maintenance and repairs.39
In January-June 2017, the average monthly wages in NKNK is RUB 48,715 being higher than the average wages in the country and Tatarstan.
7.4.6 Education In Russia education includes four major sub-systems: (i) general education, (ii) vocational education, (iii) supplementary education and (iv) vocational training40 (Table 21).
35 Federal Law of 22.08.1996 No.125-FZ “On Higher and Post-University Vocational Education”. 36 RUB is the abbreviation for Russian Rouble. As of 1 September 2017, RUB 69.62 equalled to €1 (by the Bank of Russia). 37 Federal Service of National Statistics of the Russian Federation. Monthly average nominal wage in organisations across Russia in 1991-2017. August 2017. 38 Local Authority of the Federal Service of National Statistics for the Republic of Tatarstan. Integrated Information and Analytics Report “Socio-economic status of the Republic of Tatarstan”. // Wages. August 2017. 39 Local Authority of the Federal Service of National Statistics for the Republic of Tatarstan in Tukaevsky Municipal District. Socio-economic Indicators of Tukaevsky Municipal District over Six Months in 2017. 40 Higher vocational education and supplementary vocational education is governed at the national level. All levels of general education, secondary vocational education and vocational training are managed locally at the regional and/or municipal level.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 69 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 21: Education system in Russia General Education Vocational Education Supplementary Vocational Training Education Pre-school education (for kids Secondary vocational Supplementary Vocational training aims at adults under the age of 6 to 7) education (colleges and education for of all ages different professional technical schools) children and adults competences who need to acquire knowledge of how to use Elementary general education Higher education (bachelor Supplementary a particular piece of equipment, (grades 1st to 4th) degree) vocational education technology, hardware and Basic general education (grades Higher education (specialist’s software and other professional 5th to 9th) degree and master degree) tools, or to obtain qualification, Secondary general education Higher education (excellence grade, class and category as a (grades 9th to 11th) training for highly qualified skilled worker or office employee specialists) without changing a previously acquired level of education
A network of general, vocational and supplementary education institutions exists in the wider project area. Nizhnekamsk MD operates 26 pre-school institutions and 10 schools41 (including basic schools and secondary schools). Nizhnekamsk City operates 69 pre-schools, 40 schools (including basic and secondary schools, part- time schools, lyceums and gymnasiums), 26 supplementary education organisations for children, 11 secondary vocational education organisations (colleges) and six higher education establishments (including three private universities) and their branches. One of universities and one secondary vocational institution train specialists relevant to NKNK’s profile:
● Nizhnekamsky Chemical and Technological Institute (Branch) of the Kazan National Research and Technological University ● Nizhnekamsk Petrochemicals and Refineries College named after N.V. Lemaev. These institutions are the key suppliers of junior specialists and skilled workers for NKNK within the wide Project AoI. Thus on 2016 NKNK employed 431 graduates (vs 396 graduates in 2015). These vocational institutions collaborate closely with the NKNK’s Training Centre in vocational guidance and preparation of education programmes. Annually over 1,700 students undertake internship within NKNK operations (1764 in 2016 and 1711 in 2015). While operating since 1966 it has started training of NKNK’s staff since 1997 and is focused on training petrochemical workers and development competences of NKNK’s managers and specialists. The Training Centre has developed over 30 training programmes and nowadays satisfies 90% of NKNK’s training demand. The Training Centre has a lifetime license for training and education issued by the RF Ministry of Education and Science, operates 11 specialized training rooms, and conducts training and improves competences on over 100 professional occupations. Every year, over ten thousand employees improve their qualifications.
Across Tukaevsky MD there are 25 pre-schools, 26 basic and secondary schools, and three supplementary education organisations for children. Similar to Nizhnekamsky MD no secondary or higher vocational institutions operate across the municipality being all based in the city of Naberezhnye Chelny, including 10 colleges and 11 universities42 (of which five are private organisations). Few colleges in Nizhnekamsk and Naberezhnye Chelny may supply skilled construction workforce for the Project.
All rural settlements within the local AoI have pre-school institutions and elementary and secondary schools. These general education organisations are located in the largest village or villages within the rural settlement and for this reason smaller communities have no schools or pre-schools (like villages of Stroiteley, Nizhnee Afanasovo, Avlash, Klyatle, Balchykly and Martysh). below provides an overview of the type of educational institutions present within these communities and their size. Information from the stakeholder interviews suggests that in general, there seems to be enough teachers for the number of students. Some schools and kindergardens are under-subscribed – for example, one school was designed for 864 students but currently
41 Department of Pre-school Education in Nizhnekamsky Municipal District. 42 Department of Pre-school Education in Tukaevsky Municipal District.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 70 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
has only 50 students studying and other schools are closing certain classes. The class closures will mean that some students will need to travel to Nizhnekamsk to continue their education.
Table 22: General education institutions within the ACs, as of July 2017 ACs Pre-school Students Elementary Students Secondary Students Total school school43 Prosti village 1 17 1 13 1 22 52 Bolshoe Afanasovo 1 145 0 0 1 282 427 Shingalchi village 2 no data 0 0 1 72 no data Ishteryakovo village 1 11 0 0 1 27 38 Biklyan’ village 1 68 0 0 1 113 181 Source:
According to information from the Ishteryakovo rural settlement there is a strong demand in teachers of English language in the community and similar trend has been observed in Nizhnekamsk noted from plenty of advertisements across the city inviting teachers of English in local schools and pre-schools.
7.4.7 Access to Social Services According to 2015 national statistics in Russia 100% of cities and towns and 97% of urban communities benefit from centralised water supply systems whereas in rural areas only 33% of communities are connected to municipal water networks. Approximately 98% (compared to 97% in 2006) of cities and towns and 84% (compared to 80% in 2006) of urban communities have centralised sanitation facilities. Majority of rural communities (95%) are not connected to sanitation systems. About 76,000 boiler houses operate in Russia to provide heat and hot water services to residents and local communities. Approximately 43% of all boiler houses operate in urban areas. The number of boiler houses in rural areas increased by 24% compared to 2006 (according to 2015 data).
Water consumption in the Republic of Tatarstan is estimated at 114.6 litters of water per capita a day. Water losses and leakages account for 15.2% of the total water delivered in the distribution network in 2016 (against 14.7% in 2015). Deteriorated water networks explain, to a great extent, high water consumption rates. Water mains are most deteriorated in the cities of Elabuga (81% of water mains need replacement), Nizhnekamsk (61%), Kazan (57%) and Aznakaevo (52%).
The sewer network comprised 1,821.3 km of sewers in 2016 (against 1,781.9 km in 2015) whereas 86% are in urban areas and 14% are in rural areas. Gas distribution systems involve 35,700 km of gas pipelines including 23% in urban areas and 77% in rural areas of Tatarstan in 2016. Tatarstan operates 2,064 heat generation facilities (as of January 1, 2017) supplying heat to communities and public organisations. Majority (99%) are gas-fired facilities. Households in the ACs have different access to centralised utility services as summarised in Table 23 below.
Table 23: Households in the ACs connected to centralised services, % Centralised utility services Total Location Wastewater Electricity Gas households Water supply disposal supply supply ACs Nizhnekamsky MD Nizhnekamsk City including: apartment blocks 784 100% 100% 100% 100% individual houses 95 No data No data No data No data
43 Secondary schools conventionally include classes of elementary school. For this reason, in most villages elementary schools do not operate as separate institutions.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 71 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Centralised utility services Total Location Wastewater Electricity Gas households Water supply disposal supply supply Prosti village 590 62% 0% 100% 56% Bol’shoe Afanasovo village 670 100% 87% 100% 99% Nizhnee Afanasovo village 234 100% 83% 100% 97% Shingalchi rural settlement1) 1,229 100% 11% 100% 100% ACs in Tukaevsky MD Ishteryakovo village 304 94% 16% 99.6% 90% Martysh village 14 71% 0% 100% 100% Avlash village 80 96% 0% 100% 88% Biklian’ village 759 15% 14% 91% 85% Nikashnovka railway station No data No data No data No data No data Kzyl-Yul village 20 0% 0% 100% 0% Bakchasaray 48 0% 0% 100% 100% Source: Tatarstanstat and data provided by heads of the rural settlements Notes:1) Data provided by Shingalchi rural settlement do not specify available utility services in each village (Shingalchy, Klyatle, Balchikly, Kliuch Truda) constituting the rural settlement but indicate consolidated information for the whole rural settlement. Available data provided by the rural settlements within the local AoI indicate that majority of household in the villages benefit from centralised water, electricity and gas supply services while in Prosti village and small communities in Tukaevsky MD (Avlash, Martysh, Kzyl-Yul and Bakchasaray) households have no connection to centralised sewer systems. In Martysh village, only 14 households still remain non-resettled and all of them are connected to electricity and gas supply systems and majority of these households (10) have access to centralised water supply services.
In Tatarstan urban areas, 51.2% of the total housing stock include stone and brick houses, while 35.5% are panel buildings. In rural areas, 46.5% of dwellings are wooden houses and 38% are built of stone and brick. About 19% of dwellings in urban areas and 28% of dwellings in rural areas are built before 1971.44 The oldest houses in the local AoI were constructed in early1960s and majority of dwellings are brick, stone and timber (beams or logs) houses. Among 14 remaining households in Martysh village, nine families occupy log houses while the other five live in brick houses.
Figure 22: Martysh prior to resettlement Figure 23: Resettled Martysh, August 2017
Source: Mott MacDonald Source: Mott MacDonald
44 Tatarstanstat. Local Authority of the Federal Service of National Statistics for the Republic of Tatarstan. Integrated Information and Analytics Report “Socio-economic status of the Republic of Tatarstan”. Housing and Utilities. No.5, January-May 2017.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 72 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Currently all rural settlements within the local AoI have good access to community and social services and infrastructure including access to banks, health services, post offices, catering facilities and shops (Table 24).
Table 24: Community and social services and infrastructure in the ACs, as of July 2017 Number of organisations Location Health Shops and Bank Post- Sports Catering Libraries Cultural services45 trading services offices venues services facilities ACs Nizhnekamsky MD Nizhnekamsk City including: 20 20 19 13 20 20 9 7 Stoitelei village - - - 1 - - - - Prosti village 1 3 - - - - 1 1 Bol’shoe Afanasovo village 1 12 1 - 7 1 1 1 Nizhnee Afanasovo village - 1 ------Shingalchi rural settlement1) 2 5 1 - - - 3 3 ACs in Tukaevsky MD Ishteryakovo village 1 2 - 1 - 1 1 2 Martysh village ------Avlash village 1 1 ------Biklyan’ village 1 7 1 - - - - 1 Nikoshnovka railway station ------Kzyl-Yul village ------Bakhchisaray village 1 1 Source: Data provided by heads of the rural settlements, Internet Notes: 1) Data provided by Shingalchi rural settlement do not specify community and social infrastructure available in each village (Shingalchy, Klyatle, Balchikly, Kliuch Truda) constituting the rural settlement but indicate consolidated information for the whole rural settlement.
Within the rural settlements there are few smaller villages with no access to community and social services in the village (such as Nikashnovka railway station and Kzyl-Yul village) and local residents have to travel to neighbouring villages where such services are available.
7.4.8 Project Land Status and Use Six main plots of land (total area of 84,187m2) will be needed for the Project. Three plots have been owned by NKNK (total area of 75,223m2) since 2012-2016 and three main plots are leased from the city of Nizhnekamsk via respective land lease agreements (dated 2010-2013) for a period of up to 49 years. Another six plots currently owned by NKNK will be used partly during construction and operation phases of the Project, including for the construction lay-down area, warehouses and construction workers’ accommodation. The Project will occupy approximately 36 hectares in total. It is expected that the construction lay down areas will be at a number of sites within the industrial area and have previously been used for this purpose. The warehouses for products from the Project are also expected to be within the industrial area, with the location being subject to finalization.
Currently it is assumed that construction workers will be supplied by local contractors from the existing local and regional workforce with construction management personnel being brought in by an international main contractor (subject to selection). Therefore, at this stage it is expected that a separate accommodation camp will be required for regional and international workers, engineers and management staff and this will be
45 Health services in rural villages are provided via rural health posts.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 73 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
accommodated within the existing land plot owned and operated by NKNK and located southward of the construction site. No additional land acquisition is required for the workers accommodation camp.
The Project site has been previously unused with the exception of providing a hard-standing for a construction lay-down area for another project. The Project will use the existing infrastructure including the ethylene storage facility, water abstraction and water filtration facilities, natural gas supply system, landfill and effluent discharge point and will not result in any of this existing infrastructure having to be redesigned or expanded.
In order to minimise the Project impacts on the existing NKNK wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) the Project will construct and operate a new industrial wastewater treatment plant at the existing open storage ground adjacent to the Project site owned and operated by NKNK. This will collect and treat domestic wastewater generated by the Project and storm water from the site and generated industrial wastewater to be recycled in the process.
In Russia, industrial facilities are required to establish a Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ) for the protection of people and the environment in the immediate vicinity of the facility. Historically, individual SPZs were in place for the individual industries located within the industrial hub. An overarching SPZ has been established for the whole of the industrial hub in 2008 which has been used as the basis for the assessments in this ESIA. The overall SPZ includes the areas covered by the previous individual SPZs and covers a greater area overall. Two existing villages, Alan’ and Martysh were located within the overall SPZ and all the industries in the industrial hub have supported the local Sanitary Authority and municipalities of Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky MDs in the resettlement of these villages. All the residents of Alan’ and the majority of residents in Martysh have been successfully resettled, however there remains 14 households (17 residents) in Martysh village who are currently refusing to leave the community. It remains the responsibility of the Tukaevsky Municipality to oversee and finalise the resettlement.
7.4.9 Transportation Infrastructure and Public Transport Services The transportation infrastructure that connects the Project site with the existing dock on the Kama River (17km road) and Nizhnekamsk City is well developed (in operation since early 1960s) and maintained by all industries operating within the industrial hub. It is used in sourcing of most of the current workforce from the City. There are 13 special bus and tram routes from the City to the industrial hub as well as eight tram routes and 14 public bus routes in the City, and 25 interurban, 13 interregional and 14 suburban routes. The closest airport to the Project site is Begishevo international airport, located approximately 9 km eastwards of Nizhnekamsk in Tukaevsky MD.
Although there has been an increase in the length of public motorways in both Nizhnekamsky and Tukaevsky MDs since 2006 as well as an increase in the number of privately owned vehicles, the public transport network in Project-affected villages remains underdeveloped and buses only pass through few villages few times a day (Table 25).
Table 25: Public transport services in the ACs, as of July 2017 Rural settlement Public transport routs Schedule Prosti 0 - Afanasovo 2 One bus route via Bolshoe Afanasovo One bus route via Nizhnee Afanasovo route Shingalchi 1 No data Ishteryakovo 0 - Biklyan’ 1 7 trips a day via Biklyan’ village Source: Heads of rural settlements
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 74 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
7.4.10 Gender Relations The Global Gender Gap Index assesses countries on how well they are dividing their resources and opportunities among their male and female populations. Featured in the 2016 Report it ranks 144 economies according to how well they are leveraging their female talent pool, based on economic, educational, health- based and political indicators. In global rankings Russia is ranked 75 next to Venezuela (74) and Romania (76) with the overall performance on the Global Gender Gap Index of 0.691 where 0 = inequality and 1 = equality. The findings indicate that there remain significant disparities between men and women in political participation (Russia is ranked 12946 under this sub-index). Women in parliament account for 14% whereas percentage of women holding ministerial portfolios is only 6%. In terms of economic participation and opportunity Russia is ranked 41 with rank 1 for professional and technical workers among whom females account for 63%. The best rankings were received for educational attainment (45 with rank 1 in enrolment in primary and tertiary education) with 100% literacy rates for both female and male populations.
Unemployment rates among women (5.3%) are slightly lower than for men (5.7%)47 across Russia (as of 2016) and there are no particular gender disparity challenges. However lower incomes and fewer opportunities for women compared to urban centres are faced by female population in rural areas, including in the wider and local Project’s AoI. With high urbanisation rates in the region and historical attachment to local industries gender roles are clearly defined in all ACs, where women participate in income-earning jobs similar to men. Nevertheless, household roles tend to be gender-defined with women undertaking most of the cooking, cleaning, gardening and care of dependants whilst men more often tend to repairs and maintenance.
7.4.11 Deprivation and Vulnerable Groups Vulnerable groups within the ACs include children, the elderly (retired and war veterans), the sick and disabled, migrants, the poor and troubled families.48 Some of the rural villages in the local AoI have high percentages of elderly people and there are high incidences of sickness and disease in the wider AoI. Living conditions tend to be worse in the villages than in the City and there are potentially still some residents living in Alan’ and Martysh who have not yet been resettled because some of the elderly people in these villages are reluctant to move into the City and leave behind their rural homes and gardens. The village of Kzyl-Yul which is home to 24 people, Avlash village with 105 residents and Nikashnovka railway station (around 40 people living there) are located next to the border of the overall SPZ and people residing there are considered to be the most vulnerable to potential changes caused by the operational phase of the Project.
Meetings with the local community leaders revealed local knowledge of vulnerable households within the ACs as summarised in Table 26.
Table 26: Deprivation and Vulnerable Groups in the ACs, as of July 2017 Number of people or families Location Children/ Disabled Large Single War Widows Former Job Orphans families parents veterans prisoners seekers Nizhnekamsk City 47,088/597 18,488 2,076 No data 126 448 No data 1,366 including: Prosti rural 130/3 3949 11 3 11 - - 0 settlement Afanasovo rural 616/7 28050 15 53 1 3 5 20 settlement
46 Quoted from World Economic Forum, http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/economies/#economy=RUS, retrieved September 2017 47 Quoted from OECD Library, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/, retrieved September 2017 48 Troubled families include (i) families with one or two alcoholic parents, (ii) families with a high criminal risk factor, (iii) families with anti-social behaviours, sometimes resulting from poor educational backgrounds, and (iv) families where there is conflict. 49 Including three disabled kids. 50 Including 14 disabled kids.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 75 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Number of people or families Location Children/ Disabled Large Single War Widows Former Job Orphans families parents veterans prisoners seekers Shingalchi rural 134/1 16151 20 - 2 12 3 - settlement Ishteryakovo rural 111/1 4752 - - - 33 2 6 settlement Biklian’ rural 181/2 12553 21 13 4 226 1 4 settlement Source: Social Welfare Authority for the Nizhnekamsk Municipal District of the TR Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare and data provided by heads of the rural settlements (Управление социальной защиты Министерства социальной защиты РТ в Нижнекамском муниципальном районе и данные сельских поселений).
The vulnerable groups identified here have been considered in the planning of stakeholder engagement for the Project. Measures used include community liaison via well respected and trusted village Deputies, distribution of hard copies of project documentation in both Russian and Tatar, and use of widely circulated newspapers and radio stations for disclosure of Project-related information. In addition, meetings have been undertaken in the rural settlements during the consultation process to inform vulnerable groups about the Project and listen to their views.
7.5 Assessment of Impacts
7.5.1 Construction Phase Impacts
Employment Generation It is expected that the construction of the outside battery limits (OSBL) of EP-600 Plant will commence in October 2018 and will take almost three years. Construction of main production facilities of EP-600 Plant will start approximately in early in 2019 (February) to be completed by November 2021. The main construction phase of the Project is expected to last approximately 55-60 months.
At the peak construction periods between April 2020 and July 2021 the Project is likely to generate employment for between 8,500 and 9,000 workers. On average, it is anticipated the construction phase will employ approximately 7,000 people per year. The working hours on site during the construction phase will be eight hours per day and one-hour lunch break in three shifts.
It is intended that NKNK will select an international main contractor who will decide on sourcing local subcontractors from the wider Project AoI or elsewhere in Tatarstan or other parts of the country, if necessary so that the majority of the construction workforce will originate from Russia. Although the intention is to source workers locally as much as possible, NKNK is aware that it may be difficult to arrange for the entire construction phase, particularly at peak. Moreover, the risk exists that companies operating within the industrial hub may start construction commencing immediately prior to the Project’s construction phase and local contractors may not be available being engaged on other works. Should this be the case, it will be necessary to use other contractors operating in Russia. It is not known at this time where most of the labour force will originate from should this second scenario occur.
Availability of employment on the Project was discussed at the consultation meeting with representatives of ACs during the ESIA Scoping Phase. Temporary employment generation in the construction phase of the Project has the potential to stimulate the local economy through the provision of income to workers, and the potential to support vulnerable groups especially if vulnerable local people are employed. The Project will also provide opportunities for local people to increase their income if they are in low paid work or working in a sector
51 Four disabled kids. 52 Including five disabled children in Ishteryakovo village. 53 Including seven disabled children.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 76 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
where salaries are decreasing. Nonetheless, the low unemployment rates within the ACs suggest that the benefit of employment generated through this phase will not be as significant an effect as it would be in an area of high unemployment. Local people are therefore on the whole considered to be of low sensitivity to employment generation impacts during the construction phase. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be moderate as it is certain to occur at a large scale, but it will be a temporary impact that will affect a relatively small number of local people. The impact is therefore considered to be a beneficial impact of minor significance to the local population.
Impact of Influx of Workers and Population Changes The Project intends to provide accommodation for workers who need to be sourced from a greater distance. The intention is to arrange the construction camp at the existing equipment storage site owned by NKNK and located southwards of the construction site within the industrial hub area. The expected capacity of the construction camp is 8,000-8,500 workers.
There is a risk of pressure on the social infrastructure (local health centres and hospitals) may exist although local health care authorities strongly believe that health care organisations have sufficient capacities to cope with the influx of construction workers in the local AoI (for example in case of serious emergencies) and the Project may result in that new jobs for doctors and medical workers are provided by the government in the local AoI.
Based on available information, the local communities are considered to be of medium sensitivity to influx of construction workers bearing in mind extensive construction activities in the local AoI over the recent years. However, little control over potential health impacts on community members and potential security risks associated with the influx of foreign labour force suggest a minor magnitude of the unmitigated impact since health impacts (infections, HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.) could potentially be life threatening or permanent. The unmitigated impact of influx of workers and population changes is thus considered to be adverse of minor significance. However, because a final decision has not been made on the sourcing of the workforce. At this stage, the exact origin of the workforce is unknown.
Localised Economic Development During the construction phase the Project will need to purchase materials, equipment and services, thereby creating business opportunities for suppliers. These opportunities will provide economic benefits to businesses, especially to those who receive longer term contracts. For example, workers’ accommodation services may be contracted throughout the construction phase. This may also be the case for worker transportation, catering, security services providers, or suppliers of construction materials, plant and equipment. If these contracts are provided to local companies and businesses, as is anticipated, this could help to benefit the local economy. There are other local businesses, such as restaurants and hotels in Nizhnekamsk, which are also likely to benefit from increased business during the planning and construction phase of the Project.
Overall, the procurement of goods, equipment and services by the Project will be a beneficial impact to suppliers, who are considered to be of low sensitivity as they are likely to have access to similar opportunities elsewhere. The magnitude of this impact is considered to be minor to moderate as it will be largely restricted to the construction phase. Therefore, there is predicted to be a beneficial effect of minor to moderate significance.
Disturbance Temporary noise and vibration impacts during the construction the Project are expected to arise due to site clearance and ground works, delivery and movement of materials as well as construction of infrastructure and buildings, and installation of equipment.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 77 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Additional vehicle movements during the construction and operational phases of the Project may generate noise impacts from road traffic on local roads and site tracks. For local communities of Bolshoye Afanasovo, Nizhnee Afanasovo (Afanasovo rural settlement) and Stroiteley village (part of Nizhnekamsk City) nuisance and disturbance impacts may be associated with the increased traffic on the neighbouring main road the Project will use during the construction phase to deliver equipment from the existing dock on the Kama River to the Project site as well as truck movements during construction for the transportation of materials and workforce.
Additionally, there will also be cumulative impacts with other potential projects in the industrial hub. Further industrialisation of the locality, construction activities and potential poor management practices by other projects could lead to deterioration in physical and mental wellbeing of community members especially in those three communities mentioned above.
The sensitivity of local residents to disturbance is medium taking into account extensive urbanisation and construction activities over the previous years. However, it is not easy for local people to move away and although disturbance associated with construction operations will be temporary, the industrialisation of the surroundings is effectively permanent. The overall magnitude is therefore considered to be moderate, and the unmitigated impact is considered to be adverse of moderate significance.
Land Acquisition and Resettlement At this stage of the Project it is not expected that any additional land will need to be purchased or leased for the main Project sites. The land for the Project, pipelines and wastewater treatment facility are already owned by NKNK and the Project will not require that the existing overall SPZ is extended. The Project will utilise existing infrastructure including the ethylene storage facility, water abstraction and water filtration facilities, natural gas supply system, landfill and clarification ponds and will not result in any of this existing infrastructure having to be redesigned or expanded thus requiring additional land requisitions.
The land plot is available to accommodate the workers’ camp and no additional land is currently required. In case the Project will identify any need in land acquisition this will be carried out in compliance with IFC PS5.
7.5.2 Operational Phase Impacts
Employment Generation and Skills Development Employment generated during the operational phase of the Project will mainly be permanent, of a longer-term nature and at a smaller scale than in the construction phase. Once operational, it is expected that approximately 700 workers will be employed for the Project. The jobs will generally be for workers of a medium to high skill level.
During the operational phase, NKNK will implement two work schedules:
● Administrative staff will work five days a week, eight hours per day Mondays to Thursdays and seven hours on Fridays ● Operational staff will work in eight-hour shifts, whereby three shifts (i.e. 24 hours) are covered by four teams to allow for rest and holidays. NKNK plans to staff the majority of operational personnel from existing NKNK facilities with staff retraining at the NKNK’s Training Centre, where necessary. NKNK has already commenced training for some of the management staff. The remainder of the required staff will be sourced as graduates from the local vocational education institutions in Nizhnekamsk and job seekers of respective qualifications. Since NKNK is a principal employer and mainstay of the entire town these new jobs will not only contribute to the development of specialist skills and experience of the staff employed but will also contribute to improving the wellbeing of the local population.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 78 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Operational employees are considered to be of low sensitivity as unemployment rates in the local AoI are low and part of the workforce already receives regular salaries and have formal training which would allow them to explore other economic opportunities if they chose to. The magnitude of the impact is moderate as the operational jobs will be long-term, but far fewer people will be affected compared to during the construction phase. The employment generation from the operational phase of the Project without mitigation and benefit enhancement measures is considered to be a positive impact of minor significance.
Industrial Development Revenue The Project’s internal rate of return is currently estimated at 11.6%. The development of the Project will generate economic benefits through tax allocations to the national and regional budgets. Firstly, there will be an increase of tax paid by NKNK to the Republic of Tatarstan (80% of all taxes to be paid by the Project) since the Project will incur income tax, environmental charges, land and property taxes and the profit tax (major share of this tax will be paid to the RT budget). Secondly, the national budget tax allocations will be sourced from the VAT, social insurance payments on salaries, environmental payments and the profit tax (a minor share of the profit tax generated by the Project will be allocated to the national budget).
Since significant tax allocations are streamed to the consolidated budget of the region which distributes the budget funds among the MDs of Tatarstan the magnitude of this beneficial impact is considered to be moderate to the local population and vulnerable groups in the ACs. Considering current social support programmes targeted at deprived and low-income groups and vulnerable residents in the wider AoI and locally, their sensitivity towards potential change is estimated as medium and therefore this beneficial development revenue impact of the Project is estimated as being of moderate significance.
7.5.3 Decommissioning or Rehabilitation Phase Impacts
Employment Generation If there is a period of rehabilitation works, a number of temporary workers will be employed to upgrade the facilities. The scale of this impact will depend upon the technologies available at the time of rehabilitation but it is likely that fewer people will be employed than in the construction phase if the EP-600 Plant will be rehabilitated without expansion of the output.
Decommissioning works will require a greater number of temporary workforce to be employed by the Project. The scale of this impact will depend upon the decommissioning programme and technologies to be used. It is likely that fewer people will be employed than in the construction phase who will be readily available in the market and their sensitivity is thus considered to be low. The magnitude of the impact is rated as minor. Given the knowledge available at this stage, new jobs for decommissioning workers will have a negligible benefit.
Retrenchment When the Project is eventually decommissioned there will be retrenchment of the staff employed during the operational phase. This could cause income insecurity for those members of staff affected. Unmitigated retrenchment upon decommissioning is considered to be an adverse impact of minor significance as workers will be of medium sensitivity to this impact and it will be of minor magnitude, affecting only a limited number of people.
7.5.4 Potential Risks to be Mitigated and Managed
Risks to Workers Health, Safety and Labour Rights during Construction As of September 2017, the exact details relating to workers’ accommodation have not been finalised. The principal arrangement involves construction of a workers’ camp next to the construction site on the land plot that now accommodates the NKNK’s equipment storage facilities. The construction camp will be able to
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 79 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
accommodate 8,000-8,500 workers while at peak construction up to 9,000 workers may be on site. In that case some of the workforce will most likely be housed locally in apartment buildings and hotels in Nizhnekamsk.
According to Russian law, if a workers’ camp is required, it may be situated within the SPZ provided that each shift period on site does not exceed two weeks at a time.54 According to applicable international requirements workers’ accommodation is required to conform to IFC/EBRD guidance55 on construction workers’ accommodation as laid out in the ESMMP. For this purpose, prior to the beginning of the construction phase the main contractor will perform an audit of any existing workers’ accommodation to make sure it meets the required standards. Additionally, there will be monthly inspections of the construction workers’ accommodation, using the checklist provided in the IFC /EBRD Guidance Note which will be kept on record along with an action plan to resolve any issues and timeframes for close-out.
Site preparation, construction activities and the use of temporary workers’ accommodation pose potential risks to the health, safety, security and therefore wellbeing of construction workers if not managed appropriately. Health and safety (H&S) issues associated with the use of temporary accommodation sites include those relating to sanitation, disease, fire, cultural alienation, sleeping space, quality and quantity of food, personal safety and security, temperature control, recreation, etc.
Similarly, there is the risk of adverse OHS impacts related to personal accident or injury on any construction site. There are also potentially adverse impacts on workers related to their terms of engagement and relationship with their employer. Some of the OHS risks which are likely to arise during the construction phase of the Project, and are typical to construction sites for this type of facility include: exposure to physical hazards from use of heavy equipment and cranes; trip and fall hazards; exposure to dust and noise; falling objects; fire; exposure to hazardous materials including hazardous chemicals; and exposure to electrical hazards from the construction of the substation, realigning of the transmission line and the use of tools and machinery.
There are also potentially adverse impacts on workers related to their terms of engagement and relationship with their employer. Engagement risks may be associated with insufficient, late or non-payment of wages, lack of contract or poor contract conditions. There is a risk of mistreatment by management and risks in regards of visas and work permits, etc.
Construction workers on the Project are vulnerable to risks to their wellbeing and H&S on a daily basis. However, the Russian regulatory labour and H&S standards provide some protection from the main risks meaning their sensitivity is medium rather than high. The potential impact of serious injury, death or deterioration of wellbeing is thought to be unlikely to occur, and if it does it will affect a relatively small number of people. However, if these impacts do occur they could be life changing and permanent, therefore the magnitude of the risk is considered to be moderate. In conclusion, the unmitigated risk to the wellbeing, health and safety of workers during the construction phase is therefore considered to be an adverse impact of moderate significance, however one that can be mitigated through appropriate management planning.
Risks to Health, Safety, Security and Wellbeing of Local Communities during Construction There are a number of activities in the construction phase which if not mitigated are likely to cause risks or disturbance to local communities. For example, construction machinery and vehicle movements will increase existing traffic flow and may cause congestion in some locations, especially with the number of construction workers (up to 1,000 people at construction peak) that are expected to be transported by shuttle bus to Project sites if accommodated locally in Nizhnekamsk. Increased traffic may also result in road safety risks, especially in areas where there are pedestrians and cyclists on the road, in busy areas and near schools. For further discussion of the traffic impacts refer to Chapter 13.
54 This is a legal requirement of the sanitary authority (Rospotrebnadzor), stated in the document SanPiN 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03 “Sanitary Protection Zones and Sanitary Classification of Industries, Structures and Other Facilities” 55 Guidance Note by IFC and the EBRD. Workers’ Accommodation: Process and Standards, August 2009.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 80 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
There will be H&S risks to the local community posed by the existence of construction sites and presence of armed security guards. The transportation, storage and use of hazardous chemicals all pose H&S risks which will require effective management.
Local communities’ vulnerability to health, safety, security and wellbeing impacts is considered to be medium because community members will have little means to exert control over potential impacts on their day to day life, and most are unlikely to have the means to make the choice to move to another area where these impacts are not present. The unmitigated magnitude of the risk is moderate because although impacts could potentially be life threatening or permanent, they are thought to be unlikely to occur because communities do not live near to the construction site. The unmitigated risk of impacting health, safety, security and wellbeing of local communities during the construction phase is considered to be adverse of moderate significance.
Risks to Health, Safety, Security and Wellbeing of Operational Workers Operational H&S risks and impacts for workers working in the petrochemical industry are related to process safety, air emissions, exposure to chemical hazards, working in confined spaces, and fires and explosions, especially related to chemicals. The nature of the Project involves the use and production of potentially hazardous chemicals with risks for workers’ H&S in relation to inhalation, skin or eye contact, ingestion, fire and explosion. Several of the substances (benzene, 1,3-Butadiene and naphtha) are known or suspected carcinogens.
The operational workers are considered to be of high sensitivity as they will be working in close proximity to hazardous situations on a day-to-day basis. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be moderate because with all the existing OHS safeguards in place, actual impacts on workers are expected to be exceptional, however should a worker be affected, the impacts are potentially life-threatening. Therefore, the un-mitigated impact on the wellbeing of workers during the operational phase of the Project is considered to be an adverse impact of major significance. Operational workers’ H&S is also discussed in Chapter 8 on air quality.
Risk to Health, Safety, Security and Wellbeing of Local Communities during Operation In line with national requirements the boundary of the overall SPZ, which is designed to protect the health of local communities and the environment is set around the boundary of the existing industrial hub at different distances from respective pollution sources. Thus, the size of that overall SPZ varies between 2,500 m in the direction of the Stroiteley village and 5,300 m towards Avlash village and Nikashnovka railway station. It is not expected that the Project will lead to any changes to the existing overall SPZ. Community H&S in relation to noise impact and air quality are also assessed within this ESIA and are discussed in Chapters 8 and Chapter 14.
In addition to potential health impacts from poor air quality, there are also risks to community H&S from community members accessing the Project sites, including the associated facilities used by the Project such as the railway. However, strict security measures are in place such as a perimeter wall, manned gates and CCTV which will only allow managed entry. Emergency situations could occur in the operational phase, for example discharge or spill of hazardous chemicals to water or near residential areas or places of work, fire or explosion or injuries from road accidents. All communities living within the SPZ have been resettled with the exception of 14 households (17 people) remaining in Martysh village who are considered to be particularly vulnerable to all operational community H&S risks including emergencies. However, it is expected that by the operational phase of the Project, all people in Martysh village will be moved out of the overall SPZ.
The SIA has identified that a local custody centre (FKU IK-4 or the Prison) operated by RT Authority of the Federal Penitentiary Service is currently located within the NKNK industrial area. It was constructed in 1968 in parallel with the development of the NKNK original facilities, and is located in the immediate vicinity to the north-west of the Project site. The prison can accommodate 1,830 prisoners although according to available
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 81 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
information there were 29 prisoners and staff in the prison in 2014 and the prison is producing metalworks, woodworks, art forging, dry potatoes (for intra-system supplies) and confectionery products.
The effects of the Project on the prisoners within the industrial area have been assessed. The findings of the international air modelling (Chapter 8) indicate that both short and long term NO2 concentrations will increase at the Prison location but that the effects of the change in terms of Russian air quality standards are described as not significant. Other pollutants such as Volatile Organic Compounds are also not expected to change significantly as a result of incorporated mitigation included within the design to reduce fugitive emissions. Air modelling undertaken in line with the national requirement indicates that NO2 concentration near the Prison will also be lower than one maximum permissible concentration of the national standard. Findings of the national modelling on NO2 emissions and other pollutants are detailed in Volume III of the ESIA Report.Overall the sensitivity of the local population to H&S risks is considered to be high due to the currently elevated rates of respiratory illness, tumours, nervous system diseases, skin diseases, and birth abnormalities. The magnitude of impact is considered to be moderate, as whilst likely to occur only very exceptionally, the outcome of any injury or illness could be permanent. The resultant risk of impacts to health, safety and security of local communities is considered to be an adverse impact of major significance.
Risks to Community and Workers’ Health, Safety, Security and Wellbeing during Decommissioning Depending on the scale of the rehabilitation works, there will be risks and impacts to community and worker health and safety arising from the presence of a construction site and a construction workforce. Similar to the construction phase of the Project the sensitivity of these two groups of receptors is considered to be medium (refer to Section 7.5.1). These risks will need to be assessed in detail prior to commencing work, but are likely to be similar to those during the construction phase.
7.5.5 Cumulative Impacts The main cumulative impact identified in this SIA is the potential risk for other large construction projects to commence in the industrial hub prior to the construction phase of the Project which would compromise the ability of the Project to employ contractors and recruit workers locally. This may mean that contractors and workers for the Project construction phase are sourced from further afield. These issues have been discussed, where relevant, in the sub-sections above and respective mitigation measures are proposed below.
7.6 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
7.6.1 Overview This Section presents the measures that will be taken to avoid, reduce and compensate adverse social impacts, and to enhance the beneficial impacts of the Project. These measures have been consolidated with mitigation and enhancement measures for other disciplines and will be implemented through the ESMMP.
7.6.2 Employment Generation and Localised Economic Development The generation of local, and particularly permanent, employment and skills development opportunities has the potential to be the key benefit the Project will provide. The cooperation and support of the local communities is essential if this benefit is to be realised. In order to maximise the employment benefits to local communities, to manage expectations and to avoid social conflict that might arise in relation to perceived inequity of recruitment approaches, NKNK will adopt the following measures:
● Disclosure of a Recruitment Policy that specifically includes a requirement to prioritise local employment for positions that become available. The Policy will consider local literacy levels and gender issues and will be based on the principles of non-discrimination and equal opportunity. The Recruitment Policy should consider job availability and recruitment processes for contracting workers from vulnerable groups such as the unemployed, unskilled, ethnic minorities or people employed in the informal sector. The Policy will be
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 82 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
disclosed in ACs including all villages to maximise the potential for vulnerable persons’ inclusion in Project benefit-sharing. ● Descriptions of the employment and supply chain opportunities will be provided to local people and businesses for the construction and operational phases of the Project including information about required skill levels, indicative timeframes for recruitment and likely duration of contracts. This will allow prospective local employees and companies to prepare for and make informed decisions about opportunities. This may be particularly relevant to farmers who could need to weigh neglect of fields and agricultural income or subsistence against paid work. ● Provision of briefings and basic training for low qualification labour force to allow local people to take advantage of low or unskilled jobs. Of particular note for training considerations for the Project are health and safety training, assistance with what to expect in the recruitment process, specific task familiarisation and money management skills. ● Arranging skills development for the NKNK staff to be engaged at the new facility. ● Provision of the right to the contractor to employ local subcontractors and local residents in the ACs. ● Disclosure of procurement opportunities (at the construction and operation phases of the Project) to attract local suppliers to allow them benefiting from the Project. Should NKNK adopt these measures and ensure that all (sub)contractors apply them, in particular the policy to recruit people from vulnerable groups, then employment generation is expected to become a beneficial impact of moderate significance for the construction phase and of major significance for the operational phase of the Project as most jobs will be created for a skilled workforce and for a long term. This may potentially reduce out-migration from the from the local and wider AoI.
Localised economic development will be enhanced, resulting in moderate beneficial impact.
7.6.3 Managing Retrenchment A dedicated decommissioning strategy will be developed in advance of the end of Project life. This may possibly include the preparation of an ESIA and Environmental and Social Management Plan (“ESMP”) specifically relating to decommissioning.
A Retrenchment Plan will be prepared eighteen months prior to decommissioning and implemented in the post operation/decommissioning phase, or any other periods when large-scale staff redundancies are required for the Project. Such Retrenchment Plans must be developed in accordance with Russian law and the requirements of IFC PS2 and include measures to support workers finding alternative work. Such measures may include consultations with affected workers, collaboration with the local employment centres and government authorities who may assist in identification of new jobs for those who will be dismissed. With effective and timely planning, adverse impacts of retrenchment are possible to mitigate to minor significance.
7.6.4 Safeguarding the Wellbeing and Health and Safety of Workers NKNK has implemented an integrated Quality, Environmental, Health & Safety Management System since 2004. The Company holds a certificate of conformity for OHSAS 18001. The following specific measures or the development of labour policies and procedures will be employed by NKNK to ensure that the wellbeing of both NKNK and contractor workers is protected in accordance with Russian law, ILO core labour standards and international best practice as exemplified by IFC PS2, IFC EHS General Guidelines and the IFC EHS Guidelines for Large Volume Petroleum-based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing:
● Working conditions and management of worker relationships: – Issue individual contracts of employment for all Project staff detailing their rights and conditions in compliance with the Russian Labour Code and IFC PS2 requirements. Contracts should cover rights and obligations of the parties, hours of work, wages, overtime, compensation and benefits such as
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 83 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
maternity or annual leave. Update the contract when material changes occur. Require through respective provisions in contracts with all (sub)contractors that they do the same – Monitor the contractor to have individual contracts of employment for all Project staff in line with the RF Labour Code and IFC PS2 – Require, through contract clauses, that contractors and sub-contractors include the provisions that prohibit discrimination of any kind, child and forced labour and promote equal opportunities for the workers – Monitor the labour rights of third party employers and keep track of the labour profile on a quarterly basis during construction – Develop, formalise and disclose a workers’ grievance mechanism (by the contractor) for complaints related to staff treatment, working or living conditions without reprisal and make these available to all Project workers, including sub-contracted staff – Hold toolbox talks on labour law issues and the labour grievance mechanism twice a year during the construction phase. ● Workers accommodation during construction: – Provide accommodation in accordance with Russian law and the IFC/EBRD guidance document “Workers’ accommodation: processes and standards, a guidance note by IFC and the EBRD” (August 2009). A Workers’ Accommodation Plan which will govern the provision of accommodation to similar standards at all camps and will cover: provision of adequate and safe drinking water, adequate space, food, power, heating, cooling, ventilation, sanitation, water treatment, waste disposal, fire and noise protection, measures to deal with disease-carrying animals, sanitary washing and laundry facilities, lighting, storage, basic medical services and transport between accommodation and site, and maintenance and management of sites – Develop a Worker Code of Conduct (by the contractor) to govern the behaviour of workers on site, in their accommodation and in the local communities. This should cover inter alia: cultural awareness for workers coming from outside of the wider area of influence, a drugs and alcohol policy with information about testing and penalties for contravention, use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and information about safety non-compliances including non-use of PPE, maintaining a safe working area, respect for colleagues and communities, and information about HIV/AIDS and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases – If there is a large number of foreign workers (workers that are sourced from outside of Russia depending on the final construction arrangements), there will need to be training provided to all workers on cultural awareness – Give HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention briefings and screenings, to be undertaken in a culturally sensitive manner – Provision of voluntary medical checks for construction workers (by the contractor). ● Protecting the workforce: occupational health and safety (by the contractor): – Develop a Worker Health and Safety Plan which covers the hazards identified for the Project site, type of work and other Project activities such as: driving on public roads; provision of preventive and protective measures for all hazards; OHS training including how to recognise hazards, unsafe areas and occupational disease or injury; information about safe working methods including H&S risk assessment (HSRA); the production of individual worksheets for discreet hazardous tasks; use of PPE; management, storage, handling and movement of hazardous chemicals; and road safety measures such as speed limits on public roads and onsite. The requirements of IFC PS2, IFC EHS General Guidelines as well as the sector specific guidelines will be incorporated into the Plan – Maintain PPE Register and monitor use of PPE
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 84 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
– Organise a training programme and maintain individual training registers for each construction worker which they can have at the end of contract for obtaining future work – Maintain records of all Project workers’ next of kin in case of emergency – Contractors will be required through contract clauses to monitor and enforce the Worker Health and Safety Plans and establish penalties for violations and rewards for good compliance records – Develop an Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (EPRP) covering risks to workers in emergencies, dealing with fire, explosions, chemical spill or accidental discharge, road accidents, serious personal injury, etc. – Provide construction site and operational facility Emergency Response Teams. Contractor and Sub-contractor Monitoring Clauses will be inserted in contractors’ agreements to ensure compliance with the following NKNK documentation and procedures:
● Human Resources Policy and Procedures ● Workers’ Accommodation Plan ● Retrenchment Plan ● Labour Grievance Mechanism ● Worker Code of Conduct ● Worker Health and Safety Plan ● Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan. The main contractor and sub-contractors will be made aware of their role in ensuring the Project meets international standards related to labour and working conditions. In particular, overtime arrangements and the timely payment of wages will be addressed. The (sub)contractors will also be expected to provide all construction workers with a summary of their employment service and training activities at the end of each contract as a means to finding continued employment. Awareness amongst (sub)contractors will be raised through the provision of briefings to and enforced through contractual clauses and regular monitoring (internally by NKNK and externally by independent monitors) of (sub)contractors’ activities and performance.
The main contractor will be required, through his contracts, to supply key personnel for the management of OHS risks who will include an EHS Manager with overall responsibility for ensuring the health and safety of the contractor’s workers, reporting to NKNK’s EHS Manager.
NKNK will employ or assign a suitably qualified EHS Manager for the Project and support staff in order to assess risks to worker health and safety and implement preventive and protective measures. This manager will carry out daily site walkovers to identify hazards and take action based on their findings. They will record incidents (where personal injury could have occurred but did not) and accidents (where personal injury actually occurred). NKNK’s EHS Manager will also be mandated to carry out monitoring of sites and workers’ accommodation and hold meetings to discuss H&S improvements, compliance with PPE requirements and other OHS issues as they arise.
All workers on the Project will be given basic health and safety training including use of appropriate PPE. Training will also be given on how to conduct tasks with specific health and safety risks such as welding, use and storage of hazardous chemicals, working with electric equipment, working at height, road safety and general driver training, use of seatbelts, vehicle checking and dealing with adverse weather conditions on roads such as snow and ice. The contractors’ EHS Managers will retain a log documenting all health and safety training given to each worker and when refresher courses are due. These logs will be monitored by NKNK’s EHS Manager on a regular basis, at least monthly.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 85 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
NKNK’s EHS Manager will maintain a central record of occupational incidents, accidents and diseases and follow these up on all sites to ensure that corrective measures are taken and that recurrence is prevented. NKNK’s EHS manager will also maintain a record of worker grievances including how grievances were closed out and in what timeframe. Grievance, incident, accident and occupational disease logs will be retained at head office for future analysis and monitoring by lenders or government inspection authorities.
NKNK will review the likelihood of the use of child or forced labour or the presence of occupational safety issues within their primary supply chain prior to engaging suppliers and will not deal with companies where there are unacceptable risks. NKNK will monitor its suppliers at least quarterly to identify any new risks and will take appropriate actions to remedy any significant problems which may be discovered. Where NKNK foresees a lack of control over the selection of primary supply chain companies, the responsibility for ensuring compliance with the IFC PS2 requirements in this regard will be passed onto contractors through contract clauses. Records of correspondences or other actions taken to review child or forced labour or OHS problems in the supply chain will be maintained by NKNK’s Project EHS Manager.
In case of an injury to Project workers, trauma provision will be provided at hospitals in Nizhnekamsk City. NKNK insures all workers for medical treatment and the contractors, through contract clauses, will be required to also have medical insurance for all workers. In addition, there will be first aid kits and first response facilities at the major construction sites and a nurse or ambulance will be on standby at all times to provide first response care in medical emergencies as well as treating workers for minor medical problems.
Notwithstanding the conclusions of the independent verification of NKNK’s OHS risk assessment, the implementation of the mitigation specified to protect the health, safety and rights of workers is expected to reduce the predicted adverse consequences and overall risk will result in a minor adverse impact. All measures recommended from the health and safety risk assessment will need to be incorporated into Project planning and budgeting.
7.6.5 Safeguarding the Health, Safety and Wellbeing of Communities Measures discussed above including the Worker Code of Conduct will entail elements for the protection of local communities, however additional specific measures will include:
● Provision of adequate site security arrangements, commensurate with the risks posed to the safety of community members accessing the construction or operational site. This will include securing of the site with appropriate fencing and locks to prohibit entry by members of the public at any time of day or night, provision of security services of the Project site 24 hours a day and use of CCTV cameras and signage. All security guards will be vetted prior to recruitment to check for records of historic violence or abuse. They will be trained in the use of force, emergency preparedness procedures, and use of equipment with regular refresher training, which will be recorded in training logs. Security guards will be provided with uniforms and identity badges and a logging system will be used to record entry to and exit of each Project site. ● Any reports of unlawful behaviour by security guards will be investigated and reported to the appropriate authorities if necessary. ● All vehicles will carry spill kits and fire extinguishers for dealing with spills or small vehicle fires on public or site roads. ● Drivers will be equipped with telephones for contacting the emergency services and the Company’s head office to enact the EPRP if necessary. ● Drivers will be first-aid trained and equipped with first aid kits which they will regularly inspect and maintain. ● The Project will develop an Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan in collaboration with nearby communities to establish actions and contacts in case of emergency or will collaborate with authorities to ensure effective emergency preparedness and response planning where this responsibility does not fall to NKNK under Russian Law (i.e. under certain categories of emergency). Review and updating of emergency contact details in all EPRPs will be undertaken quarterly.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 86 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● The Project CLO, as described within the SEP, will be appointed and will collect and provide response on any community grievances related to health, safety, security and wellbeing of local residents and this community grievance mechanism will remain effective throughout the Project lifecycle. With the effective implementation of the above measures, the Project risk is considered to be of minor significance on community health and safety, security and wellbeing during the construction phase and will be further reduced at the operation phase to be of minor significance as well.
7.6.6 Influx of Workers and Population Changes During the construction phase, there is a potential for an influx of workers to the project-affected area, particularly to the affected communities (ACs) that needs to be managed. Measures will include:
● A Code of Conduct for all workers to be developed and included as part of the employment contract. This should cover norms related to interactions with the local community as well as expectations regarding occupational behaviour ● Cultural awareness training for workers ● Cultural awareness events for communities ● HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention briefings and screenings, to be undertaken in a culturally sensitive manner ● Voluntary medical checks for the construction workers. Proper management of the construction workforce influx potentially may reduce adverse impact to minor.
7.6.7 Managing Disturbance Impact It is assumed that the mitigation measures proposed for construction will also be applied during the decommissioning or rehabilitation phases of the Project. However, it is expected that mitigation based on future knowledge and best practice will be recommended as part of any future detailed decommissioning plan.
The control of noise arising from construction works is recommended to minimise adverse impacts on occupational health and safety with noise limits set out in section 4.0 of the IFC General Environment, Health & Safety Guidelines: Construction and Decommissioning. Specific mitigation measures for during construction are summarised in Chapter 14.
Proposed measures to mitigate nuisance from traffic are outlined in detail in Chapter 13 and will include activities to manage delays to road users as a result of abnormal loads and enhance safety of vulnerable road users on the local roads and the residents at Afanasovo rural settlement and Stroiteley village via a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to be developed by the Project.
Good practice and recommended measures will allow reducing disturbance to minor or negligible.
7.7 Residual Impacts Table 27 summarises the impacts, proposed mitigation measures and residual significance of the mitigated impacts.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 87 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 27: Summary of Impacts, Risks and Mitigation/Enhancement Activity Impacts/Risks Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Mitigation or Enhancement Residual Impacts Construction Phase Recruitment Employment Low Moderate Minor ● Disclosed Recruitment Policy Moderate generation beneficial ● Job opportunities disclosed to local people beneficial ● Priority in employment to job seekers in the ACs ● Basic skills programme for local and vulnerable job seekers in the ACs ● Contract clauses for the main contractor and sub-contractors to hire local people from the ACs ● Disclosure of supply chain opportunities during construction and operation Construction site Risks to health, Medium Moderate Moderate Labour conditions Minor adverse activities and safety, security adverse ● Individual contracts of employment issued to all Project staff provision of workers’ and wellbeing of ● Monitoring of the main contractor and sub-contractors to have individual accommodation workers on site contracts for the construction workers and in camps ● Inclusion in the contract clauses for contractors and sub-contractors provisions that prohibit any forms of discrimination, child and forced labour and promote equal opportunities for the construction workers ● Monitoring of labour rights and workforce profile quarterly ● Labour grievance mechanism (by the main contractor) to be made available to all Project workers ● Toolbox talks on labour issues including the grievance mechanism and safety Workers’ accommodation ● Workers’ Accommodation Plan ● Worker Code of Conduct to govern worker behaviour on site, in the accommodation and in ACs ● Cultural awareness briefings for the construction workers ● HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention briefings and screenings ● Voluntary medical checks of construction workers (at the expense of the main contractor) Occupational health and safety ● Worker Health and Safety Plan ● Provisions in the contracts with (sub)contractors with the requirement to implement and monitor implementation of the Workers Health and Safety Plans ● Training programme and registers including OHS training ● PPE Register and use of PPE ● Personnel files to include next of kin details ● Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan / Emergency Teams ● Registration of all accidents ● Recording of incidents, accidents and occupational disease
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 88 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Activity Impacts/Risks Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Mitigation or Enhancement Residual Impacts ● Supply chain review for issues of child or forced labour and OHS risks ● Adequate medical facilities to be provided – first aid kits, trained first aid personnel Management of Contractors ● NKNK to employ or assign EHS Manager who will carry out daily site walkovers ● (Sub)contractors to appoint EHS Managers ● Advise (sub)contractors on the requirement to comply with the applicable international requirements in labour relations, health, safety and security ● Clauses to be inserted in contractors’ agreements to ensure compliance with the following NKNK documentation and procedures: – Human Resources Policy and Procedures – Workers’ Accommodation Plan – Retrenchment Plan – Grievance Mechanism – Worker Code of Conduct – Worker Health and Safety Plan – Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan. – Contractors to be made aware of their role in compliance with IFC PS2 and IFC EHS Guidelines ● Contractors to provide medical insurance for their workers. Presence of Risks to health, Medium Moderate Moderate The following measures will be provided: Minor adverse. construction site, safety, security adverse ● Security arrangements including security guards, CCTV, signage / Logging construction and wellbeing of system to monitor entries to sites workforce and local communities ● All security guards to be vetted and trained in the use of force, emergency accommodation procedures and relevant equipment ● Investigation of unlawful behaviour by security guards ● Vehicles to carry spill kits, first aid kits and fire extinguishers, drivers to have mobile phones for emergency use and be first-aid trained ● Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan to be prepared in collaboration with local communities to establish actions and contacts. Quarterly review ● Project performance grievance mechanism. Recruitment of the Influx of workers Medium Minor Moderate If required the following measures will be undertaken: Minor adverse workforce from and population adverse ● A Code of Conduct for all workers included as part of the employment contract outside of the changes ● Cultural awareness training for workers Project wider AoI ● HIV/AIDs and STI awareness ● Voluntary medical checks for construction workers. Procurement of Localised Low Minor to Minor to ● Provision of the right to the main contractor to employ local sub-contractors and Moderate goods and services economic moderate moderate residents in the ACs beneficial development beneficial ● Supply chain opportunities provided to local businesses. impact
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 89 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Activity Impacts/Risks Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Mitigation or Enhancement Residual Impacts Construction Disturbance Medium Moderate Moderate ● Mitigation measures for excavation and foundation works during construction Minor or activities, machinery impact adverse ● Construction Traffic Management Plan to manage delays to road users as a negligible adverse movements and result of abnormal loads and enhance safety of vulnerable road users on the deliveries by road local roads and local residents in the ACs. Operational Phase Recruitment and Employment Low Moderate Minor ● Recruitment in line with HR Policy and international standards Major beneficial transfer of staff generation beneficial ● Introduction briefings and workplace training for low qualification workforce ● Skills improvement training for NKNK staff whol will be transferred to the new facility ● Supply chain opportunities provided to local companies Handling, transport Risks to health, High Moderate Major adverse ● As per construction phase Minor adverse and management of safety, security and ● Adjustment of plans, policies and procedures to reflect different conditions in hazardous chemicals, wellbeing of workers operational phase potential for emergency situations Production of Risks to health, High Moderate Major adverse ● As per construction phase Minor adverse chemicals, transport safety, security and ● Adjustment of plans, policies and procedures to reflect different conditions in of materials and wellbeing of local operational phase. workers, potential for communities emergency situations Taxation Industrial Medium Moderate Moderate None. Moderate development beneficial beneficial revenue Decommissioning or Rehabilitation Phase Recruitment Employment Low Unknown Unknown ● Compliance with the RF labour law Minor beneficial creation for beneficial ● Job and supply chain opportunities provided to local people rehabilitation ● Basic skills programme for local and vulnerable ACs. Reconstruction Community and Medium Unknown Unknown To be determined at the time. Unknown adverse activities including site workers’ health, adverse work, accommodation safety, security and for workers and Wellbeing transport of materials Changes in types of Retrenchment Medium Minor Minor adverse ● Retrenchment Plan. Minor adverse work or end of Project
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 94 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
7.8 Proposed Monitoring and Reporting IFC PS1 require internal monitoring and external or independent monitoring of all Category A projects or projects with significant impacts. Monitoring reports will be disclosed by NKNK every six months during construction and annually during operation.
Monitoring of social issues will be important, especially with regards to worker management, workers’ terms and conditions (including accommodation), OHS and grievances. Internal and external monitoring will need to ensure that the Project commitments to workers’ rights are implemented and that measures to share benefits and mitigate adverse impacts are effectively employed. The following actions to monitor and record mitigation and enhancement measures will be carried out during the construction phase and during operation (where applicable) by NKNK:
● Records will be kept of people employed from ACs and their pre-project status including their employment status (were they previously employed, unemployed, underemployed, employed in informal sector, skilled, unskilled, etc.), which village they are from, their ethnicity, their gender, their age and their start and end date of employment. ● Copies of job and supply chain opportunity descriptions posted in the local ZoI will be kept on file. ● The number of people receiving training, certificates and resultant employment on the Project from the basic skills training programme will be recorded. ● Records of numbers of people affected by retrenchment will be kept, if relevant. ● A list signatures showing that workers have received and understand their contracts and the Worker Code of Conduct will be maintained. ● There will be monthly inspections of the construction workers’ accommodation, using the checklist provided in the IFC Guidance which will be kept on record along with an action plan to resolve any issues and timeframes for close-out. ● Grievances will be received and recorded via the workers’ grievance mechanism and the log will be reviewed monthly by NKNK’s Human Resources (HR) Department to identify patterns or area where actions can be taken to prevent recurrent problems. ● Training records will be maintained, especially for: – OHS training and hazardous work training – Emergency drills – Security guards – Toolbox talks – HIV/AIDS awareness sessions – Emergency drills. ● Accidents, incidents and diseases logs will be maintained to monitor H&S of Project workers. ● Confidential health records for Project workers will be maintained, including HIV/AIDS test results, medical results and occupational injury or disease. These records will be aggregated and made anonymous for review by external parties. ● Regular site monitoring of OHS issues and PPE compliance will be carried out and recorded. ● Records will be kept showing the system, correspondence and actions taken to review the Project’s supply chain for use of child or forced labour and in respect of OHS issues. ● Personnel files will be kept for each worker and will include: next of kin contact details in case of accident or emergency, social security number, copy of identity card, certificates and qualifications, internal and external training, leave records, record of past abuse/criminal record for security workers. ● Payroll records will be kept.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 95 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Security records will be maintained logging entries to Project sites by non-employees and any incidents that occur with regard to security or security guards. ● Community grievances will be received and recorded via the Community grievance mechanism detailed within the SEP and the Community Liaison Officer (CLO), as described within the SEP, will carry out analysis to identify common or recurrent problems. There will be follow-up of these issues with the Project Manager and contractors to find to deal with the causes and actions to prevent further recurrence. ● There will be monitoring of community grievances by the CLO to check for complaints against security guards. These will be followed up with the relevant authorities if necessary. ● The CLO will document and record all stakeholder engagement as detailed within the SEP and will evaluate stakeholder engagement performance to inform respective SEP updates. ● Provided any additional land acquisition or resettlement is required, any land acquisition and resettlement negotiations, consultations and activities will be documented and kept on file to demonstrate compliance with IFC PS5. All monitoring and reporting will be carried as detailed within any resettlement planning instrument – however, the need for these have not been established in this ESIA. All of the above will be regularly monitored during the construction phase and the operational phases as appropriate by NKNK’s Project EHS Manager and their team. Monthly reports will be provided to NKNK’s Project Manager and will be made available to external monitors and auditors when required. Frequency of reporting may reduce if appropriate during the operational phase.
7.8.1 Annual Sustainability Reporting It is important for NKNK to be transparent about its Project performance and the impact its activities are having on the physical environment and social context. A project website (www.nknh.ru) already has social sustainability reporting section where the 2015 Sustainability Report is available. This Sustainability Report includes the following sections, amongt others:
● Sustainable Development ● Environmental Performance ● Social Performance ● Communities, etc. This Sustainability Report also has a Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting elements annexed to the document. The GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Framework is one of the mostly widely used reporting approaches that sets out the principles and performance indicators which organisations can use to measure and report their economic, environmental, and social performance. The GRI has been working with the IFC to align some of its reporting requirement with the IFC’s PSs.
Sustainability reporting, similar to that undertaken in 2015, will need to be issued annually addressing the full range of social issues considered within this SIA, including but not limited to details on:
● Labour profile and OHS performance ● Land acquisition and resettlement, if any ● Contributions to the local economy ● Social investments and performance ● Stakeholder engagement ● Community grievances ● Retrenchment. Lenders may have specific data they request to be included in annual reporting.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 96 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
8 Air Quality
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 Overview This Chapter provides an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed Project on local air quality. This assessment has been carried out in accordance with IFC guidelines and addresses the potential construction and operational phase impacts resulting from emissions to air.
8.1.2 Key Pollutants The combustion of fossil fuel gives rise to a number of pollutants with the potential to negatively affect sensitive receptors. With respect to natural gas (the main proposed fuel source of the Project during operation), the primary pollutant of concern following combustion is nitrogen oxides (NOx).
The Project will lead to emissions of other pollutants and their inclusion within the assessment is described below. Sulphur dioxide (SO2) has not been considered further in this assessment as SO2 emissions are directly proportionate to the quantity of sulphur in the fuel for EP-600 production and the proposed fuels for the Project only have trace amounts of sulphur in them.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Oxides of nitrogen is a term used to describe a mixture of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), referred to collectively as NOx. These are primarily formed from atmospheric and fuel nitrogen as a result of high temperature combustion. The proportion of each of the two forms varies depending on the combustion technology and the fuel being burnt. In the case of a natural gas fired plant, approximately 90-95% of the NOx is present as NO, with the remainder being NO2.
NO is a colourless and tasteless gas. It is readily oxidised to NO2, a more harmful form of NOx by chemical reaction with ozone and other chemicals present in the atmosphere. NO2 is a yellowish-orange to reddish- brown gas with a pungent odour.
The production of NOx during combustion depends on several factors, the principal of which are:
● Nitrogen in the fuel ● Temperature of combustion ● Geometry of the combustion chamber ● Ratio of fuel to combustion air.
All NOx produced originates from nitrogen in the fuel or from nitrogen in the air that is used for combustion. NOx from the fuel is referred to as ‘fuel NOx’ and NOx from the air is generally referred to as ‘thermal NOx’. NOx oxidised directly by the radicals of the combustion reaction is referred to as ‘prompt NOx’ (although this represents a very small proportion of the total). The proportion of fuel NOx to thermal NOx and other emissions depends on the temperature of combustion. With an increase in combustion temperature, there is an increase in thermal NOx emissions, and hence the overall NOx emissions. The formation of thermal NOx is strongly dependent on the maximum flame temperature and the period that the gases remain at that temperature. Impacts from emissions of NOx form the main focus of this assessment.
Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) Particulates are a complex mixture of organic and inorganic substances present in the atmosphere. Some particulates occur naturally, originating from volcanoes, dust storms, forest and grassland fires, living vegetation, and sea spray. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, power plants and
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 97 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
various industrial processes also generate significant amounts of particulates. In urban areas, road traffic is generally the greatest source of fine particulate matter, although localised effects are also associated with construction and demolition activity. Secondary particulates, mainly sulphate and nitrate formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and are often classed as transboundary pollutants.
Particulates are described in term of their size; for example, the term PM2.5 describes particulate matter that is -6 less than 2.5 microns (10 metres) in aerodynamic diameter and PM10 describes particulate matter that is less than 10 microns. Fine particulates (PM2.5 – PM0.1) are derived mainly from gas-to-particle reactions in combustion exhausts and are predominantly of direct anthropogenic origin.
Increased levels of fine particles in the air are linked to health hazards such as heart disease, altered lung function and lung cancer. The size of the particle is a main determinant of where in the respiratory tract the particle will come to rest when inhaled. Larger particles are generally filtered in the nose and throat and do not cause problems, but particulate matter smaller than about 10 micrometres, referred to as PM10, can settle in the bronchi and lungs and cause health problems.
Combustion sources and the decoking procedure associated with the proposed Project will only emit trace amounts of PM due to the type of technology and fuel that is being utilised. Therefore, operational emissions of PM from the Project have not been considered further.
Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs are organic chemical compounds that have high enough vapour pressures under normal conditions to significantly vaporize and enter the atmosphere. A wide range of carbon-based molecules, such as aldehydes, ketones, and other light hydrocarbons are VOCs. The most common VOC is methane. Common artificial VOCs include paint thinners, dry cleaning solvents, and some constituents of fuels (e.g. petrol and natural gas).
Potential direct emissions from the project are mainly associated with flaring activities. Additionally, potential fugitive emissions from the Project are mainly associated with emissions from leaking pipes, valves, connections, flanges, packings, pump seals, compressor seals and pressure relief valves.
Potential VOC emissions will be controlled by industry best practice and are therefore expected to be minimal during the operation of the Project and have not been included further within dispersion modelling. Additionally, flares are designed to combust VOCs and have a high destruction efficiency. However, existing baseline monitoring has been reviewed to determine existing pollutant concentrations. Baseline monitoring is discussed further in Section 8.5.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide (CO) is produced when incomplete combustion takes place. Emissions of CO from a combustion plant such as a cracking heater are limited by optimising the fuel to air ratio to maximise the heat released per unit of fuel. Monitoring of this pollutant is often used as a measure of combustion efficiency and it is therefore in an operator’s interest to minimise emissions.
As CO is a product of inefficient combustion and it is anticipated that emissions from the Project will remain low, prediction of CO concentrations has not been included within the dispersion modelling.
8.2 Relevant Standards and Guidelines
8.2.1 Overview This section outlines national and international standards and guidelines relevant to both emissions to air and ambient air quality. The Project has been assessed in line with the Equator Principles, IFC guidelines and where appropriate national requirements.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 98 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
8.2.2 National Requirements Within the Russian Federation there are a number of regulations which establish ambient air quality standards for residential areas and working zones, including the following main documents:
● Federal Law No.96-FZ dated May 4, 1999 "On Atmospheric Air Protection" sets forth the legal framework in the area of atmospheric air protection ● Federal Law “On protection of population and territories against natural and man-caused emergencies” No.68-FZ dated December 21, 1994 ● SanPiN 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03 “Sanitary protection zones and sanitary classification of enterprises, structures and other facilities” ● GN 2.2.5.1313-03 “Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPCs) of harmful compounds in working zone air” sets the norms for working zone air quality that should be complied with during the construction and operational phase ● GN 2.1.6.1338-03 “Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MACs) of harmful compounds in the atmospheric air of residential areas” sets the norms for residential areas (incl. Additions 1-6). The key types of norms used for determining safe concentrations of pollution in the ambient air are described below:
● Maximum Allowable Concentration for working zone (MACwz) - the concentration of harmful substances in the air during working hours (except holidays) for not less than 8 hours a week or more than 40 hours a week ● Maximum Allowable Concentration, or maximum single occurrence (MACmso) - the concentration of harmful substances in the air of populated areas, which after 20 minutes does not cause reflex (or sub sensorial) reactions in human health ● Maximum Allowable Concentration daily average (MACda) - the concentration of harmful substances in populated areas. The levels of pollutants should not influence human health directly or indirectly after inhaling them for an unlimited period of time (years). Thus, MPCda is calculated for all groups in a population, and for an indefinitely long averaging period. They apply to all populated areas and are consequently considered the strictest of the Russian Federation standards for air quality.
8.2.3 Local Regulations ● Letter of the Department of the Federal Service of Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring in the Republic of Tatarstan dated February 17, 2017 On Ambient Concentrations of Pollutants in Atmospheric Air of Nizhnekamsk City.
8.2.4 Applicable International Lender Requirements The IFC provide a portfolio of Standards and Guidelines that should be adhered to for any project seeking IFC finance. The IFC Performance Standard 3: Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention56 aims:
“To avoid or minimize adverse impacts on human health and the environment by avoiding or minimizing pollution from project activities”
To achieve this, the IFC provides both industry-specific and general guidance on Good International Industry Practice with respect to ambient air quality and emissions to air. The Project will need to comply with the IFC Performance Standards and the standards set out in the IFC Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines.57, 58
56 International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 3: Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention 2012 57 IFC Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines: General Guidelines 2007 58 IFC Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines: Large Volume Petroleum-based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 2007.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 99 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Emissions to Air The IFC EHS Guidelines advise that, with respect to emission limits, when host country regulations differ from the levels presented in the Guidelines, projects are expected to achieve whichever is more stringent (it should be noted that the same approach does not apply to ambient concentrations, as described below).
Table 28 presents the relevant emission limits applicable to this project.
Ambient Air Quality The IFC General EHS Guidelines advise that ‘relevant standards’ with respect to ambient air quality are national legislated standards or, in their absence, the current World Health Organisation (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines or other internationally recognised sources such as those used in the European Union (EU). As the Russian Federation has its own nationally legislated standards, as described above, these have been used to determine significance of potential ambient impacts. However, Table 29 also presents the EU ambient air quality standards as there is no applicable one-hour air quality standard in the Russian Federation. The comparison shows that standards are similar; however, the national standards include a 20 minute averaging period for NO2.
The General EHS Guidelines specifically refer to the EU Directives as being an ‘internationally recognised source’ of ambient air quality standards. Although numerically equal to the WHO standards for NO2, the EU legislation introduces a threshold of tolerance to account for exceptional, worst case episodes. This translates as a limit not to be exceeded more than a certain number of times, and can be expressed as a ‘percentile’. In an assessment of human health effects, which takes account of a relevant exposure period, this approach is considered more appropriate.
The IFC General EHS Guidelines suggest that, as a general rule, emissions should not contribute more than 25 percent of the relevant air quality standards to allow additional, future sustainable development in the same airshed. Therefore, the significance of the impact of the Project has been discussed in the context of this approach.
The IFC also requires occupational health and safety to be assessed against appropriate standards. This assessment has used national requirements set out in GN 2.2.5.1313-03 MPCs of harmful compounds in working zone air.
8.2.5 Summary Table 28 presents the relevant NOx emission limits applicable to the Project for the different emissions that will be operational. Table 29 and Table 30 present the relevant Russian Federation ambient air quality standards applicable to the Project which are derived from the appropriate MPC and MAC’s. Table 29 also presents ambient air quality standards applicable to EU countries as the Russian Federation standards do not have a standard for a one-hour averaging period.
Table 28: NOx Emission Limit Values Plant Type World Bank / IFC Guidelines Cracking Heaters 300 Gas Fired Heater 320 High Pressure Steam Boiler 240 Waste Gas and Liquid Incinerator 200 Notes: Units – mg/Nm3 Reference conditions: Dry, 3% O2 (11% O2 for incinerator), 273 Kelvin and 101.3kPa Russian Federation Reference Document on Best Available Techniques (BREF ITS18-2016) ‘Production of Basic Organic Chemicals’ provides specification and levels of emissions related to production technology. The BREF note recommends that NOx emissions should not exceed 4kg per tonne of ethylene produced.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 100 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
3 Table 29: Summary of Relevant NO2 Air Quality Standards for Protection of Human Health (µg/m ) Pollutant Averaging Period Russian MACs for residential areas (1) European Union Standards (2) Nitrogen Dioxide 20 Minutes 200 - (NO2) 1 Hour - 200 (a)
Annual 40 40 Notes: (1) Hygiene norms GN 2.1.6.1338-03. Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) of pollutants in ambient air (2) Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (a) Not to be exceeded more than 18 times per calendar year, expressed as 99.79th percentile “-“ No applicable standard
Table 30: Summary of Relevant Annual Mean VOC Air Quality Standards for Protection of Health Pollutant Russian Federation MAC for residential areas (µg/m3) Benzene 100 Toluene 600 Ethylbenzene 20 Xylene 200 1,3 Butadiene 1000 Source: Hygiene norms GN 2.1.6.1338-03. Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) of pollutants in ambient air
59 The Russian Federation provides occupational exposure limits for a number of pollutants including NO2 and VOCs. Occupational exposure is compared against an 8-hour time weighted average and has been used as an indication of potential risk to onsite workers.
Table 31 presents the appropriate NO2 occupational standards used as the basis for this assessment.
Table 31: Relevant Occupational Exposure Standards Occupational Standards Russian Federation MPC for working zones (µg/m3)
NO2 2,000 Benzene 5,000 Toluene 50,000 Ethylbenzene 50,000 Xylene 50,000 1,3 Butadiene 100,000 Source: GN 2.2.5.1313-03 “Maximum Permissible Concentrations of harmful compounds in working zone air”
8.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria
8.3.1 Baseline Assessment Methodology Existing ambient background pollutant concentrations are currently monitored by NKNK and Roshydromet at a number of monitoring locations around the existing industrial hub. Available monitoring data has been reviewed in Section 8.5 and the current baseline has been established.
Within the assessment, monitored concentrations of NO2 and VOC’s have been compared against the standards applicable to the Project outlined in Section 8.2 for the protection of human health. These standards have been applied at the surrounding villages and areas located outside of the SPZ where local residents could potentially live.
Monitored concentrations of VOCs within the industrial area have been compared against appropriate occupational standards derived for the protection of workers.
59 GN 2.2.5.1313-03 “Maximum Permissible Concentrations of harmful compounds in working zone air”
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 101 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
8.3.2 Zone of Influence for Air Quality The zone of influence with regard to air quality is the area that could potentially be affected by emissions to air during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases. During construction and decommissioning this is confined to a small area located around the construction site and the main transport routes. Construction and decommissioning effects occur over a temporary time period and are located within 500 metres of the construction activity. The operational phase effects will be experienced throughout the life of the Project and have the potential to affect an area up to 15km from the plant.
8.3.3 Construction Phase Construction activities can result in temporary effects from dust. ‘Dust’ is a generic term which usually refers to particulate matter in the size range 1-75 microns. Although no analysis of the particle characterisation has been undertaken, the nature of the area and activities to be carried out means that emissions of construction dust are predominantly associated with the movement and handling of minerals and therefore composed of the larger fractions of this range which do not penetrate far into the respiratory system. Therefore, the primary air quality issue associated with construction phase dust emissions is normally loss of amenity and/or nuisance caused by, for example, soiling of buildings, vegetation and washing and reduced visibility.
Dust deposition can be expressed in terms of mass per unit area per unit time, e.g. mg/m2/month. A range of criteria from 133 to 350mg/m2/month is found around the world as representative of thresholds for significant nuisance.
It is considered that a quantitative approach is inappropriate and unnecessary for assessing particulate emissions associated with the construction phase of the project. The activities undertaken during the construction phase are likely to lead to dust emissions however given their limited duration locations of sensitive receptors a qualitative assessment of dust effects is appropriate.
The first stage of the assessment has involved the identification of construction activities which have the potential to cause dust emissions, and the degree of that potential without mitigation. Table 32 provides a generic list of potential construction activities. Selected information from this table has been used within this assessment to determine the impact of the Project with respect to construction dust.
Table 32: Relevant Generic Dust Emitting Activities Potential Dust Emitting Activities Description Dust Emission Potential Soil handling Potential to be high, depends on time of year and soil High dryness Loading Activities Potential to be high, depends on time of year and soil High dryness Storage of materials onsite Potential to be high, depends on time of year soil High dryness Transport of materials within site Can be high depends on type of transport and nature High of road surface Drilling and digging activities (Including Can be high depending on type of drilling and digging High soil excavation) activities Transport of material offsite Generally low as transport occurs by surfaced roads Low Construction of new buildings Generally low although some activities with high dust Medium-Low raising such as material cutting can occur Assembly of plant Generally low as involves assembling already made Low pieces
In the second stage of the assessment, all sensitive receptors with the potential to be significantly affected by construction dust emissions have been identified. The distances from source at which construction dust effects are felt are dependent on the extent and nature of mitigation measures, prevailing wind conditions, rainfall and the presence of natural screening by, for example, vegetation or existing physical screening such as boundary walls on a site. However, research indicates that effects from construction activities that generate dust are
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 102 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
generally limited to within 150-200 metres of the activity. To ensure a conservative assessment, any receptors within 500 metres of construction activities have been identified, and their classification determined in Table 33.
Based on the existing industrial SPZ there will not be any non-industrial sensitive receptors within approximately 500 meters of the Project. However, neighbouring industry may be sensitive to dust emissions and have been identified in Table 32.
Table 33: Receptor Classification Classification High Medium Low - Existing Industry within the Industrial hub Other areas of the project site such as laydown areas
At this stage, exact numbers of construction vehicles are not known and the routes that they will take are not defined. However, during peak construction periods the total number of vehicle movements is expected to be less than 200 per day. Guidance available in the UK states that less than 200 heavy duty vehicle movements during the construction phase is considered insignificant from an air quality perspective, therefore the emissions from these movements is expected to be negligible. However, general mitigation measures to help reduce emissions have been provided in the relevant sections of this chapter.
8.3.4 Operational Phase Overview This section describes the methods used to assess the air quality impacts associated with the operational phase of the Project. Modelling has been carried to out identify potentially significant impacts on sensitive receptors within the study area. For this ESIA the assessment of air quality has been undertaken using internationally recognised tools and methods. However, for completeness and to provide local stakeholders with a set of results that are familiar to them based on national tools and methods the national air quality assessment is provided in Volume III of the ESIA documentation.
Dispersion Model A number of commercially available dispersion models are able to predict ground level concentrations arising from emissions to atmosphere from elevated point sources such as a power plant. A new generation dispersion model - AERMOD (executable 16216r) was used to inform the basis of the air quality assessment. AERMOD is recommended for use by the IFC as an appropriate method for predicting the emissions from point sources such as those associated with this project. A model description is included below.
A committee, AERMIC (the American Meteorological Society / Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee), was formed to introduce state-of-the-art modelling concepts into the US Environmental Protection Agency’s local-scale air quality models. AERMIC’s focus was on a new platform for regulatory steady-state plume modelling. AERMOD was designed to treat both surface and elevated sources in simple and complex terrain.
Special features of AERMOD include its ability to treat the vertical heterogeneity nature of the planetary boundary layer, special treatment of surface releases, irregularly-shaped area sources and limitation of vertical mixing in the stable boundary layer.
AERMOD is a modelling system with the following three separate components:
● AERMOD (AERMIC Dispersion Model) ● AERMAP (AERMOD Terrain Pre-processor) ● AERMET (AERMOD Meteorological Pre-processor).
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 103 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
AERMET is the meteorological pre-processor for AERMOD. Input data can come from hourly cloud cover observations, surface meteorological observations and twice-a-day upper air soundings. Output includes surface meteorological observations and parameters and vertical profiles of several atmospheric parameters.
AERMAP is a terrain pre-processor designed to simplify and standardise the input of terrain data for AERMOD. Input data include receptor terrain elevation data. For each receptor, the output includes a location and height scale, which is an elevation used for the computation of air-flow around hills.
AERMOD is recognised by the IFC as an acceptable model for dispersion modelling of point source emissions. AERMOD is not capable of calculating ambient concentrations for averaging periods of less than one hour as required by the Russian ambient air quality standards, therefore following advice from the model developer and the UK Environment Agency, hourly concentrations have been multiplied by a factor of 1.3 to derive 20 minute concentration values and 1.34 to derive 15 minute concentration values.
Meteorology The most important meteorological parameters governing the atmospheric dispersion of pollutants are wind direction, wind speed and atmospheric stability, as described below:
● Wind direction determines the sector of the compass into which the plume is dispersed ● Wind speed affects the distance which the plume travels over time and can affect plume dispersion by increasing the initial dilution of pollutants and inhibiting plume rise ● Atmospheric stability is a measure of the turbulence of the air, and particularly of its vertical motion. It therefore affects the spread of the plume as it travels away from the source. New generation dispersion models use a parameter known as the Monin-Obukhov length that, together with the wind speed, describes the stability of the atmosphere. For meteorological data to be suitable for dispersion modelling purposes, a number of parameters need to be measured on an hourly basis. These parameters include wind speed, wind direction, cloud cover and temperature. There are only a limited number of sites where the required meteorological measurements are made.
Dispersion model simulations were performed using five years of meteorological data from Begishevo airport (approximately 8 km to the south east of the project location). Approximately 30% of the cloud cover data was missing from the Begishevo data. Missing data was replaced using three-hour values from Elabuga monitoring station. The monitored three-hour values were interpolated into one-hour data following the United States Environment Protection Agency (US EPA) guidance on Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Modelling Applications. By using hourly sequential meteorological data, the effects of extreme changes in regional temperatures between summer and winter have been accounted for within the dispersion modelling.
Table 34 presents the minimum and maximum recorded temperatures from the five years of meteorological data used within the assessment and are an indication of the extreme temperatures in the study area.
Table 34: Minimum and Maximum Temperatures used with Dispersion Modelling (oC) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Minimum -29 -35 -31 -30 -31 Maximum 32 32 38 34 34
Figure 24 presents wind roses from the five years of meteorological data used with the assessment. The wind roses indicate that there is a dominance of winds from the south west. Wind speeds are between 3-5m/s, however, on average calm conditions (with speeds below 0.5m/s) are experienced for approximately 10 percent of the time.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 104 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Figure 24: Wind roses showing frequency and magnitude of wind used in the Dispersion Modelling 2008 2009
0° 0° 337.5° 1500 22.5° 337.5° 1500 22.5°
315° 1200 45° 315° 1200 45°
900 900
292.5° 600 67.5° 292.5° 600 67.5°
300 300
270° 90° 270° 90°
247.5° 112.5° 247.5° 112.5°
225° 135° 225° 135°
202.5° 157.5° 202.5° 157.5° 180° 180° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) Wind speed Wind speed 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s) 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s) 2010 2011
0° 0° 337.5° 1500 22.5° 337.5° 1500 22.5°
1200 315° 45° 315° 1200 45°
900 900
292.5° 600 67.5° 292.5° 600 67.5°
300 300
270° 90° 270° 90°
247.5° 112.5° 247.5° 112.5°
225° 135° 225° 135°
202.5° 157.5° 180° 202.5° 157.5° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) 180° Wind speed 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s) Wind speed 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s)
2012
0° 337.5° 1000 22.5°
315° 800 45°
600
292.5° 400 67.5°
200
270° 90°
247.5° 112.5°
225° 135°
202.5° 157.5° 180° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) Wind speed 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s)
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 105 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Terrain The presence of elevated terrain can significantly affect (usually increase) ground level concentrations of pollutants emitted from elevated sources such as stacks by reducing the distance between the plume centre line and ground level and increasing turbulence and, hence, plume mixing.
Terrain data has been included in the dispersion model to take account of any changes in elevation surrounding the project location. Figure 25 presents the terrain in relation the Project. It should be noted that this is based on a very high resolution (1 metre interval) input and it is not possible to use such a high resolution within the dispersion model.
Roughness of terrain over which a plume passes can have a significant effect on dispersion by altering the velocity profile with height, and the degree of atmospheric turbulence. This is accounted for by a parameter called the surface roughness length and is calculated during the processing of the meteorological data.
Figure 25: Three-Dimensional representation of terrain
Note: XYZ coordinates are metres, XY has projection UTM 39 North
Buildings The movement of air over and around buildings generates areas of flow circulation, which can lead to increased ground level pollutant concentrations in the building wakes. The dominant buildings (i.e. with the greatest dimensions likely to promote turbulence) in relation to the emission sources are presented in Table 35. It is not expected that onsite structures such as platforms or walkways would have a significant effect on the movement of air in their vicinity and therefore they have not been included within the dispersion modelling. These structures are designed to allow air flow to pass around or through them and therefore minimise negative effects on pollutant dispersion.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 106 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 35: Main Building Dimensions Building Height (m) Length (m) Width (m) Cracking Furnace 1 20 15 13 Cracking Furnace 2 20 15 13 Cracking Furnace 3 20 15 13 Cracking Furnace 4 20 15 13 Cracking Furnace 5 20 15 13 Cracking Furnace 6 20 15 13
Emissions to Air The relevant emissions data for the proposed plant are summarised in
Table 36. The main pollutant of concern from the combustion sources associated with the Project is NOx. As described in Section 8.1.2 emissions of VOCs and CO are expected to be negligible and have therefore not been considered within the dispersion modelling study.
The dispersion modelling assumes that the three high pressure steam boilers will operate at their expected load (which is not at full capacity) while all other combustion units will operate at full load continuously throughout the year. This is considered to be a conservative assumption with the modelling as it is expected that annual plant load factors will be lower due to downtime and maintenance.
Emissions during start-up will be higher than during normal operation but the duration of start-up is typically very short. Due to the short duration, potential impacts are very small and have not been considered further.
Table 36: Emissions Data for the Project Parameter Cracking Heaters Cracking Heaters Gas Gas Fired High Pressure Waste Gas and Normal Operation (x5) De-coking (x1) Fired Heater 2 Steam Boiler Liquid Incinerator Heater 1 (x3) Stack Height (m) 52 52 60 23 30 30 Internal Stack 1.9 1.9 1 0.8 1.5 2.8 Diameter (m) Exit Temperature (ºC) 125 200 185 670 191 1150 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Volumetric Flow 26.9 6.9 3.9 1.8 15.6 16.0(b) (Nm3/s) Exit Velocity (m/s) 16.1 10.4 8.4 13.5 15.0 15.0 NOx calculated as 123 383 123 123 123 200 3 NO2 (mg/Nm ) NOx calculated as 3.3 2.7 0.5 0.2 1.9 3.2 NO2 (g/s) Note: Data represents emissions from a single stack (a) 3% O2, dry, 0°C, 101.3 kPa (b) 11% O2, dry, 0°C, 101.3 kPa
Percentage Oxidation of Nitrogen Oxide to Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx emissions associated with combustion sources such pyrolysis furnaces and boilers will typically comprise approximately 90-95% NO and 5-10% NO2 at source. The NO oxidises in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight, ozone and volatile organic compounds to form NO2, which is the principal pollutant of concern with respect to environmental health effects.
There are various techniques available for estimating the proportion of the NOx that is converted to NO2. A 50% conversion of NOx to NO2 has been assumed for short term averaging periods (20 minutes and 1 hour), and 70% conversion for long term averages (annual). This approach is considered appropriate based on
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 107 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
guidance from the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency (EA)60 and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
Fugitive Emissions Fugitive emissions in associated with projects of this type are mainly associated with emissions from leaking pipes, valves, connections, flanges, packings, open ended lines, pump seals, gas conveyance systems, compressor seals, pressure relief valves amongst others. Potential VOC emissions will be controlled by industry best practice and are therefore expected to be minimal during the operation of Project and have not been included further within the assessment.
The Project will meet industry best practice to avoid the release of fugitive emissions, methods are in line with those specified within both the General and sector specific EHS Guidelines and are presented within the Mitigation Section, below.
Receptors Human Health – Public Health
The phrase ‘discrete receptor’ has been used to refer to a specific identified location where the dispersion model has been used to predict pollutant concentrations. Additionally, a ‘receptor grid’ refers to a dispersion modelling concept where pollutant concentrations are predicted over a grid in uniform arrangement. The discrete receptors allow air quality impacts to be assessed at identified existing receptor locations. The receptor grid aids the assessment of pollutant concentrations over a wide spatial area and, by interpolating between these points, allows the production of pollutant contours which illustrate how pollutant concentrations change across the study area.
In order to assess potential impacts on sensitive receptors, modelling was carried to predict pollutant concentrations across a study area with a 15km radius grid. This involved modelling a 30x30km grid of receptors with a receptor spacing of 300m outside the SPZ and a receptor spacing of 150m inside the SPZ, each at a height of 1.5m.
Outputs from the modelled grid have been used to present ground level ambient pollutant concentrations from the Project, referred to as ‘process contributions’. These process contributions have been added to ‘ambient concentrations’ to report the ‘predicted environmental concentrations’.
Discrete receptors have been modelled at the closest point of each of the surrounding populated towns and villages. Modelled discrete receptors are presented in Table 37 and Figure 26. Although by the time the Project is operational Martysh would have been completely resettled a discrete receptor has been included at this location as currently there are people residing in the village. A discrete receptor has also been included at Kzyl-Yul as this is an area of gardens where members of the public will be periodically present but will not live. Finally, a discrete receptor has been included to represent the prison that is located within the industrial hub.
Table 37: Receptor Locations Receptor Name X Y Height (m) Prosti 560716 6167398 1.5 Martysh 560868 6157636 1.5 Avlash 564245 6156365 1.5 Nikoshnovka 565804 6158005 1.5 Ishteraykovo 559539 6155300 1.5 Klyuch 554516 6154401 1.5 Klyatle 554187 6155546 1.5
60 Environment Agency (2006). Technical Guidance on detailed modelling approach for an appropriate assessment for emissions to air: Habitats Directive 2004 (AQTAG 06).
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 108 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Receptor Name X Y Height (m) Balchykly 552190 6157304 1.5 Alan 553874 6159597 1.5 Big Afanasovo 551871 6161800 1.5 Nizhnekamsk 552360 6164013 1.5 Sobolevo 555773 6165606 1.5 Kzyl-Yul (short term only) 566652 6163139 1.5 Prison 560840 6161283 1.5 Ilynka 565404 6163285 1.5 Note: Projection is WGS 84 UTM 39 North
Figure 26: Discrete Receptor Locations
Human Health – Occupational
Elevated concentrations of pollutants can have a negative effect on on-site workers; severe cases can result in respiratory irritation, discomfort or illness.
On-site short term ground level concentrations of NO2 have been modelled using a high resolution 25m grid across the industrial area and compared to relevant standards. Although the Project will not significantly add to VOC concentrations there is a risk of occupational exposure due to the other activities within the industrial area. These risks have been assessed using existing baseline monitoring data.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 109 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
8.4 Impact Assessment Criteria
8.4.1 Overview Determining the significance of impacts identified is one of the main purposes of an environmental assessment and enables the identification of necessary mitigation measures. An environmental impact can be either beneficial or adverse and is assessed by comparing the quality of the existing environment with the predicted quality of the environment once a project is in place.
In order to describe the significance of an impact it is important to distinguish between two concepts; ‘magnitude’ and ‘sensitivity’. The application of these concepts for this assessment is outlined in Chapter 5 of the ESIA and should be read in conjunction with this chapter. This section describes how the significance criteria for the operational phase has been derived based on assessment of magnitude of the impact and receptor sensitivity.
8.4.2 Construction Phase The methodology for determining impact significance from dust is presented in Figure 27
Figure 27: Methodology for determining the impact significance of dust
Note: [1] According to Table 39 [2] According to Table 38 [3] According to significance criteria adopted for this assessment, presented in Chapter 5 of this EIA.
A combination of dust emission potential from on-site activities (Table 32) and their expected duration has been used to determine the impact magnitude of the construction phase (Table 38).
Table 38: Determination of Impact Magnitude – Construction Phase Dust Raising Potential(a) Duration Magnitude High Any Major Medium > 3 Months Moderate Medium < 3 Months Minor Low Any Negligible Notes(a) Dust raising potential defined in accordance with the approach described in Section 8.3.2 above.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 110 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
In addition, receptor sensitivity has been based on the type of receptor and the distance from the construction boundary or activity. Table 39 presents the criteria on which receptor sensitivity has been based.
Table 39: Determination of Receptor Sensitivity – Construction Phase Receptor Distance to Activities Classification(a) 0-50m 50-100m 100-200m 200-500m High High High Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium Low Low Negligible No Receptors Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Notes: (a) Receptors classified based on method described in Table 33 above.
In summary, the magnitude of impacts is a product of the types of activities carried out and their durations. The receptor sensitivities are a product of the receptor type and their distance to the construction activities.
Following the definition of magnitude and sensitivity, the significance of impacts and therefore overall risk of dust effects from the construction phase has been evaluated based on the significance matrix presented in Chapter 5.
8.4.3 Significance Criteria – Operational Phase Guidance has been issued in the UK61 to assist in determining the significance of operational phase impacts in air quality assessments. This guidance recommends that significance should be determined by a combination of two aspects:
● The change in concentrations (Process Contribution (PC)) caused by the project at sensitive receptors ● The resulting total concentrations (Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PEC)) at sensitive receptors as a percentage of the relevant ambient air quality standard(s). This approach is considered to represent best practice for assessments of this kind and has therefore been adapted for determining the significance of impacts on local air quality from the Project.
Table 40 and Table 41 present the approach used for determining residential receptor sensitivity and impact magnitude for operational phase impacts which have been determined in light of IFC guidance. Changes in ambient concentrations over 25% of the relevant standards are considered to represent an impact of ‘Major’ magnitude as the General EHS Guidelines note that projects should:
“…prevent or minimize impacts by ensuring that …emissions do not contribute a significant portion to the attainment of relevant ambient air quality guidelines or standards. As a general rule, this guideline suggests 25 percent of the applicable air quality standards to allow additional future sustainable development in the same airshed.
The IFC General EHS Guidelines classify ‘poor quality airsheds’ as those where relevant standards are exceeded significantly. Therefore, receptors experiencing baseline ambient pollutant concentrations above the relevant standards are concluded to be of ‘High’ sensitivity.
For each of the key pollutants and averaging periods assessed, a number of ambient air quality standards are applicable (as described in Table 29).
Notwithstanding the above, any non-negligible increases causing a new exceedance of the relevant standards are afforded ‘Major’ adverse significance.
61 ‘Air emissions risk assessment for your environmental permit’ (2016), UK Environment Agency and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 111 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 40: Determination of Impact Magnitude– Operational Phase Change in Concentrations as % of Standard Magnitude Increase >25% Major Increase 15-25% Moderate Increase 5-15% Minor Increase <5% Negligible
Table 41: Determination of Receptor Sensitivity – Operational Phase Ground Level Pollutant Concentrations in Relation to Standard Receptor Sensitivity Above Standard High 75 to 100% of the Standard Medium 50 to 75% of the Standard Low Below 50% of the Standard Negligible
8.5 Baseline Description
8.5.1 Overview The Project will be developed within a large existing industrial hub which has a large number of emission sources. This section presents existing baseline data for relevant pollutants within the study area.
8.5.2 Available Data on Existing Concentrations Table 42 provides a summary of ambient monitoring data undertaken by NKNK and Figure 28 presents their locations. With the exception of the NKNK automatic monitoring sites, the data is collected is not continuous and is derived from a series of spot measurements ranging from once per month to twice per day. NKNK data illustrates that annual mean concentrations of NO2 are below Russian and international standards at all locations presented.
3 Table 42: Summary of NKNK ambient monitoring data (µg/m ) Location Pollutant 2014 2015 2016 2017 Sampling frequency
Ishteryakovo NO2 2.6 4 7 10 2014-2015 - at least 50 tests per year Benzene 35 11 2 2 2016-2017 - monthly Toluene 62 15 3 1 Ethylbenzene 5 2 1 <1
Martysh NO2 3 5 13 3 2014-2015 - at least 50 tests per year Benzene 26 15 2 3 2016-2017 - monthly Toluene - - - - Ethylbenzene 3 2 2 <1
Nizhnekamsk NO2 7 7 12 8 Twice per day Benzene 26 15 2 3 Toluene 32 16 4 6 Ethylbenzene 2 2 1 <1
‘Point No. 5’ NO2 2 5 8 7 Once per month Benzene - - - - Toluene - - - - Ethylbenzene 2 3 1 <1
Prosti NO2 5 6 6 3 Once per month Benzene 28 23 1 <1 Toluene 36 27 2 3
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 112 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Location Pollutant 2014 2015 2016 2017 Sampling frequency Ethylbenzene 3 3 2 <1
NKNK Automatic Monitor 1 NO2 9 12 13 7 Continuous
NKNK Automatic Monitor 2 NO2 20 26 46 16
NKNK Automatic Monitor 3 NO2 28 36 46 24
NKNK Automatic Monitor 4 NO2 16 18 34 22 Source: NKNK monitoring data, annual mean calculated from mean of spot measurements Note: Less than 10µg/m3 of 1, 3 butadiene was monitored at Ishteryakovo, Martysh, Nizhnekamsk and Prosti
Figure 28: Monitoring locations
Monitoring was also undertaken at Big Afanasovo, Klyatle, the Prison and Stroiteley. However, monitoring data was only available a for a single month in 2017 and therefore the monitoring results are subject to a wide range of uncertainty and have not been considered further.
8.5.3 Monitoring Results
Table 42 presents the monitored pollutant concentrations for each of the monitoring locations. Results for NO2 indicate that long term concentrations at all locations are below applicable Russian Federation annual mean standards.
Monitoring at NKNK automatic monitors 1, 2, 3 and 4 shows that annual mean concentrations of NO2 are generally lower than those at surrounding villages and this is likely to be a reflection of the monitoring techniques used.
A comparison of the monitored concentrations of VOCs at all the village locations outside the SPZ indicate that baseline concentrations are below relevant ambient standards presented within this assessment.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 113 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
8.5.4 Baseline Concentrations Assumed for Modelling
Baseline concentrations of NO2 assumed within the assessment have been based on results presented in Table 42. In line with best practice guidance, double the long-term pollutant concentration has been assumed within the assessment to represent short term (20 minute and one hour) averaging periods.
All monitoring undertaken outside the SPZ is by spot measurements only and therefore due to the sampling frequency, the monitoring undertaken at Nizhnekamsk is the most robust for determining annual mean. 3 Therefore, the 2017 monitored NO2 concentration of 8µg/m from the Nizhnekamsk monitoring location has been used to determine the maximum predicted impact outside the SPZ and at discrete receptors outside the SPZ. This is considered a conservative approach as the monitoring undertaken at Nizhnekamsk is located adjacent to a busy road and therefore influenced by road traffic within the city and background concentrations elsewhere are likely to be lower. The automatic monitors provide the best quality of monitoring data inside the 3 SPZ due to the sampling method and frequency. Therefore, the 2017 monitored NO2 concentration of 24µg/m from NKNK Automatic monitor has been used to determine the maximum predicted impact inside the SPZ and at discrete receptors inside the SPZ.
8.6 Assessment of Impacts
8.6.1 Construction/Decommissioning Although no detailed construction methodology is available at present, the construction period is expected to last for approximately 3 years and will consist of major construction works.
Construction Activities and Associated Impact Magnitude At this stage, no formal construction plan has been formulated for the construction of the Project and has therefore been based on generic construction activities. Typical construction activities, the dust raising potential and overall impact magnitude are presented in Table 43.
Table 43: Construction Activities and Associated Impact Magnitude Section Description of Key activities Dust raising Duration Impact works potential Magnitude Site preparation, Excavation and Earthmoving High >3 months Major clearance and moving material Excavation groundworks Roads and Ancillary works and Minor excavation works. Medium >3 months Moderate infrastructure delivery of materials Transport of materials. to site, removal of Resuspension of dust on unsurfaced roads. wastes from site Construction of Assembly of the Storage of materials Medium > 3 months Moderate plant main components Preparation of materials (cutting etc.) of the plant Resuspension of dust on unsurfaced roads Landscaping Landscaping Earthmoving High < 3 months Major requirements Excavation Transport of materials Wind Resuspension of dust on unsurfaced roads
The activities associated with the construction phase of the Project are considered to have a ‘medium’ to ‘high’ dust raising potential without mitigation. Taking the dust raising potential and the duration of the works into account, the magnitude of dust effects is considered to be ‘moderate to major’ in accordance with the significance criteria defined in Chapter 5.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 114 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Receptor Sensitivity As described in previous sections, consideration has been given to potential receptors within 500 metres of the construction site boundary of the Project. In accordance with Table 39 the receptor sensitivity is classed as ‘medium’.
Significance In accordance with the significance criteria presented in Chapter 5, the risk of dust effects during the construction phase is described as moderate to major adverse. To reduce this effect to ‘minor’ generic good practice dust mitigations have been presented in the mitigation section below.
Decommissioning The Project is expected to have a design lifetime of 25 years; however, it is currently expected that necessary upgrades will be made when necessary to enable the plant to continue operation beyond this period. In the event of decommissioning of the project, it is likely that any potential air quality impacts would be similar to those experienced in the construction phase, as broadly similar activities would be required. Similar to the construction phase these are considered to be of ‘moderate to major’ adverse significance.
8.6.2 Operation Emissions – Public Health This section provides a summary of the modelled concentrations and conclusions for changes in air quality as a result of the Project. Table 44 presents the maximum modelled concentrations outside the SPZ. Table 45 and Table 46 present maximum ground level 20 minute and annual mean NO2 concentrations at the identified discrete receptors. In the case of Kyzyl-Yul only modelled concentrations for the 20-minute NO2 maximum have been presented as it was confirmed that at this location only gardens are present (i.e. no residential areas).
Modelled results indicate that at all areas outside the SPZ and at all discrete receptors included within the assessment the predicted environmental concentrations are below the national standards and all the impacts are described as ‘not significant'.
Figure 29 and Figure 30 present contour plots for the 20 minute NO2 maximum process contributions and the NO2 annual mean process contributions from the Project. Both contours illustrate that the highest pollutant concentrations are experienced within the SPZ and within the boundary of the industrial area where the ambient standards for the protection of the public do not apply.
Table 44: Maximum Ground Level Concentrations Outside the SPZ (µg/m3) Pollutant Averaging Period PC Magnitude AC PEC Standard Receptor Sensitivity Impact
NO2 20 minute max 24.2 Minor 16 40.2 200 Negligible Negligible 1 hr 99.79%ile 6.4 Negligible 16 22.4 200 Negligible Negligible Annual 0.4 Negligible 8 8.4 40 Negligible Negligible Notes: PC – Process Contribution AC – Ambient Concentration PEC – Predicted Environmental Contribution (AC+PC)
3 Table 45: Maximum 20-minute NO2 Ground Level Concentrations at Discrete Receptors (µg/m ) Receptor PC Magnitude AC PEC Standard Receptor Sensitivity Impact Prosti 14.4 Minor 16 30.4 200 Negligible Negligible Martysh 21.3 Minor 48 69.3 200 Negligible Negligible Avlash 19.8 Minor 16 35.8 200 Negligible Negligible Nikoshnovka 17.2 Minor 16 33.2 200 Negligible Negligible Ishteraykovo 21.5 Minor 16 37.5 200 Negligible Negligible Klyuch Truda 13.5 Minor 16 29.5 200 Negligible Negligible
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 115 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Receptor PC Magnitude AC PEC Standard Receptor Sensitivity Impact Klyatle 17.4 Minor 16 33.4 200 Negligible Negligible Balchykly 14.4 Minor 16 30.4 200 Negligible Negligible Alan 15.2 Minor 16 31.2 200 Negligible Negligible Big Afanasovo 15.0 Minor 16 31.0 200 Negligible Negligible Nizhnekamsk 12.7 Minor 16 28.7 200 Negligible Negligible Sobolevo 18.1 Minor 48 66.1 200 Negligible Negligible Kyzyl-Yul (short term only) 19.1 Minor 48 67.1 200 Negligible Negligible Prison 31.1 Moderate 48 79.1 200 Negligible Negligible Ilynka 17.5 Minor 48 65.5 200 Negligible Negligible Notes: PC – Process Contribution AC – Ambient Concentration PEC – Predicted Environmental Contribution Ambient standard of 200µg/m3 is applicable for Russian Standards
3 Figure 29: Maximum Modelled 20 Minute Maximum NO2 concentrations (µg/m )
3 Source: Mott MacDonald, Assumes 50% NOx to NO2 conversion, 2010 meteorological year, contours lines at 10µg/m
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 116 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
3 Table 46: Maximum Annual Mean NO2 Ground Level Concentrations at Discrete Receptors (µg/m ) Receptor PC Magnitude AC PEC Standard Receptor Sensitivity Impact Prosti 0.3 Negligible 8 8.3 40 Negligible Negligible Martysh 0.2 Negligible 24 24.2 40 Low Negligible Avlash 0.1 Negligible 8 8.1 40 Negligible Negligible Nikoshnovka 0.1 Negligible 8 8.1 40 Negligible Negligible Ishteraykovo 0.2 Negligible 8 8.2 40 Negligible Negligible Klyuch Truda 0.1 Negligible 8 8.1 40 Negligible Negligible Klyatle 0.1 Negligible 8 8.1 40 Negligible Negligible Balchykly 0.1 Negligible 8 8.1 40 Negligible Negligible Alan 0.1 Negligible 8 8.1 40 Negligible Negligible Big Afanasovo 0.0 Negligible 8 8.0 40 Negligible Negligible Nizhnekamsk 0.0 Negligible 8 8.0 40 Negligible Negligible Sobolevo 0.1 Negligible 24 24.1 40 Low Negligible Prison 1.9 Negligible 24 25.9 40 Low Negligible Ilynka 0.4 Negligible 24 24.4 40 Low Negligible Notes: PC – Process Contribution AC – Ambient Concentration PEC – Predicted Environmental Contribution Ambient standard of 40µg/m3 is applicable for Russian, EU and IFC standards
3 Figure 30: Maximum Modelled Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations (µg/m )
3 Source: Mott MacDonald, assumes 70% NOx to NO2 conversion, 2008 meteorological year, contours lines represent 1µg/m intervals
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 117 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
8.6.3 Operation Emissions – Occupational Heath Impacts from Project Emissions
Table 47 presents the maximum modelled 8-hour NO2 process contributions. The results indicate that the contributions are well below the occupational standards presented in Section 8.2.5.
3 Table 47: Maximum modelled 8 Hour NO2 process contribution within the Industrial hub (µg/m )
Averaging Period NO2 Occupational Standard 8 hours 18.0 2000
Impacts from Non-Project Emissions on Project Workers Monitoring indicates that VOC concentrations within the industrial area are low compared to occupational exposure and are likely to be below the occupational exposure standards.
Mitigation measures discussed within this chapter include those specified to reduce the risk of occupational exposure particularly to fugitive emissions of VOCs which are relevant to improving occupational health and safety for the onsite workers.
8.7 Mitigation Measures
8.7.1 Construction Phase The following mitigation measures (which are in accordance with the EHS Guidelines) for controlling air quality impacts will be incorporated into the construction phase:
● Minimizing dust from material handling sources, such as conveyors and bins, by using covers and/or control equipment (water suppression) ● Minimizing dust from open sources, including storage piles, by using control measures such as installing enclosures and covers, and increasing the moisture content ● Dust suppression techniques should be implemented, such as applying water or non-toxic chemicals to minimize dust from vehicle movements ● Manage emissions from mobile sources as per the EHS Guidelines for Air Emissions and Ambient Air Quality ● No open burning of solid waste ● Development of a dust management plan for the construction phase to minimise dust emissions. Development of an Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) plan which will include appropriate PPE for the protection of workers against contaminated dust. The OHS and dust management plan shall be consistent and complementary.
8.7.2 Operational Phase No additional mitigation measures for pollutants considered within the dispersion modelling other than those already incorporated in the design are proposed (mitigation measures included within the design to minimise fugitive releases of VOCs are detailed below).
No emission concentrations will be higher than those assumed within the dispersion modelling. In addition, following key design features have been accounted for and are considered to be incorporated mitigation:
● Appropriate stack heights for combustion sources conform with Good International Industrial Practice
● Cracking heaters of EP-600 to be installed to have state of the art low NOx technology which will include dry-low NOx burners
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 118 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● The decoking waste gas which occurs during the discontinuous decoking of cracking furnaces radiant coils and linear quench exchangers will be sent to decoking waste gas separators (cyclones) for control of the particulate emissions before discharge to atmosphere ● The Waste Gas and Liquid Incinerator will be designed with high destruction removal efficiency to ensure safe and environmental friendly disposal of the incinerated waste gases and liquids ● Flare gases will be sent to the process flare, which will be designed with high destruction removal efficiency to ensure safe and environmental friendly disposal of the flared gases ● Continuous emission monitoring facilities at stacks of the cracking furnaces and auxiliary boilers will be foreseen for NOx, CO and O2 (as reference basis). The Project will meet industry best practice to avoid the release of fugitive emissions, these best practice prevention methods are in line with those specified within both the General and sector specific EHS Guidelines. The proposed sites will include the following prevention methods:
● Minimising flanged connections and use of high grade sealing systems; ● For valves use of high grade stuffing box packing or bellows for all fluids containing benzene, 1,3-butadiene, H2S, or mercaptan with a summary of > 5 w-% in gaseous or liquid service and for fluids containing CO or NH3 with a summary of > 30 w-% in gaseous or liquid service ● Double mechanical seals or related high-grade sealing systems for pumps or seal-less pumps shall be provided for all fluids containing benzene, 1,3-butadiene, H2S, or mercaptan with a summary of > 5 w-% and for fluids containing CO or NH3 with a summary of > 30 w-% ● Dry gas seals shall be provided for centrifugal compressors in VOC or HAP service ● Each open-ended valve or line in VOC or HAP service shall be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve ● Pressure relief valves in VOC or HAP service shall be routed to the flare system ● Sampling-connection system in VOC or HAP service shall be designed to avoid VOC or HAP emissions to the atmosphere ● Storage tanks for VOC or HAP with storage capacity of 150 m³ or more shall be designed with floating roof or fixed roof with vapour control facility ● Good housekeeping.
8.8 Residual Impacts Table 48 presents a summary of the residual impacts from the proposed Project.
Table 48: Summary of Impacts Activity Potential Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Mitigation Residual Impacts Impacts
Construction Dust from Medium Moderate to Moderate Mitigation measures in Negligible to construction major to major line with IFC guidelines, minor adverse activities adverse dust management plan. Operation Emissions Negligible to Negligible to Negligible All combustion activities Negligible from low moderate to have suitable stack. combustion plant Decommissioning as per construction
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 119 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
9 Ground Conditions
9.1 Introduction This Chapter considers the potential impacts to ground conditions associated with construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project. The assessment framework is set out in Chapter 5 and the assessment of potential impacts is based on the description of the Project provided in Chapter 2. Specific objectives of the assessment are to assess:
● Potential impacts of the Project on geology, soils and groundwater, from the construction phase, subsequent operation and the decommissioning phase of the Project ● Potential impacts on geology, soils and groundwater from existing contaminated land in the Project Area and future contamination as a result of the Project ● Potential secondary impacts from these contamination sources on other sensitive receptors such as human health, ecology and water. Appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or reduce any identified significant impacts are also presented.
Each phase of any project has the potential to impact on soils, with potential negative implications on soil quality, in addition to groundwater quality if mobilisation of contamination occurs. The geology and soils of an area can also impose constraints on the construction, particularly the presence of contaminated and unstable land. Such constraints will be considered in both the design as well as in construction and operational procedures.
Sensitive receptors associated with ground conditions comprise key features, such as designated (regionally, nationally, or internationally) important geological sites and agriculturally or ecologically valuable soils. With respect to groundwater, key features include aquifers important for their use in irrigation, industry or most importantly drinking water. There is also a potential for secondary impacts from existing or future contaminated ground to sensitive receptors that may be nearby, such as human health (farmers, contractors, and site / maintenance workers), wildlife and livestock.
Based on the perceived connectivity between the above receptors and the ground conditions, the effects on these receptors with respect to impacts from contaminated ground are discussed in this chapter.
For this assessment, the study area includes the Project area and its surroundings within approximately 500m of the boundary. Geology, soils and groundwater further away are unlikely to be significantly affected by operations associated with Project activities.
Following a description of the legal framework in Section 9.2, assessment methodology in Section 9.3, subsequent sections provide information on baseline ground conditions (Section 9.4), the impact assessment (Section 9.5) and mitigation measures proposed (Section 9.6). A summary of the impacts and any residual impacts following mitigation are reported in Section 9.7.
9.2 Legislation
9.2.1 National Legislation The main regulating act on soil and subsoil resources protection is Federal Law No.7-FZ dated January 10, 2002 "On Environmental Protection". This law sets the legal basis of the state environmental policy on sustainable condition of soil and subsoil resources, usage and recovery of these resources.
The main legal documents regulating soil and ground water conditions, pollutants concentrations and ground surveys are:
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 120 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Land Code of the Russian Federation No.136-FZ dated October 25, 2001 ● Federal Law No.2395-1 dated February 21, 1992 “On Subsoil Resources” ● Federal Law No.78-FZ dated June 18, 2001 “On Land Management” ● Federal Law No.89-FZ dated June 24, 1998 "On Industrial and Domestic Waste" ● Federal Law No.52-FZ dated March 30, 1999 “On Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of Population” ● Federal Law No.68-FZ dated December 21, 1998 “On Protection of Population and Territories Against Natural and Man-caused Emergencies” ● Decree of the Government of Russian Federation No.140 dated February 23, 1994, “On Soil Remediation, Removal, Keeping and Rational Use of Fertile Soil Level ● Sanitary Regulations SanPiN 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03 “Sanitary Protection Zones and Sanitary Classification of Enterprises, Structures and Other Facilities” ● Sanitary Regulations SanPiN 2.1.7.1287-03 “Sanitary-Epidemiological Requirements to Soil Quality” ● Sanitary Regulations SanPiN 2.1.7.1322-03 “Hygienic Requirements to Disposal and Treatment of Production and Consumption Wastes” ● State Norms GN 2.1.7.2041-06 “Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) of Chemical Substances in Soil” ● State Norms GN 2.1.7.2511-09 “Indicative Permissible Concentrations (IPC) of Chemicals in Soil” ● Letter of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation No. 01-25 dated December 27, 1993 “Chemical Pollution of Soil. Damage Assessment Guidelines” ● Methodology Guideline MU 2.1.7.730-99 “Hygienic Assessment of Soil Quality in Populated Areas.” National Best Available Techniques ● Reference Document on best available techniques ITS18-2016 “Production of Basic Organic Chemicals” – provides specifications and levels of emissions related to production technology” ● Reference Document on best available techniques ITS17-2016 “Disposal of Industrial and Domestic Wastes” – determines requirements for production process, protective measures and technical specifications for landfills related to the physical state and hazardous class of wastes. Regulations of the Republic of Tatarstan ● Order of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Tatarstan No.174-п dated May 15, 2012 “On Residual Content of Crude Oil and Oil Products in Soils After Reclamation for Agricultural needs.”
9.2.2 Applicable International Requirements Key standards and documents on international best practice related to the assessment and management of contaminated land, and good practice for pollution prevention and control include the following:
● IFC General EHS Guidelines: Environmental, Contaminated Land (2007) ● IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines: Large Volume Petroleum-Based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing (2007) ● IFC Performance Standard 3 Pollution Prevention and Abatement, in Performance Standards on Social & Environmental Sustainability (2012) ● Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on Industrial Emissions, for the Refining of Mineral Oil and Gas. IFC guidance outlines the requirement for impact and risk assessment for key stages of a project, before construction, during construction, during operation and during and after the decommissioning stage. The guidance contains the performance levels and measures that are generally considered to be achievable in
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 121 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
new facilities by existing technology. It also provides guidance on pollution prevention and control, waste disposal, handling of hazardous materials and emergency response.
The assessment also makes reference to the following Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Best Available Technique (BAT) Reference Notes:
● IPPC Reference Document on BAT in the Large Volume Organic Chemical Industry - Pollution prevention (2003). IPPC presumes the use of preventative techniques before any consideration of end-of-pipe control techniques. Many pollution prevention techniques can be applied to ethylene production processes and this guidance describes them in terms of source reduction (preventing waste arisings by modifications to products, input materials, equipment and procedures), recycling and waste minimization initiatives.
9.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria
9.3.1 Evaluation of Baseline Conditions The evaluation of baseline conditions uses a variety of sources, including information on geology, soils, hydrogeology and the existing contamination status of the soils and groundwater in existing and proposed construction areas of the Project. The baseline conditions of the Project site have been summarised by Brannan Environment (Branan, 2013 - Volume III of the ESIA documentation) based on open sources and a hydrogeological investigation undertaken by OOO “Stroyproektizyskaniya.”
9.3.2 Site Reconnaissance A reconnaissance of the Project site was undertaken in June 2017 by experts from Mott MacDonald. The site visit was undertaken to make a visual assessment of the baseline soil conditions at the Project site to determine the potential for future site works to impact on the existing ground conditions. The visit also included a review of current practices that may have negative implications for soil and groundwater quality.
9.3.3 Ground Investigation and Monitoring A hydrogeological investigation survey was undertaken by OOO Stroyproyektizyskaniya in 2012 to investigate the ground conditions at the site proposed for the EP-600 Plant. The investigations included boring of groundwater monitoring wells, and testing of soil and groundwater quality in order to establish a baseline of the soil and groundwater conditions. Control soil investigations were conducted in 2017 by the accredited NKNK laboratory (NKNK, 2017). The results of the 2012 investigations at the EP-600 site are summarised in Volume III of the ESIA documentation. Results of the 2017 investigations are provided in Section 9.4.3.
It is anticipated that naphtha will primarily be supplied directly to the production unit. In occasional situations when delivery from the producer is limited, it will be supplied from the existing naphtha storage tanks located within the NKNK site. It would not be possible to assess the full scale of contamination, if present beneath the naphtha tanks, until the tanks have been removed. It is not considered necessary to undertake any further investigation prior to Project construction works. Surveys shall be undertaken during the naphtha tank removal to identify any associated contamination in underlying soils. Risk assessment shall also be undertaken to determine if remediation is required. The potential effects associated with finding contamination during the construction work are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this chapter.
9.3.4 Soil Quality Assessment Criteria In line with IFC General EHS Guidelines (2007) requiring use of the most stringent norms for assessment, the assessment of potential land contamination has been undertaken by comparison of soil quality data with national standards. As a first stage of assessment, to address the risks to environment and human health, the results of the analytical testing on soil samples have been compared to:
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 122 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Russian Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC)62 - a complex indicator of the chemical content in soil harmless to human health directly or indirectly via cultivated plants, animals and air. MPCs have been derived in the Russian Federation for a number of heavy metals and organic compounds taking into account background exposure from the natural occurrence of pollutants in the environment. The justification of MPCs in soil is based on 4 main indicators of harmfulness established experimentally: – Translocation: characterising the transition of the substance from soil to plants – Migration to water: characterises the ability of the substance to transfer from soil to groundwater and tap water sources – Migration to air: characterises the transition of the substance from soil to atmospheric air – General health indicator of harmfulness: characterises the influence of the pollutant on the self-purifying ability of the soil and its biological activity. The exposure routes are quantified with the justification of the permissible concentration of the substance for each hazard indicator. The lowest of the justified concentrations is adopted as the MPC. ● Indicative Permissible Concentrations (IPC)63 have been determined for naturally occurring metals in common soil types in the territory of Russian Federation. IPC should be used in situations where MPC is not stated or the naturally occurring background concentration in the territory is higher than MPC. Based on the data received from the Project hydrogeological surveys, the IPC for near neutral to neutral clay and clay-loam (soil with pH KCl > 5.5) has been used for purpose of this assessment.
● Level of Chemical Pollution64 – an indicator adopted for calculation of the cost for recovery of polluted soils. Levels of Chemical Pollution are generic criteria based on the MPC, hazardous class of pollutant and background concentration.
For comparative purposes, the following international standards have also been used in this contamination risk assessment:
● Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQG) published by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 2011), using the CEQG derived for industrial use
● Dutch Intervention Values (DIV) published by the Dutch ministry for social building, regional planning, and environment administration (VROM, 2009). The DIV represent contamination thresholds above which the functional properties of the soil for humans, plants and animals are seriously impaired or threatened and under such circumstances, remediation may be required65.
The Dutch and Canadian values, based on generic assessment criteria, are considered to represent a sound, scientific and internationally recognised basis for reviewing the contamination levels on a comparative basis against the contamination assessment based on the national criteria.
● Criteria used for purpose of the assessment are presented in Table 49.
Table 49: Generic Parameters on Soil Quality, mg/kg
Level of chemical pollution CCME Parameter MPC IPC Extremely DIV Clear Acceptable Moderate Hazardous (industrial) hazardous Project pollutants monitored by NKNK laboratory Arsenic 2 10 < MPC MPC to 20 20 - 30 30 – 50 >50 76 12 Cadmium - 2 < MPC MPC to 3 3 – 5 5 – 20 > 20 13 22
62 GN 2.1.7.2041-06 “Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) of Chemical Substances in Soil” 63 State Norms GN 2.1.7.2511-09 “Indicative Permissible Concentrations (IPC) of Chemicals in Soil” 64 Letter of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation No.01-25 dated December 27, 1993 “Chemical Pollution of Soil. Damage Assessment Guidelines.” 65 Intervention Values for soil are expressed as the concentration in a standard soil (10% organic matter and 25% clay).
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 123 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Level of chemical pollution CCME Parameter MPC IPC Extremely DIV Clear Acceptable Moderate Hazardous (industrial) hazardous Copper 3* 132 < MPC MPC to 200 200 – 300 300 – 500 > 500 190 91 Lead 32 130 < MPC MPC to 125 125 – 250 250 – 600 > 600 530 600 Mercury 2.1 - < MPC MPC to 3 3 – 5 5 – 10 > 10 4 50 Nickel 4* 80 < MPC MPC to 150 150 – 300 300 – 500 >500 100 50 Zinc 23* 220 < MPC MPC to 500 500 – 1500 1500 – 3000 > 3000 720 360 Mineral Oil** 5 120 < MPC 1000 – 2000 2000 – 3000 3000 – 5000 >5000 5000 1700 Additional parameters used in the ESIA (unmonitored Project pollutants) Cobalt* 5 - < MPC MPC to 50 50 – 150 150 – 300 > 300 190 300 Manganese 1,500 - < MPC < MPC < MPC < MPC < MPC - - Benzene 0.3 - < MPC MPC to 1 1 – 3 3 – 10 >10 1.1 0.0068 Toluene 0.3 - < MPC MPC to 10 10 – 50 50 – 100 >100 32 0.08 Benz[a]pyrene 0.02* - < MPC MPC to 0.1 0.1 – 0.25 0.25 – 0.5 >0.5 110 0.018 * - Content of mobile compound ** - Decree of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Tatarstan No.172-п dated May 14, 2012
Soil Quality in Relation to Human Health, Residential (Recreational) Development or Agriculture In line with health and nature usage requirements of Russian legislation66 and local regulation acts67, polluted soils cannot be used for civil construction, recreation, and agriculture. All site users should include soil reclamation measures as part of design documentation with future financial obligation to improve soil quality after project decommissioning.
Potential impacts from soil quality on the health of the local community is determined as negligible and will not be further discussed in the assessment due to the following reasons:
● NKNK territory is well secured and therefore opportunity for unauthorised access and contact with soil in the Project area by the local population is considered negligible ● Reclamation obligations of NKNK for the Project will be guaranteed to cover all costs required to improve soil quality ● The Project will be located solely within the fenced NKNK territory. Additional plots outside of the NKNK territory will not be required for temporary use (i.e. for construction of temporary roads, storages or landfills) ● The potential migration of pollutants from the Project site to areas approved for civil construction is very unlikely due to the SPZ size (2.5km–5.3km wide). Due to the distance, the likelihood of connection to streams and rivers used by local population for domestic needs and recreation is low. Assessment of potential impacts of dust to receptors, including workers, during the construction phase is assessed separately in Chapter 8.
9.3.5 Groundwater Baseline Assessment Criteria An assessment of baseline groundwater contamination has been undertaken by comparison of groundwater quality data68 with national and applicable international standards derived for protection of the environment and human health.
The following standards have been used for purpose of this assessment:
66 Decree of the Government of Russian Federation No.140 dated February 23, 1994, “On Soil Remediation, Removal, Keeping and Rational Use of Fertile Soil Level 67 Order of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Tatarstan No.174-п dated May 15, 2012 “On Residual Content of Crude Oil and Oil Products in Soils” 68 Brannan Baseline Environmental Report, 2012
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 124 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Russian national norms for drinking water sources - GN 2.1.5.1315-03 “Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) of Chemicals in the Water of Water Objects Used for Drinking and Domestic- Recreation Purposes” ● Russian national norms for tap water - SanPiN 2.1.4.559-96 “Drinking Water. Hygiene Requirements to the Centralized Potable (Treated) Water. Quality Control” ● Russian national norms for water bodies to address the risks to aquatic fauna wellbeing - the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation No.552 dated December 13, 2016 “On Approval of Water Quality Standards for Fishery Water Bodies, Including Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Harmful Substances in Fishery Waters” ● Guidelines for drinking water quality published by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2017 (for comparative purposes). The generic assessment criteria used for the assessment of risks from the presence of contamination in groundwater are presented in Table 50. Selected substances include pollutants generated and emitted to the environment from the Project production process, benz[a]pyrene and hazardous metals.
Table 50: Generic Assessment Criteria for Groundwater, mg/l MPC for drinking water MPC for aquatic WHO Drinking water Parameter Potable water (treated Water in drinking water fauna guidelines and supplied) sources (not treated) Chlorides* - 350 300 200-300 Sulphates* - 500 100 250 Ammonia* - 1.5* 0.5 1.5 Nitrates* 45.0 40 50 Nitrites* 3.3 0.08 3 Magnesium* 50 40 - Oil products* 0.1 0.05 - Copper* 1.0 0.001 1.0 Iron* 0.3 0.1 0.3 Benzene* 0.01 0.5 0.01 Ethylbenzene* 0.01 0.001 0.3 Toluene* 0.5 0.5 0.7 Benz[a]pyrene** 0.000001 not allowed 0.0007 Arsenic** 0.05 0.05 0.01 Cadmium** 0.001 0.005 0.003 Lead** 0.0005 0.006 0.01 Mercury** 0.1 0.00001 0.006 Nickel** 5.0 0.01 0.07 Zinc** 1 0.01 - * pollutants generated and emitted to environment from Project production process ** pollutants should be assessed in line with Russian requirements to soil quality assessment conducted for construction needs
9.3.6 Determination of Impact Significance The Project will not abstract groundwater or discharge wastewater to groundwater or land. All process and drinking water for the NKNK industrial area is taken from the Kama River. There is potential for small streams in the project area to be affected by direct contamination and for the migration of pollutants within groundwater. This in turn may impact the local population who use groundwater for domestic needs (e.g. tap water and crop watering), however due to the distance from the Project area, this is considered a low risk.
Potential impacts of the Project on geology, soils and groundwater are identified through consideration of:
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 125 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Any site investigation of land / water contamination ● Construction activities, such as ground clearance, piling and excavations ● Operation of the Project ● The disposal of any potentially contaminated process water / oils during or post development ● Decommissioning of the Project. Based on the assessment framework set out in Chapter 5 the following section provides further information regarding the proposed methodology to determine the significance of impacts related to ground conditions. The significance of potential impacts is a function of the sensitivity of the receptor associated with ground conditions, and the magnitude (duration, spatial extent, reversibility, likelihood and threshold) of the impact.
Table 51 presents the criteria for determining the sensitivity of geological, soil and groundwater receptors.
Table 51: Criteria for Determining Sensitivity of Features Importance Definition / Value of soil High Agricultural Land (soil of excellent quality with no limitations, can support a very wide range of agricultural crops); or nationally or internationally important for its geology; or groundwater resources used for major potable supplies with limited potential for substitution. Medium Agricultural Land (soil of good quality with minor limitations, can support a wide range of agricultural crops); or regionally important for its geology. Groundwater quality suitable for industrial/agricultural use without treatment. (abstraction point/s within 1km of the site boundary)/slightly saline groundwater which requires treatment for use as drinking water; and/or moderate level of substitution. Low Agricultural Land (soil of good to moderate quality with moderate to moderately severe limitations, can sometimes support a wide range of agricultural crop, or cereals and scrubland); or locally important for its geology. Groundwater quality not suitable for industrial/agricultural use without treatment. Negligible Agricultural land (soil of poor quality with severe limitations, supports mainly scrubland), not important for its geology. Groundwater quality not suitable for industrial/agricultural use without special treatment.
All human health receptors are considered to be high value / sensitivity. Table 52 presents the criteria for determining the magnitude of impacts on geology, soils and groundwater.
Table 52: Criteria for Determining Magnitude of Impact Magnitude of Impact Criteria (positive or negative) Major Negative Fundamental change to the specific environmental conditions resulting in loss of feature. The Project (either on its own or with other projects) may result in physical removal or degradation (including loss of structure and contamination) of a large area of soil. May affect the integrity of the water body either in terms of quality or quantity and could render it permanently unusable. The function of the water body is impacted such that there is a substantive and permanent change in function (i.e. changes in flows/ availability for abstraction). Moderate Negative Detectable change to the specific environmental conditions resulting in impact on integrity of feature or loss of part of feature. Physical removal or degradation (including loss of structure and contamination) of a moderate area of soil. The quality or quantity of the water body would be reduced such that moderate works would be required to ensure continuity of its existing use or function. The function of the water body is impacted such that there is a moderate and measurable change (+ve/-ve) in function (i.e. changes in flows/ availability for abstraction). Or, a major impact that only affected the water body for a limited time frame and was reversible and could be mitigated by some temporary works. Minor Negative Detectable but minor change to the specific environmental conditions resulting in minor impact on feature. The impacts result in the physical removal or degradation (including loss of structure and contamination) of a minor area of soil. The quantity or quality of the water feature and a measurable change would be seen but the manner of change would not materially affect the use or function of the feature. Negligible Results in an impact on feature but of insufficient magnitude to affect the use or integrity. The impact would lead to no observable change in the features. Minor Positive Detectable but minor change to the specific environmental conditions resulting in minor positive impact on feature. Physical permanent improvement of the condition of a moderate area of soil either through remediation of soil contamination, replacement with high quality soil or removal of potential contamination source. Improved agricultural / ecological value. Or no physical improvement in soil quality but introduction
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 126 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Magnitude of Impact Criteria (positive or negative) of a permanent barrier to migration of contaminants preventing impacts to receptors such as groundwater, humans etc. Temporary or minor positive change in water quality, flow or availability for abstraction, but the manner of change would not materially affect the use or function of the feature. Moderate Positive Detectable change to the specific environmental conditions resulting in partial recovery of feature. Physical permanent improvement of the condition of a moderate area of soil either through remediation of soil contamination, replacement with high quality soil or removal of potential contamination source. Improved agricultural / ecological value. Moderate permanent change in water quality, flow or availability for abstraction such that it becomes usable to a greater degree than previous. Major Positive Fundamental change to the specific environmental conditions resulting in complete recovery of feature. Physical permanent improvement of the condition of a large area of soil for example through remediation of soil contamination, replacement with high quality soil or removal of potential contamination source. Substantially improved agricultural / ecological value. Substantive permanent change in water quality, flow or availability for abstraction such that it becomes usable to its full capacity.
The magnitude of the impact and value of the features impacted are combined to determine the likely significance of each impact (see Chapter 5). The predicted effect may be modified by professional judgement. If the impact is negative then the effect is adverse, if the impact is positive then the effect is beneficial.
Assessment of Environmental Effects with Respect to Contaminated Land The Project is located on land that, based on historical activities, has the potential to be affected by contamination. The assessment follows the standard EIA methodology for assessment of impacts from existing contamination and potential future contamination from the Project to the defined ground receptors.
The assessment identifies and assesses the potential impacts that identified contamination risks may pose on the geology, soils and groundwater receptors. Where mobilisation of contamination occurs, contamination may spread and affect a larger area and such mobilisation may have secondary impacts on human health and ecological receptors, and this is considered in the assessment for the construction, operation and decommissioning phases.
9.3.7 Data Limitations To the extent that some of the assessment in this report is based on information obtained in ground investigations, persons using or relying on this report should recognise that any such investigation can examine only a fraction of the subsurface conditions. As such, unexpected contamination may be encountered during the course of the construction work.
Data from a number of sources has been used to support this assessment. It is worth noting that the assessment for the EP-600 site has been undertaken in the absence of the original soil and groundwater contamination testing data, including details of the depths of soil and water sampling. Without this data, we cannot provide comment on the vertical delineation of any soil contamination, or the overall applicability of the investigation data. Furthermore, as the testing data has been provided by a third party, it has been assumed that the data is representative of site conditions and has been reported accurately.
9.4 Baseline Description
9.4.1 Overview of Existing Ground and Groundwater Conditions The Project is located in the undulating broad-leaved forest area of the Republic of Tatarstan, on the eastern side of the Kama River. The surrounding area is broadly characterised by forest, on light grey and grey forest soils. The Project site is located within the existing NKNK industrial area surrounded by other industrial facilities and associated infrastructure of the Nizhnekamsk production hub, much of which has been cleared of forest.
The EP-600 plant is to be located on undeveloped land in the southeast corner of the NKNK industrial area. Former activities on site include topsoil stripping for use on local developments and use as a laydown area.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 127 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Up to 3m of soil cover had been removed from the majority of the site. Currently this territory is colonised by meadow grasses and young aspens.
A landfill, owned and operated by NKNK since 1982, is located on the southern edge of the NKNK industrial area, approximately 4km southwest of the Project site. The landfill is understood to have previously received a variety of solid and liquid wastes, although the disposal of liquid waste has now ceased. It is proposed to use the landfill for disposal of any waste from the Project that cannot be recycled, burned or sold to third parties. The landfill will operate for the duration the Project is operational.
Under the Environmental Management Plan for the landfill, NKNK undertake routine groundwater monitoring in the area surrounding the landfill, on the perimeter and at a distance of 150m, to monitor impacts to groundwater from landfill leachate. Monitoring has identified impacted groundwater on the perimeter of the landfill, believed to be the result of historic oil sludge disposal.
NKNK has begun a programme to reconstruct the existing landfill cells with impermeable linings, and to improve leachate management by improving water evaporation. The works to improve the water evaporation have been carried out on all cells. Current and future waste disposal is and will be undertaken in clay lined cells reinforced with concrete. More detail on waste management for the Project is presented in Chapter 12: Materials and Waste Management. No changes to the NKNK landfill are planned as a result of the Project, therefore this has not been included further within this Chapter.
9.4.2 Geology Regional Geology The region of Tatarstan is located on the eastern edge of the East European Platform. The crystalline basement is comprised of Archaen and Proterozoic rocks located at depths greater than 1,500m. The overlying rocks, characteristic of the entire East European Platform, comprise a thick sedimentary sequence of 3,000m or more (Artemieva, 2003). Rocks that outcrop in the region of Tatarstan include the Middle-Upper Permian (most widespread), Jurassic-Cretaceous (in the southeast) and Upper Pliocene (along the valleys of the Kama and Volga Rivers) (Vdovets et al, 2010).
Geology of the Development Area Based on ground investigation at the proposed EP-600 site undertaken by OOO Stroyproyektizyskaniya in 2012, the EP-600 site is understood to be underlain by Middle Permian deposits comprising interbedded clay, siltstone (aleurolite), sandstone and limestone with weathering crusts and fissure features. In some areas of the southwest part of the site, the Middle Permian deposits are overlain by a thin cover of Quaternary loam. Made ground is also present at varying thicknesses across much of the main EP-600 site (between 0.1-2.6m).
The Middle Permian deposits vary in thickness and composition across the Project site but mainly comprise thick clays and sandstones interbedded with much thinner limestone and siltstone. The clays have been found between 0.5-11.5m thick and are generally stiff to very stiff, calcareous, variably weathered and interbedded with siltstone and sandstone, and layers of crushed limestone and sandstone. Thin interbeds of limestone occur at various depths with a thickness between 0.1-0.6m and have been found to be significantly weathered with extensive fissuring, these are water bearing. Sandstone beds vary in thickness between 0.4-10.7m and are generally fine grained, weakly cemented and weathered, with layers of stronger more highly cemented sandstone, they are sometimes water bearing, and contain clay layers. Finally, interbeds of siltstone have been found to be thin to moderately thick (0.3-4m) slightly weathered and fissured, sometimes water bearing, with clay and sandstone layers.
An infilled ravine tributary, varying in depth between 1.5-7.2m, has been identified in the south-eastern area of the EP-600 site. The fill material comprises un-compacted materials including soil of clay, loam and chernozem, crushed sandstone.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 128 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
9.4.3 Soils Soil Type Nizhnekamsk region is gently rugged with widely varying soil composition, from sandy and loamy podzols of low nutrient content and poor quality, to more fertile meadow chernozems. Soils in the region of the NKNK industrial site more commonly comprise light grey and grey forest soils which vary in nutrient content. To the east of the NKNK industrial site, within 500m of the EP-600 site, the soils support a large area of woodland and are not used for agriculture. Their ability to support agriculture is not known, but soils of a similar type located beyond the woodland to the northeast are currently used for agriculture. A plan showing the main soil types in the Nizhnekamsk region is presented in Figure 31 below.
Figure 31: Soil Map
Source: Adapted from Brannan (2012)
Figure 31: shows that natural soil cover over much of the NKNK Industrial site (where still present) comprises light-grey and dark-grey forest soils.
The Nizhnekamsk region, surrounding the NKNK industrial area, is extensively farmed (90%), 67% of which is arable. Areas of more fertile chernozem soils are located closer to the Kama River, at least 4.5 km to the northeast of the Project site, and 3 km to the northwest. However, farmed land covers a much wider area.
Soil Quality A hydrogeological survey for the purpose of EP-600 Plant construction was undertaken in June-October 2012 by OOO Stroyproektizyskaniya69. A plan showing the location of the sampling points is presented in Figure 32: . In line with national requirements, baseline data for project design is valid for up for 5 years and should be validated after this period. Latest surveys of soil quality at the NKNK industrial area were undertaken in 2016 by NKNK and Rospotrebnadzor laboratories. Due to previous disturbance of the project site and previous removal of the upper soil level at the site it is considered that the results of 2016 surveys, conducted taking
69 Brannan Baseline Environmental Report, 2012
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 129 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
into account the prevailing wind direction near the Project site, are appropriate for validation of the surveys conducted in 2012.
Figure 32: Layout of Soil Sampling Points Within the EP-600 Project Site
Source: http://kosmosnimki.ru A total of 81 soil samples were taken at varying depths between 0-3m from the proposed site of the EP-600 plant in 2012, and 8 tests were undertaken in 2016 near the Project site. A background sample was also taken from Krasny Klyuch, located in a forest park to the northwest of the site. Testing for heavy metals, benz[a]pyrene and oil products was carried out on the majority of samples.
A summary of the 2012 and 2016 testing results compared with applicable national and international soil quality criteria is presented in Table 53. Based on geological and soils data collected during the ground investigation, IPC values derived for neutral clay / clay-loam soils are considered the most representative for this site.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 130 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 53: Results of Chemical Soil Analysis – EP-600 Plant (2012 and 2016), mg/kg Dutch Intervention Values CCME CEQG (industrial) Number of MPC Number of IPC Level of Minimum Maximum Analyte MPC exceedances / IPC* exceedances / Chemical number of number of concentration concentration total samples total samples Pollution value exceedances / value exceedances / total samples total samples Arsenic 1.19 7.51 2 56/62 10 0/62 acceptable 76 0/62 12 0/62 Cadmium <0.05 4.37 - n/a 2 3/62 moderate 13 0/62 22 0/62 Cobalt 6.86 63.2 5 62/62 - - moderate 190 0/62 300 0/62 Copper 18.3 435 3 62/62 132 3/62 hazardous 190 2/62 91 6/62 Lead 6.95 76.1 32 2/62 130 0/62 acceptable 530 0/62 600 0/62 Manganese 386 3781 1500 5/62 - - moderate - - - - Mercury 0.01 0.53 2.1 0/62 - - clear 4 0/62 50 0/62 Nickel 30.06 224 4 628/62 80 34/62 moderate 100 20/62 50 54/62 Zinc 20.6 126 23 56/62 220 0/62 acceptable 720 0/62 360 0/62 Oil Products** <50 297 - n/a 120 5/11 acceptable 5000 0/11 1700 0/11 Benz[a]pyrene <0.0005 0.094 0.02 2/62 - - acceptable - - - - Benzene <0.00005 0.00062 0.3 0/11 - - clear 1.1 0/11 0.0068 0/11 Toluene <0.00005 <0.00005 0.3 0/11 - - clear 32 0/11 0.018 0/11 Source: Branan, 2012, NKNK, 2016 * IPC value for neutral clay / clay-loam soils with pH KCl>5.5 ** data of 2016 analysis only
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 131 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
The results indicate that shallow soils across the EP-600 site contain elevated concentrations of heavy metals, particularly arsenic, copper, nickel and zinc. Comparison with the MPC values, for protection of human health, indicates that concentrations of these four metals exceed the respective MPCs of 2 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, 4 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg in nearly all samples, including the background sample. Concentrations of cadmium, copper and nickel also exceed the IPC for these metals in some samples. About 50% of samples exceed the IPC for nickel and oil products. A small number of exceedances of the MPC for cadmium, manganese and lead were also identified. Manganese concentrations identified in the background sample also exceeded the relevant MPC.
Benz[a]pyrene was not detected above the laboratory detection limit in the majority of soils samples tested. However, slightly elevated concentrations of benz[a]pyrene (0.094 and 0.044 mg/kg), exceeding the MPC of 0.02 mg/kg, were detected in two soil samples.
By way of comparison, the concentrations have also been assessed against CCME and Dutch Intervention Values (DIV). Significantly fewer exceedances of both of these guidance values were noted for all metals, with the exception of nickel which was found exceeding the CCME value of 50mg/kg in almost all samples (but not the background sample), and the DIV of 100mg/kg in almost a third of all samples tested. However, the maximum concentration (224mg/kg) on site is much lower than the current UK S4UL guideline value for commercial land use, thus these elevated concentrations are not considered to pose a significant risk provided that there is appropriate management of dust on site.
Copper was found exceeding the CCME value of 91mg/kg and the DIV of 190mg/kg in less than 10% of samples. Although such concentrations on site may impede plant growth, they are not considered to be of a wider environmental or health concern.
Based on comparison with both the national and international guidance values, it is considered that elevated concentrations of copper and nickel in soils across the EP-600 site present a potential risk to human health. Concentrations of other chemicals are at an acceptable level considering the proposed site use.
9.4.4 Hydrogeology Groundwater A shallow groundwater table is present in the Middle-Permian clay and sandstone deposits across the region. Recharge of the aquifer is mainly through rainfall. Groundwater feeds the river networks surrounding the site.
Geotechnical ground investigation, including excavation of 149 wells, at the EP-600 site encountered groundwater in the made ground and shallow Middle-Permian deposits, at depths between 0.2-5.8m below ground level (bgl). Based on standard chemical analysis, the salinity of the groundwater in this area is understood to be between 0.32-0.89g/l.
To date groundwater investigation has not been undertaken in the area to the north of the existing ethylene storage site.
An assessment of the likely level of aquifer protection at the EP-600 site was undertaken in 201270 based on the findings of geotechnical ground investigation at the site. The assessment assigned a level of aquifer protection based on the depth of the aquifer and the lithology of the overlying unsaturated zone. Based on this assessment there is considered to be a low level of aquifer protection across the site, due to the shallow groundwater level and the moderate permeability of the overlying soils and bedrock.
There are no known existing groundwater abstractions in use within 1km of the Project site. It is understood that the closest groundwater abstractions are taken from wells and springs by the communities of Ishteryakovo, Klyuch Truda and Klyatle, located on the edge of the SPZ, over 5km to the south and southeast of the Project site.
70 Brannan Baseline Report, 2012
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 132 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Groundwater Quality in the Project Area An assessment of groundwater quality at the proposed site was undertaken in 201271 based on a geotechnical ground investigation, including groundwater testing undertaken in 2012. Testing was undertaken on groundwater samples taken from three shallow groundwater monitoring wells (up to 5 m deep) in the southern half of the Project site. Testing for major ions, pH, heavy metals, petroleum products, VOCs, PAHs and PCBs was undertaken on all three groundwater samples on one occasion. A summary of the testing results (where detected above the laboratory method reporting limit) compared with national and international human health guidance levels is presented in Table 54.
The results indicate that concentrations of oil products, copper and lead were found exceeding the respective national MPC values for drinking water and aquatic fauna. Benzene in all three samples exceeds the national and WHO drinking water guidelines, but no other substances exceed WHO guidelines. Very low concentrations of heavy metals were also identified in groundwater at the site but none of these exceeded the national MPC values or the WHO guideline values.
Table 54: Contamination Concentrations in Groundwater, mg/l Parameter MPC for drinking water MPC for WHO Test results aquatic Drinking Potable Water in drinking fauna Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 water water sources water guidelines Chlorides - 350 300 200-300 2.68±0.27 3.83±0.38 36.79±3.68 Sulphates - 500 100 250 71.28±7.13 20.58±2.06 80.65±8.07 Ammonia - 1.5* 0.5 1.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Nitrates 45.0 40 50 6.91±1.73 10.63±2.66 0.30±0.08 Nitrites 3.3 0.08 3 0.052±0.013 0.039±0.010 0.037±0.009 Magnesium 50 40 - 30.80±3.08 30.42±3.04 27.12±2.71 Oil products 0.1 0.05 - 0.075±0.034 0.030±0.020 0.139±0.063 Copper 1.0 0.001 1.0 0.002±0.001 0.004±0.002 0.002±0.001 Iron 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.010±0.003 0.040±0.012 0.010±0.012 Benzene* 1 500 1 2.87 2.62 2.67 Ethylbenzene* 2 1 3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Toluene* 24 500 700 3.28 <0.05 0.11 Benz[a]pyrene 0.0001 n/allowed 0.0007 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Arsenic 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.0020±0.0008 0.0020±0.0008 0.0030±0.0012 Cadmium 0.001 0.005 0.003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Lead 0.0005 0.006 0.01 0.0010±0.0004 0.0010±0.0004 0.0010±0.0004 Mercury 0.1 0.00001 0.006 0.000013±0.000004 0.000012±0.000004 0.000012±0.000004 Nickel 5,0 0.01 0.07 0.006±0.002 0.0040±0.0016 0.0030±0.0012 Zinc 1 0.01 - 0.0020±0.0006 0.0020±0.0006 0.0010±0.0003
Source: Brannan Baseline Report, 2012
*µg/l
The results of this testing indicate that groundwater beneath the proposed EP-600 site has not been significantly impacted by contamination.
9.4.5 Historic and Potential Future Contamination Sources The proposed site of the EP-600 plant is located in the southeast area of the industrial hub and is bordered by existing industrial activities to the north, and railway lines to the south, east and west. The Project site has not previously been developed and has not been subject to significant contaminating activities.
71 Brannan Baseline Environmental Report, 2012
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 133 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Groundwater beneath the site is therefore unlikely to have been impacted by on-site activities. However, the wider area has historically been used for oil industry which currently has and historically had the potential to impact soil and groundwater quality in the area. The results of groundwater testing on the site indicate that neither, on-site or off-site activities have significantly impacted the groundwater quality beneath the EP-600 site. Contaminated groundwater could have implications where the construction works interact with the groundwater, for example in excavations and during piling however it would not be anticipated that this would affect project timelines. The risks can be managed through implementation of good construction practices.
It is considered that the widespread elevated concentrations of metals and occasional elevated concentration of oil products recorded in the soils of the Project area are likely to be related to industrial activities in the area, brought about by the dispersal, by air, of atmospheric emissions and dust from the varied industrial processes at the industrial hub. The metals may also represent background concentrations, due to natural soil conditions, but additional soil testing, over a wider area, would be required to prove this.
Potential sources of contamination from the future construction and operation of the Project are mainly associated with the transport storage and use of hazardous materials. The main contaminants are considered to be: naphtha, ethylene, propylene, butadiene, pyrolysis gas oil, benzene, lubricants, fuels and other chemicals related to the site processes, such as those for water treatment.
9.4.6 Value of Geology, Soils and Groundwater The geology in the NKNK industrial area is assessed as having a negligible geological value, as there are considered to be no sensitive geological features in this part of the Project area.
Soils to the east of proposed EP-600 development site support a large area of woodland, regional soil quality is variable but agricultural soil quality is understood to be good. However, it is understood that there is no farming within 500m of the site and therefore the soils are not currently used for agriculture. Soils within 500m of the site are generally considered to have a low value based on the criteria for determining sensitivity of features (Table 51: ). Agriculture beyond the SPZ is considered unlikely to be in the zone of influence from the Project.
Based on results of soil quality testing, the soils within the Project site area have been impacted by elevated concentrations of some heavy metals, particularly arsenic, nickel, copper and zinc, indicating that the local soil quality is poor. Soils within the confines of the NKNK industrial area (the existing ethylene plant and the previously undeveloped proposed site of the new EP-600 plant) are considered to have a negligible value as they are disturbed, impacted to varying degrees by historical contamination and not identified as agricultural soils.
Groundwater in the underlying aquifer is understood to be present at depths between 0.2-5.8m. Water quality testing indicates that groundwater beneath the site has been slightly impacted by oil products, lead and copper. The site is located within the SPZ where, despite the environmental protection measures in place, existing heavy industry presents an on-going potential risk to groundwater quality. Based on the available literature and monitoring data for the proposed Project sites, this aquifer is likely to be suitable only for industrial use. Regionally, abstractions from this aquifer are understood to be used for drinking water. The closest groundwater abstractions are located in villages at least 5km from the Project site.
Although the groundwater beneath the site is not currently used for potable supply, this is in part due to the presence of the SPZ surrounding the NKNK industrial site. Groundwater could possibly be used for this purpose in future following the decommissioning of the site. Groundwater also supplies flow to the major rivers and their tributaries in the area, therefore impacts to the groundwater quality present potentially significant impacts to river quality.
Groundwater in the shallow aquifer within 500m of the site is therefore considered to be a medium sensitivity receptor.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 134 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
9.5 Assessment of Impacts
9.5.1 Potential Impacts of the Project Overview Based on initial assessment for this Project, the principal potential impacts to soil and groundwater during all phases of the Project include:
● Storage, handling and disposal of existing contaminated soils if encountered during construction works ● Loss or degradation of soils within the Project area as a result of excavation and intermixing during construction activities ● Degradation of soil and groundwater quality as a result of leaks and spills of hazardous materials (including waste) during their transport, storage, handling and disposal ● Degradation of groundwater quality as a result of wastewater drainage, and surface water and storm water runoff. The potential for impacts to soil and groundwater, and where necessary, surface water, from contamination resulting from construction and operation of the Project are discussed below. For all aspects of the construction, operation and decommissioning works, there is also the potential for secondary impacts to construction and site workers from the handling of hazardous materials including contaminated soils. Where relevant, these impacts are also discussed in the sections below. However, if appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and standard construction methods are adhered to, the possibility of construction workers being impacted by contaminated land is low.
9.5.2 Construction Phase Historical Contamination Land preparation and construction may disturb contaminated soils within the Project area, especially during any intrusive groundworks such as installation of foundations, tanks, drainage, buried services (e.g. pipelines) etc. Mobilisation of contaminants may result in the spread of contamination to clean soil or other sensitive receptors.
Investigation of soil quality at the proposed site of the new EP-600 plant has identified existing impacts from heavy metals. It is understood that this site has never been developed so it is considered unlikely that the presence of these contaminants is related to any overlying soil contamination. It is more likely that their presence is related to historic and ongoing industrial activities located to the north of the site.
The construction of the EP-600 plant will form an impermeable layer over any existing soil contamination, creating a barrier to infiltration and therefore migration to the underlying aquifer. The potential impact to groundwater is therefore assessed as minor beneficial.
Soils removed during the construction phase within the Project area may require off-site disposal, either where there is no further use for the soils on-site or where soil is found to be contaminated. Any soil requiring off-site disposal must be characterised according to its contaminant levels.
Where contaminated land is identified, and remediated or removed, the quality of the remaining soil is expected to be improved. Thus, the impact is deemed to be neutral (if no significant contaminated land is found) or minor beneficial (if contaminated land is located and remediation undertaken).
Physical Loss or Degradation of Soil Construction of the new EP-600 plant will be undertaken on previously undeveloped land and may lead to degradation, erosion and / or loss of soil cover. Soils on the proposed site of the EP-600 plant are considered to have a negligible value due to their poor quality, and the damaged or depleted topsoil from historic earth moving activities at the site. The significance of the impact is therefore deemed to be negligible.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 135 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
A subsequent and secondary effect of erosion includes creation of dust. In some areas of the Project where slightly elevated levels of some soil contaminants are known to be present, this may have implications for human health and ecological receptors near to areas where construction activities are to be carried out. The potential impacts from the creation of dust are discussed in more detail in the Air Quality Chapter (Section 8).
Contamination of Soil During construction, a range of potentially hazardous substances would be used, such as oils, lubricants, fuels, cement, and chemicals for water treatment. These materials will also require transport to the site. Accidental spills or leakages of hazardous substances may result in local contamination of soils, with potential implications for groundwater. However, with modern site and traffic management the probability is considered low enough as to present a minor risk.
Based on the low to negligible value of soils in the Project area, contamination impacts to soils during the construction phase are assessed as negligible.
Impacts to Groundwater Based on our understanding of the hydrogeology in the immediate Project area, groundwater quality is understood to be poor and is considered to have a negligible value. Groundwater in the shallow aquifer in the study area (up to 500m from the site boundary) is considered to have a moderate value as it has the potential to be suitable for abstraction and has the potential to impact the quality of the local rivers.
Soils will be exposed to site activities for at least some of the construction work due to the absence of any hard surface cover. There will be little or no protection of soils, and therefore groundwater, from leaks and spills. There is the potential for contamination from the construction activities to affect groundwater quality in the shallow aquifer. The magnitude of this environmental effect is assessed as being minor and the significance is therefore assessed as minor adverse. In the event of a large-scale contamination event such as a tanker spill, the impacts to groundwater quality could potentially be moderate adverse.
Groundwater is not currently abstracted for potable, domestic or industrial use within the SPZ and it is not proposed to use groundwater for the water supply during construction works on the Project. Consequently, no impacts from the construction work on groundwater flow rate or flow direction are anticipated.
Wastewater A range of potentially contaminated waste liquids will be produced during construction activities including: concrete wash water; sewage effluent; surface runoff; and waters for hydrotesting, washing and cleaning (particularly during facility start up). Wastewater and liquid waste streams for the construction phase of the Project will require appropriate disposal.
If uncontrolled or untreated, discharge of wastewaters could have a minor magnitude of impact on soils due to the composition of the wastewater and potential presence of pollutants. Based on the low to negligible value of soils in the Project area, impacts to soils are assessed as negligible.
Discharge of untreated wastewaters to the ground could have a minor magnitude of impact on groundwater due to the composition of the wastewater and potential presence of pollutants. Based on the medium value of groundwater in the Project area, impacts to groundwater are assessed as minor adverse.
Impacts relating to wastewater and liquid waste streams are discussed in more detail in Chapter 10 and Chapter 12.
9.5.3 Operation Phase Storage, Transport and Use of Hazardous Materials Similarly, to the construction phase, the main potential contamination impacts for the Project are associated with the use, transport and storage of hazardous materials, and liquid waste disposal. Pollutants associated
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 136 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
with the Project activities include naphtha, ethylene, butadiene, pyrolysis gas oil, benzene, lubricants, fuels and other chemicals related to the site processes, such as those for water treatment. Impacts may result from leaks and spills from the storage and use of hazardous materials at the EP-600 plant. However due to the design of the Project and the mitigation measures inbuilt this is very unlikely.
Much of the chemicals used at the sites are highly mobile and can potentially contaminate a large area. Without mitigation chemicals encountering groundwater may migrate laterally, presenting risks to groundwater resources further afield. Some liquids may also migrate vertically in groundwater presenting a risk to deeper aquifers.
Water treatment chemicals used for conditioning cooling water, treatment of drinking water and wastewater, and cleaning of equipment could present a risk to the environment if present in discharge waters, runoff, or if introduced to the environment via leaks and spills.
In accordance with local legislation and good practice, all hazardous materials will be stored in bunded containers or on lined surfaces with surface drainage to a wastewater treatment system. All wastewaters from the EP-600 site that do not meet quality standards will be treated in the Project wastewater treatment plant (LTP) for reuse. Chapter 10 provides further assessment of operational wastewater discharges.
Wastewater Expected key wastewater and liquid waste streams for the operational phase of the Project that will require consideration of appropriate disposal include sewage effluents, process effluents and site drainage from the Project sites.
The Project will include comprehensive wastewater drainage and treatment systems. Any industrial wastewater, as well as any potentially contaminated surface runoff from process, utility, and storage areas from the EP-600 site will be treated by the proposed Project wastewater treatment plant to a quality which allows it to be recycled as feed water for the cooling tower and Demin water unit.. Storm water from non- process areas will be collected and preliminary treated at Project wastewater treatment plant and will be discharged to a sedimentation ponds at Tungucha River for mechanical treatment.
There is a potential for leaks and spills of untreated wastewater to impact soil, groundwater and surface water from failure of the treatment process or ineffective drainage, due, for example, to blockages or insufficient capacity. The resultant discharges may contain contaminants such as chemical additives and biocides, hydrocarbons, suspended sediments or high organics.
Contamination of Soil Contamination has the potential to affect soil quality locally at the Project site. Due to the nature of the hazardous materials used during the operational phase, the potential magnitude of impact can be considered as moderate. Soil is considered to be a negligible to low value receptor and therefore the significance of impacts to soils is assessed as negligible to minor adverse.
Storage and handling of hazardous materials onsite will be undertaken in accordance with the site environmental health and safety plan to minimise the risk of leaks and spills and therefore the potential for impacts to the environment and human health.
If not suitably controlled, soil contamination has the potential to impact groundwater, human health and ecology. There are no residents and there is no agriculture within the study area. The most likely receptors include site operatives and visitors, and taking into account the potential impact to human health, the significance of this effect is assessed as minor adverse without mitigation. Potential impacts to soils from accidental wastewater discharge are assessed as negligible due to their low value.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 137 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Impacts to Groundwater Despite the measures put in place for suitable transport, handling and storage of hazardous materials, and effective drainage of wastewaters from the operation of the Project plant, there remains a potential risk of accidental spills, due to both small scale and large-scale incidents. There is the potential for contamination, resultant from operational activities, to affect groundwater quality in the shallow aquifer. Groundwater in this aquifer is considered to be a medium sensitivity receptor. The magnitude of this environmental effect is assessed as being minor to moderate negative depending on the scale of event, and the significance is therefore assessed as minor to moderate adverse. In the event of a large-scale contamination event such as a tanker spill, the impacts to groundwater quality would be moderate adverse.
The potential impacts to groundwater from accidental wastewater discharge are assessed as minor adverse.
Groundwater is not currently abstracted for potable, domestic or industrial use within the SPZ and it is not proposed to use groundwater for the water supply during the operational lifetime of the Project. There is therefore not anticipated to be any impact from operation of the plant on groundwater flow rate or flow direction.
9.6 Mitigation Measures
9.6.1 Overview The main impacts on soils for all aspects and phases of the Project are considered to be erosion, damage to the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil (particularly the more valuable topsoil) and contamination. This is particularly significant during the early construction phase when ground disturbance, leaks and spills are more likely.
Contamination impacts from leaks and spills will be mitigated through use of best practice construction methodology in line with local regulations and good practice. Impacts from waste can be suitably mitigated by following a project specific waste management plan. For all aspects of the Project a comprehensive Health, Safety and Environment Plan should be implemented, aimed at preventing accidents, injuries and work-related diseases through the identification of the causes of physical, chemical and biological hazards and by prioritising hazard elimination, hazard control and hazard minimisation.
The mitigation measures identified below are incorporated into the following sections of the assessment to identify any residual impacts after mitigation.
9.6.2 Mitigation of Risks to Workers Health Impacts to workers’ health can be prevented by following good site practice and use of appropriate PPE in accordance with the IFC EHS General Guidelines (2007). Suitable PPE includes: eye protection; hand protection, and lung protection.
Physical exposure to soil and dust can result in a risk to site workers. Good site practice and appropriate use of PPE in line with national requirements and the IFC EHS General Guidelines will be maintained during construction works. Such requirements should be reviewed on a regular basis and PPE should be maintained and replaced when worn out. Occupational monitoring of workers will be undertaken in order to confirm the effectiveness of use of PPE and if required the PPE requirements will be revised.
Other measures for protection of workers health include: communication of potential hazards to workers; safe storage of hazardous materials; provision of suitable welfare facilities including clean water for washing and drinking; provision of suitable ventilation system in workers accommodation; environmental monitoring (e.g. gas and vapour monitoring) and emergency preparedness and response plans.
An emergency response plan for EP-600 plant will be prepared and included in the current emergency response plan stipulating procedures, response personnel, medical support, equipment, evacuation procedures and measures for limiting or stopping potential events.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 138 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
9.6.3 Construction Mitigation Requirements To ensure minimal associated environmental impacts, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be developed for the site prior to construction. The CEMP will incorporate measures as required by national requirements and good practice, including those as set out in IFC EHS General Guidelines.
Mitigation measures required during the construction of the Project are summarised in Table 55.
Table 55: Mitigation Measures Required During the Construction Phase Process/Activity Impact Mitigation Earthworks / intrusive Mobilisation of dust and secondary Use best practice construction methodology in line with local regulations construction works impacts on workers’ health and good practice. If present, disturbance of existing Undertake earthworks during suitable weather conditions i.e. low wind historic soil contamination strength to minimise the level of windblown dust, which may be potentially contaminated. Contractors to wear suitable PPE to protect against inhalation of dust. A risk assessment will be carried out to identify the level of PPE required in line with site specific risk factors. Use ‘damping down’ measures during excavation and movement of contaminated soils to prevent dust migration. Uncover contaminated soils that Procedures would be put in place should contaminated land be may present a risk to workers encountered, including contact details of the relevant consultees and health or the environment if left in regulators. The presence of contamination will be assessed and any place, or if removed and not clean-up will be conducted as part of the construction works. suitably handled and disposed. In all cases where contamination is identified in soils, risk assessment will be undertaken to determine if remediation is required. Guidance regarding the correct procedure for storage, handling and disposal of contaminated soils will be detailed in the CEMP. Leaks and spills of Soil quality with secondary impacts Baseline values have been established for some of the site. These Hazardous Materials on groundwater quality and human values will be used for comparison with future monitoring results and to health. identify the conditions the site should be returned to in future when the EP-600 plant have closed and are to be decommissioned. Use best practice construction methodology in line with local regulations and good practice. Hazardous materials will be suitably stored to prevent leaks and spills. Drip trays will be used to intercept leaks and spills from equipment and during refuelling. Adequate bunding will be provided for all fuel and chemical storage. Undertake routine groundwater monitoring to monitor impacts to groundwater quality (by comparison with baseline levels) - providing an early warning system for impacts to groundwater down gradient of the site. Include EP-600 plant into the NKNK Emergency Response Plan and a separate NKNK Spill Contingency Plan in accordance with local regulations and IFC and HSE guidance. Clean-up contaminated material in case of fuel leaks. Wastewater from Soil quality with secondary impacts Use best practice construction methodology in line with local regulations construction, integrity on groundwater quality and human and good practice. testing and cleaning health. All wastewater requiring treatment to be processed in the existing NKNK WWTP or other treatment facilities. The quality of drainage waters will be tested prior to discharge, to ensure the wastewater emissions comply with local water quality and discharge regulations and will not exceed maximum permissible concentrations for discharge of wastewater to water. See Chapters 10 and 12 for further details.
There is a potential for impacts to the health of contractors and site workers during construction activities when handling hazardous waste materials. A comprehensive Occupational Health and Safety Plan aimed at preventing accidents, injuries and work-related diseases through the identification of the causes of physical, chemical, biological and radiological hazards and by prioritising hazard elimination, hazard control and hazard minimisation will be implemented under the existing NKNK Health and Safety systems.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 139 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
9.6.4 Operation Mitigation Requirements Mitigation measures required for operation of the Project are summarised in Table 56 below:
Table 56: Mitigation Measures Required During the Operational Phase Process / Activity Impact Mitigation Leaks and spills of Soil quality with secondary Use best practice in line with local regulations and good practice for Hazardous Materials impacts on groundwater operation of the Project. quality and human health. Drip trays will be used to intercept leaks and spills from equipment and during refuelling. Include EP-600 plant into the NKNK Emergency Response Plan and a separate NKNK Spill Contingency Plan in accordance with local regulations and IFC and HSE guidance. Clean-up contaminated material in case of fuel leaks. Hazardous materials will be suitably stored to prevent leaks and spills. Adequate bunding will be provided for all fuel and chemical storage. Site drainage Soil and groundwater quality No discharge to land – industrial wastewater, as well as any potentially contaminated surface runoff from process, utility, and storage areas from the EP-600 site will be treated by the proposed Project wastewater treatment plant to a quality which allows it to recycle as feed water for the cooling tower and Demin water unit before reuse. Non-contaminated storm wastewater will be mechanically treated at the Project wastewater treatment plant prior to discharge to the clarification ponds at Tungucha River. In accordance with the site EMP, on-going monitoring and maintenance of the drainage system, and drainage outfall.
As with the construction phase there is a potential for impacts to the health of site workers when handling hazardous materials. These will be addressed through the implementation of the existing NKNK Health and Safety systems.
9.6.5 Decommissioning Mitigation Requirements Most of the mitigation requirements required for the construction phase also apply to the decommissioning phase. This is particularly with respect to management of contamination, and the handling of hazardous materials.
A decommissioning and restoration plan should be developed to apply throughout the lifetime of the Project and should identify deconstruction, disposal, pipeline decommissioning, aftercare and monitoring. Progressive rehabilitation should be undertaken throughout the Project as they are decommissioned and/or cease to operate.
Appropriate remediation of contaminated areas should be undertaken according to national requirements and international good practice.
9.7 Residual Impacts The significance of identified and assessed impacts can change through the implementation of mitigation enhancement measures. The residual effects in relation to ground conditions are identified in Table 57.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 140 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 57: Summary of Impacts Activity Potential Impacts Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Mitigation Residual Impacts Construction and Decommissioning Earthworks / Physical loss or degradation of soil at Negligible Moderate Negligible A CEMP will be developed for the site. Good practice construction Negligible Intrusive Project site techniques, including soil handling and storage techniques. construction and Mobilisation of dust with potential Refer to Chapter 8 Implementation of a comprehensive Occupational Health and Safety Plan. deconstruction secondary impacts to workers health Good site practice and appropriate use of PPE in line with the national works requirements and the IFC EHS General Guidelines. Uncover contaminated soils that may Low to high Minor Negligible to Guidance on the correct procedures should contaminated land be Negligible to present a risk to workers health or the moderate encountered will be detailed in the CEMP. This will include guidance on minor benefit (if environment if left in place or not adverse the correct storage, handling and disposal of contaminated soils. remediation suitably stored, handled or disposed. In all cases quantitative risk assessment to be undertaken to determine if undertaken) remediation is required. Leaks and spills Soil quality Negligible to Minor Negligible A CEMP will be developed for the site. Best practice construction Minor adverse of hazardous low techniques. Compliance with local and international guidance materials Groundwater quality Medium Minor Minor adverse Include EP-600 plant into the NKNK Emergency Response Plan and a separate NKNK Spill Contingency Plan in accordance with local Potential secondary impacts to surface Medium to Minor Minor adverse regulations and IFC and HSE guidance. water and human health high Wastewater from Soil quality Negligible to Minor Negligible A CEMP will be developed for the site. Best practice construction Negligible construction, low techniques. Wastewater requiring treatment to be processed in the integrity testing and clarification ponds before discharge to Tungucha River. See Chapters 10 Secondary impacts on groundwater Medium Minor Minor adverse cleaning and 12 for further details. quality Operation Leaks and spills Soil quality Negligible to Moderate Negligible to Compliance with local and international guidance Minor adverse of hazardous low minor adverse Include EP-600 plant into the NKNK Emergency Response Plan and a materials Groundwater quality Medium Minor to Minor to separate NKNK Spill Contingency Plan in accordance with local moderate moderate regulations and IFC and HSE guidance. adverse Undertake routine groundwater monitoring to monitor impacts to groundwater quality (by comparison with baseline levels) - providing an Potential secondary impacts to surface Medium to Minor to Minor to early warning system for impacts to groundwater down gradient of the site. water and human health high moderate moderate adverse Site drainage Soil and groundwater quality Negligible to Minor Negligible to Any industrial wastewater, as well as any potentially contaminated surface Negligible and wastewater medium minor adverse runoff from process, utility, and storage areas from the EP-600 site will be management treated by the proposed Project wastewater treatment plant to a quality which allows it to recycle as feed water for the cooling tower and Demin water unit before reuse. Non- contaminated storm water will be mechanically treated at the Project wastewater treatment plant prior to discharge to the clarification ponds at Tungucha River. No discharge to land. On-going monitoring and maintenance of site drainage.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 141 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
10 Water Resources and Water Quality
10.1 Introduction This chapter addresses the potential impacts of construction and operation of the Project on hydrology, water resources, surface water quality and flood risk. The assessment framework is set out in Chapter 5 and the assessment of potential impacts has been based on the Project description given in Chapter 2. The objective of this assessment is to predict the potential impacts on the water environment, associated with the development, and propose measures to mitigate the effects as appropriate.
The potential impacts of construction and operation of the Project on groundwater resources and groundwater quality are assessed in Chapter 9, Ground Conditions.
Assessment has been based on information from the Baseline Study Report conducted by Brannan in 2012 (Volume III), water quality monitoring records provided by NKNK, information obtained from the Mott MacDonald team site visits in June-August 2017, and other publicly available information. Where deficiencies in available information have been identified these have been highlighted and, where appropriate, the need for additional surveys identified.
Where appropriate, proposals for future monitoring of the water environment have been put forward as a means of evaluating the accuracy of the impact prediction and the success of the implemented mitigation measures.
10.2 Legislation
10.2.1 National Water resources management, allocation and use are under the control of the Federal Agency of Water Resources (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation) which establishes a state policy of use and conservation of water bodies and the Ministry of Environment and Natural resources of the Republic of Tatarstan which regulates usage and conservation of water bodies.
The document that defines the state policy in the sphere of water resource management is the Federal Law No.7-FZ dated October 10, 2002 “On environmental protection”.
The key legislation regulating the use of water resource in the Russian Federation is the Water Code approved by the Federal Law No.74-FZ dated June 3, 2006. The Water Code and other Russian water regulation refers the concept of a water object, which is a natural or artificial water body, water stream or any other water feature, which has constant or temporary waters with characteristics of water regime, i.e. which covers all types of natural and artificial water body including the marine environment, estuaries, rivers, canals, lakes, reservoirs and groundwater.
The Water Code defines the key concepts in the sphere of water resource management and establishes the basic rules of water use:
● Proprietary interest of Russian Federation on water bodies ● Limitations of water bodies exploitation ● Usage and conservation of water resources ● Values of water abstraction and wastewater discharge limited by maximum cumulative effect of all water users at the territory of river basin ● State requirements for water conservation
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 142 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Rules in water bodies protection from pollution and sedimentation. The Water Code is a reference document supported by a set of more specific water management regulations. Water quality standards and acceptable level of combined impact on water bodies in Russian Federation is defined on the basis of provisions of four key documents:
● Federal Law No.52-FZ dated March 30, 1999 “On Sanitary-Epidemiological Wellbeing of Population” ● Order of the Federal Agency for Fishery No.20 dated January 18, 2010 “On Approval of Water Quality Standards for Fishery Water Bodies, Including Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Harmful Substances in Fishery Waters” ● State norms GN 2.1.5.1315-03 “Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPC) of Chemicals in the Water of Water Bodies Used for Drinking and Domestic-Recreation Purposes” ● State Norms GN 2.1.5.2307-07. Indicative Permissible Concentrations (IPC) of Chemical Compounds in the Water of Waterbodies for Domestic-Drinking and Cultural-Recreational Use adopted by Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation Decree No.90 dated December 19, 2007. Quality and quantity of waste water discharged to water bodies, on land or in municipal sewerage systems is regulated by the following acts:
● Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No.230 dated March 18, 2013 “On customer categories subject to setting of limits for discharge of pollutants, other substances and microorganisms from their facilities” ● Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No.469 dated July 23, 2007 “On procedure for approval of water user limits for discharge of substances and microorganisms to water bodies” ● Order of the Ministry of Natural Resource of the Russian Federation No.333 dated December 17, 2007 “On approval of Methodology for development of water user limits for permissible discharge of substances and microorganisms to water bodies” ● Letter of Rosprirodnadzor No. SN-08-02-31/2469 dated February 20, 2014 “On establishing of limits for permissible discharge of substances on water catchment areas”. Russian Federation norms in respect to environmental impact on water bodies are applied on the basis of the targeted water quality in the receiving water body and broadly its assimilative capacity, taking into account planned future development. Wastewater discharge limits are established based on generalised impact on a water body. Due to the Water Code requirements, the fishery waters quality standard shall be applied for assessment of impacts on water bodies which have a status of fishing importance. This is in line with IFC Environmental Policy which require to use the most stringent norms for impact assessments.
Key definitions applied for wastewater discharge used are Maximum Permissible Concentration of waters with obtained status of fishing importance (MPCf) and Maximum Allowable Discharge (MAD). MAD is a limit (g/s and t/year) of the maximum allowable amount of pollutant discharged by the user in the water body per unit of time in order to achieve the required MPCf at the water body. MPCf are applied to the River Kama and its first tributary Strelochny Log and River Tungucha which are currently used by NKNK for wastewater discharge.
The magnitude of harm caused to water bodies by illegal use is defined in accordance with the Order of the Ministry of Natural Resource No.87 dated April 13, 2009 “On approval of Methodology for calculation of harm caused to water bodies through breach of water law”.
10.2.2 Applicable International Requirements International requirements and guidance includes the International Finance Corporation’s Sustainability Framework. The Framework includes:
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 143 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
● Performance Standard 1 (PS1) - Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts. Amongst other things, PS1 provides a standard for integrated assessment to identify the environmental and social impacts, risks, and opportunities of projects ● Performance Standard 3 (PS3) - Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention. PS3 provides direction on the avoidance or minimization of adverse impacts on human health and the environment by avoiding or minimizing pollution from project activities. PS3 also aims to promote more sustainable use of resources, including energy and water. PS 3, as the most relevant standard in relation to water use and discharge, requires developers to;
● Make sustainable use of resources through consideration of technically and financially feasible and cost- effective measures for improving efficiency in the consumption of energy, water, and other resources and material inputs, with a focus on areas that are considered core business activities ● Reduce and recycle water so that the project’s water consumption does not have significant adverse impacts on others ● Avoid, or at least minimise, the release of pollutants to water due to routine, non-routine, and accidental circumstances, with the potential for local, regional, and transboundary impacts.
10.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria The methodology adopted for this chapter is consistent with the generic methodology described in Chapter 5.
For assessment of impacts on water quality, national water quality standards for fishery water bodies for certain contaminants, as presented in the baseline study report and required by national legislation, have been utilised. In addition, the assessment uses the available national and applicable international standards for overall management of water resources and control of pollution, as listed above. Applicable international water quality standards include the European Union (EU) standards for Protection of Surface Water Quality and Protection of Fisheries. IFC guidelines also include assessment criteria for certain pollutants resulting from discharges from large volume petroleum-based organic chemicals manufacturing facilities.
Three types of impact are assessed in this chapter:
● Abstraction and effects on surface water flow patterns ● Effluent discharges and surface water quality ● Pluvial and fluvial flood risk. The impacts and potential effects of abstraction, effluent discharge and contaminative releases on groundwater resources and groundwater quality are assessed in Chapter 9, Ground Conditions.
The magnitude of potential impacts of abstraction on surface water resources are assessed in terms of the scale and timing of proposed abstractions relative to the baseline water resources. The sensitivity of a specific receptor is based on the available water resources as described in the baseline status and the results of water consumption monitoring undertaken by NKNK. Where national legislation is not available, the water body is assessed using guidance for the EU’s Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council dated October 23, 2000, based on the ecological, quantitative, and chemical status of the water body.
As described in Chapter 5, the significance of any effect (adverse or beneficial) is determined in relation to the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the impact. For the hydrology and water quality assessment the sensitivity and magnitude are set out in Table 58 and Table 59 respectively.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 144 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 58: Sensitivity of Receptor Sensitivity Definition High ● Receptor is of high ecological importance or National or International value (e.g. RAMSAR, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Areas of Concern, habitat for protected species); ● Water body classified as “Specially Protected” under Article 66 of the Water Code; ● Receptor is assessed using guidance from the European Union’s Water Framework Directive as ‘good’ ● Receptor is used for public and/or private water supply; ● Designated as a Bathing Water; Medium ● Receptor is assessed using guidance from the European Union’s Water Framework Directive as ‘improving’ ● Water body used for private water supply but not public water supply Low ● Receptor is assessed using guidance from the European Union’s Water Framework Directive as ‘poor’ ● Receptor not used for water supplies (public or private); Negligible ● Receptor lies outside the sphere of influence of the proposed Project.
Table 59: Magnitude of Impact Magnitude of Impact Definition (positive or negative) Major ● Fundamental change to the hydrological conditions assessed resulting in temporary or permanent change. Moderate ● Detectable change to the hydrological conditions assessed resulting in non-fundamental temporary or permanent change. Minor ● Detectable but minor change to the hydrological conditions assessed. Negligible ● No perceptible change to the hydrological conditions assessed.
Wastewater impacts address the effects of effluent discharges on receptors and predominantly concern water quality issues. Where national or applicable international water quality standards exist, these are used as indicators of magnitude of the impacts and, in the case of potable standards, the sensitivity of the receptors. In this chapter reference is made to Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPCf) for water bodies of fishery importance72.
Flood risk impacts address the potential effect of the proposed development on the frequency, magnitude and impact of flooding to infrastructure within the SPZ and adjacent communities. The magnitude of flood risk is measured in terms of the flood hazard, while the sensitivity reflects the capacity of a receptor to accommodate an increase in flood risk (i.e. its vulnerability to flooding).
The assessment assumes that good international industry practice73 (GIIP), as set out in IFC EHS Guidelines, will be adopted as the minimum level of mitigation in the absence of national legislation or applicable international guidance. GIIP is regarded as embedded mitigation and as such these measures are not explicitly identified as mitigation measures, although are set out in this section in order to confirm the measures that are considered relevant for this aspect.
Following the consideration of appropriate mitigation measures, a final assessment of the residual impacts is made such that the ESIA can conclude with a statement of significance.
72 Order of the Federal Agency for Fishery No.20 dated January 18, 2010 “On Approval of Water Quality Standards for Fishery Water Bodies, Including Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Harmful Substances in Fishery Waters” 73 GIIP is defined as the exercise of professional skill, diligence, prudence, and foresight that would reasonably be expected from skilled and experienced professionals engaged in the same type of undertaking under the same or similar circumstances globally or regionally
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 145 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
10.4 Baseline Description
10.4.1 Surface Water Resources The Project is located in the catchment of the River Kama. The River Kama lies some 6km to the north-east of Project site. There are a number of smaller rivers that receive drainage water from the industrial hub, including the Strelochny Log, a tributary of the River Kama draining northwards, and the Tungucha which drains to the south and is a tributary of the River Avlahska.
The east of the study area is drained by the Alanka, which is a right bank tributary of the River Kashaeva, which in turn is a right bank tributary of the River Zay. The River Zay enters the southern branch of the River Kama where it braids some 5km upstream of Berezovoya Griva settlement.
The River Kama is the largest tributary of the River Volga, it rises in the Republic of Udmurtia and flows for 1,805km until it enters the River Volga below Kazan city. The River Kama is impounded at the outlet of the Nizhnekamsk reservoir some 48km upstream of the proposed development. The reservoir was filled in 1978- 81 after the construction of the Lower Kama hydropower station. The water level in the reservoir depends on releases from upstream reservoirs (the Kama Reservoir and Votkinsk Reservoir). Normal annual water level of the Nizhnekamsk reservoir is 62 meters. Seasonal water level fluctuation caused by winter run-off snow melt in spring means the annual water level can vary from 61.5 to 65.9 meters.
The lowest average monthly flow of the River Kama is reported to be 1,010m3/s74, this assumes that the Nizhnekamsk reservoir is drawn down and includes lateral inflows from tributaries). The “dependable” flow is 600m3/s (this is interpreted as being equivalent to a maintained flow). The mean annual discharge is 3,890m3/s.
The Strelochny Log drains the north of the industrial hub area and flows some 7km before entering the River Kama. For much of its length it meanders across the densely vegetated flood plain of the Kama and has a very shallow bed slope. The river is fed from mixed sources, but mostly by snow melt. The hydrological regime is characterized by high flood levels, but low water levels in the dry season. Flooding starts in late March; the river freezes up in early November.
The southern half of the industrial hub area drains into two clarification ponds which discharge to the Tungucha north of Ishteryakovo. From the clarification ponds the river drains some 8.7km south eastwards until it enters the River Avlashka from the left bank. The River Avlashka subsequently joins the River Zycha before entering the River Zay. The River Zay flows northwards to join the River Kama west of the industrial hub.
10.4.2 Water Quality Monitoring of water quality is conducted by the NKNK laboratory in twelve locations on four water bodies – Kama, Avlashka, Strelochny Log and Tungucha. The River Kama is the final recipient of all wastewaters currently discharged from the NKNK industrial area into the above rivers.
A summary of the water quality status of River Kama in 2016 based on results of 161 water samples is presented in Table 60. Background concentrations are assessed at a sampling point 0.5km upstream of the discharge points of the existing NKNK wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (sampling point 1/1). Impact of NKNK activities on water quality of the River Kama is assessed from a sampling point 0.5km downstream of WWTP discharge point (sampling point 1/2).
74 FGBU UGMS of the Republic of Tatarstan "Letter No 05/258 of 07.02.2012 as presented in the Environmental Baseline Study Report For the Nizhnekamskneftekhim Ethylene Complex Construction Project, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation. OOO Branan Environment, October 2012.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 146 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 60: Pollutant Concentrations in the River Kama, mg/l Pollutants Upstream of discharge point Downstream of discharge point NKNK limits of MPCf* MPC EU** 1/1 1/2 emission
minimal average maximal minimal average maximal discharge discharge point 1/1 point 1/2 Aluminium <0.04 0.17 0.49 <0.04 0.11 0.37 0.04 0.04 0.04 200.00 BOD5, mgO2/l 1.3 2.0 3.3 1.4 1.9 2.2 2.00 2.00 2.10 3.00 Particulates <5.3 10.8 15.1 3.9 10.7 20.1 10.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 Iron 0.22 0.34 0.71 0.12 0.31 0.83 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.00 Ammonia 0.26 0.35 0.66 0.11 0.3 0.63 0.86 2.66 0.50 1.00 Manganese 0.12 0.16 0.27 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.01 50.00 Copper <0.001 0.003 0.012 <0.001 0.003 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.001 5.00 Oil products <0.05 0.0061 0.055 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.30 Nitrates 0.69 2.9 6.9 1.2 3.9 7.9 45.00 45.00 40.00 50.00 Nitrites <0.020 0.031 0.074 <0.020 0.044 0.1 0.21 0.86 0.08 0.10 Oxygen, mgO2/l 8.2 9.2 10.8 7.2 8.8 10.6 - - ≥8.50 >7.00 Sulphates 48.0 56.0 72.0 41.0 58.0 77.0 172.0 480.0 100.0 400.00 Dry residue 222.0 274.0 322.0 206.0 269.0 343.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 - Phosphates <0.050 0.1 0.18 <0.050 0.1 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.70 COD, mgO2/l 36 43 52 40 45 49 - - - 30.00 Zinc <0.005 0.004 0.024 <0.005 0.001 0.005 0.029 0.042 0.01 30.00 *MPCf – Russian maximum permissible concentrations for water bodies of fishery importance **MPC EU - EU Fisheries or Surface Water Quality standards
0.00 - Concentration exceed MPCf
0.00 - Concentration exceed EU Standards
0.00 - Concentration exceed both MPCf and EU Standards Results of the monitoring shows that the background concentrations for the River Kama exceed the maximum permissible concentrations for water bodies of fishery importance with regard to iron, ammonia, particulates, copper, manganese, and oil products. Background concentrations of BOD5 and COD also exceed EU Standards. No discernible difference in water quality is noted between the upstream and downstream sampling locations.
Water quality is also sampled near of the outlet of clarification ponds which supply to the River Tungucha. Of the 499 samples taken in 2016, 29 exceeded the MPCf for water bodies of fishery importance.
Flow and water quality of the Strelochny Log (River Kama) are highly variable with the river drying up as far as the effluent discharge outlet of the clarification pond. Flow consists mainly of storm water, wastewater and filter flushing water discharges. Samples taken in 2016 indicate that 18 of the 284 analytes exceed the MPCf for water bodies of fishery importance. However, there will be no discharges to the Strelochny Log as a result of the proposed Project and therefore the water quality baseline results are not considered to be relevant to the ESIA.
In addition to inorganic pollutants, NKNK also monitors the presence of organic chemicals such as phenol, toluene, formaldehyde, phenyl ethylene and methanol. 2016 monitoring results show that of the 751 tests, there were occasional exceedance of the MPCf for formaldehyde and phenol.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 147 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Surface waters were also analysed in 2012 for 59 polychlorobiphenyls (PCB)75. There are no adopted MPC for PCB in water bodies of fishery importance. The results for PCBs are in line with the EU Water Quality standards for recreational need, fish, and aquatic life.
As well as assessing water quality in terms of specific MPC, the Temporary Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments for The Development of Deposits and Construction of Oil and Gas Industry Facilities have been referenced (Russian Environmental Academy, 2002). This document describes a methodology for assessment of compliance with standards for drinking and industrial water supply, the capacity of a water body to break down pollutants, and water resource availability. With respect to this methodology, the River Kama is currently at ‘adverse’ status with respect to fishery MPC.
10.4.3 Flood Risk The Project site is located on highland approximately 150 metres above the level of the River Kama, more than 5km from the river floodplain. The flow in the River Kama is regulated by upstream hydropower releases and, as a result the river level range is limited.
The Strelochny Log and Tungucha rivers flow away from the industrial hub and are therefore not regarded as being potential sources of flooding. Surface runoff will increase towards the end of the period December to March as a result of snow melt and frozen soil. In an extreme event that pluvial flooding occurs, any excess surface water will drain by gravity to the clarification ponds at the heads of the Tungucha river.
10.4.4 Existing Water Use Water Abstraction
Water for the existing industrial hub is currently abstracted from the River Kama by NKNK and distributed to the industrial hub. The water intake is located on the southern bank of the river approximately 10km to the north west of the industrial hub and 12.5km to the north west of the Project area.
The first lift pumping station is located on the river bank and contains eight pumps each with a capacity of 4,100m3/h. Only four pumps are required to be operational to supply the current required water volume of the industrial hub customers and population. The current water use permit (received by NKNK in 2014) allows a water abstraction volume of 140,000k m3 annually. Annual water abstraction volumes in the years 2012 - 2016 are shown in Table 61.
Table 61: Annual water abstraction, 000k m3 State Agreement on Water Abstraction 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL – 140,000 122,122 121,954 117,522 112,920 115,092 includes: 79,000 – production needs 45,000 – non-production consumers 16,000 – households Source: NKNK
The water intake is at a sufficient depth that it is below the ice layer during winter. In case of pump failure or an abnormally low river level, the water abstraction point has four additional water pumps submerged within the river bed. This secondary backup system has the same capacity as the river bank system although it has never been required. The water level in the Kama is maintained at a relatively constant level as a result of the regulation of releases from the upstream hydropower reservoirs.
75 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 148 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
The water abstracted from the river is transported to the industrial hub via three pipelines each with a diameter of 1,200mm and two additional lift stations. Once the water reaches the industrial hub, it passes through the third lift station located on the north-west corner of the industrial hub where the water filtration station is placed.
If the water abstracted from the River Kama is of good quality, the water is passed straight through the clarification unit to three sedimentation tanks. Two tanks have a capacity of 19,000m3 and an operating rate of 100,000m3/day. The third sedimentation tank has a capacity of 10,000m3 and operating rate of 50,000m3/day. If the water quality is poor, it is clarified via a flotation and coagulation process before it is passed through to the horizontal flow sedimentation tanks. During this process, aluminium oxide and very small amounts of iron oxide are added to the water. The water clarification unit has a capacity of 12,000m3/h, although if the water quality is good and only a short residence time in the sediment ponds is required, 13,000m3/h can be achieved. Following the clarification treatment, the treated water is pumped to the industrial hub via two distribution networks. One network serves the east side of the industrial hub and the other, the west. The existing industrial plants are linked to the distribution via a network of smaller pipelines.
There is no available information on downstream abstractions and water users.
Existing NKNK Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) NKNK owns and operates a WWTP located approximately 10km south-west of the industrial hub and situated adjacent to the settlement of Nizhnee Afanasovo. At present ~82% of the wastewater for treatment originates from the industrial hub (70% NKNK, 6% TGK-16 (CHP), ~2% TAIF NK), 17.5% is from households within Nizhnekamsk city.
The Project does not plan to use this existing WWTP in normal operation as a new wastewater treatment plant will be constructed for the Project. Context on the existing WWTP is however provided here to inform the baseline description.
Wastewater from the various sources is transported to the existing WWTP via sewers, treated and then transported via two outlet sewers, one 1,200mm in diameter and the other 1,400mm, to the Kama for discharge. The discharge locations are 3,000-4,000 metres apart (upstream and downstream of Berezovaya Griva settlement) and approximately 18km from the industrial hub.
The current treatment capacity of the WWTP is 78,000m3/year. NKNK has finalised a first stage of reconstruction works at WWTP, including the following components:
● Reconstruction of wastewater screens building with renovation of sewerage inlet chamber, replacement of screens, procurement of sludge dewatering station and effluent gases incinerator ● Replacement of airlifts. All above measures have been taken to improve the wastewater treatment quality. This upgrade is not connected to the Project, having been planned prior to the realisation of the Project.
Currently the water discharged from the WWTP does not meet the required discharge limits standards for aluminium, vanadium, copper, iron, manganese, phenol, ethylbenzene (see Table 63). However, it should be noted that in some cases the background concentrations of iron in the River Kama water is already above these standards. Other pollutants do not increase concentrations in the River Kama above the MPCf.
Table 62: WWTP Treatment Quality in 2016, Permitted Values and IFC Water Quality Standards, mg/l Treatment quality Treatment Permitted IFC* Value Monitored Inlet chamber (values in outlet chamber) quality, % Values Parameter (mean value) minimal mean maximal Aluminium 7.89 <0.04 0.138 0.34 98.25 0.040 - Anionic surfactants 0.066 <0.01 0.025 0.13 62.12 0.120 -
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 149 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Treatment quality Treatment Permitted IFC* Value Monitored Inlet chamber (values in outlet chamber) quality, % Values Parameter (mean value) minimal mean maximal Acetonitrile 0.20 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0 0.2 - Benzene 1.05 <0.005 0.0004 0.014 99.53 0.032 -
BOD5, mgO2/l 140.60 2 2.9 6 97.94 2
BODtotal, mgO2/l 240.40 3 5.1 8 98/88 - 25 Vanadium 0.08 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08 0 0.001 - Suspended solids 115.00 5 7.1 9.8 93.74 10 30 pH+ 7.8 6.8 7.5 8.0 3.85 6.5-8.5 Dimethylformamid 1.04 <0.05 0.024 0.23 95.19 0.430 - e Total Iron 2.65 0.09 0.205 0.45 92.26 0.100 - Ammonia 7.14 0.14 0.81 18 87.96 2.660 Manganese 0.128 <0.05 0.059 0.12 53.91 0.010 - Copper 0.029 <0.001 0.0045 0.029 86.21 0.001 0.5 Methanol 6.25 <0.10 0.1 0.25 98.40 0.160 - Petroleum 8.51 <0.05 0.05 0.41 99.41 0.05 products Toluene 7.118 <0.005 0.0073 0.12 99.25 0.073 - Non-anionic 0.73 <0.1 0.11 0.81 84.93 0.500 - surfactants Styrene 0.31 <0.005 0.005 0.01 98.42 0.20 - Sulphates 401.00 188 331.2 534 17.41 480 - Titanium 0.043 <0.025 0.025 0.06 41.86 0.025 - Phenols 2.509 <0.002 0.003 0.025 99.88 0.001 0.5 Formaldehyde 13.356 <0.020 0.038 0.098 99.72 0.140 - Chromium 0.042 <0.01 0.01 0.01 76.19 0.03 0.1 Zinc 0.046 <0.005 0.006 0.023 86.96 0.042 2 Ethylbenzene 0.1583 <0.0025 0.0025 0.014 98.42 0.001 -
COD, mgO2/l 466.00 52 67 120 85.62 - 150 Nitrates n/a <0.1 15.2 47 - 45 - Nitrites n/a <0.02 0.226 2 - 0.86 - Dry residue n/a 818 1010 1308 - 1000 - Phosphates n/a 0.2 1.34 3 - 0.610 - Chlorides n/a 121 181 260 - 270 - Hazardous (death) 17%-100% 0% 0% 0% optional - - index * IFC EHS Guidelines for Large Volume Petroleum-Based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Parameters exceeding permitted values In addition to the existing WWTP, there are many existing clarification ponds which are located around the industrial hub. Two of these ponds are located to the south of the industrial hub and discharge into the Tungucha River. Currently the clarification ponds are filled with natural river water and only receive drainage from the industrial hub during the period of spring snow melt and rain water when there is a significant increase in surface water.
A further clarification pond located to the north west of the industrial hub receives wastewater from the water clarification unit. The capacity of this pond is 44,500m3. The pond discharges into the Strelochny Log. There are no surface water discharges from the Project to this buffer pond.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 150 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
10.5 Assessment of Impacts
10.5.1 Identification of Receptors Using the criteria set out in Table 58, the following Project receptors have been identified.
Table 63: Water Resource Receptor Sensitivity Receptor Sensitivity Comment River Kama High Major watercourse used for public water supply Strelochny Log Low Small watercourse no water supply abstractions Tungucha Low Small watercourse at site of Project no water supply abstractions Existing abstractions High No information on downstream abstractions so precautionary value
In terms of flood risk, the Project site is located on high ground approximately 150 metres above the level of the River Kama, more than 5km from the river floodplain therefore flooding from this source is excluded from further consideration.
10.5.2 Construction Phase There are four primary activities that can potentially impact the identified water resource receptors:
● Use of vehicles and machinery ● Works next to or near water courses ● Earthworks ● Temporary water supplies (for drinking and construction activities). During the construction phase, the main impact with respect to the identified receptors will be the potential for surface runoff with high sediment loads to enter the receiving waters. The runoff from the site, particularly following intense storms, is likely to have a high sediment load. There is also the possibility of surface runoff being contaminated as a result of accidental fuel and chemical spills during construction. The risk is greatest during the end of spring when snow melt volumes may exceed the surface water drainage leading to the existing wastewater collection and treatment system.
It is expected that storm water runoff will be routed via existing systems to the mechanical treatment at the existing clarification ponds with subsequent discharge to the River Tungucha. During spring snow melt conditions, excess surface runoff will diverted to the Tungucha buffer clarification ponds. Standard good practice in managing surface drainage should be used to protect the receiving water bodies during the period of snow melt as described in the following paragraphs.
The collection of surface drainage in local mechanical treatment ponds, prior to discharging to the existing clarification ponds, will prevent high sediment volumes building up in the clarification ponds. This will ensure that any pollution events can be controlled prior to entering the clarification ponds and, subsequently, the receiving water bodies. For example, the use of overflows and temporary storage are standard best practice for managing potential contamination of storm water runoff. The amount and quality of water to be discharged from the site shall comply with the established conditions for sewage water discharge via relevant permitting procedures.
Oil separators need to be considered in the sewerage system or in locations where fuel is to be stored, refuelling takes place and vehicles are parked. Stockpiles of spoil and excavated material should be located away from surface water courses and storm water trays. Runoff from stockpiles should be contained temporarily to prevent sediment laden runoff entering the drainage system.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 151 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Storm water sewers will also have to be managed to minimise the risk of on-site flooding and the risk of impacting on existing industries and production facilities. The use of appropriately designed sand separation ponds will ensure that there is no impact on flood risk.
Water required for construction will be supplied from the existing water distribution network which is abstracted from the River Kama. The spare capacity of the existing intake pumps is sufficient to meet the demand during the construction phase (up to 25mln m3 additional water per year can be supplied by 1st lift pumping station). It is assumed that potable water will be piped from the existing NKNK water supply network, and wastewater will be directed to the existing NKNK sewer network and on to the existing wastewater sedimentation ponds.
In conclusion, it is assessed that the magnitude of the potential impacts (due to abstraction, surface water runoff water and flood risk) from Project construction works on the identified water resource receptors is: minor for the Tungucha River due to the ultimate discharge of surface waters via the clarification ponds to this river, and negligible for the Strelochny Log, Kama River and existing downstream abstraction users.
Therefore, taking into account the sensitivity of the receptors outlined in Table 63, the significance of impact is assessed to be negligible for all water resource receptors and, as a result, additional mitigation measures beyond use of good construction practice is not required.
10.5.3 Operational Phase Abstraction
The total clarified water demand of the Project will be approximately 1300-1800 m3/h (excluding fire water if required) and will be predominantly used as make up water for the cooling towers. Project water balance is represented below:
● Potable water use – 25 m3/h from current city filtration station ● Cooling tower make-up – 1,100m3/h (840m3/h from river and 260m3/h treated wastewater of Project Wastewater Treatment Plant ● Demineralised water make-up – 35m3/h (maximum 110m3/h) from treated wastewater of Project Wastewater Treatment Plant ● Service water (utility stations) - 30m3/h from river and treated wastewater of Project Wastewater Treatment Plant ● Total treated process water - 480m3/h (295m3/h normal operation) to process water make-up (reuse) ● Fire water (non-routine / intermittent) - 4,000m3/h ● Discharge to land or water of process wastewater – 0m3/h (normal operation) ● Discharge sanitary wastewater to existing NKNK sanitary sewer - < 25m3/h ● Maximum discharge of non-polluted storm and snowmelt water to buffer clarification ponds at River Tungucha – 5,100m3/h (fire water is not included). Up to 65% of the routine water demand for the Project is required for the operation of the cooling towers in order to provide make-up water to replenish water lost from the system through evaporation, blow down and leakage. Demineralised water is mainly used for steam production.
The Project water requirements will be supplied via the existing NKNK process water supply system that is drawn from the Kama River and from treated wastewater from Project Wastewater Treatment Plant. The fire water pumps will be designed to serve simultaneous fires resulting from an oil spill in a production area.
The existing NKNK water intake system on the River Kama is located above the possible level of flooding and equipped with water retaining facilities.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 152 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
The peak potable water demand for the Project is estimated at 25m3/h, which will be supplied by the existing city filtration station and distribution network. Additional potable water will be required to re-fill fire water tanks within 24 hours after their use. This has been excluded from the total potable water demand due to its intermittent nature.
NKNK will drain and shutdown the whole service water system of the Project during the cold season (150 days a year). During this time, all continuous or intermittent users of service water such as chemical dosing systems will be fed by other water sources such as cooling water or condensate water.
The additional abstraction from the River Kama required for the Project during peak operation is estimated to be equivalent to approximately 9% of the current average water consumption, and about 7% of the approved water abstraction volumes. The total additional water abstraction from the River Kama required for the Project is estimated to be relatively low and will increase the current average water consumption by approximately 5% (~7ml m3/year). This change is less than the level of detection typical for discharge measurement in large rivers, and insignificant compared to the influence of upstream flow regulation.
The operation of an additional pumps to meet the increased water demand will impact on the velocity profile in the vicinity of the water intake during peak period (summer) only.
Approximately 65% of abstracted water is refunded to the River Kama and its tributaries through storm water discharge. Given this and the relatively small increase in abstraction, the magnitude of the impact of the abstraction on flows in the Kama River is assessed as being negligible. Consequently, the significance of impact to surface water flows of the Kama River is assessed to be negligible.
There is no available information on downstream abstractions and water users. However, given the negligible magnitude of impact it is likely that any impact on downstream water users are assessed to be of negligible significance.
Effluent Discharges and Water Quality
Project Process Wastewaters
Most liquid effluents from the Project will be economically handled using a drainage system that separately collects process effluent. Flows from all production units will be subsequently directed to the Project Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment and reuse. The treatment of potentially contaminated surface water run-off is managed and treated in the same way (see section below).
The Project will generate approximately 385 m3/h of process effluent and cooling water blow down from the cooling towers (Table 64).
Table 64: Project Process Wastewater Run-off Source Flow Process water blow down from Process Steam System Normal operation - 13.1 m3/h Maximum - 48 m3/h (could be expected also for longer period) Neutralized oxidized spent caustic from Linde Low Normal operation - 2.8 m³/h, max 9.6 m³/h Pressure spent caustic oxidation process Decoking cyclones effluent Maintenance regime 5 times per year (<40 m3/h during 36 h) C8-C9 vacuum separators effluent 0.1-0.5 m3/h Process waste water from butadiene extraction unit Normal operation - 8.5 m3/h Process waste water from BTX extraction unit Discontinuous flow during vacuum unit ejector operation; during start- up or upset conditions only (max - 1.5 m3/h) Regeneration gas condensate from regeneration of Normal operation - 0, maximum - 20 m3/h Hydrogenation Reactors
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 153 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Source Flow Backwash water from Project Waste Water Treatment 15-40 m3/h Plant Neutralized ion exchanger regeneration waste water from Discontinuous flow. Averaged continuous - 3 m³/h Condensate Treatment Unit Filter back wash water from Condensate Treatment Unit Discontinuous flow. Averaged continuous - 0.6 m³/h Reject water from Demin water Unit Normal operation - 0 m³/h Cooling water blow down from cooling water system Normal operation - 225 m³/h, maximum - 225 m³/h Condensate (Air pump) Normal operation – 0.1 m³/h Condensate (Incinerator) < 2 m³/h Side stream filter back wash effluent from cooling tower Discontinuous flow - 4 times per hour for 72 sec each: 35 m³/h. system Average - 2.8 m³/h Source: Linde AG
The final treated effluents from the Project Wastewater Treatment Plant will be reused in the process without discharge to water bodies which is in line with IFC General HSE Guidelines. In abnormal situations, e.g. during any downtime of the Project wastewater system, then discharge to the existing NKNK WWTP is envisaged.
As there will be no routine discharge of process wastewater from the Project to surface water bodies or land, the magnitude of impact to all identified water resource receptors is negligible. The significance of impact on each receptor associated with Project process wastewaters is therefore assessed to be negligible.
Project Surface Water Run-off Management Due to the potential for unintentional spillages, process failures and pipe network leakages during Project operations, surface water run-off from process areas, storage facilities and infrastructure is assumed to be potentially contaminated and will be collected and transferred to new Project Wastewater Treatment Plant tanks for mechanical treatment, prior to future discharge to the buffer clarification ponds at River Tungucha, with subsequent discharge to the River Tungucha. Table 65 outlines the sources of surface water run-off for the Project.
An update to the existing NKNK permit for discharges is not required taking into consideration the amount of Project wastewaters and their composition.
The new wastewater collection tanks and basins will be constructed in line with relevant national and Good International Industry Practice (GIIP) and will have appropriate mitigation to reduce risk of leaks, spills and uncontrolled releases. Capacity of the receiving tanks for non-contaminated run-off and the pump is sized to receive run-off from the Project area.
Table 65: Project Surface Water Run-off Source Flow Surface runoff from potentially contaminated and Dry weather estimated minimum flow (incl. analyser drains, condensate not contaminated Project areas drains etc.): 1 m³/h Dry weather estimated normal flow (incl. analyser drains, condensate drains, equipment drains etc.): 5 m³/h Dry weather estimated flow during decoking: < 100 m³/d (< 40 m³/h) Dry weather estimated maximum normal flow: 40 m³/h Dry weather upset turbine condensate flow: 188 m³/h Precipitation Runoff water: 10 + 60 m³/h Surface runoff from potentially not contaminated Precipitation Runoff water: 5,100 m³/h storage areas Source: Linde AG
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 154 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Project infrastructure to receive and mechanically treat the non-contaminated surface water run-off from the Project is designed to accommodate the expected volumes, prior to further discharge to the buffer clarification ponds. The magnitude of impact to the Tungucha River is therefore considered to be minor. Taking into account the sensitivity of the Tungucha River, the significance of impact is assessed to be negligible. As a result, additional mitigation measures are not required. The magnitude of impact to all other receptors is negligible.
Pluvial Flood risk
The development will lead to small increases in impervious areas. All surface water drainage will be designed to appropriate standards such that surface ponding would only arise during rare storm events. The Project drainage and flush tanks design is based on a rainfall of 20mm/h plus 500m3 of water and a maximum recorded daily rainfall of 71.3mm, and therefore is designed to accommodate expected surface water volumes.
Given that all surface water will be managed and directed to the Project Wastewater Treatment Plant tanks, it is judged to be sufficient capacity to accommodate for any small increase in runoff. The magnitude of impact to all receptors is assessed to be negligible. Consequently, the significance of impact on all receptors is judged to be negligible.
10.5.4 Decommissioning Phase Decommissioning phase activities are likely to be very similar to the construction phase. Good practice should be adopted to manage storm water runoff. However, in addition there is the risk of surface water being contaminated as a result of chemicals remaining in the various vessels, pipes and other components.
Surface water hydrology can be affected during demolition and decommissioning through the generation of fine materials eroded as a result of clearing surfaces and exposing soils to rainfall and drainage water. As for the construction phase, best practice measures are required to prevent unacceptable levels of sediment being discharged to the existing clarification ponds.
Surface water quality can similarly be affected by such fine materials. This could change the quality of the water, especially if the material is contaminated as a result of previous activities on the site.
Assuming the implementation of good practice measures, it is assessed that the magnitude of the potential impacts (due to abstraction, surface water runoff water and flood risk) from Project decommissioning works on the identified water resource receptors is: minor for the Tungucha River due to the likely ultimate discharge of surface waters via clarification ponds to this river, and negligible for the Strelochny Log, Kama River and existing downstream abstraction users. Therefore, taking into account the sensitivity of the receptors the significance of impact is assessed to be negligible for all receptors.
The most likely contamination hazard during decommissioning is from tanks and pipelines which contain toxic or hazardous materials. Invariably, residual or possibly large quantities of toxic or hazardous materials may remain when a site is abandoned. Contamination often occurs when storage tanks are punctured, or when pipelines are damaged during demolition and ground clearance activities.
There is the potential for the plant to contain residuals of highly toxic materials associated with the products and their manufacture. If these materials are not controlled, then the magnitude of the resulting impact on surface water receptors is assessed to be up to major (Strelochny Log and Tungucha River) and moderate for the larger River Kama. Taking into account a high sensitivity of the River Kama and any downstream abstractions, the unmitigated impact significance for these receptors is assessed as major adverse. For the Strelochny Log and Tungucha River, the significance of the potential impacts is considered to be moderate adverse without further mitigation.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 155 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
10.6 Mitigation Measures
10.6.1 Construction Phase No mitigation measures are required, provided that the construction follows local construction norms and rules, good environmental practice and pollution prevention measures, set out in the ESMMP.
These measures include:
● Management of surface drainage and site runoff, particularly during snow melt, to minimise erosion and the potential for high sediment loads entering the rivers, including collection of surface drainage in settlement ponds, prior to discharge ● Storage of excavated material away from watercourses and drains, and covering stock piles ● Prevention of pollution by use of hard covered, bunded areas for storage of liquids and refuelling, oil interceptors in areas where fuel is used or stored, provision of spill kits and protocols for their use and appropriate disposal to minimise the impacts of any spillages.
10.6.2 Operational Phase Beyond implementation of good practice pollution prevention measures, no further mitigation measures are required provided that the Project wastewater treatment plant operates within the design guidelines to allow reuse of the treated process wastewaters in the operation of the EP-600 plant. An appropriate inspection and maintenance regime should be put in place for the wastewater treatment plant to minimise risks of outages.
Monitoring is required to ensure that the Project wastewater plant remains compliant with the Project design criteria to allow reuse of the treated water. A series of contingency measures should be devised to allow prompt action to be taken should there be any deviation from the normal operating standards (e.g. during upset conditions then process wastewater can be discharged to the existing NKNK WWTP).
It is important that the abstraction rates and effluent quantity, quality and discharge arrangements remain within the design limits, and that there are no uncontrolled releases of any liquids. Appropriate monitoring should be conducted for surface water discharges to the Tungucha river.
10.6.3 Decommissioning Phase Good construction environmental practice and pollution prevention measures, set out in the ESMPP should also be adopted during the decommissioning phase.
Specific mitigation is required to address the impact of demolishing or removing tanks and pipelines which contain toxic or hazardous materials. Appropriate mitigation will need to be established on a case by case basis depending on the location of the component, its operational use, physical state and the proximity to surface water receptors. The measures must be designed to minimise the risk of spills and to ensure that, should a spill occur, the release can be controlled and either treated or removed.
A decommissioning plan should be developed that includes the pollution control measures required for each component.
10.7 Residual impacts There are no residual impacts provided best practice measures are implemented during each phase and that mitigation is put in place during decommissioning.
Following decommissioning there is a risk that hazardous material may remain on site or have leached into the soils. Consequently, there is a residual risk that these materials may contaminate a surface water receptor.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 156 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
The significance of this risk is judged to be negligible to moderate adverse for the various receptors given that the magnitude of such an event would be minor.
A monitoring programme should be implemented to assess the level of any residual contamination in surface water receptors, and to identify any source of contamination (for example from contaminated soils disturbed during re-development).
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 157 Volume II – Impact Assessment Draft for Lenders Disclosure
Table 66: Summary of Impacts Activity / Aspect Surface Water Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Significance Mitigation Residual Impact Receptor Potentially (prior to mitigation) Impacted Construction Water abstraction, River Kama High Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible surface water runoff Strelochny Log Low Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible water, flood risk Tungucha Low Minor Negligible N/A Negligible Existing abstractions High Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible Operation Water abstraction River Kama High Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible Strelochny Log Low - - - - Tungucha Low - - - - Existing abstractions High Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible Wastewater and River Kama High Negligible Negligible Minimise risks of outages of Project Negligible surface water Wastewater Treatment Plant, including Strelochny Log Low Negligible Negligible Negligible management inspection and maintenance regime. Tungucha Low Minor Negligible Monitoring of surface water discharged to Negligible Existing abstractions High Negligible Negligible Tungucha river. Negligible Flood Risk River Kama High Negligible Negligible Control of technical condition of drainage Negligible system. Strelochny Log Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Timely maintenance. Tungucha Low Minor Negligible Negligible Existing abstractions High Negligible Negligible Negligible Decommissioning Water abstraction, River Kama High Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible surface water runoff Strelochny Log Low Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible water, flood risk Tungucha Low Minor Negligible N/A Negligible Existing abstractions High Negligible Negligible N/A Negligible Demolition/removal of River Kama High Moderate Major adverse Minimise the risk of spills and ensure that Moderate adverse storage vessels and accidental spills can be controlled and either Strelochny Log Low Major Moderate adverse Negligible pipelines treated or removed. Tungucha Low Major Moderate adverse A decommissioning plan should be Negligible Existing abstractions High Negligible Major adverse developed that includes the control Moderate adverse measures required for demolition or removal of each component.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 158
11 Ecology and Biodiversity
11.1 Introduction This chapter represents the Ecological Impact Assessment of the Project. It identifies the relevant framework of the legislation and identifies and assesses potential significant adverse impacts, before defining appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures that will be implemented as part of the Project. The baseline includes protected areas, habitats and species, and ecosystem services, with information being used from primary and secondary sources.
The structure of this chapter reflects the ESIA process. Section 11.2 provides background information on legislative and policy framework for biodiversity, while details on how the baseline information was obtained and the assessment criteria are provided in Section 11.3. The biodiversity and ecosystem services baseline is summarised in Section 11.4, with further detail being provided in Volume III of the ESIA. An assessment of the likely impacts of the Project on biodiversity and ecosystem services is provided in Section 11.5. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are presented in Section 11.6 and a summary of the residual impacts in Section 11.8.
11.2 Legislation, Policy, and Third-Party Requirements
11.2.1 International Law The following international conventions ratified by Russian Federation are considered applicable to the Project:
● The Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro 1992 ● The Convention on the Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Wildlife Habitat, Ramsar 1971 ● The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris 1972 ● Agreement on Cooperation in the Sphere of Timber Industry and Forestry, 1998 ● UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo 1991 ● Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Ecology and Environmental Protection, 1999.
Conventions and agreements with pending ratification:
● Convention on the Conservation of the European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Berne 1979.
11.2.2 National Legislation and Policy on Biodiversity Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Legislation in Russian Federation Biodiversity management and conservation are regulated in the Russian Federation through a range of national and regional laws and regulations. A well-developed system of legislative institutions, regulations and guidance is in place regarding the conservation of biodiversity.
The key legislation regulating biodiversity and nature conservation is the law No.7-FZ dated January 10, 2002 “On Environmental Protection”. This law formulates general principles for administrative and other protective norms for components of nature and their systems. The Law details the rights and obligations of all parties concerned including state structures, users of the environment, and the public.
The law No.7-FZ designates the following elements that require special protection:
● Those included in the list of international environmental heritage
158
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 159
● State natural reserves and parks, including biosphere reserves ● Natural monuments, national, natural and woodland parks ● Botanical gardens ● Historic and cultural, aesthetical, recreational, sanitary and other sites ● Rare or endangered soils, forests and other vegetation communities, fauna and other organisms and their habitats. Russian legislation states that whilst selecting the site and the design of facilities that may have direct or indirect negative environmental impacts, measures should be put in place to protect the natural environment or to restore it, and to ensure the development is sustainable. Wildlife habitats should be conserved and restored to ensure biological diversity and to conserve the genetic stock of wild animals.
The following legal acts are most relevant:
● Federal Law No.74-FZ dated March 03, 2006 “The Water Code of the Russian Federation” ● Federal Law No.136-FZ dated October 25, 2001 “Land Code of the Russian Federation” ● Federal Law No.200-FZ dated December 4, 2006 “Forest Code of the Russian Federation” ● Federal Law No.52-FZ dated April 24, 1995 “On Protection of Fauna” ● Federal Law No.33-FZ dated March 14, 1995 “On Protected Territories” ● Federal Law No.2395-1 dated February 21, 1992 “On Subsoil Resources” ● Decree of The Government of the Russian Federation dated February 17, 2014 “On Adoption of The Strategy on conservation of rare and endangered species of animals, plants and fungi in Russian Federation for period until 2030”.
Russian National Strategy on Biodiversity Conservation A Russian National Strategy on Biodiversity Conservation is a framework document developed and adopted by the wide range of Russian environmental institutions including the Ministry of the Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation. The goal of this document is the conservation of the diversity of natural ecosystems ensuring their sustainable existence and use, as well as conservation of the diversity of domestic and cultivated forms of living organisms and man-made (ecologically balanced natural-cultural) complexes ensuring the development of efficient economy and an optimal human environment.
Legislation of the Republic of Tatarstan The Environmental Code of the Republic of Tatarstan (Law of Republic of Tatarstan adopted December 15, 2008) regulates the environmental impacts of commercial activities. The Code discloses the following aspects:
● Methods of economic regulation applicable to environmental protection and nature management ● Target programs of Tatarstan Republic applicable to environmental protection ● Economic incentives of nature management and environmental protection ● State support of environmental performance ● Environmental Impact Assessment requirements.
11.2.3 Applicable International Requirements
International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 6 The Project is required to meet the IFC Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources (IFC, 2012).
IFC PS6 objectives are to:
159
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 160
● To protect and conserve biodiversity ● To maintain the benefits from ecosystem services ● To promote the sustainable management of living natural resources through the adoption of practices that integrates conservation needs and development priorities. In line with IFC PS6, a conservation value is allocated to the ecological features (protected areas, habitats and species) which are likely to be directly or indirectly impacted by the Project within a zone of influence. Under the IFC guidance, the requirements of PS6 apply to projects in all habitats, whether or not those habitats have been previously disturbed and whether or not they are legally protected.
In accordance with IFC PS6, habitats are divided into modified, natural and critical habitats. Critical habitats can be either modified or natural habitats supporting high biodiversity value, including:
● Habitat of significant importance to critically endangered and / or endangered species (IUCN Red List) ● Habitat of significant importance to endemic and / or restricted-range species ● Habitat supporting globally significant concentrations of migratory species and / or congregatory species ● Highly threatened and / or unique ecosystems and / or ● Areas associated with key evolutionary processes. Habitat destruction is recognised as a major threat to the maintenance of biodiversity and to assess likely significance of impacts, PS6 makes the following recommendations depending on habitat status:
Modified Habitat: exercise care to minimise any conversion or degradation of such habitat, depending on scale of project, identify opportunities to enhance habitat and protect and conserve biodiversity as part of operations.
Natural Habitat: developer will not significantly convert or degrade such habitat unless no financial/technical feasible alternatives exist (or overall benefits outweigh cost), stakeholders have been consulted, and conversion or degradation is suitably mitigated following the mitigation hierarchy. Mitigation measures need to achieve no net loss of biodiversity where feasible.
Critical Habitat: in areas of critical habitat the developer will not implement project activities unless: there are no alternatives; there are no measurable adverse impacts on the critical habitat triggers; project does not lead to a net reduction in the populations of critically endangered or endangered species; and a robust, appropriately designed and long-term monitoring and evaluation programme is implemented. Developers must achieve net gain in biodiversity if critical habitats are affected. The preparation and implementation of a Biodiversity Action Plan is required where critical habitat is affected. IFC PS6 guidance recognises the importance of ecosystem services. Where a project is likely to adversely impact on ecosystem services, as determined by the impact assessment process, a systematic review to identify priority ecosystem services must be carried out, any impacts on Affected Communities must be identified and impacts on the ecosystem services minimised.
11.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria
11.3.1 Zone of Influence for Biodiversity Applicable guidance on ecological assessments76 recommends that all ecological features that occur within a ZoI around the proposed development are investigated. The potential ZoI includes:
● Areas directly within the land take for the proposed development and access ● Areas which will be temporarily affected during construction
76 https://www.cieem.net/data/files/Publications/EcIA_Guidelines_Terrestrial_Freshwater_and_Coastal_Jan_2016.pdf
160
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 161
● Areas likely to be impacted by hydrological disruption ● Areas where there is a risk of pollution and noise disturbance during construction and / or operation. With regard to biodiversity and nature conservation, the ZoI for the Project includes the Nizhnekamsk production hub overall Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ), and the ZoI has been extended to include the section of the Kama River to the north and north-west of Nizhnekamsk (Figure 33).
Figure 33: Existing overall SPZ of the industrial hub and individual SPZ of NKNK
Source: SPZ Project Documentation
11.3.2 Baseline Conditions Methodology Desktop Study A review of the Environmental Baseline Study Report performed by Branan Environment in 2012 (Volume III) has been carried out. This study summarises information from the following sources:
● Results of long-term vegetation and animal surveys conducted within the Nizhnekamskneftekhim SPZ by the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan and Institute of Environmental Problems and Subsoil Resources Management of the Academy of Science of the Republic of Tatarstan ● Results of environmental and hydrometeorological surveys conducted by Eko-M in the area within the NKNK site (2012) ● Data received from the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Tatarstan ● Data received from the Federal Agency of Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring
161
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 162
● Information about national conservation areas in Russian Federation and Republic of Tatarstan. Additional information on biodiversity, ecology and nature conservation has been reviewed from a range of organisations, publications and internet sources including:
● Convention on Biological Diversity website (http://www.cbd.int) ● UNESCO database on World Heritage Sites (http://whc.unesco.org/en/interactive-map) ● The Red Data Book of Russian Federation (http://redbookrf.ru) ● International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org) ● BirdLife International (http://www.birdlife.org) ● Ramsar Sites (http://www.ramsar.org/) ● Important Plant Areas (http://www.plantlifeipa.org/reports.asp).
Baseline Field Surveys (1996-2012) Detailed animal and botanical surveys within the existing Sanitary Protection Zone were carried out from 1996 to 2012 within the existing overall SPZ by Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan77 (Figure 34).
Figure 34: Botanical and Animal Survey Sites (shown as red circles) Conducted During 1996–2012
Surveys were conducted for flora and vegetation, terrestrial invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles, birds and mammals along selected routes and selected points:
● Terrestrial Invertebrate Surveys Within each of the six field sites, a maximum of three 0.25 x 0.25m samples were surveyed in 2012, to a depth of 15cm. All invertebrates in each sample were identified and relative population sizes were assessed by recording the number of sightings in a plot per hour for each species. In addition, the soil biota density was calculated per m2.
77 Environmental Baseline Study Report, Branan, 2012
162
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 163
● Amphibian and Reptile Surveys Between 2006 and 2012, approximately 59.5km of transect were completed as part of reptile surveys within the study area. Species were recorded using three methods:
Incidental records from across the site For reptiles only, records were made using fixed transects (using either a fixed 1-3m width or a non- fixed strip, and at least 1km in length) Dip netting to catch aquatic amphibians. Hydrobiological dip nets with a diameter of 60cm were used. All animals caught in one net were counted.
● Bird Surveys Transect methodology was used to record bird species in the SPZ woodland areas and adjacent areas, with both summer and autumn surveys completed. Transect surveys were undertaken in grassland and forest-steppe habitats in autumn only. Approximately 62km of transect were completed in 1996 - 2012, including 32km in summer (June) and 30km in autumn (October) in forested areas, and 10km in autumn in meadow and meadow-steppe habitats.
Dominant bird species were recorded as those accounting for more than 10% of the species assemblage. Species accounting for 1% or greater of the population were categorised as baseline species. To describe the bird diversity, the Shannon Index – H and Pielou Index were used. Birds were identified using Popov, 1988, Askeev and Askeev, 1999.
● Mammals Surveys for mammals involved a search for field signs including pellets, remnants of prey or other food, tracks in the snow and soil, burrows, nests, shelters and so on. Small mammals were surveyed using ‘Hero traps,’ using bait of bread cubes fried in sunflower oil. A set of 25, 50 or 100 traps were spread along each transect. Between 2005 and 2012, 2,900 traps were set per night of survey. Population index scores were calculated using the following scoring system:
– 1 = very low (up to one animal recorded per 100 traps) – 2 = low (from 1.1 to 3 animals recorded per 100 traps) – 3 = average (between 3.1 to 6 animals recorded per 100 traps) – 4 = high (from 6.1 to 12 animals recorded per 100 traps) – 5 = very high (more than 12 animals recorded per 100 traps). Bat surveys were conducted along transect routes throughout the night and before dawn, visually and using a Bat Detector D 240 Pettersson Electronic AB.
Mammal species were identified based on Popov (1988), Askeev, Askeev and Belyaev (1999, 2002).
● Flora and Vegetation Surveys Surveys for vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens were undertaken by the Institute of Environmental Problems and Subsoil Management of the Academy of Science of the Republic of Tatarstan between 1996 and 2012 across all seasons. These surveys were undertaken at five sites, including an area of up to 100 m2 for tree vegetation and 10 m2 for grassland vegetation. Five control sites were surveyed in the woodland park of Nizhnekamsk in 2012. Species projective cover was assessed using the following scale (Mirkin and Rosenberg, 1978)78:
78 Mirkin, B.M., Rosenberg, G.S. (1978). Phytoecology. Principles and Methods. Nauka.
163
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 164
– r = a single species with insignificant cover – + = a rare species with cover of up to 1% – 1 = species with cover between 1% and 5% – 2 = species cover between 6% and 25% – 3 = species cover between 26% and 50% – 4 = species cover between 51% and 75% – 5 = species cover over 75%. The names of vascular plant species have been confirmed against the Catalogue of Life79 and The Plant List80. The names of bryophytes were taken from Moss flora of the Middle European Russia (M. Ignatov and E. Ignatova81 (2003) and Hepatica and Hornwort Flora of Russia (A. Potyomkin and E. Sofronova (2009)82, and the names of lichens were taken from Check-List of Lichens of the Republic of Tatarstan (N. Malysheva and A. Smirnov (1982)83.
For detailed results of these surveys see Volume III.
Supplementary Field Survey (2017) To confirm and compare results of previous baseline surveys with existing situation and to identify any changes since 2012, a repeat botanical and fauna survey was conducted in July 2017 by Mott MacDonald ecology experts (Figure 35).
Figure 35: Confirmatory Field Survey Sites
● Botanical Survey Floristic and geobotanical survey consisted of a random sampling method along the six 500m transect (routes) tracked across habitat, ensuring that the plots were positioned within the most common vegetation communities.
79 http://www.catalogueoflife.org 80 http://www.theplantlist.org/ 81 http://herba.msu.ru/russian/books/2003/moss_1.html 82 https://www.binran.ru/files/publications/Personal/Potemkin/Potemkin_Sofronova_with_corrections_2012.pdf 83 http://libarch.nmu.org.ua/handle/GenofondUA/75064
164
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 165
Fifteen plots were surveyed in total (3 per point). Plot size depended on the type of vegetation community: • Twelve (10x10m) plots were surveyed in forest habitat outside project site • Three (3x3m) plots were surveyed in meadow grassland on disturbed soil at the project site. Names of the described species followed S. Cherepanov84 (1971). Vegetation communities were identified according to V. Vasylevich (1971)85. For consistency of results to allow comparison with data of previous surveys, species projective cover was assessed using the same scale (Mirkin and Rosenberg, 1978)86:
● Fauna survey A Transect survey method of fauna (amphibia, reptiles, birds and mammals) was considered appropriate to provide an update of previous faunal studies87. The transect method provides an opportunity to cover wide areas and record animals across different habitats in the short timeframe. The sites selected for botanical surveys across the main habitats in the study area were identified as most indicative for fauna surveys. As a result, the fauna survey was conducted in parallel with the botanical survey along the same six 500m transects.
The survey recorded: • Identification of species encountered • Number of encounters • Number of animals. All animals recorded along the route were recorded irrespective of the distance from the transect. All individuals of large animals were recorded separately. Estimation of small birds in flocks was conducted by calculation of number of animals in quadrats and multiplied by the number of quadrats with birds. Animals identified within the SPZ, outwith of the survey routes, were also included into the overall list of species88 and 89.
Detailed results of the 2017 botanical and faunal surveys are described in Volume III. Conservation Status Categories
This ESIA report will refer to four conservation status categories:
● The Red Book of the Russian Federation (Decree of the Ministry of the Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation No. 306 dated May 23, 2016) ● The Red Book of the Republic of Tatarstan (Decree of the the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan No.615 dated October 25, 1993) ● The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2017.1 (IUCN) ● UNEP Agreement on Conservation of Populations of European Bats (Eurobats). The threat categories in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and the Red Book of Tatarstan are shown in Table 67. The categories ‘Extinct’ and 5 (V) are not used in this report. The IUCN threat categories are similar but with slightly different meanings (to reflect the global scale). Only the following IUCN categories are used in this report: Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable.
84 “Vascular plants of Russia and neighbouring countries. Within the ex USSR”, Saint-Petersburg, 1995 85 V. Vasylevich, Methods of identification of vegetation associations, Leningrad, Nauka, 1971 86 B. Mirkin, G. Rosenberg, Phytoecology. Principles and Methods, Leningrad, Nauka, 1978 87 V. Romanov, I Maltsev, Methods of ecological studies of terrestrial animals. Quantitative records, Vladimir, 2005 88 M. Kaljakin, Kh. Kurkamp Groot, V. Kontorschikov, Birds of European part of Russia. The photo-guide, Moscow, 2016 89 B. Kuznetsov, Key for Invertebrates of USSR in 3 books, Prosveschenie, Moscow, 1974
165
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 166
Table 67: Threat categories in the Red Book of Russia and the Red Book of Tatarstan Index Category Meaning 0 Extinct Taxa which have not been found on the territory of Tatarstan for the last 100 years (for invertebrates) and 50 years (for vertebrates and plants) 1 (I) Critically Taxa and populations whose abundance has decreased to critical levels, allowing them to become Endangered extinct in the near future. 2 (II) Endangered Taxa and populations whose number is constantly decreasing. If the negative factors reducing the populations continue, the taxa can be moved to Category 1 in the near future. 3 (III) Vulnerable Taxa and populations with a low number of individuals inhabiting limited territory (or marine area) or sporadically distributed over extensive territory (or marine area). 4 (IV) Data Deficient Taxa and populations which apparently belong to one of the above categories but there are considerable gaps in knowledge of them, or they do not exactly meet the criteria for the other categories. 5 (V) n/a Restored species whose status does not cause any concerns due to natural reasons or implemented measures but they are under use or require continuous control Source: Red Book of the Russian Federation and Red Book of the Republic of Tatarstan.
11.3.3 Assessment of Impact Significance Determining Sensitivity and Magnitude
In accordance with IFC PS6, the conservation value (sensitivity) or weighting attributed to each ecological feature which occurs within the ZoI of the Project needs to be undertaken, and these are defined in Table 68. The magnitude of the potential impacts upon each feature is then assessed for the construction and operation of the Project.
Table 68: Criteria for Determining Conservation Value (sensitivity of the receiving environment) Conservation Species Criteria Habitat or Site Criteria Value (sensitivity) Very High IUCN Critically endangered and Internationally designated sites (or equal status). Critical habitats of endangered species. significant international ecological importance. High IUCN Vulnerable species. European Nationally designated sites (or equal status). Areas of critical habitats species and nationally protected of national ecological importance, and natural habitats of significant species of significant population size ecological importance and/or high biodiversity with limited potential for and importance. substitution. Medium IUCN Near Threatened species. Regionally important natural habitats. Natural habitats. Modified Nationally protected species or rare habitats with high biodiversity or under significant threat of loss within species, but not a significant population the region. size and not of national importance. Low IUCN Least Concern. Species of local Undesignated sites and natural habitats of some local biodiversity and national importance. cultural heritage interest. Modified habitats with limited ecological value. Other sites with little or no local biodiversity and cultural interest. Modified habitats with limited biodiversity value. Negligible IUCN Least Concern species. Species Highly modified habitats of no or very limited biodiversity value. of no national importance.
Table 69: Criteria for Definition of Impact Magnitude Magnitude Definition (considers duration of the impact, spatial extent, reversibility, and ability of comply with (positive or legislation) negative) Major Fundamental change to the specific environmental conditions assessed resulting in long term or permanent change, typically widespread in nature (regional national and international), would require significant intervention to return to baseline; exceed national standards and limits. Moderate Detectable change to the specific environmental conditions assessed resulting in non-fundamental temporary or permanent change. Minor Detectable but minor change to the specific environmental conditions assessed.
166
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 167
Magnitude Definition (considers duration of the impact, spatial extent, reversibility, and ability of comply with (positive or legislation) negative) Negligible No perceptible change to the specific environmental conditions assessed.
Determination of Significance The significance has been determined by the interaction between the magnitude of impacts and the sensitivity of receptors affected, as depicted in the significance matrix presented Chapter 5.
For each aspect, the significance of impacts will be discussed before and after mitigation (i.e. residual impact). Impacts identified as having major or moderate significance based on the above approach are classified as significant impacts.
As part of the impact assessment, appropriate mitigation measures are reviewed and included to minimise any potential adverse impacts of the project on biodiversity. The residual impacts are then determined.
Assessment of Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those impacts that may result from the combination of past, present or future actions of existing or planned activities in a project’s ZoI. While a single activity may itself result in a negligible impact, it may, when combined with other impacts (significant or insignificant) in the same geographical area and occurring at the same time, result in a cumulative impact that is significant.
The assessments within this document have included, where relevant, an assessment of the cumulative impact of the Project with other present and planned developments in the ZoI.
Biodiversity Mitigation and Monitoring Mitigation measures detailed in the ESIA have been developed around international best practice and adherence to the general policies for biodiversity conservation in Russia. Mitigation measures proposed follow the mitigation hierarchy as defined within IFC PS6: avoid, reduce (minimise), remedy (restore) and offset.
11.3.4 Data Limitations The ecological surveys only focused on the typical habitats and areas of ecological interest. The baseline surveys followed best practice survey techniques and used a series of plots across the ZoI. This assessment has considered the nature of potential unexpected ecological features and precautionary mitigation measures along with additional monitoring is included in Section 11.6.
11.4 Baseline Description
11.4.1 Ecoregions and Biomes An ecoregion is a large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities that: share a large majority of their species and ecological dynamics; share similar environmental conditions; and interact ecologically in ways that are critical for their long-term persistence. Ecoregions are not designations for nature conservation or other purposes. Biomes are major habitat communities classified according to the predominant vegetation and characterised by adaptations of organisms to that particular environment.
Tatarstan is located within the East European Forest-Steppe Ecoregion90. This consists of temperate broadleaf and mixed woodlands. It includes lowland-colline subcontinental meadow steppes and dry grassland vegetation, and lowland-colline lime-oak woodlands.
90 http://www.globalspecies.org/ecoregions/display/PA0419
167
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 168
11.4.2 Areas Protected for Nature Conservation International Designations The only international designation in the wider area is the Kamsko-Iksky Important Bird Area, which is located approximately 50km north-east from the Project site. The Kamsko-Iksky Important Bird Area is a historical flyway of waterfowl birds that consists of large patches of floodplain with many lakes and meadows and covered by aquatic vegetation and wet woodlands. The site supports low numbers of the lesser White-fronted Goose (Anser erythropus), and is thought to support 1% of the global population of notable species such as Greylag Goose (Anser anser), Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata) and Little Tern (Sterna albifrons), IUCN Least Concern species91. The site is also an important site in the Russian Federation for Gadwall (Anas strepera).
National and Local Designations Areas designated for nature conservation in the Russian Federation are called Special Nature Protection Areas (SNPA) and can have different levels of protection, including Federal Protected Area or Regional Protected Area. They are usually designated as Strict Nature Reserves, National Parks, Nature Monuments or Nature Refuges. Nature Refuges are sites with a special nature protection and scientific, cultural, recreational or health value, and are categorised as national heritage assets. These sites are considered to be of high conservation value. There are no SNPAs (including Nature Refuges) in the study area or in the immediate areas around it (in a radius of 5 km). However, a number of SNPAs occur in the wider area (Figure 36), and these are briefly presented below.
Figure 36: Designated areas (Special Nature Protection Areas)
Source: Branan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012
Stepnoi Zai River is a designated nature sanctuary that starts at Yefanovsky Village. The river mouth is located to the west of Nizhee Afanasovo Village, approximately 5km to the east of the Project site.
91 http://www.iucnredlist.org/
168
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 169
Sheshma River is a designated as a nature sanctuary that starts 1.2km southeast of Ivanovo-Podbelsky Village and the river mouth is located 2km southwest of Starosheshminsky Village and circa 5km to the south of the Project site.
Borkovsky Country Estate is a nature sanctuary located in Nizhnekamsk Leskhoz, near to 'Prost’ Lake and 10km to the north of the Project site. The Estate is a 1,030 hectares area of homogeneous primary PinePinus sylvestris woodland and Tilia cordata, with Corylus avellana, grassy strands comprising of Carex capillaris and Rubus saxatilis. Vipera berus have been recorded here (a Republic of Tatarstan Red Book species). The Estate is used for recreation.
Sheremetyevsky State Game Sanctuary is located in the Nizhnekamsk Region along the Kama River and the Prost’ River, north of Kamsky Poliany Worker’s Settlement, approximately 5km to the north of the Project site. The 5,800 hectares site is designated for beaver reproduction and hunting other species.
Downstream Kama River is designated as a National Park in 30km to the north from the Project site, and includes intact primary pine woodlands. Approximately 800 species of higher vascular plants, six amphibian species, five reptile species and 12 mammal species have been recorded here. Species included on the Republic of Tatarstan Red Data Book: Carex bohemica, Daphne mezereum, Nymphaea alba, Triturus cristatus, Bufo bufo, Lacerta apoda, Vipera berus, Heliaeetus albicilla, Aquila chrysaetos, Pandion heliaeteus, Ichthyaetus ichtyaetus and Nyctalus noctula.
There are 30 entomological sanctuaries called ‘apiary zones.’ These sites are of local importance and were established to protect the gene pool and increase the population of useful insect pollinators, melliferous bees, entomophage and terricolous invertebrates.
11.4.3 Industrial Hub Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ) With reference to Figure 33, an individual Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ) for the NKNK industrial area was established based on the predicted negative influence of the emission sources from the NKNK industrial area, such as dispersion of air pollutants and noise. This SPZ has a maximum distance of 2,860m from the border of the proposed EP-600 plant. To consider potential negative impacts of emission sources from all industries within the Nizhnekamsk industrial hub, an overarching (or ‘overall’) SPZ was subsequently established by the Sanitary Authority for the entire industrial hub, extending, at its widest point 5,300m to the east of the industrial hub border. This overall SPZ is used as the basis for the assessment.
The overall SPZ is an area of considerable biological diversity, and includes parts of the Zay-Sheshminsky plateau and the semi-humid Volga-Zavolzhye broadleaved (Lime and Oak) nemoral grassy woodlands. The flora of the overall SPZ includes 885 species of 96 families and is relatively rich; this accounts for 89.1% of the entire flora of Nizhnekamsk Municipal Region and 55% of the Republic of Tatarstan (Branan, 2012). Within 10km of the overall SPZ there are 53 species of vascular plants included in the Republic of Tatarstan Red Book. These red-listed species were also recorded in the overall SPZ and therefore can be potentially be affected by the Project.
11.4.4 Habitats Overview The habitats around Nizhnekamsk are typical of the forest-steppe ecoregion, with broad-leaved woodland and steppe grassland. The climate is typically relatively cool in summer with variable precipitation and cold winters, with dramatic fluctuations of temperature and atmospheric pressure between summer and winter. The area also includes hilly Oka – Volga – Kama Oak, Elm woodlands (Ulmus glabra) and Volga Lime (Tilia cordata) and Oak (Quercus robur) woodlands (in the south) on light grey and saturated alluvial soils. This area is part of Nizhnekamsk Municipal Administrative Region of the Republic of Tatarstan. Woodland habitat accounts for
169
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 170
26% of the Nizhnekamsk Region. The following woodland habitats are found in the wider area of the Project site: 92 93.
● Coniferous and southern boreal woodland ● Coniferous-deciduous woodlands, with Spruce-Linden, Oak and Pine ● Broadleaf woodlands with Oak and Lime ● Birch and Aspen woodland ● Mixed plantation woodland. The habitats on the Project footprint include mainly grass meadow, with small areas of woodland plantation, scrub and ruderal vegetation. These habitats are of low or negligible conservation importance.
Habitats Within Current Overall SPZ The main habitats within the current overall SPZ (as presented in Brannan Baseline Study Report, 2012) are briefly described below. The broadleaved woodland (excluding plantations of fruit trees), grasslands and watercourses would be classified as ‘natural habitats’ under the IFC PS6 (2012). No areas within the ZoI of the Project would be classified as ‘critical habitat’ as the habitats do not support globally or nationally species that are critically endangered, endangered, endemic/restricted-range or migratory/congregatory. The site for the Project has not been used previously for development, except for a concrete laydown area.
Ruderal Vegetation in the Urban and Industrial Areas
A significant proportion of the overall SPZ is urban and industrial, including brick buildings, concrete slabs and columns and old asphalt. Bryophytes occurring on man-made stony substrata include: Tortula muralis (which can occupy considerable areas), Schistidium dupretii and Barbula unguiculata. There are occasional Marchantia polymorpha and Leptobryum pyriforme on stony substrata.
Ruderal species of plants are frequent and abundant in habitats disturbed by human activities (bonfire sites, agricultural land, drainage ditches, industrial construction sites, sludge dumps, highway banks and sand quarries). The following bryophyte species are found in these disturbed habitats: Anthoceros laevis, Dicranella humilis, Didymodon fallax, Grimmia ovalis and Riccia ciliata. Vascular plants tolerant of disturbed habitats found in the urban and industrial areas of the study area, include Marie White (Chenopodium album), Goosefoot species (Atriplex ssp.), Cannabis Weed (Cannabis ruderalis), Upturned Amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus) and Foxtail (Setaria viridis).
The open spaces and some grassland areas are dominated by ruderal species, including Common Plantain (Plantago major), Berteroa sp., Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinalis), Common Burdock (Arctium minus), Artemisia vulgaris.
Urban Trees and Plantations
Urban trees and plantations of fruit trees in the urban and industrial areas are dominated by Acer platanoides, with Greater Celandine (Chelidonium majus), Common Nipplewort (Lapsana communis), Small-flowered Balsam (Impatiens parviflora) and Common Nettle (Urtica dioica). Common Plantain (Plantago major), Knot- grass (Polygonum sp.), Silverweed (Potentilla anserina) and Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), plantations of Apple tree, Chokeberry, Cherry tree, Pear tree were common alongside areas of hard-standing and areas subject to trampling and grazing.
Natural Woodland
92 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012 93 Mott MacDonald, 2017
170
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 171
The woodland habitat accounts for approximately 30% (790ha) of the SPZ, and includes woodland blocks, roadside woodland belts, green ‘buffer’ zones of tree and shrub plantations in industrial areas, woodland and scrub communities in gullies and valleys of small rivers and streams. In the 1990s, the woodland habitat accounted for 40% of the SPZ, indicating a 10% reduction in the woodland areas (Branan Baseline Study Report, 2012). The woodland habitats in the SPZ are typical of woodlands growing in temperate climates on rich soils.
The main wooded areas in the SPZ are to the south and south-east of the site. Across the site there are broadleaved deciduous woodland, mixed broadleaved and coniferous woodland and wet woodland. The broadleaved deciduous woodland includes Pedunculate Oak (Quercus robur), Small-leaved Lime (Tilia cordata), Elm (Ulmus glabra), and Silver Birch (Betula pendula), with ground flora comprised of Goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria), Hair-like Sedge (Carex capillaris), Chickweed (Stellaria sp.), Sweet Woodruff (Galium odoratum) and Paris (Dryopteris felix-mass). The understorey includes Hazel (Corylus avellana), Euonymus verrucosa, Honeysuckle (Lonicera caprifolium), Prunus avium, Arrow Wood (Viburnum dentatum) and Juniper (Juniperus communis). In wetter areas, there are areas of broadleaved woodland with willow, Ulmus glabra and Populus tremula.
In hilly areas near Krasny Klyouch and Nizhnekamsk, there are some areas of mixed broadleaved and coniferous woodland. Species include Pedunculate Oak (Quercus robur), Small-leaved Lime (Tillia cordata) and Norway Maple (Acer platanoides), with occasional Pinus silvestris and Picea abies.
The average age of the main tree species in the woodland areas indicate most of the trees can be considered to be of middle age or mature: Linden – 55-75 years, Oak – 65-80 years, Maple – 35-45 years, Elm – 55-65 years, Aspen – 35-45 years, Birch – 50-45 years.
Grasslands
The grasslands in the SPZ have a relatively high diversity of vascular plants and low diversity of bryophytes. The most abundant vascular plants include Hungarian Brome (Bromopsis inermis), Narrow-leaved Meadow- grass (Poa angustifolia), Fescue sp. (Festuca sulcata) and Common Couch (Elytrigia repens), with other species present including Dog-rose (Rosa canina), Strawberry (Fragaria viridis) and Tufted Vetch (Vicia cracca)94. The moss Brachythecium campestre is abundant on mesophytic woodland meadows. The most diverse grasslands are those on slopping steppe meadows, with fescue and mixed forb species. Steppe meadows in the Nizhnekamskneftekhim SPZ support the moss Abietinella abietina and the wet meadows comprise the moss Drepanocladus aduncus in high abundance. The meadows along woodland edges are comprised of Clover sp. (Trifolium sp.), Wild Marjoram (Origanum vulgare), Perforate St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), Mullein sp. (Verbascum sp.) and Campion. Marsh, Streams and Other Water Bodies
The SPZ includes a number of small water courses and ponds, which support marsh and aquatic vegetation (from the classes Bidentetea tripartitae, Lemnetea and Phragmiti-Magnocaricetea). Marsh species present include Bur-marigold (Bidens tripartita), Marsh Cress (Rorippa palustris), Marsh-pepper Smartweed (Persicaria hydropiper) and Field Mint (Mentha aquatica).
Submerged aquatic plants include Duckweed (Lemna minor), Frog’s-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae), Freshwater Soldier (Stratiotes aloides), Potamogeton sp., Brandy-bottle (Nuphar lutea) and Amphibious Lady’s Thumb (Persicaria maculosa). Emergent species include Common Reed (Fragmites australis), Broad-leaved Cattail (Typha latifolia), Narrow-leaved Cattail (Thypha angustifolia), Water Horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), Bulrush, Flowering Rush (Butomus umbellatus) and Sedge (Carex spp.).
94 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012
171
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 172
Kama River and Tributaries The hydrological regime of Nizhnekamsk Region is influenced heavily by the Kama River. Other surface water sources closest to the study area are the Avlashka River, the Alanka River, the Biklyan River, and the old arm of the Kama River - Strelochny Log Stream (Figure 37)..
The Kama River is approximately 6km north-west of the Project at its nearest point. The Nizhnekamsk section of the Kama River is part of the Kuibyshev Water Reservoir, as part of the Volga Hydropower Station Project. This is a lake-river reservoir with an elongated shape and a complex configuration. There are narrow river-like sections alternating with broader, lake-like areas. Aquatic vegetation includes communities of Butomus umbellatus, Carex sp., Sagittaria sagittifolia, Potamogeton sp., Hydrocharis morsus-ranae, Najas marina Lemna minor. Phytoplankton surveys indicate that the Kama River is mesotrophic95. The existing water abstraction point is located on the southern bank of the Kama River, approximately 10km to the northwest of the industrial area and 12.5km northwest of the Project area. The Project will use an existing pump, with the intake protected with a grill to stop fish getting sucked in. The Kama River is monitored quarterly for pollutants, and monthly for some specific pollutants.
Figure 37: Rivers in the Study Area
Source: kosmosnimki.ru
The Alanka River is a 10.2km long river with a meandering channel, and a clay and sandy substrate, which is silty and sand-rocky in the shallows. Some sections of the banks are steep and support scrub. The upper reaches run through woodland areas. Alanka River is monitored monthly for pollutants.
Avlahska River is located to the south of an industrial area, approximately 4.5km from the proposed Project site, and is a tributary to the Koshaeva River. The source is located in Nizhnekamsk and its mouth is 2km southwest of Avlash, Nizhnekamsk Region. The woodland coverage of the catchment area is 25-50% and channel is generally clay and sandy/silty. Aquatic vegetation includes: Sagittaria sagittifolia, Butomus
95 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012
172
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 173
umbellatus, and others. In the spring and summer, soft submerged and semi-submerged vegetation includes Hydrocharis morsus-ranae, Potamogeton spp., Lemna minor.
The Strelochny Log Stream (old arm of the Kama River) is 7km long and is fed from mixed sources, mostly by snow. It is located to the north of the industrial area, approximately 4.5km from the Project, and is a tributary of the Kama River. The hydrological regime is characterized by high flood and low water levels in the dry season. The semi-aquatic vegetation includes: Arrowhead, Flowering Rush, Water Plantain, Sedges (Carex sp.) and Cattails. In the spring and summer, soft submerged and semi-submerged vegetation is present (Common Frog's-bit, Pondweed, Stonewort, Conferva and Duckweed). There is a buffer pond (44.500m3 in size) that discharges into the Strelochny Log River (refer to Chapter 10). Strelochny Log River is monitored for pollutants.
The Martyshka River is 8.4 km long with a meandering river channel. The river has a clay and sandy substrate, which is silty and sand-rocky in the shallows. The water and river floodplain, particularly in the upper reaches, are heavily contaminated by agricultural, municipal and industrial activities.
Many sections, channels and floodplains of discussed rivers are polluted with illegal domestic and industrial waste landfills. The river floodplain vegetation comprises trees and shrub associations from various species of Willow (Salix sp.), Poplar (Populus sp.), Canadian Maple, Grey Alder and Birch (Betula sp.). Associated grasslands support grasses and forbs on varying levels of soil moisture. In addition, much of the upper reaches of this river includes ruderal vegetation.
There are twelve existing water monitoring locations, including:
● At the abstraction point on the Kama River ● 500m before the 1/1 discharge point at Kama River ● 500m after the 1/1 discharge point ● 500m after the ½ discharge point ● At the point where the buffer pond discharges into the Tungucha River ● 500m before and after the confluence between the Tungucha River and the Avlahska River; ● At the point where the buffer pond dischargers into the Strelochny Log River ● 500m before and after the confluence between the Strelochny Log River and the Kama River.
11.4.5 Flora The study area is located in Nizhnekamsk Municipal Region of Republic of Tatarstan, which supports a relatively rich flora. The flora of the overall SPZ and within 10 km from it comprises 885 vascular plant species, 39 species of bryophytes, and 12 lichen species; a full list of plant species is provided in Volume III of the ESIA documentation96. Of these, 52 species of vascular plants are listed in the Republic of Tatarstan Red Book (Table 70). The plant species in the highest threat category in Tatarstan are Carnation Sedge (Carex panicea), Hair Sedge (Carex capillaris), Limonium sareptanum, Holly-leaved Water Nymph (Najas marina ssp. marina (N. major), Scorzonera parviflora and Carex secalina. Nevertheless, none of the species listed in the Red Book of Tatarstan have been recorded in the Project site in 2017 and they are unlikely to occur there because the habitats are highly disturbed.
Feather Grass (Stipa pennata) is the only species listed (Vulnerable) on the Red Book of the Russian Federation, however the Project site is surrounded by forests and wet grasslands which are not suitable for the Feather Grass (which occurs in steppes and dry grasslands). No species of plants recorded in the study area are threatened at the global level (IUCN, 2017.1). The current flora at the Project site could be categorized
96 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012
173
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 174
as typical of moderately to strongly disturbed habitats with presence of invasive species (Amaranthus retroflexus) recorded along roads in 2017.
Table 70: Threatened Status of Vascular Plant Species Recorded in the Overall SPZ Plant species Russian Name IUCN Red List Russian Red Book Tatarstan Red Book Stipa pennata Ковыль перистый - 3 3 (Vu) Carex panicea Осока просяная - - 1 (Cr) Carex capillaris Осока волосовидная - - 1 (Cr) Limonium sareptanum Кермек сарептский - - 1 (Cr) Najas marina ssp. marina (N. major) Наяда большая - - 1 (Cr) Scorzonera parviflora Козелец мелкоцветковый - - 1 (Cr) Carex secalina Осока ржаная - - 1 (Сr) Alisma gramineum Частуха злаковая - - 2 (En) Astragalus varius Астрагал изменчивый. - - 2 (En) Carex buxbaumii Осока Буксбаума - - 2 (En) Carex dioica Осока двудомная - - 2 (En) Cirsium canum Бодяк серый - - 2 (En) Digitalis grandiflora Наперстянка крупноцветковая - - 2 (En) Eleocharis ovata Болотница яйцевидная - - 2 (En) Eleocharis uniglumis Болотница одночешуйная - - 2 (En) Festuca arundinacea Овсяница Регеля - - 2 (En) Knautia tatarica Короставник татарский - - 2 (En) Lychnis chalcedonica Зорька обыкновенная - - 2 (En) Pedicularis palustris Мытник болотный - - 2 (En) Plantago cornuti Подорожник Корнута - - 2 (En) Potamogeton nodosus Рдеcт узловатый - - 2 (En) Potentilla erecta Лапчатка прямостоячая - - 2 (En) Salix myrtilloides Ива черниковидная - - 2 (En) Senecio fluviatilis (S. nemorensis) Крестовник приречный - - 2 (En) Stellaria crassifolia Звезчатка толстолистая - - 2 (En) Succisa pratensis Сивец луговой - - 2 (En) Taraxacum serotinum Одуванчик поздний - - 2 (En) Teucrium scordium Дубровник чесночный - - 2 (En) Allium saxatile (A. globosum) Лук шаровидный - - 3 (Vu) Althaea officinalis Алтей лекарственный - - 3 (Vu) Amygdalus nana Миндаль низкий - - 3 (Vu) Anemonoides altaica Ветреничка алтайская - - 3 (Vu) Arabis gerardii Резуха Жерарда - - 3 (Vu) Carex bohemica Осока богемская - - 3 (Vu) Carex montana Осока горная - - 3 (Vu) Centaurea ruthenica Василёк русский - - 3 (Vu) Daphne mezereum Волчеягодник обыкновенный - - 3 (Vu) Daucus carota Морковь дикая - - 3 (Vu) Eremogone micradenia Пустынница мелкожелезистая - - 3 (Vu) Gentiana pneumonanthe Горечавка легочная - - 3 (Vu) Hedysarum gmelinii Копеечник Гмелина - - 3 (Vu) Hesperis matronalis (H. sibirica) Вечерница сибирская - - 3 (Vu) Iris sibirica Касатик сибирский - - 3 (Vu) Melica transsilvanica Перловник трансильванский - - 3 (Vu) Nymphaea candida Кувшинка белоснежная - - 3 (Vu) Parnassia palustris Белозор болотный - - 3 (Vu) Peucedanum ruthenicum Горичник русский - - 3 (Vu)
174
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 175
Plant species Russian Name IUCN Red List Russian Red Book Tatarstan Red Book Plantago maxima Подорожник наиболъший - - 3 (Vu) Polygala sibirica Истод сибирский - - 3 (Vu) Salvinia natans Сальвиния плавающая - - 3 (Vu) Senecio tataricus Крестовник татарский - - 3 (Vu) Triglochin maritima Триостренник приморский - - 3 (Vu)
11.4.6 Mammals 38 native species of mammals were recorded in and within 10km of the overall SPZduring 1996 - 201297. The full list of mammal species recorded during previous surveys is provided in Volume III. The habitats supporting these species include a range of man-made, residential, urban habitats, hilly woodlands and dry meadows, and riparian habitats of small rivers. Of the 38 recorded mammal species, seven species are listed on the Red Book of Tatarstan: Woodland Dormouse (Dryomys nitedula), Northern Birch Mouse (Sicista betulina) and five species of bats (Table 71). The Northern bat (Eptesicus nilssoni) is Critically Endangered in Tatarstan. Given the industrial location of the Project site and the modified/disturbed nature of the habitats, it is unlikely that any of these species are present in the Project site.
Two species of small rodents were recorded in the Project area in 2017 but they are not threatened, protected or endemic (see Volume III).
No mammal species recorded in the Project ZoI are listed on the Russian or IUCN Red Books.
Table 71: Threatened Mammal Species Recorded in and within 5 km of the Overall SPZ Scientific Name Common Name Russian Name IUCN Red List Status Russian Red Tatarstan Red Eurobats Status Book Status Book Status Myotis dasycneme Pond Bat Ночница прудовая IUCN - Near-threatened - IV Eurobats - Near-threatened Myotis daubentonii Daubenton’s Bat Ночница водяная IUCN - Least concern - III Eurobats - Least concern Plecotus auritus Brown Large-eared Bat Ушан бурый IUCN - Least concern - IV Eurobats - Least concern Pipistrellus nathusii Nathusius’ Pipistrelle Bat Нетопырь лесной IUCN - Least concern - III Eurobats - Least concern Eptesicus nilssoni Northern Bat Кожан северный IUCN Least concern - I Eurobats - n\a Dryomys nitedula Woodland Dormouse Соня лесная IUCN - Least concern - III Sicista betulina Northern Birch Mouse Мышовка лесная IUCN - Least concern - III
Part of the study area is home to two animal reserves – Prostinsky and Sukharevsky Game Reserve. Within these game reserves, there are annual inventories of hunting species98.
11.4.7 Birds The avifauna of the overall SPZ has been studied in detail from 1991 to 2012; 183 bird species from 41 families have been recorded during this period, which make up 63% of the total number of species found in the Republic of Tatarstan99. Within the SPZ and the surrounding areas, the bird monitoring studies documented the presence of 37 species of birds listed in the Red Book of the Republic of Tatarstan (Table 72: ). Of these, Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Merlin (Falco columbarius) and Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) are Critically Endangered in Tatarstan. The surveyors also recorded five bird species listed in the
97 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012 98 http://ojm.tatarstan.ru/rus/info.php 99 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012
175
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 176
Red Book of the Russian Federation, of which Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) and Little Tern (Sterna albifrons) are Endangered in Russia. None of these threatened species were recorded in the Project area during the 2017 surveys (Volume III). The full list of bird species recorded in the study area between 1991 and 2012 is provided in Volume III. All species listed in the Red Book are protected in Russia.
The summer and autumn bird surveys in 2012 revealed high species diversity, which is explained by the complex mosaic of woodland habitats in the SPZ and the neighbouring areas. 60 woodland bird species were recorded, accounting for 33% of the total number of species in Nizhnekamsk industrial zone. Four species of birds listed in the Republic of Tatarstan Red Book were recorded in the woodland areas: Dove (Columba livia), Ural Owl (Strix uralensis), Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) and White-tailed Eagle (Heliaeetus albicilla). The latter species is also listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation. The woodland areas of the industrial hub provide suitable conditions for a high diversity and abundance of bird species, including Woodpeckers, Warblers, Flycatchers, Thrushes and Tits. The abundance of birds in this area is similar to that observed in similar woodlands in the Middle Volga and Urals.
The grassland habitats support 22 bird species, of which two species are listed in the Republic of Tatarstan Red Book (Meadow Harrier and Merlin).
The highest abundance of birds in summer is found in the less disturbed pine-deciduous woodland area near Krasny Klyuch. The highest species diversity of birds is observed near Ishteryakovo (45 species). In the summer period, the Krasny Klyuch woodland area has a much higher abundance of birds compared to the Ishteryakovo woodland area.
In the first half of the summer, finches were the most abundant birds in the woodland habitats (and adjacent areas) of the SPZ (making up 35% of those birds recorded). Finches are almost always the most abundant bird in the continuous and uniform mixed coniferous and deciduous woodlands. In Ishteryakovo, Garden Warbler can also be categorized as a dominant bird.
During the autumn 2012 survey, a relatively homogenous bird population was recorded in the woodlands of the industrial hub area. The dominant birds included Great Tit (Parus major), Goldcrest (Regulus regulus), and Willow Tit (Poecile montanus).
In the grassland and forest-steppe habitats of the overall SPZ, the autumn bird population was relatively homogeneous. The dominant species included Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis), Yellow Hammer (Emberiza citrinella) and Siskin (Spinus spinus). The Strelochny Log site had a more diverse bird population, due to the greater habitat mosaic structure, woodland density and humidity levels of the habitats.
The 2017 survey recorded seven species of birds in the Project area. None of these species are threatened globally or in Russia. The only species on the Red List of Tatarstan that was found in the Project area is the Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus). One individual was recorded outside of the Project area (Volume III).
Overall, the composition and diversity of the bird population in the overall SPZ is typical for the Republic of Tatarstan and similar areas in Eastern Europe. The study area is not on any of the eight major global flyways for migratory land and water birds.
Table 72: Birds Recorded in and within 5 km the Overall SPZ
IUCN Russian Red Tatarstan Red Scientific Name Common name Russian Name Red List Status Book Status Book Status Aquila heliaca Eastern Imperial Eagle Могильник Vulnerable 2 II Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Сапсан - 2 I Sterna albifrons Little Tern Малая крачка - 2 III Haliaeetus albicilla White-tailed Eagle Орлан-белохвост - 3 V Lanius excubitor Great Grey Shrike Серый сорокопут - 3 III
176
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 177
IUCN Russian Red Tatarstan Red Scientific Name Common name Russian Name Red List Status Book Status Book Status Falco columbarius Merlin Дербник - - I Picoides tridactylus Eurasian Three-toed Woodpecker Трёхпалый дятел - - I Falco vespertinus Red-footed Falcon Кобчик Near-threatened - II Botaurus stellaris Great Bittern Большая выпь - - II Ixobrychus minutus Little Bittern Волчок - - II Cygnus cygnus Whooper Swan Лебедь-кликун - - II Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Полевой лунь - - II Grus grus Common Crane Серый журавль - - II Columba oenas Stock Dove Клинтух - - II Bubo scandiaca Snowy Owl Белая сова - - II Glaucidium passerinum Eurasian Pygmy Owl Воробьиный сыч - - II Strix aluco Tawny Owl Серая неясыть - - II Parus cyanus Azure Tit Белая лазоревка - - II Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit Большой веретенник Near-threatened - III Pernis apivorus European Honey Buzzard Обыкновенный осоед - - III Circus pygargus Montagu’s Harrier Луговой лунь - - III Falco tinnunculus Common Kestrel Обыкновенная пустельга - - III Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Камышница - - III Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank Большой улит - - III Tringa totanus Common Redshank Травник - - III Larus minutus Little Gull Малая чайка - - III Streptopelia turtur European Turtle Dove Обыкновенная горлица - - III Asio otus Long-eared Owl Ушастая сова - - III Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Болотная сова - - III Caprimulgus europaeus Eurasian Nightjar Обыкновенный козодой - - III Merops apiaster European Bee-eater Золотистая щурка - - III Picus canus Grey-faced Woodpecker Седой дятел - - III Lullula arborea Wood Lark Лесной жаворонок - - III Nucifraga caryocatactes Spotted Nutcracker Кедровка - - III Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl Мохноногий сыч - - IV Strix uralensis Ural Owl Длиннохвостая неясыть - - IV Cygnus olor Mute Swan Лебедь-шипун - - V
11.4.8 Reptiles and Amphibians Seven amphibian, and five reptile species were recorded in the study area between 2006 and 2012. Amphibian species recorded in the study area during this period include:
● Tree, shrub and grass vegetation: Green Toad (Bufo bufo) ● Broadleaved woodland: Moor Frog (Rana arvalis), Grass Frog (Rana temporaria), Gray Toad (Bufo bufo) and Common Newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) ● Dry meadows, fields, gardens, woodlands, floodplain meadows: Green Toad, Grass Frog, Moor Frog ● Broadleaved-pine woodland with Aspen, Birch, Spruce and woodland park: Moor Frog, Grass Frog and Grey Toad ● Ponds and the shoreline of small rivers: Lake Frog (Rana ridibunda), and Common Newt and Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Reptiles species recorded in the study area during this period include:
● Tree, shrub and grass vegetation: Common Lizard (Lazerta agilis)
177
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 178
● Broadleaved woodland: Common Lizard and Slow-worm (Anguis fragilis) ● Dry meadows, fields, gardens, woodlands, floodplain meadows: Common Lizard ● Broadleaved-pine woodland, with Aspen, Birch, Spruce, woodland park: Common Lizard and Slow-worm ● Ponds and the shoreline of small rivers: Water Snake (Natrix natrix). The full list of reptile and amphibian species recorded in the study area during this period is provided in Volume III. Four of the recorded species of amphibians and reptiles are listed on the Tatarstan Red List (Table 73). These species are unlikely to occur in the Project site given the industrial local of the site and the disturbed nature of the habitats.
One species of amphibian (Rana arvalis) and no reptiles were recorded in the Project area during the 2017 surveys.
Table 73: Threatened Amphibian and Reptile Species Recorded within 5 km of the Overall SPZ Scientific Name Common Name Russian Name IUCN Red Russian Red Tatarstan Red List Status Book Status Data Book Status Bufo bufo Green Toad Серая жаба - - III Triturus cristatus Crested Newt Гребенчатый тритон - - II Vipera berus Adder Обыкновенная гадюка - - II Anguis fragilis Slow-worm Ломкая веретеница - - III
11.4.9 Fish 13 fish species have been recorded in the study area – refer to the Branan Environmental Baseline Study (2012) for a full list (Volume III). Two species of fish recorded in the Kama River are listed on the Tatarstan Red List: Common Minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus) and Stone Loach (Barbatula barbatula) (Table 74: ).
Commercial species of fish in the study area (Kama River and some of its tributaries) include: Sturgeon (Acipenser ruthenus), Bream (Abramis brama), Roach (Rutilus rutilus), Razorfish, Perch (Perca fluviatilis), Pike (Esox Lucius), Catfish (Silurus glanis), Carp (Cyprinus carpio), Ide (Leuciscus idus), Burbot (Lota lota), Volga Sander (Sander volgensis), Bleak (Alburnus alburnus).
Fish recorded in the Alanka River includes Roach, Bleak, Carp, and Spined Loach (Cobitis taenia). The Strelochny Log Stream (located to the north of the industrial area) is a tributary of the Kama River and supports fish species such as: Pike, Roach, Ide, Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus), Ruff (Gymnocephalus cermua), Bleak, Spined Loach. The above species are spring-spawning species, and their spawning season is late April to early June. There is no commercial fishing in these two rivers.
Table 74: Threatened Fish Species Recorded in the Study Area Scientific Name Common Name Russian Name IUCN Red List Russian Red Data Tatarstan Red Status Book Status Data Book Status Phoxinus phoxinus phoxinus Eurasian Minnow Гольян обыкновенный - II Barbatula barbatula Stone Loach Усатый голец - II
11.4.10 Invertebrates The 2012 baseline Survey100 identified 17 species of invertebrates within the overall SPZ that are listed in the Red Book of the Republic of Tatarstan. Given the industrial nature of the Project site supporting modified and disturbed habitats, it is unlikely to support such threatened invertebrate species.
100 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012
178
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 179
A survey for soil invertebrates or macrofauna was also carried out at four deciduous woodland sites and two grassland sites within the overall SPZ. Overall, the count of soil invertebrates was high and comparable to that of a less disturbed and protected site.
11.4.11 Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services can be defined simply as the benefits that people receive from the environment and biodiversity. The United Nations Environment Programme101 defined four categories of ecosystem services:
● Provisioning services: The goods or products obtained from ecosystems such as food, freshwater, timber, and fibre ● Regulating services: The benefits obtained from an ecosystem’s control of natural processes such as climate, disease, erosion, water flows, and pollination, as well as protection from natural hazards ● Cultural services: The nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems such as recreation, spiritual values, and aesthetic enjoyment ● Supporting services: The natural processes such as nutrient cycling and primary production that maintain the other services. In accordance with IFC PS 6, where a project is likely to adversely impact on ecosystem services, it is necessary to conduct a systematic review to identify the priority ecosystem services, to avoid impacts on these services and where impacts cannot be avoided to minimise them and implement measures that aim to maintain the value and functionality of priority services.
Given the location of the Project within an existing industrial area, no specific baseline surveys have been undertaken for ecosystem services to identify their use by the local populations. However, some information on ecosystem services has been obtained from discussions with representatives of the local authorities (including Nizhnekamsk City, Biklyan, Ishteryakovo, Shingalchi, Afanasovo). It is considered that local populations have low dependency on most provisioning ecosystem services in the study area. There is no important regulating, cultural or supporting services in the study area, on which the local populations depend. The only ecosystem service the Project depends on is the provision of water from Kama River. Therefore, only provisioning services are discussed further below and in the impact assessment section.
The provisioning services used by local communities within the ZoI include:
● Fisheries. Commercial fishing occurs in the Kama River and a number of tributaries. There is also some recreational fishing, especially in certain sections of Kama River. A relatively large number of fish are captured, but it is considered that capture fishing only represents a small part of the livelihoods of the local communities ● Freshwater. Local communities use treated water from Kama River for household needs, sanitation and irrigation of crops ● Timber and fire wood. There are some large blocks of woodland in the south and south-east parts of the SPZ, but it is understood that only small quantities of timber are extracted as part of the woodland management ● Livestock grazing ● Hunting: People from local communities hunting wild animals but this activity is not extensive and is mainly recreational ● Collection of wild berries and mushrooms: Local people collect wild food for own consumption; this activity is small scale.
101 http://www.unep.org/about/
179
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 180
Of these, fisheries (commercial and recreational fishing) and timber are considered to be priority ecosystem services, even if the dependency of the local communities on these services is relatively low. The operation of the Project depends on water abstracted from Kama River, and therefore this is also a priority ecosystem service for the purpose of this assessment.
11.5 Assessment of Impacts This section provides a summary of the likely ecological impacts of the main activities associated with the Project prior to mitigation. Section 11.8 presents the residual impacts, following the successful implementation of the mitigation included in Section 11.6.
The impacts are presented for each Project phase i.e. construction, operation and decommissioning. Impacts on ecological features of negligible conservation importance and impacts on ecosystem services of negligible importance to local communities are not assessed or discussed.
11.5.1 Construction Impacts During the construction of the Project, the potential impacts could include:
● Loss of meadow habitat and upper layer of soil on the Project site ● Noise and light disturbance from construction activities affecting birds and mammals ● Dust deposition around working areas affecting adjacent habitats ● Increased risk of localised pollution events due to use of construction vehicles affecting adjacent habitats ● Localised changes in air quality resulting from construction activities and increased vehicle movements through the area ● Accidental introduction and dispersal of invasive species from construction activities. Protected Areas Protected areas (international or national designations) are further than 5km from the Project area and are extremely unlikely to be affected by the works. Therefore, any impacts are considered to be negligible in magnitude and significance.
Sensitive Habitats The construction works for the EP-600 plant will be located within existing hard-standing or built-up areas and will also require some ground clearance and removal of existing vegetation. The expansion is expected to cover approximately three hectares and most of this is currently grass meadow of low conservation importance, along with ruderal vegetation and scrub of negligible to low biodiversity value. The sensitivity Project site habitat is therefore considered low. Based on a negligible magnitude of loss of sensitive habitat, impacts to sensitive habitats due to habitat loss are assessed as negligible.
Increased dust levels and deposition are likely during construction, but sensitive habitats and flora are unlikely to be affected given the location of the Project within an existing industrial area.
Small areas of plantation woodland and a few scattered trees may be also affected directly or indirectly during construction (minor magnitude), however these features have low ecological importance and therefore the effects are negligible.
Surface water run-off during construction will be discharged to the Tungucha River via clarification ponds. Due to the distance of the Kama River and the associated water courses from the Project site, there is a low risk of these watercourses being polluted during construction of the Project. Ecological features of the rivers are considered to be of a medium sensitivity. Considering a minor magnitude of impact, without mitigation, the significance of this impact is likely to be minor adverse.
180
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 181
Notable Flora One plant species listed as Endangered on the Russian Federation Red List is present in the overall SPZ (Feather Grass (Stipa pennata)102. However, this is unlikely to be affected by construction because there are no suitable habitats for this species (steppe and dry grassland) in the Project site area (negligible magnitude); Project impacts on this species are therefore assessed as negligible. The ZoI supports 52 species listed on the Tatarstan Red List. The Project site is located in an industrial area and the modified habitats there are not known or are unlikely to support the vast majority of these threatened species in Tatarstan. Nevertheless, a small number of these may be affected directly as part of the clearance of the small area of grass meadow with ruderal species, or indirectly due to changes in hydrology or dust deposition during construction (minor magnitude). Impacts on these locally important species (medium sensitivity) are considered to be minor adverse in the absence of mitigation.
Notable Fauna The ZoI supports a number of notable animal species listed on the Tatarstan or Russian Federation Red Lists, including wood dormouse, northern birch mouse, five species of bats, 37 bird species, two reptile species, two amphibian species, and two fish species. Most of these species are not recorded or are unlikely to occur in the Project affected areas due to the industrial location of the Project site and the modified / disturbed nature of the habitats within.
Nevertheless, a small number of notable species will be affected by loss of small areas of habitat and disturbance caused by noise and artificial lighting (minor magnitude). The Project’s impact on the local fauna during the construction is therefore likely to be moderate to minor adverse. Furthermore, the study area is not on any global flyway for migratory land and water birds.
There is a minor risk that fish, amphibians and other freshwater animal species listed on the Tatarstan Red List within the Kama River and its tributaries are affected by pollution during the construction of the Project. Based on a medium sensitivity, in the absence of mitigation, this impact is considered to be minor adverse.
Priority Ecosystem Services The construction of the Project is likely to have a negligible impact on commercial and recreational fishing or the provision of freshwater from Kama River.
11.5.2 Operation Impacts During operational activities of the Project, potential impacts on biodiversity could include:
● Naphtha will be transported using existing pipelines from other industrial plants within the existing production hub. There is a low risk of pollution from spillages and leaks from the pipelines. Naphtha (CAS No.: 8032-32-4) is a hazardous liquid and any spillages into surrounding areas may affect flora and fauna within the Project area (may affect central nervous system, cause irritation to skin, eyes, and respiratory tract) and may contaminate soil and groundwater ● There is low pollution risk from the plant combustion stacks during unfavourable meteorological conditions. Exhaust gases such as NOx, SOx and CO may affect the nearby terrestrial habitats and species ● There is a low risk of increased pollution into the surrounding rivers if wastewater is not treated properly prior to discharge. Any industrial and potentially contaminated surface runoff from process, utility and storage areas of EP-600 site will be treated by the proposed Project wastewater treatment plant and reused on the plant to avoid discharge to water bodies. Storm water from non-process areas will be preliminary treated at Project wastewater treatment plant prior to discharge to a clarification ponds at Tungucha River. ● Flare from Project site may have a negative impact on migrating birds.
102 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012
181
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 182
Protected Areas The risk to protected areas being affected during operation is considered to be negligible given the distance to the works area.
Sensitive Habitats Air and groundwater pollution during operations has potential for adverse impacts on sensitive terrestrial habitats. No sensitive habitats are located in the footprint of the Project or in the immediate vicinity. Production and loading will occur solely within the industrial area and therefore there is a very low risk of leakages and spillages reaching areas of sensitive habitat.
The Project will generate effluent waste water, which will be treated by the Project waste water treatment plant. After being processed through treatment units, the water will be reused as feed water for cooling tower and Demin water unit. Non- contaminated storm wastewater will be mechanically treated at the Project wastewater treatment plant prior to discharge to the clarification ponds at Tungucha River.
Due to the location and processing capacity / efficiency of the waste water treatment (in relation to the Project), there is a very low risk that the storm water being discharged into the Tungucha River will have an elevated temperature and contaminants, which may affect aquatic organisms. In the absence of mitigation, the impacts on the Tungucha River due to release of treated storm water are therefore considered to be negligible.
The Project will have a maximum operational water demand of approximately 1,800m3/h (43,200m3/day). The current raw water abstraction rate from the Kama River is approximately 315,000m3/day with a permitted value of abstraction of 385,000m3/day. The impact of the additional abstraction from the Kama River on the river habitat is considered to be of a negligible magnitude, resulting in a negligible impact.
Notable Flora Populations of some notable plant species (red listed in the Republic of Tatarstan) recorded in the ZoI could potentially be affected by groundwater pollution arising during the operation of the Project. However, most of the Tatarstan red-listed plant species previously recorded in the SPZ are not known or are unlikely to occur in the Project affected areas due to the industrial location of the Project and the modified / disturbed nature of the habitats. In the absence of mitigation, the predicted impact on regionally threatened plant species from groundwater pollution is assessed to be minor adverse.
No suitable habitats for Russian Federation Red List flora species exist within the Project affected area and therefore the predicted impact on nationally threatened species is assessed to be negligible.
Notable Fauna The impacts on notable mammal and reptile species are considered to be negligible during operation since production and activities will occur within the existing industrial area and air quality will not change significantly compared to the baseline conditions.
Flaring and noise disturbance during operation may have adverse impacts on notable birds and bats and in the absence of mitigation, the significance of these impacts are assessed to be minor to moderate adverse. The magnitude of the impacts on birds and bats is not likely to be higher than minor adverse because the habitats suitable for these species are not in the immediate vicinity of the Project sites. Furthermore, the study area is not on any of the eight major global flyways for migratory land and water birds.
There is generally a risk to fish and other aquatic organisms to be drawn into the water abstraction intake structures and killed or harmed inside. However, structures are already in place to avoid these impacts (see Section 11.6) and impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms during operation are therefore considered to be negligible following mitigation.
182
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 183
Priority Ecosystem Services During the operation of the Project, the water abstraction from River Kama will increase by a small volume compared to its volumetric flow rate (discharge) and the current (baseline) level of abstraction (9% of a current average water consumption). Therefore, the operation of the Project is likely to have a negligible impact on commercial and recreational fishing. The Project’s impact on the freshwater volumes from Kama River (which is used by local communities) is considered to be negligible, but a cumulative minor adverse impact is likely (see Section 11.7).
The Project’s impacts on the woodland’s provision of timber and non-forest products are likely to be negligible during operation.
11.5.3 Decommissioning Impacts
Protected Areas No adverse impacts are likely on any protected areas during decommissioning as all protected areas are in excess of 5km from the Project site.
Sensitive Habitats Minor adverse impacts may occur during decommissioning, owing to potential leakages / spillage of hazardous substances from the decommissioned plant and pipeline infrastructure. In the absence of mitigation, polluted run-off and sediments may reach nearby water courses, which in turn may affect aquatic habitats and species. However, this is considered low risk, as no sensitive habitats are located in the footprint of the Project or in the immediate vicinity.
Notable Flora Impacts on notable flora species (regionally or nationally threatened species) are likely to be negligible during decommissioning. The magnitude of the impacts is likely to be negligible during decommissioning as no habitat will be lost during this phase and changes in the hydrology are unlikely.
Notable Fauna Birds and bats may be affected by noise and artificial lighting during decommissioning; these impacts are likely to be minor to moderate adverse in the absence of mitigation.
Decommissioning of the Project may have some minor adverse impacts on fish and other aquatic fauna owing to the potential for accidental water pollution.
Priority Ecosystem Services The decommissioning of the Project is likely to have a negligible (insignificant) impact on commercial and recreational fishing, or the provision of freshwater from Kama River.
Impacts on the woodland’s provision of timber and non-forest products are likely to be of negligible significance during decommissioning.
183
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 184
11.6 Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
11.6.1 Mitigation Overview Mitigation measures have been developed for key biodiversity features to ensure the systematic implementation of the mitigation hierarchy i.e. avoid, reduce (minimise), remedy (restore) and offset. This will allow for the careful management of risk, the best possible outcomes for the Project without compromising the health, function and integrity of the ecological systems. A number of the identified impacts are negligible and therefore mitigation is not required. The best practice measures presented below will help reduce further any negligible impacts.
Avoidance Measures Incorporated in Project Design The design of the Project has taken into consideration the environmental and ecological sensitivities, with the aim to avoid significant impacts on the areas of high nature conservation value, in particular:
● Transportation of the products produced by the Project will use existing pipeline infrastructure in most cases ● Emissions to air of NOx will be reduced by the implementation of low NOx burner technology ● Control of particulates emitted from waste gas separators ● Excess gases will be sent to the process flare, which will be designed with high destruction removal efficiency ● Stack and vent heights and exit velocities designed to provide good lift and dispersion ● Flanged connections and high-grade stuffing box packing for valves to minimise fugitive emissions / leaks ● To avoid fish being caught in the water intake system: an ‘air curtain’ created by an air compressor and filters is installed to reduce the risk of fish entering the abstraction system ● Any process wastewater produced by the Project and potentially contaminated surface runoff from process, utility and storage areas will be treated by the proposed Project wastewater treatment plant and not discharged to water ● To minimize accumulation of hazardous waste at the landfill a waste gas and liquid incinerator will be part of the Project.
Generic Mitigation Measures The following generic mitigation measures will be applied on the Project: ● All construction and operational working areas will be kept to the minimum to reduce habitat loss and degradation ● Access routes for construction and operational activities outside the existing industrial area (if required) will be kept to a minimum. Plans will be implemented to minimise all construction traffic activities outside the existing industrial area. These actions will significantly reduce potential impacts on habitats and disturbance to species ● Artificial lighting used on construction sites and camps will be minimised, shaded and directed downwards to avoid light spillage and disturbance to birds, bats and other wildlife ● Noise disturbance and vibration will be kept to a minimum through measures such as ensuring proper maintenance of construction machinery and equipment and complying with national standards ● Measures, such as water sprays, will be implemented for reduction of dust during the working period ● All workers engaged in the Project will be made aware of the environmental and ecological sensitivities on the project site and surrounding areas.
184
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 185
Sensitive Habitats and Notable Flora The locations for the Project workers accommodation have all been selected based on minimum land requirements and minimum likely ecological and environmental impacts. Light water sprays will be implemented for reduction of dust during construction.
The design of the Project has considered and incorporated the use of existing infrastructure corridors in order to avoid or minimise habitat loss and degradation.
The habitats that will be lost under this Project include grass meadow and an area of ruderal vegetation and scrub. Prior to construction, the scrub area to be cleared will be subjected to botanical surveys and checked for protected and rare plant species.
Pollution Prevention and Control
Pollution prevention and treatment measures will be implemented, as recommended in the IFC General EHS Guidelines and the IFC Guidelines for Large Volume Petroleum-based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing. A Spill Prevention and Control Plan will be prepared for the Project during both the construction and operation phases, including the following measures:
● Conduct a spill risk assessment ● Install secondary containment around vessels and tanks to contain accidental release ● Install leak detection systems (as applicable) ● Develop corrosion maintenance and monitoring programme to ensure the integrity of all equipment ● Ensure spill response and containment equipment is deployed or available for a response. A Spill Response Plan will be prepared and implemented to address potential chemical and fuel spills from facilities, vehicles, loading / unloading operations, and pipeline ruptures. More details on spill prevention and control are found in the IFC EHS Guidelines mentioned above.
Existing pollution monitoring in the rivers will continue (Chapter 10) and remediation put in place if necessary.
Bats No mature trees considered as potential places for bats nests will be felled as part of the Project. No mitigations are required.
Birds To minimise the potential impact to all breeding bird species, vegetation clearance will be undertaken outside of the bird nesting period (breeding season is generally between late March to July). Where clearance is not possible outside the breeding season, a check for breeding birds and active nests by a qualified ecologist will be undertaken within 48 hours of vegetation clearance. If breeding birds are discovered then works will be postponed in that area until the breeding cycle is complete (this may take up to three weeks). A species- specific buffer zone (minimum 25m) will be set up around the nest site.
The study area is not on any of the eight major global flyways for migratory land and water birds. Nevertheless, the following best practice noise reduction measures will be implemented to reduce impacts on breeding or migrating birds during construction:
● Avoidance of unnecessary revving of engines and switch off equipment when not required ● Vehicles and equipment will be properly maintained to meet the manufacturers’ noise rating levels. Any silencers or bearings which become defective would be replaced as soon as possible ● Using reverse warning systems incorporating broadband noise where practicable
185
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 186
● Using enclosures for noisy plant such as pumps or generators ● Minimising drop height of materials ● Limiting the use of particularly noisy plant or vehicles where practicable ● Plant and vehicles will be operated with noise control hoods closed.
Measures to minimise flare volumes will be implemented where and when possible, in particular during the spring and autumn bird migration. Venting of the gas is not considered best practice and will not be used. Pollution prevention and control measures for gas flaring will be implemented, in line with the IFC EHS Guidelines. Fish No wastewater discharge is expected from the Project during normal operation and therefore no mitigation measures are required for fish.
Non-native Invasive Species Non-native (alien) invasive species are the second biggest threat to the global biodiversity after habitat destruction. The likelihood of invasions by non-native species is higher in habitats that are altered and disturbed, for example during construction. Invasive species have the following traits:
● Fast growth ● Rapid reproduction ● High dispersal ability ● Ability to alter growth form to suit current conditions ● Tolerance of a wide range of environmental conditions ● Ability to live off of a wide range of food types ● Association with humans. No non-native and invasive species are highlighted in the environmental baseline study103 and only one invasive plant species (Amaranthus retroflexus) was found in low presence along roadsides. However, any development project poses a risk of spreading invasive species, including plants, fish and invertebrates in particular. IFC PS6 includes the following best practice measures with regard to Alien Invasive Species:
● Must not intentionally introduce alien species unless this is in accordance with existing national regulatory framework ● Must not deliberately introduce alien species irrespective of national regulatory framework ● Introduction of alien species (e.g. in planting) must be subject to a risk assessment ● Implement measures to avoid accidental introduction or spreading of alien species (see below) ● Consider the implementation of measures to eradicate alien species from natural habitats over which client has management control. All construction and operational activities will comply with the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) guidelines on the prevention and management of alien plant and animal species (IPIECA, 2010). Preventative, control and monitoring measures will be implemented with regard to the following aspects of the Project:
Packaging and Movement of Equipment and Materials ● Minimise traffic and the distance travelled
103 Brannan Environmental Baseline Report, 2012
186
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 187
● Source goods / materials locally where possible ● Contain any Alien Invasive Species and report their presence. Vehicles and Plant ● ‘As-new’ wash-down is essential before entering non-infested areas and after working in infested areas ● Train and raise awareness regarding alien species ● Pressure wash vehicle tyres in a contained area ● Contain and destroy residue ● Record and report the presence of any alien species. Soil and Vegetation ● Minimize disturbance to, or movement of, soil and vegetation ● Prevent soil damage and erosion ● Ensure imported soil / other materials are safe and free of alien species (source from a reputable supplier, request information on the soil’s origin and certification of alien species - free status if possible) ● Prevent alien species establishment on exposed stored soil (do not store bare soil near known sources of Alien Invasive Species, consider using matting to cover exposed soil) ● Ensure infested material is disposed of safely ● Retain as much natural vegetation as possible. Habitat Reclamation ● Use native plants for reinstatement and landscaping ● Assess any non-native species (to be used in landscaping) for alien species potential ● Consider that some alien species may be soil-based ● Avoid altering soil and water body properties.
Decommissioning
Best practice measures as described above will be implemented as applicable to the decommissioning phase. A decommissioning plan will be developed prior to decommissioning of the Project outlining the key requirements and measures to be implemented during decommissioning. This will include disposal of all wastes in an environmentally safe manner, in line with national requirements and international best practice. In addition, best practice pollution prevention measures will be implemented to minimise risks of spillage and leaks from Project infrastructure.
11.6.2 Monitoring Monitoring of ecological mitigation will be conducted for the duration of the construction phase. These requirements, along with associated responsibilities and reporting requirements will be detailed in the Construction Environment Management Plan. The Environmental Manager will ensure the measures included in this report and the Construction Environment Management Plan are implemented during the construction of the Project. Specialist advice from a qualified ecologist will be obtained when required. The environmental (including ecological) reporting responsibilities during construction will be described in the Construction Environment Management Plan.
Existing pollution monitoring in the rivers (Chapter 5) will continue and remediation put in place if necessary.
187
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 188
11.7 Cumulative Impacts Water from Kama River is abstracted by a wide range of users and used for household sanitation, crop irrigation, cooling of industrial equipment etc. The additional abstraction of water required for the Project is likely to have a cumulative minor adverse impact on the provision of freshwater from Kama River.
11.8 Residual Impacts The ZoI of the Project supports habitats and species typical of the region, and which are of high to low biodiversity conservation importance. However, some of the habitats and species of high / medium conservation importance are either unlikely to be affected by the Project, or the magnitude of the impacts is likely to be minor.
Without mitigation, the Project would have a number of minor to moderate adverse impacts on the biodiversity and ecosystem services. These impacts will be significantly reduced through the responsible implementation of the mitigation and enhancement measures described in Sections 11.6.
After the successful implementation of the mitigation and enhancement measures, there are negligible residual effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Table 75 to Table 77 summarise the residual impacts of the Project on the key ecological features and priority ecosystem services which occur within the AoI for the different phases of the Project development.
188
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 189
Table 75: Summary of Residual Impacts during Construction of the EP-600 Project Key Ecological Features Potential Impacts (construction) Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Mitigation Residual Impacts (Conservation of Impact Significance Importance) Protected areas International designations (IBA) Impacts very unlikely as the IBA is 50 km Very high Negligible Negligible None required Negligible away from project site Russia and Tatarstan Designations Impacts very unlikely as all SNPAs are in Very high Negligible Negligible None required Negligible (SNPAs) excess of 5 km from project site Sensitive habitats Natural woodlands and grasslands Impacts very unlikely. Project site Low Minor Negligible Not Required Negligible surrounded by industrial area Woodland plantations and urban trees Low risk of air and soil pollution Low Minor Negligible Pollution prevention and control measures Negligible Small water courses Risk of pollution during construction Medium Minor Minor adverse Pollution prevention and control measures. Negligible Water quality monitoring Notable flora Regionally important plant species Site clearance and low risk of air and soil Medium Minor Minor adverse Prior to construction, Project area to be cleared Negligible (Tatarstan RDB) pollution. Impacts are unlikely will be subjected to botanical surveys and checked for protected and rare plant species Nationally important plant species Impacts on Stipa pennata are unlikely High Negligible Negligible Not required Negligible (Russia RDB) Notable fauna Bat species (internationally important, Disturbance cause by noise and artificial High Minor Moderate adverse Minimisation of noise and artificial lighting Negligible Russia & Tatarstan RDB) lighting. Nationally important bird species Loss of small areas of breeding habitat. High Minor Moderate adverse Pre-construction checks for breeding birds. Negligible (Russia RDB) Disturbance caused by noise, presence Reduction of noise and artificial lighting during of people and artificial lighting. construction Regionally important bird species Loss of small areas of breeding habitat. Medium Minor Minor adverse Vegetation clearance will be undertaken outside Minor adverse (Tatarstan RDB) Disturbance caused by noise, presence of bird nesting period where possible of people and artificial lighting. Pre-construction checks for breeding birds Reduction of noise and artificial lighting during construction Regionally important reptile species Loss of small areas of suitable habitat Medium Minor Minor adverse Avoidance or minimisation of nearby habitats Negligible (Tatarstan RDB) loss and degradation Notable fish and amphibians (Tatarstan Pollution of watercourses during Medium Minor Minor adverse Pollution prevention and control measures. Negligible RDB) construction Water quality monitoring Priority ecosystem services Commercial and recreational fishing Pollution of watercourses during Low Negligible Negligible Not required Negligible construction Freshwater supply of Kama River Impacts are unlikely Medium Negligible Negligible Not required Negligible
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 190
Table 76: Summary of Residual Impacts during Operation of the EP-600 Project Key Ecological Features Potential Impacts (operation) Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Mitigation Residual (Conservation Significance Impacts Importance) Protected areas International designations (IBA) Impacts very unlikely as the IBA is 50 km Very high Negligible Negligible None required Negligible away from Project site Russia and Tatarstan Designations Impacts very unlikely as all SNPAs are in Very high Negligible Negligible None required Negligible (SNPAs) excess of 5 km from Project site Sensitive habitats Natural woodlands and grasslands Impacts very unlikely. Project site Low Minor Negligible Not Required Negligible surrounded by industrial area Woodland plantations and urban trees Low risk of air and soil pollution Low Minor Negligible Pollution prevention and control measures Negligible Small water courses Risk of pollution during loading of liquid Medium Minor Minor Pollution prevention and control measures. Negligible products adverse Water quality monitoring. Notable flora Regionally important plant species Low risk of air and soil pollution Medium Minor Minor Pollution prevention and control measures Negligible (Tatarstan RDB) adverse Nationally important plant species Low risk of air and soil pollution High Negligible Negligible None required Negligible (Russia RDB) Notable fauna Regionally important mammal species Impacts are unlikely Medium Negligible Negligible None required Negligible (Tatarstan RDB) Bat species (internationally important, Disturbance caused by flaring and noise High Minor Moderate Measures to minimise flaring and noise Negligible Russia & Tatarstan RDB) adverse Nationally important bird species (Russia Disturbance caused by flaring and noise High Minor Moderate Measures to minimise flaring and noise Negligible RDB) adverse (especially during breeding and migration) Regionally important bird species Disturbance caused by flaring and noise Medium Minor Minor Measures to minimise flaring and noise Negligible (Tatarstan RDB) adverse (especially during breeding and migration) Regionally important reptile species Impacts are unlikely Medium Negligible Negligible None required Negligible (Tatarstan RDB) Notable fish and amphibians (Tatarstan Pollution of watercourses during Medium Minor Minor Pollution prevention and control measures. Negligible RDB) operation. Fish being drawn into water adverse Maintain existing filters and air lifts to prevent intake structures. fish being drawn into water intake structures. Priority ecosystem services Commercial and recreational fishing Impacts are unlikely Low Negligible Negligible None required Negligible
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 191
Key Ecological Features Potential Impacts (operation) Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Mitigation Residual (Conservation Significance Impacts Importance) Freshwater supply of Kama River Small increase in abstraction compared Medium Negligible Negligible Minimise volume of water abstracted and Negligible to baseline increase efficiency of water use
Table 77: Summary of Residual Impacts during Decommissioning of the EP-600 Project Key Ecological Features Potential Impacts (decommissioning) Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Mitigation Residual (Conservation Significance Impacts Importance) Protected areas International designations (IBA) Impacts very unlikely as the IBA is 50 Very high Negligible Negligible None required Negligible km away from Project site Russia and Tatarstan Designations Impacts very unlikely as all SNPAs are Very high Negligible Negligible None required Negligible (SNPAs) in excess of 5 km from Project site Sensitive habitats Natural woodlands and grasslands Impacts very unlikely. Project site Low Minor Negligible Not Required Negligible surrounded by industrial area Woodland plantations and urban Low risk of air and soil pollution Low Minor Negligible Pollution prevention and control Negligible trees measures Kama River Low risk of pollution High Minor Moderate Pollution prevention and control Negligible adverse measures Other water courses Low risk of pollution Medium Minor Minor Pollution prevention and control Negligible adverse measures Notable flora Regionally important plant species Impacts are unlikely Medium Negligible Negligible None required Negligible (Tatarstan RDB) Nationally important plant species Impacts are unlikely High Negligible Negligible None required Negligible (Russia RDB) Notable fauna Regionally important mammal Impacts are unlikely Medium Negligible Negligible None required Negligible species (Tatarstan RDB) Bat species (internationally important, Disturbance caused by noise High Minor Moderate Measures to minimise noise Negligible Russia & Tatarstan RDB) adverse Nationally important bird species Disturbance caused by noise and High Minor Moderate Measures to minimise noise (especially Negligible (Russia RDB) artificial lighting adverse during breeding and migration) Regionally important bird species Disturbance caused by noise and Medium Minor Minor Measures to minimise noise (especially Negligible (Tatarstan RDB) artificial lighting adverse during breeding and migration) Regionally important reptile species Impacts are unlikely Medium Negligible Negligible None required Negligible (Tatarstan RDB)
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 192
Key Ecological Features Potential Impacts (decommissioning) Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Mitigation Residual (Conservation Significance Impacts Importance) Notable fish and amphibians Pollution of watercourses Medium Minor Minor Pollution prevention and control measures Negligible (Tatarstan RDB) adverse Priority ecosystem services Commercial and recreational fishing Impacts are unlikely Low Negligible Negligible None required Negligible Freshwater from Kama River Impacts are unlikely Medium Negligible Negligible None required Negligible
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 193 Volume II
12 Material and Waste Management
12.1 Introduction This chapter outlines the proposed approach for the management of the key solid waste predicted to arise during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project.
Waste management is a key aspect to be assessed by the Project to achieve minimisation of raw material consumption, maximise opportunities for waste reuse and recycling and ensure that any final treatment or disposal of wastes generated by the Project is conducted in an environmentally sound manner, particularly for hazardous wastes.
The scope of this chapter is limited to the assessment of all solid wastes and to those liquid wastes that are not treated via the Project wastewater treatment plant which are described and addressed in Chapter 10.
12.2 Legislative Requirements
12.2.1 National Requirements Russian Federal Legislation The key legislation to regulate waste management activities is the Federal Law No.89-FZ dated June 24, 1998 “On Production and Consumption Waste” that establishes the objectives and key principles of the state policy for waste management. The Law regulates the approach to:
● Definitions of ownership rights in relation to wastes ● Norms-setting ● Record-keeping and reporting on waste management activities ● Establishing the legal framework for environmental control. Licensing of waste collection, reuse, treatment, transportation and disposal activities is based on the Federal Law No.128-FZ dated August 8, 2001 “On Licensing of Certain Types of Operations.” The following activities are subject to licensing:
● Collection, reuse, treatment, transportation and disposal of wastes of hazard class I-IV (no license is required for accumulation of wastes of hazard classes I-V, and for collection, reuse, treatment, transportation and disposal of wastes of hazard class V) ● Collecting, processing and sale of scrap of non-ferrous metals ● Collecting, processing and sale of scrap of black metals. Federal Law No.96-FZ dated May 4, 1999 “On Protection of Atmospheric Air” establishes requirements for prevention of harmful impacts of production and consumption wastes on air at the stage of storage, disposal and treatment. The Land Code of the Russian Federation requires that land owners protect land from littering and contamination with production and consumption wastes. Federal Law No.52-FZ dated March 30, 1999 “On Sanitary and Epidemiological Wellbeing of the Population” establishes sanitary requirements to collection, utilization, treatment, transportation, storage and disposal of production and consumption wastes. Federal Law No.2395-1 dated February 21, 1992 “On Subsoil Resource” establishes the framework for management of wastes from mining and concentration activities, and for use of man-made and natural hollows and caverns in earth for storage and burial of wastes.
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 194 Volume II
Further requirements to waste management are established in the Water Code of the Russian Federation, Forest Code of the Russian Federation, and Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The Order of Rosprirodnadzor No.242 dated May 22, 2017 “On Approval of the Federal Classification Catalogue of Wastes” and Order of the Ministry of Natural Resource No.536 dated December 4, 2014 “On Approval of Criteria for Classification of Wastes by Environmental Hazard Categories I-V” introduced a wastes classification system based on types of their sources and composition. The wastes classification system is applied for licensing, record-keeping and reporting, for definition of the amount of disposal charges, and for establishing the waste disposal limits.
All wastes are divided into 5 classes depending on the extent of their hazard to the environment. 19 characteristics of hazard are used for identification of hazard class of a waste. If a new type of waste is generated which is not described in the Federal Classification Catalogue of Wastes, the user of natural resource should arrange studies of the waste, identify its class of hazard and get it approved, and submit information for updating of the Federal Classification Catalogue.
Federal Law No.7-FZ dated January 10, 2002 “On Environmental Protection” establishes a requirement for establishing waste generation norms and disposal limits. The guideline methodology for preparation of Project Documents with justification of waste generation norms and waste disposal limits is approved by the Ministry of Natural Resource, Order No.349 dated August 5, 2014. The methodology establishes requirements for setting of waste disposal limits, including the procedure for submission of justification documents for waste disposal limits and norms for generation of production and consumption wastes. Waste disposal limits establish maximum permissible quantity of waste of specific type that can be placed at dedicated waste disposal sites in a certain manner and within certain timeframe, taking into account environmental status of the given territory.
Waste should be placed at adequately equipped sites, on permission from environmental authorities, and within the established limits. Burial of toxic industrial wastes of hazard classes I, II and III is allowed only at special toxic waste landfills that comply with requirements of SNiP 2.01.28-85 “Landfills for Neutralization and Burial of Toxic Wastes. Key Design Requirements.”
Transboundary movement of hazardous wastes is regulated by requirements of Federal Law No.49-FZ dated November 24, 1994 “On Ratification of Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.”
Relevant Legislation of the Republic of Tatarstan Specific regional legislation with regard to wastes include the Resolution no. 893 of the Cabinet Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan dated October 26, 2011, “On Approval of the Concept, Disposal, Processing of Industrial and Domestic Wastes and Inclusion of Secondary Resources in Industrial Production in the Republic of Tatarstan for the period of 2012-2020,” which provides a regional strategy in waste management aimed towards creation of unified system of waste management based on resource and energy efficiency principles, these include:
● Maximum use of secondary resources ● Reusing materials ● Recycling materials to prevent and minimize waste generation.
12.2.2 Applicable International Requirements International Finance Corporation (IFC) As discussed in Chapter 4, PS3 on Pollution Prevention and Abatement requires reference to be made to relevant EHS Guidelines; these are technical reference documents with general and industry-specific examples of Good International Industry Practice (GIIP). The following IFC EHS Guidelines contain relevant information related to waste management for the Project:
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 195 Volume II
● General EHS guidelines (April 2007) ● Large Volume Petroleum-based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing (April 2007). Industry-specific wastes and scrap should be reused or recycled for heat and steam generation. Where this is not possible they should be disposed according to industrial waste management recommendations in the IFC EHS Guidelines104. The IFC General EHS Guidelines state that the storage and handling of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes should be conducted in a way consistent with good EHS practice for waste management.
These guidelines have been used to frame the waste management approach for the Project and assess the Project’s ability to meet GIIP.
12.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria
12.3.1 Overview The assessment of impacts from waste generation has been conducted on the basis of a desk-based review of Project information provided by the Project parties, in addition to observations made in relation to current waste management practices and infrastructure in place at the NKNK complex following a site visit.
12.3.2 Site Visit The ESIA Project Team conducted a site visit to the NKNK complex in June-August 2017. During the visit, the ESIA Project Team discussed the existing waste management practices adopted by the NKNK and visited the existing NKNK industrial landfill.
12.3.3 Waste Classification Within Russia waste is classified into five categories as described below. Where appropriate the classification of the Project waste streams and materials have been identified within this report. Waste hazard classes include:
● Class I – extremely hazardous waste ● Class II – highly hazardous waste ● Class III – moderately hazardous waste ● Class IV – low-hazardous waste ● Class V – virtually non-hazardous waste.
12.3.4 Spatial Scope In terms of considering the consumption of raw materials (including receipt, handling and storage) and subsequent management and disposal of waste, the spatial scope of the Project encompasses the existing industrial area and the waste landfill of the NKNK industrial hub. Any other waste transferred away from the industrial hub will be done so by licensed contractors and therefore is not assessed further.
12.3.5 Temporal Scope The temporal scope covers the potential impacts related to the consumption of raw materials (including receipt, handling and storage) and subsequent management and disposal of waste arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project.
104 Large Volume Petroleum-based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing (April 2007)
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 196 Volume II
12.3.6 Assessment of Impact Significance An assessment of the significance of impacts with regards to the waste generated by the Project has been made for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases. The significance of potential impacts is a function of the presence and sensitivity of receptors and the magnitude of the impact in terms of duration, spatial extent, reversibility and likelihood of occurrence.
The assessment follows the standard assessment structure outlined in Chapter 5.
12.4 Baseline Description Although NKNK has an overarching waste management system in place within the industrial hub, each of the production units are responsible for managing their own waste streams. Waste generated at each of the industrial units is registered, collected and stored by waste types.
Such waste is registered at each industrial unit using an electronic system and transported to a centralized waste storage area. The electronic system is used to track waste movements within the industrial hub, and the movements any licenced waste contractors who are responsible for transferring waste from the industrial hub.
The highest amount of waste from the industrial hub is normally produced during the summer months as this is the period when the majority of plant maintenance and cleaning takes place due to the favourable weather conditions.
NKNK’s waste are separated by type and stored in specific containers which are suitable for each of the waste streams. At present the industrial activities operated by NKNK within the industrial hub produce approximately 144,000 tonnes of solid waste per annum. The types of waste generated and their volumes are presented within Table 78.
Table 78: Waste Types Generated by Existing NKNK Activities in the Industrial Hub in 2016, tonnes Hazardous Wastes content Approximat class e quantity I Wastes with mercury content 5 II Wastes of hazardous organic chemicals, transformer oil with PCB, lead accumulators 2,440 III Organic and inorganic chemicals, WWTP sludge, process coke and process sludges, oil sludge from 53,000 WWTP oil separators, plastics, resins, rubber, waste oil, polluted sand, paper and others, demolition wastes, catalyst agents, sorbents, metals scrap, mineral wool, etc. IV Catalyst sludge, process clay, asbestos, polluted paper and packaging, dust, nonpolluted PPE, 72,000 domestic wastes, plastics, silica and aluminium catalysts, scrapped office equipment, office garbage, demolition wastes, asphalt and bricks V Wooden wastes, textile wastes, paper and packaging, plastics and rubber, glass, ceramic, fire bricks, 16,000 etc. Total 144,000 Source: NKNK Annual report, 2016
The waste tracking system categorises the waste into four different streams. These include the following:
● Waste which can be recycled or neutralised within the existing industrial units ● Waste that can be sold to other users who will either use or recycle it ● Waste for the existing NKNK landfill (waste that cannot be recycled) and is classified as waste classes III– V under Russian Law ● Waste to be handled by a licenced waste contractor and to be transported offsite for future treatment and/or disposal at a suitable landfill for hazardous waste. NKNK regularly review the documentation to ensure that the waste volumes that were generated add up to the waste handled and disposed.
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 197 Volume II
Improvement works on the NKNK landfill has been undertaken during the last few years, including better lining and capping procedures for the individual landfill cells. NKNK laboratory monitor soil and underground water quality around the landfill each quarter to minimise pollution incidents in the case of leachate entering the groundwater.
In addition to the existing volumes of industrial waste the industrial hub currently produces, approximately 2,000 tonnes of household waste per annum is transported and disposed every day at the city landfill by a licensed contractor.
12.5 Assessment of Impacts
12.5.1 Overview Wastes will be generated during both the construction and operation phases of the Project. At the decommissioning phase of the Project appropriate waste management, mitigation and disposal practices will need to be established, however, as this is so far in the future this phase will need to be further assessed at this time and therefore has not been considered in full within this chapter. The likely waste types from both the construction and operational phases of the Project include solid, liquid, hazardous, non-hazardous and inert wastes.
The principle potential impacts which can arise from the generation of waste from the Project are as follows:
● Contamination on the environment, particularly surface watercourses, groundwater and the ground due to leakage and spillage of wastes associated with poor waste handling and storage arrangements ● Fugitive emissions, such as dust and vapour, associated with the handling and storage of some waste streams ● Over use of landfill facilities, which are typically a finite resource ● Occupational Health and Safety ● Fire and explosion due to reactive, flammable and explosive materials ● Visual impacts normally associated with poor storage of waste ● Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project to its final disposal location. Based on the waste disposal requirements waste can be grouped into two parts, non-hazardous wastes (class V) and hazardous wastes (classes I-IV).
Potential hazardous waste types generated during construction and operational phases across the Project may include: oils and solvents waste, polluted polyethylene and polypropylene packages, cleaning materials, hydraulic fluids and lubricants, coatings waste, contaminated soils (potentially from leakage and spillage), used batteries, waste catalysts and polymers. Management of these hazardous wastes will require particular consideration, particularly any final treatment or disposal options.
The following sections discuss the potential environmental impact and the proposed handling / storage and disposal methods for each of the waste streams that may arise during the three stages of the Project.
12.5.2 Construction This section aims to characterise the raw materials to be consumed and the waste streams which can arise from construction activities associated with the development of the Project.
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 198 Volume II
Material Use Materials used during construction will principally comprise the items of equipment for the Project, as well as materials used for site preparation such as rods for piling and buildings, concrete for foundations and auxiliary structures, steel for buildings, materials for fitting out the interiors of buildings.
Smaller quantities of other materials will be used throughout construction. Mitigation proposed to minimise the use of materials is discussed in Section 12.6.
Waste Generation The environmental impacts of generated wastes associated with the construction phase of the Project will be short term and mostly reversible for aspects such as littering of the construction site and surrounding territory by packages and domestic wastes, pollution of soils by waste concrete, bricks and spills of oil products. These potential impacts during the construction phase will be effectively managed through the elaboration of a detailed waste management plans in line with the framework waste management plan outlined in the ESMMP (Volume IV). The specific details of such waste management plans will be prepared as part of design and construction documentation. The key elements of which are summarised in Section 12.6.
Table 79 summarises waste streams that are expected to be generated as part of the construction phase of the Project as well as their potential impacts, how they will be handled / stored and the method of disposal for each waste stream.
Table 79: Construction Phase Waste Generation. Proposed Methods of Handling and Utilisation Waste Type Potential Impact Handling / Storage Method Disposal Method Non-hazardous Construction Wastes Excavation spoil Contamination of environments Temporary storage on the site for Spoil disposal site. Collection by such as sedimentation of water further use on site or removal. carrier. Use for landfills cover bodies. Excess waste will be disposed of in Fugitive dust emissions. spoil disposal sites or used to level off Disposal of spoil and excavation the site material which results in land take Concrete waste Fugitive dust emissions. Suitably stored on a temporary basis Waste concrete can be crushed and Disposal to landfill, where waste re- in a waste management area. used as road material or fill, or buried use or recovery is not feasible. Using it in other work locations or in a local landfill site. Soils contaminated by raw materials can Increased waste miles from returning unused raw materials to the transporting waste materials from vendor can minimise the volume of also be used as landfill cover. the Project site waste If surplus quantities for the above are present collection and disposal by licensed carrier for recovery and reuse Cement Contamination of receiving Suitably stored on a temporary basis Cement slurry will be left to dry out. environments in a waste management area. Collected by competent carrier for recovery and re-use Iron and steel The use of landfill, where waste re- Suitably separately stored on a Collected by competent carrier for scrap use or recovery is not feasible. temporary basis in a waste recycling Visual amenity impacts associated management area with poor storage of waste Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project site Non-ferrous The use of landfill, where waste re- Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected by competent carrier for scrap use or recovery is not feasible. in a waste management area recycling Visual amenity impacts associated with poor storage of waste. Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project site
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 199 Volume II
Waste Type Potential Impact Handling / Storage Method Disposal Method Bricks and tiles The use of landfill, where waste re- Suitably stored on a temporary basis Re-use. Surplus material should be use or recovery is not feasible in a waste management area retained on site Packaging The use of landfill, where waste re- Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected by a carrier for recycling use or recovery is not feasible. in a waste management area Visual amenity impacts associated with poor storage of waste. Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project site. Pallets that have The use of landfill, where waste re- Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected by a carrier for recovery been used during use or recovery is not feasible. in a waste management area and re-use transport or for Increased waste miles from storage transporting waste materials from the Project site Glass The use of landfill, where waste re- Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected by a carrier for recycling. use or recovery is not feasible. in a waste management area. Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project site. Paper and The use of landfill, where waste re- Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected by a carrier for recycling cardboard use or recovery is not feasible. in a waste management area Visual amenity impacts associated with poor storage of waste Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project site Timber The use of landfill, where waste re- Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected by a carrier for recycling if use or recovery is not feasible in a waste management area reasonable achievable Other Non-Hazardous Wastes Domestic waste The use of landfill, where waste Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected in covered containers and re-use or recovery is not feasible. in a waste management area sent to licensed local disposal site Visual amenity impacts associated with poor storage of waste. Odour of rotting wastes Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project site Plastics The use of landfill, where waste Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected by a carrier for recycling re-use or recovery is not feasible. in a waste management area Visual amenity impacts associated with poor storage of waste. Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project site Drums, barrels The use of landfill, where waste Suitably stored on a temporary basis Drums, barrels are collected by a and containers re-use or recovery is not feasible. in a waste management area carrier for recycling from non- Visual amenity impacts hazardous associated with poor storage of materials waste. Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project site Hazardous Wastes Oils and Hazardous. Contamination of Collected on a temporary basis in Recovery and re-use options to be lubricants environments. bunded, segregated marked drums fully explored. Where recovery and The use of landfill, where waste within a waste management area re-use is not feasible handling to a re-use or recovery is not feasible carrier
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 200 Volume II
Waste Type Potential Impact Handling / Storage Method Disposal Method Oil contaminated Hazardous. Contamination of Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected by competent carrier to be wiping cloths environments. in a waste management area disposed of in a licensed facility The use of landfill, where waste re-use or recovery is not feasible Batteries Hazardous. Contamination of Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected and disposed or recycled environments. in a waste management area by a carrier The use of landfill, where waste re-use or recovery is not feasible Fluorescent Hazardous. Contamination of Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected and disposed by a tubes environments in a waste management area licenced carrier Mercury lamps Hazardous. Collected in bunded, segregated Sent to licensed mercury disposal Contamination of environments. container and suitably stored on a facility temporary basis within a waste management area Waste enamel Hazardous. Contamination of Collected in bunded, segregated Recovery and re-use options to be and reagents environments. drums and suitably stored on a fully explored. Where recovery and The use of landfill, where waste temporary basis within a waste re-use is not feasible then disposal in re-use or recovery is not feasible management area a licensed facility. Used solvents Hazardous. Collected in bunded, segregated Reuse solvents as far as possible or Contamination of environments drums and suitably stored on a returning them to the supplier. temporary basis within a waste management area. Tyres The use of landfill, where waste Suitably stored on a temporary basis Collected by a carrier for recycling or re-use or recovery is not feasible. in a waste management area disposal. Visual amenity impacts associated with poor storage of waste. Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from the Project site.
12.5.3 Operation Overview One of the key environmental issues within the petrochemical sector is the generation of a relatively large quantity of hazardous waste e.g. polluted adsorbents, waste oils, coke, salt, oily sludge, and bio sludge from wastewater treatment, catalysts, caustic soda, resin membranes, scrapped machines and spent materials. Within the Project these unavoidable waste streams will be recycled where possible, incinerated or in the last resort will be disposed of as waste at the NKNK landfill.
Guidance on managing wastes streams from low olefins production is provided in the IFC EHS Guidelines for Large Volume Petroleum-based Organic Chemicals Manufacturing (April 2007).
Materials Use Materials considered to be of a hazardous nature will require bespoke consideration, particularly for any final treatment and disposal options. Some materials will have a known consumption and storage volume whereas the consumption and volume of other materials will be dependent on routine maintenance and outage activities therefore it is difficult to give exact volumes for all materials.
The following set of tables present the key materials and feedstocks required for the EP-600 plants.
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 201 Volume II
Table 80: Key Materials and Feedstock used During Operation of the EP-600 Project Material Activity Hazardous / Storage Non-hazardous Naphtha Feedstock Hazardous Naphtha will be supplied directly to production unit but in occasional situations from the existing fully bunded naphtha tank Natural gas Feedstock Hazardous Natural gas will be supplied directly to fuel gas unit Silica- Process Hazardous The catalyst will be stored in 1000kg polypropylene bags in the existing secure aluminium storage building of chemical additives. The storage building has appropriate catalyst environmental controls such as bunded areas and delicate handling machines Carbon and Process Non-hazardous Stored in 1000kg polypropylene bags in a secure storage building of chemical ceramic additives catalysts Liquid Process Hazardous Stored in 200 litre drums in a secure storage building of chemical additives Additives Oils and Process Hazardous Stored in 200 litre drums in a secure storage building of chemical additives grease Caustic soda Process Hazardous Stored in big-bags in a secure storage building of chemical additives
Each of the materials and chemicals used during operation of the Project has specific materials handling and storage specifications outlined within their production standard (GOSTs or safety data sheets). This includes required storage conditions, specific storage and handling methods, safety requirements and spills protection methods.
Liquids will be stored in outside facilities and in a weather protected building and the flooring will be bunded to contain any spillages and equipped with a drain to the Project wastewater treatment plant. Sorbents and equipment for spills response procedures will be placed inside. The storage building will be also equipped with appropriate fire and explosion detection and liquidation equipment.
Waste Generation Waste streams that will arise from the operation of the Project will require adequate use, handling, storage and disposal procedures to ensure adverse environmental impacts are kept to a minimum and to comply with national regulations and applicable international standards. Hazardous wastes generated through the operations are expected to include spent chemicals, catalysts, adsorbents, and waste oils.
Table 81 presents the expected sources of waste streams, the potential environmental impact which could occur along with the expected disposal / final removal method.
The Project will utilise the existing waste management system that NKNK already operates and all waste will be separated. NKNK will minimize the value of wastes to be disposed at the landfills through the recycling, incineration or transferring to external companies for recycling.
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 202 Volume II
Table 81: Overview of the Operational Phase Waste Handling Strategy for the Project Waste Source Potential environmental Impact Mitigation and Disposal method Waste associated with overall activity Office and All activities ● Potential contamination of environment. Placed in segregated waste accumulation areas within the NKNK complex before being domestic waste ● Visual amenity impacts. dispatched for re-use, recycling or disposal ● Use of finite landfill resource Paper and From packaging and ● Potential contamination of receiving environment. Placed in segregated waste accumulation areas within the NKNK complex before being Cardboard deliveries etc ● Visual amenity impacts dispatched for re-use, recycling or disposal Plastic From packaging and ● Potential contamination of receiving environment. Placed in segregated waste accumulation areas within the NKNK complex before being deliveries etc ● Visual amenity impacts dispatched for re-use, recycling or disposal Glass Maintenance, deliveries, ● Potential contamination of receiving environment. Placed in segregated waste accumulation areas within the NKNK complex before being workers facilities ● Recycling potential. dispatched for re-use, recycling or disposal Scrap metal Associated with outages ● Potential contamination of receiving environment. Placed in segregated central waste accumulation areas within the NKNK complex and maintenance ● Visual amenity impacts. before being dispatched for re-use or recycling ● Recycling potential Pallets Associated with ● Potential contamination of receiving environment. Placed in segregated central waste accumulation areas within the NKNK complex deliveries ● Visual amenity impacts before being dispatched for re-use or recycling Solvent wastes Process units ● Hazardous. Stored in appropriate containers and sent to central hazardous waste accumulation ● Potential contamination of receiving environment area before being collected by licenced contractor or incinerated at the Project incinerator Waste Electronics Maintenance and ● Hazardous. Waste is to be segregated into nonferrous and ferrous metals and will be dispatched to and Electrical replacement of electrical ● Recycling opportunities facilities for reuse. Nonferrous metals can be recycled by companies that produce Equipment equipment electrical transformers and electrical batteries Waste associated with production Catalysts Various process units ● Hazardous All catalysts will be transferred to the hazardous waste accumulation area prior to being ● Potential contamination of receiving environment collected by manufacturer or specialist licensed companies and either recycled Activated carbon Condensate treatment ● Hazardous Stored in appropriate containers and collected by licensed contractor for disposal polluted by unit ● Potential contamination of receiving environment hydrocarbons Coke / oily coke Decoking waste gas ● Hazardous Stored in appropriate containers and collected by licensed contractor for disposal or cyclones ● Potential contamination of receiving environment being incinerated at the Project incinerator Oil fractionation unit Skimmed Spent caustic storage ● Hazardous Stored in appropriate containers and collected by licensed contractor for disposal or hydrocarbons tank ● Potential contamination of receiving environment being incinerated at the Project incinerator Spent adsorbents Various process units ● Hazardous Disposal at the NKNK landfill ● Potential contamination of receiving environment
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 203 Volume II
Waste Source Potential environmental Impact Mitigation and Disposal method Heavy Warm blow down drum ● Hazardous Stored in appropriate containers and collected by licensed contractor for disposal or hydrocarbons ● Potential contamination of receiving environment being incinerated at the Project incinerator Oil with Oil slop drums ● Hazardous Stored in appropriate containers and collected by licensed contractor for disposal or hydrocarbons ● Potential contamination of receiving environment being incinerated at Project incinerator Caustic slop with Caustic slop drum ● Hazardous Stored in appropriate containers and collected by licensed contractor for disposal or hydrocarbons ● Potential contamination of receiving environment being incinerated at the Project incinerator Spent ion Condensate treatment ● Hazardous Disposal at licensed landfill exchange resin unit ● Potential contamination of receiving environment Membrane Demineralized water ● Hazardous Accumulated at the hazardous waste storage and collected by specialist licensed elements units ● Potential contamination of receiving environment companies for disposal Separated oil Various processes ● Hazardous Opportunities to reuse where possible will be explored. Waste will be incinerated at ● Potential contamination of receiving environment Project incinerator when not possible Fluorescent tubes Associated with routine ● Hazardous Initially to be stored in a specially determined area in appropriate way. Used fluorescent and on-going ● Fluorescent tubes contain mercury tubes will be temporally stored at the industrial waste storage collected by specialist maintenance in the licensed companies facility and outages Contaminated Primarily associated with ● Hazardous Initially to be placed in the hazardous waste area at the industrial waste storage and packaging any chemical deliveries ● Potential contamination of receiving environments disposed of in licenced industrial landfill ● Use of finite landfill resource Oily sludge Project wastewater ● Hazardous Collected on site in vacuum truck with future disposal at NKNK landfill or another treatment plant ● Potential contamination of receiving environment licensed landfill Biological sludge Project wastewater ● Hazardous Collected on site in vacuum truck with future disposal at NKNK landfill or another treatment plant ● Potential contamination of receiving environment licensed landfill Separated salt Project wastewater ● Hazardous Collected on site in vacuum truck with future disposal at NKNK landfill or another treatment plant ● Potential contamination of receiving environment licensed landfill. Oily contaminated Associated with routine ● Hazardous Stored in appropriate containers and sent to central hazardous waste accumulation materials, such as and on-going ● Potential contamination of receiving environment area before being collected by a competent carrier and disposed in a licensed landfill oily rags maintenance in the facility and outages Lubricating and Associated with routine ● Hazardous Recovery and re-use options to be fully explored. Stored in appropriate containers and auxiliary oils and on-going ● Potential contamination of receiving environment transferred to the central hazardous waste storage area before being collected by a maintenance in the competent carrier. Where recovery and re-use is not feasible then disposal in a facility licensed facility. Where this is not possible waste will be incinerated Empty chemical Material delivery for EP- ● Hazardous Re-use options to be fully explored. Collected by a competent carrier. Where re-use is containers 600 process units ● Potential contamination of receiving environment not feasible then disposal in a licensed facility
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 204 Volume II
Waste Source Potential environmental Impact Mitigation and Disposal method Waste collected as Associated with routine ● Hazardous Stored in appropriate containers and transferred to the central hazardous waste storage a result of spills, and on-going ● Potential contamination of receiving environment area before being collected and disposed of by a licenced contractor. leakages and/or maintenance in the accidental damage facility and outages Source: Linde AG for information on production wastes
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 205 Volume II
12.5.4 Storage of Generated Products The EP-600 project will produce a number of different products from the cracking process (refer to Section 2 for further information on the products generated). Many of these products will be used within the existing industrial area and will be stored on site until they are either used for further manufacturing or sold to external users. All storage facilities for liquids will meet the industrial safety Russian requirements set out in SNiP 2.11.03-93 and best practice and will be located on a hard standing with a bund with at least 110% of the storage capacity. The Project will have a gas detection system to alert NKNK to any potential leaks within storage tanks and piping. Where existing storage facilities and pipelines are being used NKNK will undertake daily visual inspections to ensure that the storage and transport facilities are in good working order.
12.5.5 Decommissioning Waste Streams GIIP and Russian Federation regulation provides the following design considerations for waste management during decommissioning:
● Integrating consideration of the environmental impact from the eventual decommissioning of the unit at the design stage, thereby allowing for an easier, cleaner and cheaper decommissioning process ● Adopting preventive techniques for the generation of large quantities of solid waste, including: – avoiding underground structures – incorporating features that facilitate dismantling – choosing surface finishes that are easily decontaminated – using an equipment configuration that minimises trapped chemicals and facilitates drain-down or washing – designing flexible, self-contained units that enable phased closure – keeping upper layer of soil removed during construction for decommissioning – selling equipment, metal scrap, wooden and demolition waste for future reuse and recycling – preferably using outside landfill for waste disposal to reduce decontamination operations – avoid chronic exploitation and expansion of landfill without reclamation to exclude accumulated environmental damage of soils around – using biodegradable and recyclable materials where possible – avoiding accumulation of huge amount of un-disposed waste during lifetime of the Project. NKNK will employ all these approaches where possible and will continuously review waste disposal to identify more environmentally acceptable routes. Prior to the eventual decommissioning of the EP-600 project, a Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) will be prepared detailing the best practice approach that will be adopted. The DEMP will include a section on waste management.
12.5.6 Impact Significance The proposed Project will be operated under the existing NKNK waste management system which includes current best practice methods for storing and disposing of materials and waste. Table 82 provides a summary of the impact significance associated with material handling and waste management. Impacts evaluated as being ‘moderate’ or ‘major’ are significant effects. Impacts that are ‘minor’ or ‘negligible’ are not significant.
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 206 Volume II
Table 82: Summary Impact Significance Activity Potential Impact Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Construction Waste generation, Contamination of environments (particularly surface Low Moderate Minor handling, and watercourses, groundwater and the ground) due to leakage adverse storage and spillage of wastes associated with poor waste handling and storage arrangements Fugitive emissions, such as dust, associated with the handling Low Moderate Minor and storage of some waste streams adverse Visual amenity impacts associated with poor storage of waste Low Minor Negligible Choice of final The use of landfill, which is a finite resource Low Moderate Minor waste disposal adverse option Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from Low Moderate Minor the Project site. adverse Operation Waste generation, Contamination of receiving environments due to leakage and Low Moderate Minor handling and spillage of waste streams from the operation of the project adverse storage Fugitive emissions associated with the handling and storage of Low Moderate Minor operational waste streams adverse Choice of final The use of landfill, which is a finite resource Low Moderate Minor waste disposal adverse option Recycling and reuse of materials Low Minor Negligible Increased waste miles from transporting waste materials from Low Moderate Minor the Project site. adverse
12.5.7 Cumulative Impacts The construction and operation of the Project is unlikely to result in cumulative effects with the existing industrial activities. The current waste management system will be expanded to include the Project and it has been confirmed that the existing transport system and the existing landfill have sufficient capacity to deal with most waste generated from the Project.
However, NKNK will explore opportunities to re-use and recycle waste arising from the Project where possible to minimise the amount of waste generated.
12.6 Mitigation Measures
12.6.1 General Requirements The IFC General EHS Guidelines require all waste material arisings (regardless of the stage of the Project) to be segregated into non-hazardous and hazardous wastes for consideration for re-use, recycling, or disposal. By Russian requirements, wastes shall be segregated by classes and types, starting from collection and temporary storage. However, it is allowed to unite waste streams if they can be handled and disposed jointly afterwards. The Project will utilise the existing waste management system to track waste consignments from the originating location to the final waste treatment and disposal location.
The Project should also give consideration to the IFC EHS General Guidelines for which the requirements related to waste management are as follows:
● General waste management: – Waste management planning: identify and characterise the source of all waste streams from the Project with the proposed final disposal option – Waste Prevention: identify opportunities to prevent waste production in the first instance
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 207 Volume II
– Recycling and reuse: waste reuse and recycling opportunities to be identified. Investigations into suitable facilities that can process such waste streams to be explored – Treatment and disposal: where re-use of recycling is not feasible or possible, appropriate treatment and/or final disposal options are to be identified for all waste streams. ● Hazardous waste management: – Waste storage: temporary waste storage to be fully identified and designed according to industry best practice – Transportation: all waste containers designated for off-site shipment to be secured and appropriately labelled with loading overseen by competent and trained NKNK employees – Treatment and disposal: where re-use of recycling is not feasible or possible, appropriate treatment and/or final disposal options to be identified for all waste streams, including those considered to be hazardous – Monitoring: procedures for waste tracking to be developed. In addition, there should be routine audits of internal waste management practices to ensure on-going compliance throughout the life of the Project. Any recommendations for improvements in the waste management practices of the Project will form part of on-going operational reporting.
12.6.2 Construction and Operational Waste Management Plans For all construction activities associated with the Project, a waste management plan will be produced as part of the CEMP prepared by the construction contractor. A framework for the waste management plan has been provided in the ESMMP (Volume IV) of this ESIA. The final waste management plan will identify likely wastes, appropriate handling, reuse and recycle opportunities and, as a last resort, disposal methods. The waste management plan will be prepared in accordance with the national and local regulations.
For the operational phase of the Project, the production of a detailed waste management procedure within the framework provided will be fundamental to ensure waste management best practice is undertaken and becomes embedded into the existing operational procedures of NKNK. The waste management procedure will provide the following:
● Highlight relevant international, national and regional policy and legislation ● A Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) which will contain: – A map showing each temporary waste storage location for the Project and within the NKNK site – A description of each waste generated by the operation of the Project, its classification, the appropriate handling methodology, the correct approach for temporary storage and the correct route for removal/disposal off site – Waste generation data collection for each waste stream by volume. This should include the proportion of each waste stream going for reuse, recycling or disposal. In case of unusual waste volumes, this should be investigated – Any waste monitoring as deemed to be necessary – An audit schedule which details the frequency of waste management audits and those responsible for undertaking them – A section related to continuous improvement and corrective actions where audit findings can be recorded and incorporated into the waste management procedure. This will also highlight any new and feasible reuse or recycling opportunities which may arise over time – The existing procedure by which to routinely track waste consignments from the originating location to the final waste treatment and disposal location – The correct procedure for reporting any environmental incidents related to waste
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 208 Volume II
– The specific regulatory reporting requirements as they relate to waste.
12.6.3 Materials Storage, Handling and Use Material and waste handling and storage areas will be established within the Project site during the construction phase and where appropriate these will be retained for the operational phase. These will be specifically designed giving due consideration to the following requirements and will be used before waste materials are transferred to the central waste collection area:
● Separate storage areas for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes ● Separate skips for each waste stream to allow segregation in order to maximise re-use and recycling opportunities ● All skips to be suitably covered (to avoid dispersion of light materials by wind or filling of skip with rain) ● Liquid wastes / oil / chemicals to be stored in tanks or drums located in bunded areas which can hold 110% of the total storage volume and in accordance with national safety requirements ● Spill kits to be available at all times ● Located away from existing sensitive receptors such as existing industries ● Not at risk from theft or vandalism ● Easily accessible in a safe manner ● Well ventilated ● Unlikely to be damaged ● Located next to any required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (as necessary for irritants and hazardous materials) ● The contractor will be required to develop a spill control, prevention and counter measure plan and an Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan.
The ESMP includes reference to the control measures in order to minimise the likelihood of incidents associated with materials storage, handling and use. These include the following: ● Identification of the necessary PPE requirements ● Identification of the necessary bunding and spill kit requirements ● Training requirements (as necessary) with respect to materials handling procedures ● The correct procedure for reporting any environmental incidents related to spills / leakages and how to deal with any spills / leakages ● The specific regulatory reporting requirements as they relate to materials storage ● Inventory of hazardous materials and specific procedures / controls ● All hazardous substances used during the Project will be covered by a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).
12.6.4 Proposed Monitoring Waste management monitoring for the Project will be undertaken by NKNK under their existing environmental management system to monitor materials and waste handling during construction and operation.
Additional monitoring over and above what NKNK currently undertake is provided in the ESMMP (Volume IV) and this should be integrated into the Project environmental management system. Monitoring data will be analysed and reviewed at regular intervals and compared with the operating standards so that any necessary corrective actions can be taken.
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 209 Volume II
12.7 Residual Impacts The mitigation measures identified above and the existing NKNK waste management system will ensure that the vast majority of waste generated as a result of the Project will be managed according to environmental best practice and the risk to the environment is significantly reduced. Following application of the mitigation measures the resultant residual impacts are presented in Table 83. All residual impacts are described as negligible.
Table 83: Summary of Residual Impacts after Mitigation Activity Potential Impact Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Mitigation Residual Impact EP-600 Construction Waste generation, Contamination of environments Low Moderate Minor ● Develop a waste management handling procedure as part of the ESMP Negligible and storage (particularly surface watercourses, adverse ● Identify a suitable temporary storage location for each waste stream groundwater and the ground) due ● Both the onsite and offsite waste storage facilities will be including the following: to leakage and spillage of wastes – Separate storage areas for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes associated with poor waste – Separate skips for each waste stream to allow segregation in order to maximise handling and storage re-use and recycling opportunities arrangements – All skips to have a suitable cover – Liquid wastes / oil / chemicals to be stored in tanks or drums located in bunded areas which can hold 110% of the total storage volume. ● Spill kits to be available at all times Fugitive emissions, such as dust, Low Moderate Minor ● Cover any skips used for the temporary storage of waste Negligible associated with the handling and adverse storage of some waste streams Visual amenity impacts associated Low Minor Negligible ● Develop a waste management handling procedure Negligible with poor storage of waste ● All waste storage vessels to be covered at all times Choice of final The use of landfill, which is a finite Low Moderate Minor ● Characterise each waste type as either hazardous or non-hazardous and Negligible waste disposal resource should be final recourse adverse determine the hazardous class and applicable requirements option ● Seek to minimise waste production in the first instance ● Where waste streams are unavoidable, highlight potential re-use and recycling opportunities according to current best practice and local opportunities Increased waste miles from Low Moderate Minor ● Identify licenced waste facilities in close proximity to the Project Negligible transporting waste materials from adverse ● Review on an on-going basis the locally available re-use / recycling facility to the Project site. ensure they can accept the waste streams. EP-600 Operation Waste Contamination of receiving Low Moderate Minor ● Develop a waste management handling procedure Negligible generation and environments due to leakage and adverse ● Identify a suitable temporary storage location for each waste stream storage spillage of waste streams from the ● Both the onsite and offsite waste storage facilities will be designed to include the operation following: – Separate storage areas for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes organised in appropriate way – Separate skips for each waste stream to allow segregation in order to maximise re-use and recycling opportunities – All skips to have a suitable cover – Liquid wastes/oil/chemicals to be stored in tanks or drums located in bunded areas which can hold 110% of the total storage volume. ● Spill kits to be available at all times
210
Activity Potential Impact Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Mitigation Residual Impact Fugitive emissions associated with Low Moderate Minor ● Cover any skips used for the temporary storage of waste Negligible the handling and storage of adverse operational waste streams Choice of final The use of landfill, which is a finite Low Minor Minor ● Characterise each waste stream as either hazardous or non-hazardous and Negligible waste disposal resource should be final recourse adverse determine the waste class option ● Seek to minimise waste production in the first instance ● Where waste streams are unavoidable, highlight potential re-use and recycling opportunities according to current best practice Increased waste miles from Low Moderate Minor ● Identify licenced waste facilities in close proximity to the Project Negligible transporting waste materials from adverse ● Review on an on-going basis the locally available re-use/recycling facility to ensure the Project site. they can accept the waste streams. EP-600 Decommissioning – A future DEMP will be prepared Waste Contamination of receiving Low Moderate Minor ● Develop a decommissioning waste management handling procedure as part of the Negligible generation and environments (particularly surface adverse ESMP storage watercourses, groundwater and ● Identify a suitable temporary storage location for each waste stream the ground) due to leakage and ● Both the onsite and offsite waste storage facilities will be designed to include the spillage of wastes associated with following: poor waste handling and storage – Separate storage areas for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes arrangements – Separate skips for each waste stream to allow segregation in order to maximise re-use and recycling opportunities – All skips to have a suitable cover – Liquid wastes/oil/chemicals to be stored in tanks or drums located in bunded areas which can hold 110% of the total storage volume. ● Spill kits to be available at all times Fugitive emissions, such as dust, Low Moderate Minor ● Cover any skips used for the temporary storage of waste Negligible associated with the handling and adverse storage of some waste streams Visual amenity impacts associated Low Minor Negligible ● Develop a waste management handling procedure Negligible with poor storage of waste ● All waste storage vessels to be covered at all times Choice of final The use of landfill, which is a finite Low Moderate Minor ● Characterise each waste stream as either hazardous or non-hazardous Negligible waste disposal resource should be final recourse adverse ● Seek to minimise waste production in the first instance option ● Where waste streams are unavoidable, highlight potential re-use and recycling opportunities according to current best practice Increased waste miles from Low Moderate Minor ● Identify licenced waste facilities in close proximity to the Project Negligible transporting waste materials from adverse ● Review on an on-going basis the locally available re-use/recycling facility to ensure the Project site. they can accept the waste streams.
211
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 212
13 Traffic and Transport
13.1 Introduction This Chapter considers the potential traffic and transportation impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Project. It considers the receptors external to the project site which may potentially be sensitive to the traffic and transport associated with the construction and operational phase and the significance of these impacts. The assessment presented in this Chapter focuses on a number of aspects, namely:
● Delays to other road users as a result of abnormal loads transportation or from exceedance of road network capacity ● Scheduling impacts (i.e. as a result of increased freight on major routes) ● Road safety implications (i.e. as a result of increased traffic flow) ● Impacts on other environmental receptors as a result of for example, dust and accidental oil spills. During both the construction and operational phase of the Project there will be a number of transportation activities. Depending on the phase the number and type of these movements will vary. The types of movements for each phase are described below.
Key traffic and transportation movements during the construction phase relate to:
● Setting up laydown areas ● Earthmoving, foundations, excavations ● Delivery of materials and equipment, including: – Delivery of resources to site (concrete, sand, crushed rocks etc.) – Import of abnormal loads (construction equipment and process units) ● Daily transportation of construction workforce ● Disposal of wastes. Key traffic and transportation movements during the operational phase:
● Export of products from the industrial hub ● Import of chemicals and catalysts ● Maintenance activities ● Daily ingress and egress of workers’ transportation service.
13.2 Applicable Legislation and Requirements
13.2.1 National Legislation The main requirements to ensure road traffic safety and the safety of pedestrians during road transport of oversized cargo, is regulated by:
● Enactment of the Federation Government of the Russian Federation No. 1090 dated October 23, 1993 “On the Road Traffic Regulations” ● Federal Law No. 257-FZ dated November 8, 2007 “On motor roads and on road activities in the Russian Federation, as well as on amending certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation”. Road traffic regulations specify the following:
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 213
● The weight of the transported cargo and the load distribution along axes should not exceed the values set out by the manufacturer for the given transport vehicle ● Before and during the journey the driver should ensure the positioning, fixation and condition of the cargo in order to prevent accidents and cause unnecessary road congestion. Cargo freight is allowed when it does not: – Limit road visibility of the driver – Impede driving or violate the stability of the vehicle – Cover vehicle external lights, retroreflectors and registration and identification marks – Limit the sight of signals being given by hand – Increase noise and dust, and pollute the road and environment. Should the condition and positioning of cargo not satisfy the requirements, the driver must apply corrective measures to ensure that violations of the above listed rules are rectified.
Cargo with dimensions that exceed the transport vehicle at front and back for more than 1m, or at sides for more than 0.4m from the external edge of the parking light should be marked as “Large-size cargo”. In addition, during night time or during restricted visibility, the vehicle should be equipped with a front flashlight or white retroreflector, and at the rear should have a flashlight or red retroreflector.
In accordance with Federal Law No. 257-FZ, a special permit is required for transportation of heavy-weight and / or large-size cargo. The permit should be issued by the General Administration for Traffic Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for a period up to 3 months authorising a maximum of 10 round-trips. The permit specifies the characteristics of the transport vehicle, characteristics of the road, the route, and the characteristics of the cargo.
13.2.2 Applicable International Requirements The principles of the traffic and transport assessment have been developed in line with IFC Performance Standard 1 (Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts) and Performance Standard 4 (Community Health, Safety and Security). The main objectives of each standard relevant to the traffic and transport assessment are summarised in Table 84 below.
Table 84: IFC Performance Standard Requirements Performance Standard Key Objectives Performance Standard 1 To identify and assess social and environment impacts, both adverse and beneficial, in the Assessment and Management project’s zone of influence. of Environmental and Social To avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse Risks and Impacts) impacts on workers, affected communities, and the environment. To ensure that affected communities are appropriately engaged on issues that could potentially affect them. To promote improved social and environment performance of companies through the effective use of management systems Performance Standard 4 To avoid or minimize risks to and impacts on the health and safety of the local community during (Community Health, Safety, and the project life cycle from both routine and non-routine circumstances. Security) To ensure that the safeguarding of personnel and property is carried out in a legitimate manner that avoids or minimizes risks to the community’s safety and security.
13.3 Methodology
13.3.1 Overview The assessment has been undertaken through a desk-top study and a traffic survey. The methodology for the assessment is summarised as follows:
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 214
● Baseline description – establishing existing traffic and transport routes which lead to the existing industrial hub based on site visits observations ● Traffic survey – transportation of products from the EP-600 will create a number of additional lorry movements and therefore a quantitative survey of existing traffic loads on the key traffic route to the site was undertaken to further inform the baseline description ● Assessment of impacts – possible impacts associated with the additional traffic generated by the Project have been identified and their significance assessed. Significance criteria have been adopted for the prediction of impacts as defined in Chapter 5.
13.3.2 Baseline Description Overview of the Transportation Network The city of Nizhnekamsk has a good transport system that includes: eight tram routes and fourteen public bus routes, there are also 25 inter-urban, 13 inter-regional, 14 suburban and 13 special bus routes that connect Nizhnekamsk to the existing industrial hub. The city tram links are served by 72 tram cars and the public bus fleet includes 533 buses which cover approximately 800 kilometres of routes in the city and suburban areas. NKNK provides its employees with a free transportation service within the industrial complex and to and from the city of Nizhnekamsk.
The proposed site is well served by existing infrastructure, including the Cargo Port located on the Kama River which is approximately 15km from the industrial hub. Most of equipment for the construction of the EP-600 will be delivered through the Cargo Port. The location of the industrial hub and the main access road (paved double lane) to the Cargo Port is illustrated in Figure 38. This road is also used by other road users travelling to Nizhnekamsk from the south.
Figure 38: Main Access Road to the Industrial Hub from the Cargo Port
Source: http://www.kosmosnimki.ru/ adapted by Mott Macdonald
Whilst there is no detailed information on holes and defects of the road, it was possible to make observations of the general condition of the road during the Mot MacDonald site visits. The overall road condition along this route is not in as good condition as the access routes to the north of the industrial hub, although the damage
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 215
to the road surface at present does not appear to be causing any significant issues for traffic travelling along this road. Some defects and cracks in the road were observed at the observation point at Nizhnee Afanasovo, as shown in Figure 39. Results of a traffic survey undertaken on this road in July 2017 are provided in Section 13.3.3.
Figure 39: Discovered Defects of the Main Access Road to the Industrial Hub from the Cargo Port
Source: Mott MacDonald
There are two other routes that will be used: ● The road between the industrial hub and the city of Nizhnekamsk. During the Mott MacDonald site visits the main access route to the industrial hub was not congested and appeared in a good condition with no obvious major pot holes or defects observed. The road for the majority of the route between Nizhnekamsk and the industrial hub is two lanes in each direction with capacity for additional traffic. The road is used on the daily basis by NKNK for transportation of workers ● The M7 motorway linking Naberezhnye Chelny to Kazan (runs approximately 20km to the north of the existing industrial hub). This will be used for delivering construction materials. A good rail network also exists linking the industrial hub to the wider area, including the Cargo Port. The industrial hub has its own designated rail sidings and includes facilities to load, unload and store products and equipment.
13.3.3 Traffic Survey A traffic survey of the main access road to the industrial hub from the Cargo Port was undertaken on 27 July 2017 near Nizhnee Afanasovo village (observation point in Figure 38). This road was selected because the majority of equipment for the construction of the EP-600 will be delivered through the Cargo Port. The survey included traffic counts of the following two vehicle types:
● Light Vehicles – Cars, motorcycles, taxis and small vans ● Heavy Vehicles – All lorries and other large vehicles, including buses. The survey point was selected taking into consideration the safety of surveyors and the distance from junctions. The survey was undertaken manually during working hours and each surveyor focussed on a dedicated lane and direction of travel along the road.
Surveys were undertaken for peak traffic periods in the morning (07:00 – 08:30) and afternoon (16:00 – 17:30) and at mid-day (12:00 – 13:30), all at 15 minutes intervals.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 216
Table 85: Traffic Count Recordings (July 2017) Light Vehicles per 15 min Heavy Vehicles per 15 min Time period (average value of 6 intervals) (average value of 6 intervals) NKNK -> Cargo Port / Cargo Port-> NKNK NKNK -> Cargo Port / Cargo Port -> NKNK 07:00 – 08:30 124 / 134 23 / 24 12:00 – 13:30 128 / 125 33 / 23 16:00 – 17:30 182 / 149 20 / 19 Source: Mott MacDonald
Although the road was generally busy with large vehicles, there was no congestion. In the vicinity of the road route to the site there are few potentially sensitive receptors: Nizhnee Afanasovo, Bolshoe Afanasovo, Stroiteley village.
13.4 Assessment of Impacts
13.4.1 Construction Phase Various construction materials will be delivered to site during the construction period, including:
● Materials for construction including for site roads, vehicle parking and walkways ● Steel ● Concrete ● Building materials ● Piping ● Large operational plant items ● Specialist equipment. Construction equipment and materials for the Project will be transported by road and by river to the construction site. Equipment and materials will be sourced from both national and international locations but at this stage in the design process the exact quantity of construction materials and suppliers has not been determined.
During the construction phase a number of key factors will be taken into account when finalising the logistics plan. These include the size of containers that can be transported, the maximum size of abnormal loads and the seasonal conditions of the Kama River. Depending where equipment will be sourced from it is likely that items will be shipped via the port of Saint Petersburg and loaded onto river barges. Due to the seasonal constraints due to ice, delivery via the Kama River will only be possible between May and September.
Once materials are off-loaded from the barge they will be transported to the industrial hub via road and rail. Exact numbers of movements will be determined once a contractor has been appointed and a final decision on the materials and equipment is made. However, it is assumed that no more than 10 journeys by road per day will be conducted due to the low capacity of the Cargo Port.
Other items to be transported to the Project site will also be via road using standard sized road trailers. Road deliveries will gain access to the site either via the M7 to the north or will travel up to Nizhnekamsk from the south. Detailed estimates for required deliveries are not currently available however the number of additional movements are expected to be of a minor magnitude during the active phase of concrete and construction works.
The number of required workers for the EP-600 construction phase is estimated to be approximately 7,000 (during the peak periods 8,500-9,000 workers). At the time of writing it is anticipated that most of these construction workers will be housed in accommodation facilities at the construction site. Only a few senior staff will live in Nizhnekamsk.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 217
Construction Phase Impacts Capacity
The additional daily road traffic movements will not represent a major increase in traffic volumes. Similarly, given the size, and the current traffic of the Kama River, the additional barges using the river will not have any impact on other river traffic. Therefore, even though exact numbers are not present at this stage the magnitude of additional movements is considered as minor.
The sensitivity of the road and rail network and the Kama River to accommodate the increase in traffic flow is considered medium, therefore the unmitigated impact of construction movements on the capacity of the local road network and the Kama River is assessed to be of minor adverse significance.
Wear and Tear
With respect to the physical effects of construction road traffic, it is considered that trucks (including those carrying abnormal loads) will have an effect of minor magnitude on the local road infrastructure due to the number of trucks and other vehicles during the construction phase. The sensitivity of truck movements to the local road network is considered to be medium at present as a result of existing mixed road conditions with the potential to deteriorate rapidly under construction traffic flows. The impact of construction traffic on road’s ‘wear and tear’ is therefore assessed to be of minor adverse significance.
Abnormal Loads
It is assumed that abnormal loads will be delivered either by the Kama River and road. Deliveries transferred from the Cargo Port to road would use only roads suitable for such deliveries. In addition, all abnormal loads will be delivered to site during the lowest traffic periods to minimise disruption on the local road network and it subject to approval by the General Administration for Traffic Safety of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. Although the exact number of abnormal loads is not known at present and will not be known until a final decision on contractors and construction approach is known, abnormal loads will be kept to a minimum. In addition, due to the constraints of the existing pipe racks passing over the main access routes all abnormal loads will be limited in size. The magnitude of movements with abnormal loads is therefore considered as minor. The sensitivity of the road network to abnormal loads is considered medium. The impact of abnormal loads is judged to be of minor adverse significance.
Road Safety
The proposed transport routes for the Project will utilise existing roads and will not result in any new roads being constructed. As described above in the assessment of the road capacity the exact number of additional vehicles during the construction phase is not known. However, as the majority of these vehicles will be large goods vehicles the increase in numbers related to road safety will result in a moderate magnitude. The routes proposed for Project road traffic will avoid passing through the smaller settlements, with the potential impact being limited to housing along the main highways and in Nizhnekamsk. The sensitivity of people in residential areas along the routes to be used is considered to be medium as there will be vulnerable road users such as pedestrians. The impact of construction traffic on road safety is therefore assessed to be of moderate adverse significance.
13.4.2 Operations Phase As described in the project description the majority of products generated from the EP-600 plant will be used within the industrial hub. Any surplus products that are not used within the industrial hub will be transported from the industrial hub using the existing railway and existing pipelines.
Operation of the Project will involve the daily commute of personnel from Nizhnekamsk and surrounding villages to the industrial hub. The operational workforce for the EP-600 plant will operate in shifts. As the Project is being developed within the existing industrial hub there is already existing transport infrastructure for
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 218
employees. This is provided in the form of trams and designated buses which currently transport the majority of NKNK staff to and from the industrial hub.
Operation Phase Impacts Capacity
The operation of the Project is not expected to significantly affect the existing number of movements on the road network. Although approximately 700 new jobs will be created it is not anticipated that this will result in many additional buses as many of these workers will be working shifts at different periods of the day (up to 10 additional journeys of 12m buses per day). In accordance with the significance criteria the sensitivity of the receiving road network is considered to be medium and the magnitude will be negligible and consequently the significance is assessed to be negligible.
Wear and Tear
During the operational phase of the Project there will be additional traffic on the existing road network, although this will primarily be light vehicles and buses to transport workers, along with some additional heavy vehicles. Given the current condition of the roads to the south of the Project sites the sensitivity on the receiving road network is considered to be medium. Since most additional traffic will be light vehicles and buses during the operations phase the magnitude of effect is considered negligible, therefore the impact on the road’s ‘wear and tear’ is assessed to be negligible.
Abnormal Loads
The sensitivity of the road network to abnormal loads is considered to be medium. It is not anticipated that abnormal loads will be required as part of routine operations and therefore the magnitude of impact is considered to be negligible. Consequently, the impact significance is assessed as negligible.
Road Safety
Within the Industrial Hub: The operation of the Project has the potential to increase traffic flows within the existing industrial hub. The number of additional vehicle movements associated with operational workforce will be low but number of vehicle movements associated with transport of products between production sites could be increased and therefore of minor magnitude. The sensitivity of the workers on site is considered to be low due to their familiarity with the existing traffic conditions and requirement for site operations to conform to international safety standards. The significance of the impact on road safety and accidents within the existing industrial hub is considered negligible.
Outside the Industrial Hub: During the operational phase, there will be additional large good vehicles using the local road network. As exact number of additional vehicles is not known, at present the magnitude of the increase in numbers related to road safety is described as moderate. The sensitivity of road users such as pedestrians, particularly in areas where the main traffic routes pass housing is considered to be medium. Although the operational traffic is not likely to pass through Nizhnekamsk or any of the nearby villages the impact of operational traffic on road safety is conservatively assessed to be of moderate adverse significance.
13.4.3 Decommissioning Phase The impacts of traffic movements associated with decommissioning of the Project are assumed to be no greater than those associated with construction.
13.4.4 Cumulative Impacts The traffic and transportation assessment has been conducted taking into account existing operations at the industrial hub. There is a risk that other future large construction projects will be conducted within the industrial hub during the Project life. The Project Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) should include
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 219
measures to assess the impact of any concurrent construction works should they be arise, and implement any appropriate measures to mitigate any identified traffic and transportation impacts.
13.5 Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures At the time of writing it is assumed that the mitigation measures proposed for construction will also be applied during the decommissioning phase. However, it is expected that mitigation based on future knowledge and best practice will be recommended as part of any future detailed decommissioning plan.
Other than potential road safety impacts to local communities, there are no significant impacts identified associated with the construction and operational phases, however good practice and recommended measures to reduce identified impacts are outlined in Table 86.
Table 86: Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Impact Theme Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Delays to road users as a result of A detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will be developed in consultation abnormal loads with the local transport authority to identify key issues and appropriate solutions. The CTMP Road wear and tear will be produced in accordance with applicable international standards. The CTMP will include other mitigation measures in regard to minimising dust, accidental spills, wear and tear of road network and the adequate maintenance of vehicles. Reduced safety of vulnerable road Measures to reduce the risk to vulnerable road users and occupants of residential properties users on the local roads and of in the vicinity of access routes will be identified as part of the detailed CTMP. The CTMP will residents at any settlements affected draw on international best practice in developing and ensuring the implementation of suitable by construction strategies, and will consider the option of bypassing particularly sensitive communities. Consultation will be undertaken with affected communities in addition to the appropriate highways authority to ensure identified measures take into account local circumstances.
13.6 Residual Impact Residual effects are those effects that remain after mitigation has been implemented. A tabulated summary of impacts associated with the development and residual impacts following mitigation is presented in Table 87.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 220
Table 87: Summary of Impacts Activity Potential Impacts Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Significance Mitigation Residual Impacts Construction Capacity Exceedance of road / rail Medium Minor Minor adverse CTMP. A traffic survey has been undertaken and the results will be used Negligible network capacity resulting in to finalise the logistics plan for deliveries and movements of equipment. disruption to existing users Appropriate scheduling with rail operators for rail deliveries. Abnormal loads Delays to road users as a result Medium Minor Minor adverse Abnormal loads will be scheduled for periods with the lowest traffic to Negligible of abnormal loads minimise disruption. Notifications made to relevant authorities and stakeholders in line with national requirements Wear and tear Wear and tear as a result of type Medium Minor Minor adverse Measures to reduce and address wear and tear will be considered as Negligible of traffic and volumes part of the CTMP. Road safety Reduced safety of residents of Medium Moderate Moderate adverse Measures to reduce the risk to vulnerable road users and occupants of Minor adverse Nizhnekamsk and surrounding residential properties in the vicinity of access routes should be identified villages, particularly vulnerable as part of the detailed CTMP. The CTMP should draw on international groups such as pedestrians. best practice in developing and ensuring the implementation of suitable strategies. Operation Capacity – Exceedance of road network Low Minor Negligible Analysis of current bus capacity to be undertaken and additional busses Negligible Operational capacity resulting in disruption to provided only if the existing capacity is not sufficient. workforce existing users Capacity – Exceedance of road network Low Minor Negligible Where possible products should be transported from the industrial area Negligible Movement of capacity resulting in disruption to using rail. products existing users Appropriate scheduling with rail operators for rail deliveries. Wear and tear Wear and tear as a result of type Low Minor Negligible Measures to reduce and address wear and tear will be considered as Negligible of traffic and volumes part of the CTMP. Road safety Reduced safety of workforce in Low Minor Negligible Existing workers should be reminded of road safety via tool box talks / Negligible within industrial the industrial hub staff notice boards / road speed limit restrictions in industrial area / hub driving trainings / traffic rules. Road safety Reduced safety of residents of Medium Moderate Moderate adverse Measures to reduce the risk to vulnerable road users and occupants of Minor adverse outside industrial Nizhnekamsk and surrounding residential properties in the vicinity of access routes should be identified hub villages, particularly vulnerable as part of the detailed CTMP. The CTMP should draw on international groups such as pedestrians. best practice in developing and ensuring the implementation of suitable strategies. Decommissioning Same as the construction phase
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 221
14 Noise and Vibration
14.1 Introduction The construction and operation of the proposed Project is expected to generate temporary and permanent noise and vibration impacts which may result in effects at nearby sensitive receptors. This Chapter presents an assessment of key noise and vibration impacts in order to identify potential significant effects so that the scope to mitigate them can be considered.
Temporary noise and vibration impacts during the construction the Project are expected to arise due to:
● Site clearance and ground works mainly excavation and piling ● Delivery and movement of materials ● Construction of infrastructure and buildings, and installation of equipment. Permanent operational noise impacts are expected due to noise-emitting items of the Project elements comprising:
● The ethylene plant ● Utilities & Operations. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project are:
● The prison at ~700m from the closest Project element (considered as a residential receptor) ● Dwellings at Martysh (within the Sanitary Protection Zone (SPZ)) to the south of the Project area and at a minimum distance of ~2.5km.
14.2 Legislation and Guidance
14.2.1 National Legislation In respect to the requirements of Russian legislation, noise and vibration levels are taken into account along with the air emissions while establishing the size of the SPZ for industrial sites. At the SPZ boundary, noise impact shall be acceptable for residents, within the SPZ noise shall be appropriate for working or temporary occupation. For existing facilities noise levels shall be justified and monitored by special measurements.
The noise levels shall not exceed the levels permitted by Sanitary Norms and rules SN 2.2.4/2.1.8.562-96 ‘Noise at working places, in premises of residential and public buildings and at the residential area’ and SanPiN 2.1.2.2645-10 ‘Sanitary-Epidemiological Requirements to the Living Conditions in Residential Houses and Premises’ for day and night-time as given in Table 88.
Table 88: Maximum permissible levels of noise for residential areas – indoor space
Maximum Permissible Level Leq dB(A) Daytime (07:00 – 23:00) Night-time (23:00 – 07:00) 55 45 SN 2.2.4/2.1.8.562-96, SanPin 2.1.2.2645-10
State Standard GOST 12.1.003-2014 ‘Occupational Safety Standards System. Noise. General Safety Requirements’ also describes the Maximum Permissible Levels (MPLs) for noise levels for different types of working environments and activities. MPLs for working areas vary from 50 to 80 Leq dB(A) and dependent of the type of work [GOST 12.1.003-83, SN 2.2.4/2.1.8.562-96].
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 222
14.2.2 Applicable International Guidelines International Finance Corporation The International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group (WB), has produced Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) General Guidelines that apply to investment projects in various industry sectors. The relevant limit values for noise are detailed in Table 89.
Table 89: IFC / WB EHS Guideline Noise Limit Values
Specific Environment Noise Level Leq,1 hour dB(A) free field Daytime (07:00-22:00) Night-time (22:00-07:00) Residential, educational or institutional 55 45 Industrial or commercial 70 70 Source: IFC EHS General Guidelines: Environmental – Noise Management
The EHS Guidelines require the noise impacts should not exceed the limit values presented in Table 89 or result in a maximum increase in background levels of 3 dB(A) at the nearest sensitive receptor location outside the Project site.
World Health Organization The World Health Organization (WHO) provides broad guidance on noise levels required to protect individuals from harmful levels of noise within a range of environments, which is described in ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’ (1999). This is an important reference which includes guideline noise values that are founded on the results of scientific research into the effects of noise on the population. This forms the basis of standards for noise used worldwide, including those described above. The specific values that are considered appropriate to the Project are given in Table 90.
Table 90: WHO Guideline Values Specific environment Critical health effect (s) Guideline noise value
Outdoor living areas Serious annoyance – daytime and evening 55 Leq,16 hours dB(A)
Dwellings – outside bedrooms (window open) Sleep disturbance – night-time 45 Leq,8 hours dB(A)
Industrial, commercial, shopping and traffic areas, Hearing impairment 70 Leq,24 hours dB(A) indoors and outdoors
The Guidelines do not specify the hours of the day over which the time bases apply because what is considered to be daytimes, evenings and night-times are expected to be dependent on the social and cultural trends of a country and therefore vary around the world.
British Standard 5228 – Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control WHO and IFC Guidelines are not specific but generally apply to permanent operational noise impacts of a development. Generally, it is accepted that noise impacts generated during the construction of an industrial site are inherently higher than the impacts arising under operation. Consequently, higher noise levels during construction are usually tolerated in the knowledge that the impacts are temporary.
The British Standard 5228 ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites’ (2009+A1:2014) provides comprehensive guidance on construction noise and vibration. This includes details of typical noise levels associated with various items of construction equipment or activities, prediction methods, and measures and procedures that have been found to be most effective in reducing impacts. The guidance forms the basis for the majority of construction noise assessments in the United Kingdom and is widely recognised internationally. It has been adopted for this assessment.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 223
14.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria
14.3.1 Significance Criteria The significance of effects due to noise is a function of the magnitude of impact and the sensitivity of the receptor. Chapter 5 presents the significance criteria to be used in this assessment.
The methodologies and scales used to assess the sensitivity of receptors and magnitude of impact for the key noise impacts expected during construction and operation are set out below.
14.3.2 Sensitivity of Receptors Sensitivity criteria for the assessment of noise impacts affecting sensitive receptors are assigned in Table 91.
Table 91: Sensitivity of Receptors Sensitivity Type of receptor High Residential area, hospitals, schools, colleges or universities, places of worship, designated environmental areas, nature areas, high value amenity areas, cemeteries. Medium Offices, recreational areas, agricultural land. Low Public open spaces, industrial areas, car parks. Negligible Derelict land.
The main sensitive receptors identified within the Project area are grouped into village settlements, in addition to the prison. All receptors within these areas are considered to have high sensitivity for the purposes of this assessment.
14.3.3 Magnitude of Impacts Construction Phase Impacts Construction work is transient in nature and generally includes both stationary and moving sources of noise. Stationary sources include construction equipment positioned at a given location on a temporary basis while moving sources normally comprise mobile construction equipment and vehicles.
The assessment of construction noise involves the identification of activities that have the potential to generate high levels of noise. It is necessary to consider the contribution of the noise sources involved in particular construction activities in order to predict the likely impact. Details of the construction activities used to predict the noise impacts (e.g. items of plant to be used during each stage, the noise emission and utilisation of items, duration of work) are not fully defined at this stage. However, the noise levels have been assessed based on the use of generic items of construction plant expected to be used for a project of this nature in order to provide an indication of the likely impacts.
Annex E of BS 5228 – Part 1: Noise (2009+A1:2014) presents example methods for assessing the significance of construction noise levels at noise sensitive receptors and the ‘Example method 2–5 dB(A) change’ method has been adopted in this assessment. Construction noise levels are deemed to be significant if the ambient noise levels during construction (pre-construction ambient plus construction noise) exceed the pre- construction ambient noise by 5dB or more, subject to a lower cut-off value of 65 Leq dB(A) due to construction noise alone, assuming all works can be undertaken during the daytime. The scales for magnitude of construction noise impacts are summarised in Table 92.
Table 92: Magnitude Criteria for Construction Noise Impacts Predicted receptor noise level due to Increase in ambient noise levels due to the Magnitude of Impact construction noise alone Leq dB(A) construction noise impact (dB) Below 65 dB(A) Less than 5 dB Negligible 5 dB or more Minor
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 224
Predicted receptor noise level due to Increase in ambient noise levels due to the Magnitude of Impact construction noise alone Leq dB(A) construction noise impact (dB) 65 dB(A) or above Less than 5 dB Moderate 5 dB or more Major Source:
Operational Phase Impacts Criteria for assessing the magnitude of operational noise impacts are presented in Table 93 and have been developed based on the Russian State Sanitary Norms, IFC/WB Noise Level Guidelines and WHO Guidelines.
Table 93: Magnitude Criteria for Operational Noise Impacts Criteria Definition Magnitude of Impact Operational noise level at the receptor does not exceed the criterion Negligible Operational noise level at the receptors exceeds the criterion by less than 3 Minor dB and ambient level increased by less than 3 dB Daytime: 55 dB LAeq,1h Night time: 45 dB L Operational noise level at the receptor exceeds the criterion by less than 3 Moderate Aeq,1h dB and ambient level increased by 3 dB or more Operational noise level at the receptor exceeds the criterion by 3 dB or more Major and ambient level increased by 3 dB or more
14.4 Baseline Description Baseline noise measurements were carried out in:
● 2012 by FBUZ Centre for Hygiene and Epidemiology on behalf of Branan Environment ● 2017 by the accredited laboratory of NKNK.
These comprised daytime and night-time measurements made at five positions to represent areas of residential sensitive receptors as shown in Figure 40. A daytime measurement was made in June 2017 within the industrial area and close to prison (Site position no.3). This is also indicated.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 225
Figure 40: Map Indicating Baseline Noise Measurement Locations
Source: OpenStreetMap
Table 94 summarises the 2012 baseline noise levels measured at the sensitive receptor locations that are presented in the Environmental Baseline Study Report by Branan Environment.
Table 94: Summary of Baseline Noise Levels Measured in 2012 Daytime Night-time
Leq dB(A) Maximum Leq dB(A) Leq dB(A) Maximum Leq dB(A) Prosti 43.9 50.0 37.8 42.0 Alan’ 40.1 43.0 36.3 39.0 Klyatle 40.8 45.0 36.3 39.0 Martysh 39.0 43.0 35.6 39.0 Ishteryakovo 39.8 43.0 36.0 38.0
The main sources of noise that were noted during the measurements were:
● Industrial sources within the Nizhnekamsk industrial zone (plant, service equipment, ventilation systems, pump and compressor stations, boilers, furnaces etc.) ● Road traffic noise ● Railway noise. Table 95 summarises the baseline noise levels measured in the period 27 to 28 July 2017, which are generally higher than the levels measured in 2012. The main sources of noise during the daytime and at night were noted as natural phenomena. The differences between the results in 2012 and 2017 may be attributable to wind speeds or directions.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 226
Table 95: Summary of Baseline Noise Levels Measured in 2017 Daytime Night-time
Leq dB(A) Leq dB(A) Prosti 46 42 Alan’ 47 44 Klyatle 43 43 Martysh 42 42 Ishteryakovo 44 43 Site position no.3 (close to prison) 43 43
In order to take a precautionary approach, the lowest baseline noise levels measured in either 2012 and 2017 are used within the noise assessment below. In order to represent other nearby community areas, the baseline noise levels are applied based on their relative proximity to the Nizhnekamsk industrial zone as it was noted to be the dominant source of environmental noise during the 2012 surveys:
● Alan’ is also representative of Sobolekovo and the eastern outskirts of Nizhnekamsk ● Klyatle is also representative of Balchykly ● Ishteryakovo is also representative of Avlash. Figure 41 indicates the locations considered within the assessment to represent sensitive receptors.
Figure 41: Sensitive Receptor Locations Considered by Noise Assessment
Source: OpenStreetMap
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 227
14.5 Assessment of Impacts
14.5.1 Construction Phase Temporary noise and vibration impacts during the construction the Project are expected to arise due to:
● Site clearance and ground works mainly excavation and piling ● Delivery and movement of materials ● Construction of infrastructure and buildings, and installation of equipment. A group of construction plant that is assumed to be required for general work is indicated in Table 96 and reference noise levels from BS 5228 – 1:2009+A1:2014 is also given to calculate the overall noise emission levels.
Table 96: Assumed Inventory of Construction Plant for General Works
BS 5228 – 1:2009+A1:2014 Reference LAeq,10m dB for each item Overall activity reference assuming 100% utilisation LAeq,10m dB Flatbed trailer D.7 121 70 Excavator C.4 63 77 82 100t mobile telescopic crane C.4 41 71 Concrete mixer truck C.4 27 79
Table 96 presents the assessment of construction noise impacts based on:
● The activity noise emission level of 82 LAeq dB at 10m which assumes the continuous and simultaneous use of all plant items given in Table 95 ● All plant items are located at the closest part of the Project area to the receptor (shortest propagation distance between each source and receiver simultaneously) ● Hard ground correction used in distance correction (in practice there will additional attenuation due to ground cover and atmospheric absorption) ● No allowance for screening attenuation ● Lowest daytime baseline noise levels measured in 2012 and 2017 have been used to calculate the potential change in ambient noise levels. This shows that the predicted noise impact due to construction noise from general plant is not expected to exceed the daytime cut-off value of 65 dB(A) at any receptor, and will not result in ambient noise levels increasing by 5dB or more at any receptor. In all cases the magnitude of impact of general works during the daytime is assessed as negligible and therefore the significance of the impact is assessed to be negligible.
Table 97: Assessment of predicted construction noise impacts
Plan Distance Receptor noise Pre-construction Ambient noise Change in distance correction for level due to works ambient noise level level during ambient noise (m) hard ground alone LAeq dB LAeq dB works, LAeq dB level dB propagation Prosti 6,200 55.8 26.0 44 44 0 Alan' 5,700 55.1 26.7 40 40 0 Sobolekovo 6,000 55.6 26.3 40 40 0 Nizhnekamsk 7,850 57.9 23.9 40 40 0 Klyatle 7,200 57.1 24.7 41 41 0 Balchykly 8,300 58.4 23.4 41 41 0 Martysh 2,500 48.0 33.9 39 40 +1 Ishteryakovo 4,850 53.7 28.1 40 40 0 Avlash 5,400 54.6 27.2 40 40 0
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 228
Plan Distance Receptor noise Pre-construction Ambient noise Change in distance correction for level due to works ambient noise level level during ambient noise (m) hard ground alone LAeq dB LAeq dB works, LAeq dB level dB propagation Prison 700 36.9 44.9 45 48 +3
14.5.2 Operational Phase Noise from Fixed Plant Noise data for the proposed Project have been obtained from information provided by Linde. Sound power levels for individual items of equipment and processes have been used to develop a three-dimensional acoustic model using DataKustik CadnaA software. This implements the procedures of ISO 9613 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors Part 2: General Method of Calculation’ (1996). The model has been used to predict steady-state operational noise levels at the sensitive receptor locations based on the sound power levels for the plant inventory.
The main modelling assumptions are:
● No attenuation due to ground absorption (hard ground conditions throughout) ● No attenuation due to screening due to intervening buildings or topography (flat ground) ● Attenuation due to atmospheric absorption as ISO 9613-2 for 10°C ambient temperature and 70% humidity ● Each group of sources described in the noise allocation table is represented with point source elements and are located within the Project area as indicated in the plot plan accompanying the noise data in the Linde AG data sheet. Table 98 and Table 99 present an assessment of the operational impacts from the Project during daytime and night-time respectively. This shows that predicted operational noise levels of the Project do not exceed the IFC Noise Level Guidelines of 55 dB LAeq,1h for daytime or 45 dB LAeq,1h for night-time at any receptor. The operational noise levels are predicted to result in no change ambient noise levels at all receptors except at the prison where an increase of 2 dB is indicated and at Martysh where an increase of 1 dB is indicated. However, in all cases the magnitude of impact is assessed as negligible and therefore the significance of the impact is assessed to be negligible.
Table 98: Assessment of Predicted Operational Noise Impacts of the Project – Daytime, Leq dB(A)1 Sensitive Project Baseline daytime Ambient with Project Change in ambient Magnitude of Receptor impact Prosti 20 44 44 0 Negligible Alan' 22 40 40 0 Negligible Sobolekovo 21 (40)1 40 0 Negligible Nizhnekamsk 16 (40)1 40 0 Negligible Klyatle 17 41 41 0 Negligible Balchykly 15 (41)2 41 0 Negligible Martysh 32 39 40 +1 Negligible Ishteryakovo 24 40 40 0 Negligible Avlash 22 (40)3 40 0 Negligible Prison 42 43 45 +2 Negligible 2 Baseline conditions are represented by the results of the baseline measurements at Alan’. 3 Baseline conditions are represented by the results of the baseline measurements at Klyatle. 4 Baseline conditions are represented by the results of the baseline measurement at Ishteryakovo.
Table 99: Assessment of Predicted Operational Noise Impacts of the Project – Night-time, Leq dB(A) Sensitive Receptor Project Baseline night-time Ambient with Project Change in ambient Magnitude of impact Prosti 20 38 38 0 Negligible
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 229
Sensitive Receptor Project Baseline night-time Ambient with Project Change in ambient Magnitude of impact Alan' 22 36 36 0 Negligible Sobolekovo 21 (36)1 36 0 Negligible Nizhnekamsk 16 (36)1 36 0 Negligible Klyatle 17 37 37 0 Negligible Balchykly 15 (37)2 37 0 Negligible Martysh 32 36 37 +1 Negligible Ishteraykovo 24 36 36 0 Negligible Avlash 22 (36)3 36 0 Negligible Prison 42 43 45 +2 Negligible 2 Baseline conditions are represented by the results of the baseline measurements at Alan’. 3 Baseline conditions are represented by the results of the baseline measurements at Klyatle. 4 Baseline conditions are represented by the results of the baseline measurement at Ishteryakovo.
14.5.3 Miscellaneous Road Traffic Additional vehicle movements during the construction and operational phases of the Project may generate noise impacts from road traffic on local roads and site tracks. The total daily number of movements are not known at this stage but are not expected to increase flows by 25% which corresponds with a 1dB increase in road traffic noise. Therefore, the magnitude of the noise impact due to both construction and operational phase traffic movements is qualitatively assessed as negligible, and therefore the significance of impact is assessed to be negligible.
Vibration Ground-borne vibration from construction activities or operational sources has the potential to affect the occupiers of buildings or the structure itself. This is mainly associated with construction activities such as percussive piling or vibratory equipment used in demolition. This can be a matter of concern where this type of work is undertaken in close proximity to buildings. However, relatively high levels of vibration are required before the onset of cosmetic or structural damage, and this tends to develop only in combination with other issues such as differential settlement of the building.
Given the proximity of the development site to sensitive receptor positions offsite (closest at around 700m to any proposed infrastructure), effects due to vibration during construction works and during operation are qualitatively assessed as negligible.
14.6 Mitigation Measures
14.6.1 Construction Phase The control of noise arising from construction works is required to minimise adverse impacts on occupational health and safety with noise limits set out in section 4.0 of the IFC General EHS Guidelines: Construction and Decommissioning.
General guidance on the mitigation of noise during construction is given in the British Standard 5228 ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites – Part 1: Noise’ 2009+A1:2014 to minimise adverse effects due to construction. Activities associated with site excavation and foundation works have the potential to generate the greatest construction phase noise impacts. Specific mitigation measures for construction works are as follows:
● Undertake all noisy works during the daytime period ● Unnecessary revving of engines will be avoided and equipment will be switched off when not in use ● Internal haul routes will be kept well maintained
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 230
● Plant and vehicles will be sequentially started up rather than all together ● Use of effective exhaust silence systems or acoustic engine covers as appropriate ● Plants will always be used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions ● Care will be taken to locate site equipment away from noise-sensitive areas ● Where possible, loading and unloading will also be carried out away from such areas ● Regular and effective maintenance by trained personnel will be undertaken to keep plant and equipment working to manufacturers specifications.
14.6.2 Operational Phase The assessment has indicated that the noise impacts during operation are expected to be sufficiently low that no specific requirements for mitigation have been identified. However, it is expected that all equipment will be regularly serviced and maintained so that the effectiveness of any noise mitigation incorporated within the design of all components does not significantly reduce over the operational life of the items. Furthermore, requirements for the purposes of minimising the exposure of site operatives with regard to risks of potential hearing damage in the workplace will also serve to minimise impacts at or very close to the sources of noise.
Any periodic monitoring of operational noise levels should be carried out at the positions used for the baseline surveys as described above.
The assessment is based on the plant noise emission data provided by Linde and should be reviewed if there are any significant revisions to the noise-emitting equipment proposed to be installed.
14.7 Residual Impacts The assessment has shown that no residual impacts are expected due to either the construction or operational phases of the Project.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 231
15 Greenhouse Gas Assessment
15.1 Introduction This assessment identifies potential emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with the operation of the Project.
General Approach The Project has been assessed in line with the following applicable international lender standards and guidance.
International Finance Corporation Standards and Guidelines Performance Standard 3 of the 2012 edition of the IFC Sustainability Framework states “projects that are - expected to or currently produce more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually” will quantify GHG emissions “in accordance with internationally recognised methodologies and good practice.”
The IFC Carbon Emissions Estimator Tool (CEET)105 provides a set of compiled emission factors and calculations for quantification of GHGs released from combustion, incineration, electricity consumption and chemical production which are based on prominent data sources for each sector.
OECD Guidance The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has developed recommendations for assessing project related emissions in the ‘Recommendation of the Council on Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence (The “Common Approaches”).’106
Item 46 includes the following requirements:
● “Report the estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions from all fossil-fuel power plant project ● Report the estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions from other projects, where such emissions are projected to be in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2-equivalent annually and where the applicant or project sponsor has provided the Adherents with the necessary information e.g. via an ESIA report. In this context, adherents shall try to obtain and to report the estimated annual direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions (Scope I and II respectively) in CO2-equivalent and/or the estimated annual direct greenhouse gas emissions (Scope I) by carbon intensity (e.g. in g/kWh) for the six greenhouse gases to be generated during the operations phase of the project as provided during the environmental and social review”.
Equator Principles Principle 10 of the Equator Principles107 addresses reporting and transparency requirements. Relevant to GHG for category A and category B projects are the following points:
● “The client will ensure that, at a minimum, a summary of the ESIA is accessible and available online ● The client will publicly report GHG emission levels (combined scope 1 and scope 2 emissions) during the operational phase for Projects emitting over 100,000 tonnes of CO2equivalent annually”.
105 www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/.../IFC_CEET_Feb2014.rar?MOD=AJPERES 106 http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=TAD/ECG%282016%293&doclanguage=en 107 http://www.equator-principles.com/resources/equator_principles_III.pdf
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 232
Annex A of the Equator Principles details the quantification and reporting requirements of GHG. It covers the following points: ● “Quantification of GHG emissions will be conducted by the client in accordance with internationally recognised methodologies and good practice, for example, the GHG Protocol” ● “Clients will be encouraged to report publicly on projects emitting over 25,000 tonnes. Public reporting requirements can be satisfied via regulatory requirements for reporting or environmental impact assessments, or voluntary reporting mechanisms such as the Carbon Disclosure Project where such reporting includes emissions at project level”.
15.1.1 Scope This assessment considers ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ GHG emissions from the Project. Indirect emissions are emissions associated with the consumption of electricity generated off-site.
The potential sources of emissions from the Project, and those which have been quantified within the assessment are identified in Table 100.
Table 100: Potential sources of GHG emissions associated with the Project Emission source Type of emission Quantified in assessment? Six cracking furnaces Direct – combustion Yes Three Auxiliary Boilers Direct – combustion Yes Hydrogeneration Reactors Direct – regeneration No – emissions expected to be insignificant Incinerator Direct – combustion No – emissions expected to be insignificant Fugitive process emissions Direct – fugitive Yes Flaring Direct – combustion Yes Installations Direct – fugitive No – emissions expected to be insignificant Electricity consumption (including WWTP) Indirect – electricity Yes
This Chapter does not include consideration of the impacts of construction and decommissioning of the Project and is limited to the effects of the operational phase. Construction and decommissioning emissions associated with a project of this type are not considered to be significant compared to those released over the life of the Project.
15.2 Policy and Reference Emissions
15.2.1 Background The ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ is a global process that heats up the earth, whereby the short wavelengths of visible light are radiated by the sun and the re-radiated longer wavelengths (infrared radiation) are absorbed by greenhouse gasses and are trapped within the troposphere. Without the existence of GHG the global temperature is estimated to be approximately 33ºC cooler making the average global temperature -18ºC. Pre- historic concentrations of GHG have been measured using carbon dating from ice cores and in more recent times, monitored data. The measurements show that GHG in the atmosphere has varied through the different stages of the Earth’s known existence. The increase in GHG since the industrial revolution has grown exponentially causing an increase in the warming potential of the atmosphere. CO2 does not give rise to local health effects in ambient concentrations, but it is a significant GHG and therefore a contributor to the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect.’ CO2 is the most common GHG in the atmosphere although it is not the most effective gas at trapping radiation on a unit-by-unit basis. The amount of each GHG is normalised relative to the mass of CO2 due to its prevalence in the atmosphere – this reflects the fact that although other GHG are emitted in smaller quantities, they may be more effective at trapping radiation. The total of all GHG are expressed as CO2 equivalents or CO2e.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 233
The understanding that contribution of GHG could eventually result in climate change led to the development of the Montreal Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
With the coming into legal effect of the Paris Agreement in November 2016, the global community is poised to implement a wide-ranging set of obligations on tackling the issues of climate change. These obligations will impact on all sectors and all regions of the world, and will require a unique collaboration of public sector and private enterprise organisations to deal with the necessity of further reducing global emissions and managing the effects of climate change already taking place. The Russian Federation signed the Paris Agreement in April 2016 but has not yet ratified it.
15.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions According to the UNFCCC’s GHG emission profile for the Russian Federation, GHG emissions fell from 3,768Mt CO2e in 1990 to 2,651Mt CO2e in 2015; a decrease in emissions of approximately 30%.
GHG emissions in the energy sector fell from 3,075Mt CO2e in 1990 to 2,194Mt CO2e in 2015. For the purposes of reporting, the energy sector is broken down into two categories and splits further into seven sub-categories. The sub-categories include GHG emissions from manufacturing, construction and transport amongst others. The UNFCCC’s database of sector GHG emissions provides a category for ethylene production in the Industrial Processes category; however, this category has not been estimated in any of the Russian Federation inventories alongside some other categories within Industrial Processes and therefore the subtotal is likely to be underestimated. A summary of the reported GHG emissions for the Russian Federation inventory are presented in Table 101.
Table 101: Summary of the Russian GHG Emission Trends by Sector in 1990 and 2015 (Mt CO2e) Sector108 1990 2015 National Total 3,768 2,651 Energy Sector Total 3,077 2,194 Energy Industries 1,171 821 Manufacturing Industries and Construction 213 154 Fugitive Emissions 789 765 Industrial Processes Total 298 209 Source: UNFCCC National Inventory Reports for Annex I Parties and Major Groups, (a) National Inventory Report 2017 of the Russian Federation, (b) For period 1990-2015.109
15.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria
15.3.1 Overview This section discusses the methodology for quantifying the emissions associated with electricity consumption during the operational phase of the Project.
Indirect GHG emissions associated with consuming electricity from the Russian Federation’s national grid are provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA).110 The latest version of the IEA data tables used to calculate these values were published in 2016, and are widely used in other data sources (including the IFC CEET).
108 Only relevant categories are presented in this table, and therefore subcategories may not add up to the totals, for example transport fuel consumption is excluded from the Energy Sector total 109 http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/10116.php 110 IEA CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, 2016 Edition
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 234
15.3.2 Calculation Methodology Indirect Emissions Combustion emissions
Direct GHG emissions from the cracking heaters and auxiliary boilers have been calculated based on the estimated flue gas flows from each emission point provided by Linde AG.111 Each flow is referenced to standard temperature and pressure and an expected composition. From this information, the flow of CO2 and other gases can be calculated and then converted to mass. Non-CO2 GHGs were converted using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPPC’s) 100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWP) from AR5.112
CO2e = Flue gas volume X Fraction of GHG X Density X GWP t / y Nm3/y % t/Nm3 n
Units CO2e – tonnes per year Nm3 – volume at standard temperature and pressure
Flaring emissions
Direct GHG emissions from the flaring have been calculated based on the estimated gas flows sent to the flare provided by Linde AG. This flow is expressed in mass and has a composition. It is assumed that all of the gas is fully oxidised to CO2. The calculation is expressed as follows:
CO2e = Flow of gas X Fraction of GHG X Oxidation factor X GWP t / y t / y % n n
Fugitive emissions
Fugitive emissions are calculated following the same logic as the combustion emissions except that the amount of gas lost was expressed in terms of mass. Therefore, the calculation is as follows:
CO2e = Gas released X Fraction of GHG X GWP t / y t / y % n
Indirect Emissions Plant Electricity Consumption
The 2015 electricity generation grid emission factor provided by the IEA for the Russian Federation is 0.38tCO2 per MWh and is the latest available value.
CO2e = Electricity Consumption X Grid Emission Factor
t / y MWh tCO2e per MWh
Units CO2e – tonnes per year Project consumption – megawatt hours Grid Emission Factor – tonnes of CO2 per megawatt hour
15.3.3 Inputs Electricity use at the plant has been estimated based on the expected consumption for the EP-600. This is presented below.
111 Linde Document AA-S-LU 1001.001 (EN) Air Emission Summary 112 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2014
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 235
Table 102: GHG Calculation Inputs for Combustion Emissions
3 Source Flue Gas Volume (Nm ) Fraction of CO2 (%) Flue gas furnace x 5 564,000 8.40 Decoking 61,600 4.00 Standby x 1 43,200 3.60 Wet decoking 34,000 0.40 HP Steam Boilers (normal) PA101+102 8780 9.03 HP Steam Boilers (normal) PA 111-113 168,300 8.68 Source: Linde AG
Table 103: GHG Calculation Inputs for Flaring Input Value Unit Flow 800 kg per hour Methane fraction in gas 98.1 %
C2H4 fraction in gas 0.2 % Source: Linde AG
Table 104: GHG Calculation Inputs for Fugitive Emissions Input Value Unit Release 15 kg per hour Methane fraction in gas 16.12 %
CO2 fraction in gas 0.01 % Source: Linde AG
Table 105: GHG Calculation Inputs for Electricity Input Value Unit Project Electricity Consumption 315.720 Megawatt hours per year
Grid Emission Factor 0.38 Tonnes CO2e per MWh
Source: IEA CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, 2016
15.3.4 Assumptions This assessment has conservatively assumed the following:
● Continuous operation at ‘base case normal’ operation ● One operational year is equal is 8,000 hours.
15.3.5 Assessment of Impact Significance It is typical in an ESIA to assess the size of impacts and then attach a level of significance to this – such an assessment is not easily completed in relation to GHG emissions and can skew the interpretation of the results.
The global nature of emissions of GHG and the difficulty in linking the emissions of a single plant or project to a specific impact on receptors is difficult and unlike other environmental impacts. It is made more complicated due to the complexities of GHG emissions being closely related to economic growth, and in international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, nations with low emissions are afforded more scope to increase their emissions than more developed nations that already have high levels of emissions (indeed, the latter are expected to reduce their emissions).
The relationship of individual project emissions to global atmospheric emissions combined with the uncertainty about global atmospheric response is very complex and as such determining the significance of such individual emissions on a local scale is not possible.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 236
The relationship of emissions from individual projects to national objectives or even international reduction targets is also difficult to resolve as the national / international policies contain provisions for growth and development as well as action plans for emissions reductions. For this reason, there are currently no published guidelines for determining the significance of project GHG emissions in ESIAs including those of the major international lenders.
The Guidance Notes for IFC Performance Standard 3 suggest the following methods of evaluation of project GHG emissions, presented in Table 106.
Table 106: Suggested IFC Criteria for Assessing GHG Emission Impacts IFC Criteria Comments The project’s GHG emissions relative to the host country Discussed in the relevant parts of this assessment total national emissions to understand the magnitude of its own emissions The project’s GHG emissions performance relative to the The project has a complex set of inputs and output products and good international practice performance / host country therefore establishing a suitable comparator for performance is not national average performance possible. In addition, there is little information on national or regional performance or total emissions for this type of process The annual trend of the project’s GHG emissions This has been considered as part of the monitoring plan for the project performance over time to monitor deterioration from the and included within the ESMMP originally designed performance Opportunities to further improve the project’s GHG This has been considered in the mitigation section of this assessment. emissions performance Note that benefits could also extend to cost savings or expenditure for different emission reduction strategies.
The IFC guidance does not, however, recommend how to assign significance to any of the impacts associated with a project, with the guidance pointing only to a presentation of the impacts. Therefore, in this assessment, the criteria presented in the IFC guidance have been used and an account of the emissions has been presented but no level of significance attached to the Projects’ emissions.
15.4 Assessment of Impacts This section presents the calculated GHG emissions based on the method outlined in Section 15.3.
15.4.1 Estimate of GHG Emissions Calculations are based on the input data listed in Section 15.3.
Table 107: GHG Emissions Associated with Direct Emissions
Source GHG Emissions (Mt CO2e / year) Cracking furnaces and boilers 1.05 Flaring 0.02 Fugitive emissions Negligible
Table 108: GHG Emissions Associated with Indirect Electricity Consumption
Source Electricity Consumed, MWh GHG Emissions, Mt CO2e / year EP-600 National Grid 315.72 0.12
15.4.2 Summary
Total emissions associated with the operation of the Project are expected to be 1.19 Mt CO2e per year. The GHG emissions from one year of the Project would represent less than 1% of the reported emissions from the Russian Federation’s Manufacturing and Construction sector (2015) (although the currently reported figures exclude a number of sub-sectors, including a large part of the chemical industry) and even less of total reported national emissions respectively.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 237
15.5 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or reduce GHG emissions are as follows:
● The design of the ethylene cracker unit will be that way to avoid or minimize gaseous emissions
● Optimized energy efficiency to minimise emissions of CO2 ● Efficient use of electricity from power stations in the industrial area ● Production of by-products may offset production of the same products elsewhere where the process is not as efficient.
15.6 Summary This assessment has quantified the operational GHG emissions from the Project. The sources of emissions that have been considered are from electricity consumption associated with the operation of the EP-600 plant. The calculations were based on current Project data, methodology and emissions factor taken from the IFC CEET and the IEA. This assessment has conservatively assumed that the Project will operate for 8,000 hours per year, at 100% load and availability. The calculated total GHG emissions from the operation of the Project are 1.19 Mt CO2e per year.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 238
16 Cultural Heritage
16.1 Introduction This chapter describes the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the Project upon known and potential cultural heritage aspects of the area and sets out the proposed mitigation in order to minimise the impact of the Project upon the cultural heritage resource. The cultural heritage baseline assessment identified the existing cultural heritage conditions within and adjacent to the site and the general nature of archaeological deposits in Tatarstan focusing on sites identified on the Nizhnekamsk Municipal Region and located in the middle of the left bank area of Lower Prikamie. This chapter assesses the impact of the Project on identified cultural heritage resources, addressing direct impacts on cultural heritage assets (disturbance or destruction through construction / excavation) and indirect impacts (setting and pollution at tangible cultural heritage sites or loss / damage to intangible forms of culture).
16.2 Legislation
16.2.1 Russian Federation The key Russian Federation law regulating cultural heritage protection is Federal Law No.73-FZ dated 25.06.2002 “On Cultural Heritage (monuments of history and art) of the Russian Federation Nations.”
This Federal Law regulates issues in relation to protection, use, promotion and state conservation of the cultural heritage (monuments of history and art) of the Russian Federation. The law is aimed at implementation of the peoples’ constitutional right for access to the cultural values and everybody’s constitutional responsibility to care for the preservation of the historical and cultural heritage, to preserve historical and cultural monuments, as well as enforce the nations or other ethnos rights in the Russian Federation for:
● Preservation and development of their cultural-national identity ● Protection, restoration and conservation of the historical-cultural environment ● Protection and preservation of the information sources about culture origin and development. The objective of the Law is to guarantee the preservation of cultural heritage in the interests of present and future generations of the Russian Federation.
16.2.2 Republic of Tatarstan Standards Provision for the protection of Cultural Heritage is accounted for within the Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan. Article 57 states: ‘Everyone shall be obliged to care for the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, to protect historical and cultural monuments.’
16.2.3 International Finance Corporation Standards The development of the proposed Project should comply with International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 8: Cultural Heritage, 2012. Performance Standard 8 aims to ‘preserve and protect cultural heritage by avoiding, reducing, restoring, where possible, and in some cases compensating for the adverse impacts that projects might cause to cultural heritage’ and recognises the importance of cultural heritage for current and future generations. Consistent with the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, this Performance Standard aims to ensure that clients protect cultural heritage in the course of their project activities.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 239
16.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria The cultural heritage assessment has been conducted in line with IFC Performance Standard 8 Cultural Heritage, 2012. Baseline data has been sourced from:
● UNESCO online database of World Heritage Sites ● Published and unpublished (grey literature) articles ● Various relevant websites.113 114
16.3.1 Spatial and Temporal Scope of Assessment The zone of influence will encompass the (i) primary Project site and related facilities that the client (including its contractors) develops or controls, such access roads and construction camps (ii) areas potentially impacted by cumulative impacts from further planned development of the Project; and (iii) areas potentially affected by impacts from unplanned but predictable developments caused by the Project that may occur later or at a different location. The zone of influence does not include potential impacts that would occur independently of the Project.
Risks will be analysed for key stages of the project cycle including pre-construction, construction, operations and decommissioning or closure.
16.3.2 Impact Assessment Criteria An assessment of the significance of impacts with regards to cultural heritage and archaeology has been made for the construction (including any pre-construction activities), operational and decommissioning phases of the Project. The significance of potential impacts is a function of the presence and sensitivity of archaeological receptors, and the magnitude (duration, spatial extent, reversibility, likelihood and threshold) of the impact.
Sensitivity criteria The sensitivity of the archaeological potential for a site is shown in Table 109.
Table 109: Criteria of Value Sensitivity High Sites of the highest importance, e.g. World Heritage Sites (including nominated sites), assets of acknowledged international and/or national importance and assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives Medium Undesignated archaeological sites; well preserved structures or buildings of historical significance, historic landscapes or assets of a reasonably defined extent and significance, or reasonable evidence of occupation / settlement, ritual, industrial activity. Low Comprises undesignated sites with some evidence of human activity but which are in a fragmentary or poor state or assets of limited historic value but which have the potential to contribute to local research objectives, structures or buildings of potential historical merit Negligible Historic assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest or historic buildings and landscapes of no historical significance.
Magnitude criteria The degree or magnitude of effect is determined through consideration of the nature, scale and extent of effect. The criteria for determining magnitude are shown in Table 110.
113 http://mincult.tatarstan.ru 114 https://www.mkrf.ru
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 240
Table 110: Magnitude Criteria Magnitude Major Severe damage or loss of the cultural heritage resource Moderate A high proportion of the cultural heritage resource damaged or destroyed Minor A small proportion of the cultural heritage resource damaged or destroyed Negligible The cultural heritage resource will not be affected, because of distance from the development, or method of construction
Significance The significance of the effect is dependent upon the importance of a particular site and the amount of potential damage. Chapter 5 presents the manner in which the significance of impacts is determined by the interaction between the magnitude of impacts and the sensitivity of receptors affected.
16.4 Baseline Description
16.4.1 Site location The site is located within the Nizhnekamsk Municipal Region in the middle of the left bank area of Lower Prikamye, located some 175km to the east of the capital of Kazan in the Republic of Tatarstan. The Project lies within an existing industrial area and is bound at the north by a reinforced concrete fence. The landscape is currently used for industrial purposes only. No archaeological remains are present within the immediate vicinity of the site.
16.4.2 Archaeological and Historical Background Palaeolithic development The Project site lies within the eastern extent of the Eurasian continent, within an area that is known to contain evidence for the development of prehistoric communities dating as far back as 20,000 years before the present time. Arguably the most important site within the Eurasian continent is that of the Kostenki and Borshevo sites, located to the southwest of the Project site. These comprise over twenty sites and demonstrate occupation within the Russian steppe to have been fairly continuous from the Upper Palaeolithic through to the Mesolithic period. No obvious archaeology dating from the Palaeolithic period is recognised as being present within the vicinity to the Project site.
The Prehistoric Period The Project lies approximately 175km to the east of Kazan, a UNESCO World Heritage Site (site number 930) which dates as far back as the 7th and 8th millennia BC. In the area surrounding the site, the Andronovo Culture (1800-1400 BC) represents an overarching social group.
Links to horse domestication and chariot construction, as well as creating social elites and the rise of city states occurs from the intermingling of such populations, although the wealth of information regarding differing ‘cultural’ assemblages is somewhat confusing and unworkable in some respects (Kohl 2006, and Gei 1999). This area of the world was socially complex due to the geographical location, occupying a periphery zone between Atlantic Bronze and Iron Age metal-working traditions of Western Europe and the highly developed and ritualised Chinese societies to the south.
The use of burial mounds, known as ‘Kurgans’ are seen from as early as the sixth millennium BC, and continues into the medieval period within the regions concerned within the remit of this ESIA. A burial mound located at Bol’shie Aty Village, is located 25km to the southwest of the Project site, 1.3km to the northwest of the village, may date from the prehistoric period.
Within the Kazan region, there are traces of the Bronze Age (2nd to 1st millennia, late Kazan area settlement), early Iron Age (8th to 6th centuries BC, Ananin culture), and early medieval period (4th-5th centuries AD,
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 241
Azelin culture). From the 10th to 13th centuries the Kazan region was a pre-Mongol Bulgar town (UNESCO heritage information).
Sites identified within the region, and which date to this period of time include sites within:
● Svetly Klyuch Village. An ancient settlement associated with the Ananyinsky culture, located 0.9km to the southwest of the village. Comprising a triangular formed settlement with a rampart, 1m in height and forested. ● Beliakhchi Village. An ancient settlement located 2.5km from the Village of Beliakchinsky, comprising an irregularly shaped settlement protected by ramparts (2.2m height) and a ditched enclosure. ● Gorodishchensky Village (located 60km to the southwest of the site). An ancient settlement of three hectares in size. Comprising ditches and ramparts which contained Bronze age finds. It is possible that this site was occupied in later prehistoric period as most finds are from Bulgar period and comprise ceramics, metal work, grinding stones. ● Smylovka Village (located 26km to the south west of the site), all of which demonstrate remains of later Iron Age communities within this area of Eurasia. Rectangular in shape and protected by a 1.5m high rampart and ditch of 0.5m depth, the settlement shows extensive damage at the eastern extent and occupational layers are scantly represented. Limited finds of prehistoric origin.
16.4.3 The Volga-Bulgarian Period By the early first millennia, effects of a climatic warming episode in the eight century BC set a domino effect in motion that would see the displacement of several nomadic communities, pushing those in existence north, with the Scythians becoming actively present within the study area.
The Bolgars (or Bulgars) encompass the nomadic tribes of the area. The name is derived from the Turkic verb bulğa meaning to mix, shake or stir and possibly accurately reflects the multi-ethnic intermingling in evidence during this period of history. By the seventh century AD, the Bolgars, who had become sedentary, established a polity under the reign of Kubrat and located between the lower Volga and Dniester Rivers. On his death in 668, his son Kotrag established the Volga-Bulgarian stronghold, with a capital based in Bolgar (some 36km to the south west of the Project site), Bilyar and later in Kazan (240km to the west).
During the ninth century, the previously pagan society was invited to convert to Islam, and existing runic characters were replaced by Arabic script, stimulating the development of science, philosophy, and literature. Islam created and strengthened the principal traditions of Tatar-Bulgarian culture. Muslim spiritual affinity promoted commercial and diplomatic relations between the Volga Bulgars and the vast Islamic world, and brought about the need to mint Arabic coinage (dirhams).
Funerary rights changed within the period of time, from the Kurgan burial mounds to gravestones associated with Muslim religious practice. The earliest demonstration of this phenomenon is well-known in historical literature and dates back to 1224 AD. Belonging within the territory of Bolshoy-Atryask, a gravestone is described as having ‘a beautiful inscription on it, formed using the present-day Kazan Tatar language’ (A. Burkhanov).
Sites located nearby to the Project which relate to this period of time include:
● Krasnaya Kadka (located 22km to the south west of the Project) shows evidence of a triangular settlement with a rampart and ditch. Bulgar pottery forms of pre-Mongolian (ninth to twelfth century) origin are found within this settlement. ● Oshinsky settlement (approximately 20km to the south west of the Project site). The settlement, which is semi-circular, contains cultural layers with early Bulgar period pottery forms. ● Yelabuga (historically known as Alabuga), a castle built by the Khan Ibrahim in 985 AD, and is located approximately 21km to the northeast of the Project site.
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 242
● Kayenly Village Cemetery, located approximately 16km to the southwest of the Project site, contains burial holes with west-north west orientation, common in Muslim burial practice. Due to lack of structural evidence, it is probable that it is an earlier Bolgar site.
16.4.4 The formation of the Kazan Khanate In 1236 Volga-Bulgaria was invaded by Mongol-Tatars, the territory of Volga-Bulgaria was annexed to the Empire of Genghis Khan and became the part of the Turkic state Zolotaya Orda (Golden Horde). The collapse of the Golden Horde in the 1330-1340s resulted in the formation of a number of new states, including the Kazan Khanate.
Kazan became the capital of the newly formed state. The Kazan Khanate also played a special role in the destiny of the Tartar ethnic group, as it was the Kazan Tartars who became the consolidating core in the formation of the Tartar nation. The capital kept on developing architectural traditions, which included white stone and brick buildings, which were erected in the Kazan Kremlin.
After numerous wars and the seizure of Kazan in 1552, the Kazan Khanate was annexed by the Russian state. However, Kazan remained the religious and cultural centre for Moslems of the middle-Volga region. Migrants from Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov and other Russian cities arriving in Kazan introduced some elements of Russian culture, which in turn had not escaped the influence of Eastern culture. This became apparent in altered church architecture (decorative methods, oriental ornamentation), the appearance of magnificent oriental designs, and polychrome, which were unusual in Russian art, but took root in it through borrowing the art patterns of Tartar culture.
Sites dating from the middle thirteenth century and located within proximity to the site include the following:
● Elantovo Village (located approximately 58km to the south west of the Project site) contained three distinct levels of occupation. A copper jug containing silver Juchi coins was found at Elantovo I and a hoard of gold Orda coins at Elantovo II. Both are associated with the Golden Horde period. ● Sredniye Chelny Village. A gravestone dated to 1323, located approximately 132km to the south of the Project. ● Klyatle Village. A gravestone typologically dated to fourteenth century (roughly contemporaneous to that of the above). ● Sverdlovsk Township. Contains remnants of a settlement associated with Imenkovsky period (Golden Horde period) ceramics (located more than 500km to the north-east of the Project site).
16.4.5 Sixteenth Century AD- Twenty-first Century AD In 1552, Russian forces took Kazan by storm; as a result of Ivan the Terrible's Volga campaign, the town became the new Christian capital of the Volga Land. The new Russian Kremlin was similar to the Tatar fortress. In the 16th and 17th centuries there were no large-scale constructions in the Kremlin; the surviving Tatar buildings were reused and the mosques were gradually converted into Christian churches. Throughout these times Kazan retained its commemorative function, reflected in the saint's tomb near the Transfiguration Cathedral, the churches of St Nicholas Ratny and Nikita Selunskii, the chapel of the Vernicle, and the Holy (Tainitskii) Spring.
In the early 18th century Kazan became the capital of Kazan Province, including vast territories of the Volga and Ural lands. The administrative centre of the former Kazan Kingdom, located in the south, was returned to the northern part, where it had been at the time of the Tatars.
The urban layout of the Kremlin was made more regular and some old streets from the Khanate Kazan were eliminated. The functions remained essentially the same as before. The loss of military significance and the emphasis on administration made the fortress merely an inner court of the provincial administration. This is
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 243
seen particularly in the orientation of all the main elevations towards the city. Small-scale administrative buildings in different styles were added to the ensemble.
On September 22, 1994, the Kremlin was established as the Historical, Architectural, and Artistic Museum "Kazan Kremlin." The building should enrich the townscape, and symbolize the peaceful coexistence of the two main religions of Tatarstan, Islam and Christianity.
No sites dating from the sixteenth century to the modern period are known to exist within the vicinity to the Project.
16.4.6 Key Gaps in Information Regarding Baseline Conditions This archaeological baseline has been compiled using available information. Overall, there is little cultural heritage and archaeological data available for the region specific to the Project. However, there is no indication that remains of international or national importance are present within the ZoI.
16.4.7 Conclusion By the information of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Tatarstan115 there are no known or registered sites of historical or cultural importance within the proposed Project site area.
16.5 Assessment of Impacts
16.5.1 Construction Any impacts to cultural heritage assets would occur during the construction phase of the Project. No Project infrastructure or construction activities will occur within 200m of any known cultural heritage features and therefore there will be no direct impact to known cultural heritage assets.
There is the potential for previously undiscovered archaeological remains (buried archaeology) to be impacted by the preparatory site works at the Project site location.
16.5.2 Operation The operation of the proposed Project will unlikely impact any known or unknown archaeological remains and artefacts as, should any be present, they will have been disturbed and removed during the construction phase. Therefore, the impact is considered neutral.
16.5.3 Decommissioning Decommissioning the Project will have no impact upon the cultural heritage resource because the activities associated with decommissioning will be confined to areas previously impacted during the construction phase of the Project.
16.6 Mitigation Measures
16.6.1 Abnormal or Emergency Conditions In the event of unknown archaeological finds or features being identified during the course of Project construction groundworks, an emergency procedure will be required in order to stop work and allow for the assessment of the archaeological potential of the remains. A ‘chance finds procedure’ will be included within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). If buried archaeological remains are of significance, then a system will be put in place to mitigate harm. This may involve protecting the remains or a system to excavate and record the remains.
115 http://mincult.tatarstan.ru/rus/gosudarstvenniy-kontrol-nadzor.htm
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 244
16.7 Residual Impacts No other developments near the site have been identified with potential to generate cumulative effects with the Project.
Table 111: Summary of Impacts Activity Potential Sensitivity Magnitude Impact Mitigation Residual Impacts Significance Impacts Construction Preparation of Loss of Medium Moderate Moderate Contractor to develop a chance finds Negligible EP-600 work archaeological adverse procedure prior to works commencing site features that outline approach in accordance with present this ESIA and associated ESMMP. Provide training to contractor supervisors and workers in the requirements of the chance finds procedure. No operational or decommissioning impacts
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 245
Appendices
A. ESIA Stakeholder Consultation 246
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 246
A. ESIA Stakeholder Consultation
Event Participants Key issues raised 20 June 2017 Nizhnekamsk District ● Mr. Alfred G. Nigmatzianov – Deputy Head of Presentation of the Consultant’s team and Municipality the Nizhnekamsky MD Executive Committee assignment. NKNK’s plans to expand ethylene ● Mr. Grigory L. Kitanov – Advisor of the production and develop a new EP-600 Plant within Nizhnekamsky MD, Chairman of the local the existing site. General situation in the region and Public Organisation of Veterans (Pensioners) rural settlements of the Nzhnekamsky and Tukaevsky of War, Labour, Armed Forces and Law MDs located in the Project’s zone of influence (ZoI). Enforcement Agencies, Nizhnekamsky MD The WWTP status and its SPZ. Complaints from residents of the Afanasovo rural settlement on odour ● Ms. Yulia N. Golitsina – Head of the Document from the wastewater sewer and concerns of residents Control Division of the Nizhnekamsky MD of Ishteryakovo rural settlement associated with the Counsel blue fog. Restrictions to extend the boundaries of the ● Mr. Albert R. Dirzizov – Head of the PR and growing Afanasovo rural settlement due to existing Ethnicity Division of the Nizhnekamsky MD boundaries of the allocated land. Plans to unload the Executive Committee existing sewer. Computerised monitoring system to ● Mr. Nikolai A. Bourmistrov – Head of the measure maximum allowable concentrations of Afanasovo rural settlement, Nizhnekamsky MD pollutants. Increasing number of small businesses in ● Mr. Damir A. Badartinov – Head of the Prosti Nizhnekamsk using the municipal sewage system. rural settlement, Nizhnekamsky MD Rumours about relocation of Kliuch Truda village ● Mr. Ramil Kh. Salimov – Head of the Shingalchi located in the Shingalchi rural settlement. rural settlement, Nizhnekamsky MD Resettlement status of the Alan village. Resettlement status of the Martysh village. Inclusion of the cottage ● Mr. Mansur Sh. Sakhbeev – Head of the Biklan’ rural settlement, Tukaevsky MD town of Biklyan’ forestry in the list of Project stakeholders. Employment opportunities for residents ● Ms. Goulnara S. Garifulina – Head of the of the Nizhnekamsky MD. Social programmes of local Ishtiriakovsky rural settlement, Tukaevsky MD industries to assist rural schools and hospitals. The ● Mr. Youlia A. Roudenko – Chairperson of the possibility of arranging a site visit to NKNK site for Local Governance Counsel of the Stroitelei representatives of rural settlements similar to the village, Nizhnekamsk event arranged earlier by TAIF. ● Mr. Vasily N. Shuisky – NKNK Deputy General Interaction between NKNK and Nizhnekamsk District Director for HR and Social Issues Municipality in respect of the Project. The system of ● Mr. Victor S. Trifonov – NKNK Deputy General vocational education in Nizhnekamsk and the Director, Director of the Grassroots Olefins Republic of Tatarstan. Low staff turnover in NKNK. Complex Directorate (GOCD) Status of pensioners in the Nizhnekamsky MD, ● Ms. Irina F. Notphulina – Head of the NKNK Nizhnekamsk and NKNK. Taxes paid by NKNK to the Laboratory for Social and Psychological municipal, regional and federal budgets. Support with Surveys and Studies, NKNK information request for the ESIA study. ● Ms. Svetlana T. Yamkova – Head of the Department for Environmental Protection, NKNK ● Mr. Adil A. Khairulin – Trade Union Chairman, NKNK ● Mr. Jan Bangert – Project Manager Business Development and Sales, Petrochemical Plants, Linde AG ● Mr. Sergey N. Goncharov – Environmental Expert, Mott MacDonald ● Ms. Aliona V. Strokina – Social Expert, Mott MacDonald
22 June 2017 Nizhnekamsk ● Mr. Igor V. Sokovykh – Director of the Presentation of the Consultant’s team and Employment Centre Employment Centre assignment. The current situation in the labour market ● Ms. Elena A. Yakupova – Deputy DGOC in the Nizhnekamsky MD and the city of Director, NKNK Nizhnekamsk. Job quotas for the disabled. Unemployment rate (registered) – trends and current ● Ms. Lilia M. Zaripova – Head of the HR situation. Unemployment rates among male and Department, NKNK female population. The main qualifications of workers in the labour market and the most popular professions. The of unemployed of construction
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 247
Event Participants Key issues raised ● Mr. Jan Bangert – Project Manager Business professions. Cooperation with NKNK. Support with Development and Sales, Petrochemical Plants, information request on the unemployed in the rural Linde AG settlements for the ESIA study. Interest in obtaining ● Mr. Sergey N. Goncharov – Environmental the ESIA Report. Expert, Mott MacDonald ● Ms. Aliona V. Strokina – Social expert, Mott MacDonald Social Welfare Authority ● Ms Vera F. Antonova – Deputy Head of the Presentation of the Consultant’s team and for the Nizhnekamsky Authority assignment. Social welfare situation in the Municipal District of the ● Ms. Elena A. Yakupova – Deputy DGOC Nizhnekamsky MD and the city of Nizhnekamsk. Ministry of Labour, Director, NKNK Vulnerable and low-income groups of population and Employment and Social social protection measures. Barrier-free environment ● Ms. Lilia M. Zaripova – Head of HR Welfare of the Republic of in the city for the low mobility groups of population. Department, NKNK Tatarstan Civil society organisations for the disabled. ● Mr. Jan Bangert – Project Manager Business Government support to the disabled. Social Service Development and Sales, Petrochemical Plants, Centres. Linde AG Interest in the Project. Support with information ● Mr. Sergey N. Goncharov – Environmental request for the ESIA study. Expert, Mott MacDonald ● Ms. Aliona V. Strokina – Social expert, Mott MacDonald Nizhnekamsk Statistics ● Ms. Vasilia N. Kadirova – Head of the Office Information about the Project. Presentation of the Office of the Regional ● Ms. Elena A. Yakupova – Deputy DGOC Consultant’s team and assignment. Statistics Authority for Director, NKNK Demographic data for the Nizhnekamsky MD and the the Republic of ● Ms. Aliona V. Strokina – Social expert, Mott city disaggregated by sex and age groups. Ethnic Tatarstan under the MacDonald groups of population in the Nizhnekamsky MD and Federal Statistics the city of Nizhnekamsk. Information on households Service in the Nizhnekamsky MD by age groups and by household size. Population incomes. Migration growth. Natural population growth. Households incomes. Support with information request for the ESIA study. Zakamskoye Local ● Mr. Alexey G. Lobanov – Head of the Local Presentation of the Consultant’s team and Authority of the Ministry of Authority assignment. NKNK’s plans to expand ethylene Ecology and Natural ● Ms. Elena A. Yakupova – Deputy DGOC production and develop a new EP-600 Plant within Resources of the Republic Director, NKNK the existing site. Supervision role in environmental of Tatarstan management and controlling environmental impacts. ● Mr. Andrey V. Rubezhpv – Deputy Chief Minimisation of NKNK impacts at the city boundary. Engineer for Environment, NKNK Measures to control emissions. Community ● Ms. Svetlana T. Yamkova – Head of the grievances. Small businesses. Interest in obtaining Department for Environmental Protection, the ESIA Report for comment. NKNK ● Mr. Jan Bangert – Project Manager Business Development and Sales, Petrochemical Plants, Linde AG ● Mr. Sergey N. Goncharov – Environmental Expert, Mott MacDonald ● Ms. Aliona V. Strokina – Social expert, Mott MacDonald Regional Authority of the ● Mr. Rustem M. Iziyatulin – Chief Medical Officer Presentation of the Consultant’s team and Federal Service for of the Nizhnekamsky Municipal District and the assignment. NKNK’s plans to expand ethylene Supervision of Consumer city of Nizhnekamsk production and develop a new EP-600 Plant within Rights Protection and ● Mr. Andrey V. Rubezhpv – Deputy Chief the existing site. Discussion of the potential public Welfare in the Republic of Engineer for Environment, NKNK health risks of the Project. The individual SPZ of Tatarstan. Local Office for NKNK and the overall SPZ of the industrial hub. ● Ms. Svetlana T. Yamkova – Head of the the Nizhnekamsky Dispersion calculations taking into account MPC at Department for Environmental Protection, Municipal District and the the boundary of the SPZ. Support with information NKNK city of Nizhnekamsk request for the ESIA study. ● Mr. Sergey N. Goncharov – Environmental Expert, Mott MacDonald Nizhnekamsky Municipal ● Ms. Venera R. Rakhimova – Head of the Presentation of the Consultant’s team and District Health Authority of Authority assignment. NKNK’s plans to expand ethylene the Health Ministry of the ● Ms. Elena A. Yakupova – Deputy DGOC production and develop a new EP-600 Plant within Republic of Tatarstan Director, NKNK the existing site. Health situation the city of Nizhnekamsk and the Nizhnekamsky MD. Birth and ● Mr. Nikita O. Sergeev – Deputy Head of the death indicators. Fertility and mortality indicators. Reporting and Manuals, NKNK
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 248
Event Participants Key issues raised ● Mr. Jan Bangert – Project Manager Business Morbidity by age groups. Out-patient and polyclinic Development and Sales, Petrochemical institutions in the city. Risks associated with the influx Plants, Linde AG of construction workers in Nizhnekamsk for the ● Ms. Aliona V. Strokina – Social expert, Mott period of construction. Mandatory medical control MacDonald (fluorography, HIV / AIDS, sexual infections). Interest in commenting on the ESIA Report. Support with information request for the ESIA study. 30 August 2017 Heads of rural settlements ● Mr. Nikolai A. Bourmistrov – Head of the Update on the ESIA status. ESIA disclosure in Nizhnekamsky MD: Afanasovo rural settlement, Nizhnekamsky MD programme. Consultations on the most effective ● Afanasovo ● Mr. Ramil Kh. Salimov – Head of the Shingalchi ways to publicize ESIA documentation in rural settlements. The possibility of publishing ESIA ● Shingalchi rural settlement, Nizhnekamsky MD materials on the websites of rural settlements and ● Ms. Elena A. Yakupova – Deputy DGOC keeping hard copies in public buildings. Box and Director, NKNK forms for collecting comments and proposals on the ● Mr. Roman V. Vasilyev – DGOC Chief ESIA. The Project NTS and the need to have the NTS Engineer, NKNK translated in the Tatar language. Project exhibition ● Mr. Aleksei N. Danilov – Deputy Head of the events in Nizhnekamsk and rural settlement. Production and technical Department, DGOC, Current environment in the ACs. Social conflicts or NKNK strain. Current issues. ● Ms. Rosa M. Zakirova – Lead Social Scientist of the Laboratory for Social and Psychological Surveys and Studies, NKNK ● Mr. Sergey N. Goncharov – Environmental Expert, Mott MacDonald ● Ms. Aliona V. Strokina – Social Expert, Mott MacDonald 31 August 2017 Heads of rural settlements ● Ms. Goulnara S. Garifulina – Head of the Update on the ESIA status. ESIA disclosure in Tukaevsky MD: Ishtiryakov rural settlment, Tukaievsky MD programme. Consultations on the most effective ● Ishteryakovo ● Mr. Mansur Sh. Sakhbeev – Head of the ways to publicize ESIA documentation in rural settlements. The possibility of publishing ESIA ● Biklan’ Biklan’ rural settlement, Tukaievsky MD materials on the websites of rural settlements and ● Ms. Elena A. Yakupova – Deputy DGOC keeping hard copies in public buildings. Box and Director, NKNK forms for collecting comments and proposals on the ● Mr. Roman V. Vasilyev – DGOC Chief ESIA. The Project NTS and the need to have the NTS Engineer, NKNK translated in the Tatar language. Project exhibition ● Mr. Aleksei N. Danilov – Deputy Head of the events in Nizhnekamsk and rural settlement. Production and technical Department, Access of the ACs to centralised utility services. DGOC, NKNK Status of the Nikoshnovka village. Update of the ● Ms. Rosa M. Zakirova – Lead Social gypsies who used to live in Nikoshnovka. Status of Scientist of the Laboratory for Social and the Nikashnovka railway station. Psychological Surveys and Studies, NKNK Status of the Martysh village resettlement. ● Mr. Sergey N. Goncharov – Environmental Expert, Mott MacDonald ● Ms. Aliona V. Strokina – Social Expert, Mott MacDonald
386570 | 17 November 2017
Mott MacDonald | NKNK EP-600 Plant ESIA 249
mottmac.com
386570 | 17 November 2017