Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II report - AGA

Transcription

Final Report
Emirates Aluminium Company
EMAL Project
Environmental Update
Project: 503406
November 2011
Emirates Aluminium
EMAL Project Environmental Update
Note to the Reader
This document contains the expression of the professional opinion of SNC-Lavalin
International Inc. (referred to as “SLII”) as to the matters set out herein, using its
professional judgment and reasonable care. It is to be read in the context of the
Consultancy Agreement dated June 14, 2010 (referred to as the “Agreement”), between
SNC-Lavalin International Inc. (SLII) on the one part (referred to as the Consultant) and
Emirates Aluminium Company Limited (EMAL) on the other part (referred to as the
Client), and the methodology, procedures and techniques used, assumptions, and the
circumstances and constraints under which this mandate was performed. The Basic
Design Parameters related to the smelting technologies considered in the Study were
provided by the Client who bears the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the data
provided and for the performance of the related smelting technologies considered
hereinafter. The Consultant is in no position to neither verify nor confirm the accuracy of
the information provided by the Client about the smelting technologies, and as such
bears no responsibility as to the accuracy of the data and the performance of the
smelting technologies considered in the Study.
This document is written solely for the purpose stated in the Report, and for the sole and
exclusive benefit of the Client, whose remedies are limited to those set out in the
Agreement. This document is meant to be read as a whole, and sections or parts thereof
should thus not be read or relied upon out of context. SLII has, in preparing this EMAL
Project Environmental Update, followed methodology and procedures, and exercised
due care consistent with the intended level of accuracy, using its professional judgment
and reasonable care. Unless expressly stated otherwise, assumptions, data and
information supplied by, or gathered from other sources (including the Client, other
consultants, testing laboratories and equipment suppliers, etc.) upon which SLII’s
opinion as set out herein is based has not been verified by SLII; SLII makes no
representation as to its accuracy and disclaims all liability with respect thereto. SLII
disclaims any liability to the Client and to third parties in respect of the publication,
reference, quoting, or distribution of this report or any of its contents to and reliance
thereon.
Quality Assurance
The Environment Division of SNCLAVALIN is certified ISO-9001, and as a part of this
certification, an internal quality review process has been applied to each project task
undertaken by us. Each document is carefully reviewed by core members of the
consultancy team and signed off at Director level prior to issue to the client. Draft
documents are submitted to the client for comment and acceptance prior to final
production.
503406
i
November 2011 - Final
Emirates Aluminium
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Overview of EMAL facilities .............................................................................. 2 1.3 Scope of Work and Methodology ..................................................................... 2 1.4 Report Structure ............................................................................................... 4 1.5 List of Contributors ........................................................................................... 5 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.......................................... 6 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Environmental Permitting Update .................................................................... 6 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Regulation and Supervision Bureau (RSB) ...................................................... 8 IPPC Guidelines ............................................................................................... 9 Equator Principles .......................................................................................... 10 Modifications to Applicable Regulations and Guidelines ............................... 11 2.6.1 Smelter Air Emissions ......................................................................... 11 2.6.2 Power Plant Air Emissions .................................................................. 12 2.6.3 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................ 13 2.6.4 Final Effluent ....................................................................................... 13 2.6.5 Ambient Marine Environment.............................................................. 15 2.6.6 Treated Sewage Effluent .................................................................... 16 2.6.7 Fuel Storage Tanks............................................................................. 16 2.6.8 Incident Reporting ............................................................................... 18 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 20 3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 20 3.2 Design Modifications and Justification ........................................................... 20 3.2.1 Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 22 3.2.2 Power Plant ......................................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Seawater Desalination System ........................................................... 23 3.2.4 Port Facilities and Material Storage & Handling ................................. 24 3.2.5 Reduction ............................................................................................ 26 3.2.6 Carbon ................................................................................................ 26 3.2.7 Casthouse ........................................................................................... 27 3.2.8 Employment ........................................................................................ 27 3.3 Revision of Resource Requirements for Operation Phase ............................ 28
503406
iii
Emirates Aluminium
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
Page
3.4 Update Project Schedule ............................................................................... 29 3.5 Modifications to Pollution Control Technologies ............................................ 30 3.5.1 Gas Treatment Centers ...................................................................... 30 3.5.2 RTO for Paste Plant ............................................................................ 31 3.5.3 Hot Bath Fumes Treatment................................................................. 32 3.6 Update Environmental Releases - Operational Phase .................................. 33 3.6.1 Air Emissions Update and Revised Targets ....................................... 33 3.6.2 Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................. 40 3.6.3 Water Management Update ................................................................ 41 3.6.4 Waste Management Update ............................................................... 44 3.7 Construction Phase ........................................................................................ 46 3.7.1 Overview ............................................................................................. 47 3.7.2 Labour Force ....................................................................................... 47 3.7.3 Construction Activities......................................................................... 48 3.7.4 Temporary Facilities............................................................................ 50 3.7.5 Temporary Services ............................................................................ 50 3.7.6 Port Facilities and Material Handling .................................................. 52 3.7.7 Construction Camp ............................................................................. 52 3.7.8 Wastewater Management ................................................................... 53 3.7.9 Waste Management ............................................................................ 54 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................ 56 4.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................ 56 4.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 56 4.2.1 2007 to 2009 ....................................................................................... 56 4.2.2 2009 to 2011 ....................................................................................... 57 4.3 Soil and Groundwater Quality ........................................................................ 65 4.3.1 2007 Baseline Data............................................................................. 66 4.3.2 2011 Monitoring Data.......................................................................... 67 4.4 Seawater Quality ............................................................................................ 69 4.5 Marine Environment ....................................................................................... 71 4.6 Ambient Noise ................................................................................................ 73 4.6.1 Site Boundary ..................................................................................... 74 4.6.2 Surrounding Environment ................................................................... 75 4.7 Fauna and Flora ............................................................................................. 76 503406
iv
Emirates Aluminium
Page
4.7.1 Fluoride in Vegetation ......................................................................... 76 5 DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....... 78 5.1 Methodology ................................................................................................... 78 5.2 Construction Phase ........................................................................................ 78 5.2.1 Ambient Air Quality ............................................................................. 78 5.2.2 Water and Soil Quality ........................................................................ 83 5.2.3 Fauna and Flora.................................................................................. 87 5.2.4 Noise Environment.............................................................................. 89 5.2.5 Impacts Related to Workforce Accommodation.................................. 92 5.2.6 Summary ............................................................................................. 93 5.3 Operation Phase ............................................................................................ 94 5.3.1 Ambient Air Quality ............................................................................. 94 5.3.2 Impact on Human Health .................................................................... 99 5.3.3 Impact on Fauna and Flora ............................................................... 100 5.3.4 GHG & Climate Change.................................................................... 102 5.3.5 Impact on Marine Environment ......................................................... 102 5.3.6 Impact on Ambient Noise Levels ...................................................... 103 5.3.7 Socio-Economic Impacts .................................................................. 104 5.3.8 Landscape ........................................................................................ 104 5.3.9 Summary ........................................................................................... 105 6 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLANS ......................... 106 6.1 Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Policy .......................................... 106 6.2 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) ............................. 106 6.3 Operation Environmental and Social Management Plan (OESMP) ............. 108 6.4 Environmental Monitoring Programme......................................................... 108 6.4.1 Ambient Air Quality ........................................................................... 109 6.4.2 Air Emissions .................................................................................... 110 6.4.3 Seawater Intake and Final Effluent ................................................... 113 6.4.4 Sewage Treatment Plant .................................................................. 113 6.4.5 Stormwater ........................................................................................ 113 6.4.6 Groundwater Quality ......................................................................... 115 6.4.7 Forage (Vegetation) .......................................................................... 116 6.4.8 Noise Monitoring ............................................................................... 117 503406
v
Emirates Aluminium
Page
6.4.9 Marine Environment .......................................................................... 117 6.5 Landscaping Strategy .................................................................................. 117 6.6 Greenhouse Gases Management System (GHGMS) .................................. 118 6.7 Public Consultation Process ........................................................................ 118 6.7.1 Background ....................................................................................... 118 6.7.2 Purpose and Objectives .................................................................... 119 6.7.3 Public Participation Approach ........................................................... 119 6.7.4 Announcement of the opportunity to become involved in the Phase
II consultation process ...................................................................... 120 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 125 LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1 List of Meetings – Statutory Consultation ............................................. 4 Table 1.2 List of SNC-Lavalin Contributors........................................................... 5 Table 1.3 List of EMAL Contributors ..................................................................... 5 Table 2.1 Documentation Filed for EAD Approval – EMAL Project ...................... 7 Table 2.2 Smelter Air Emission Standards / Guidelines ..................................... 11 Table 2.3 Power Plant Air Emission Standards/Guidelines ................................ 12 Table 2.4 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................ 13 Table 2.5 Applicable Limits for Liquid Effluent .................................................... 14 Table 2.6 Recommended Ambient Marine Water Quality Standards for Abu
Dhabi Emirate (AWQOs) .................................................................... 15 Table 2.7 Quality of Treated Sewage Effluent: Applicable Criteria ..................... 16 Table 3.1 Main Modifications to the Initial Smelter Plans ................................... 21 Table 3.2 Updated Power Plant Characteristics ................................................. 23 Table 3.3 EMAL Chemical and Fuel Storage Tanks........................................... 25 Table 3.4 Updated Capacity for Finished Casthouse Products .......................... 27 Table 3.5 EMAL Operation Manpower................................................................ 28 Table 3.6 IPPC Key Input Ranges – Prebake Potlines....................................... 28 Table 3.7 Phase 2 Schedule ............................................................................... 29
Table 3.8 SO2 Emissions Measured at Phase 1 GTCs (mg/Nm3) ...................... 30
vi
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 3.9 SO2 Emissions Measured at Phase 1 FTCs (mg/Nm3)....................... 30 Table 3.10 Annual SO2 Emissions Scenarios (t/y) – 2.8% S Coke ...................... 31 Table 3.11 Impact of Project Modifications on Environmental Releases .............. 33 Table 3.12 Update EMAL Emission Targets Approved by the EAD ..................... 34 Table 3.13 Annual Atmospheric Emissions – EMAL Aluminium Smelter ............. 38 Table 3.14 Annual Emissions from the Power Plant............................................. 39 Table 3.15 Annual Emissions Estimated for Transportation of Raw Materials ..... 39 Table 3.16 Update Greenhouse Gas Emission .................................................... 40 Table 3.17 Final Effluent Quality (2010-2011) ...................................................... 43 Table 3.18 Dross Generation at EMAL ................................................................. 44 Table 3.19 Average Sewage Flow Projection ....................................................... 54 Table 3.20 Waste Management – Construction Phases ...................................... 55 Table 4.1 ADWEA Al Samha AAQMS Summary (2007-2009) ........................... 57 Table 4.2 Maximum SO2 Concentrations in Ambient Air (µg/m3) (20092011) .................................................................................................. 58 Table 4.3 Average HF in Ambient Air (2010-2011) ............................................. 58 Table 4.4 Maximum NO2 Concentrations in Ambient Air (µg/m3) (20092011) .................................................................................................. 61 Table 4.5 Maximum 1-h CO Concentrations in Ambient Air (mg/m3) (20092011) .................................................................................................. 61 Table 4.6 Maximum 24-h PM10 Levels in Ambient Air (µg/m3) (2009-2011) ....... 64 Table 4.7 Soil Quality Baseline (2007)................................................................ 66 Table 4.8 Groundwater Quality Baseline (2007) ................................................. 67 Table 4.9 Groundwater Quality Monitoring (2011).............................................. 68 Table 4.10 Seawater Quality at the Water Intake (2010-2011) ............................ 70 Table 4.11 Ambient Noise Monitoring Results – Site Boundary ........................... 74 Table 4.12 Noise Monitoring Results – Sensitive Receptors ................................ 76 Table 4.13 Fluoride in Vegetation Analysis Results (2011) .................................. 76 Table 5.1 Ambient 24-hour Average PM10 Levels (μg/m3) on EMAL Site
during the Construction of Phase 1 .................................................... 79 Table 5.2 Phase 2 Emissions from Non-Road Mobile Sources and
Machinery ........................................................................................... 82 Table 5.3 Impact Assessment: Air Quality (Construction Phase) ....................... 82 Table 5-4 Detailed Analysis of Discharged Groundwater (2009) ........................ 85 Table 5.5 Environmental Incidents – Construction Phase 1 ............................... 86 Table 5.6 Impact Assessment: Water and Soil Quality (Construction Phase) .... 87 Table 5.7 EMAL Wildlife Translocation Project: Animals Captured and
Translocated ....................................................................................... 89 503406
vii
Emirates Aluminium
Table 5.8 Impact Assessment: Fauna & Flora (Construction Phase) ................. 89 Table 5.9 Equivalent Noise Levels (Leq) measured at EMAL site boundary
during the Construction of Phase 1 .................................................... 91 Table 5.10 Impact Assessment: Ambient Noise (Construction Phase) ................ 92 Table 5.11 Workforce Camp Inspection Log – 2007 to 2010 (Phase 1) ............... 92 Table 5.12 Social Impact Assessment (Construction Workforce Camps) ............ 93 Table 5.13 Construction Phase Environmental Impact Summary ........................ 94 Table 5.14 Impact Assessment: Air Quality (Operation Phase - Material
Handling & Transportation) ................................................................ 95 Table 5.15 Emission Parameters for the Electrolysis Roof Vents for the
Proposed Expanded Aluminum Smelter (1,400,000 t Al/yr) ............... 96 Table 5.16 Emission Parameters for the GTC and FTC stacks for the
Proposed Expanded Aluminum Smelter (1,400,000 t Al/yr) with
GTC SO2 Seawater Scrubbing for Phase 1 only ................................ 97 Table 5.17 Summary of Maximum Predicted Concentration (µg/m³) of SO2 in
Ambient Air ......................................................................................... 99 Table 5.18 Impact Assessment: Human Health (Operation Phase) ................... 100 Table 5.19 Impact Assessment: Fauna & Flora (Operation Phase) ................... 101 Table 5.20 Impact Assessment: GHG & Climate Change (Operation Phase) ... 102 Table 5.21 Impact Assessment: Marine Environment (Operation Phase) .......... 103 Table 5.22 Impact Assessment: Ambient Noise (Operation Phase)................... 103 Table 5.23 Impact Assessment: Economic Benefits (Operation Phase) ............ 104 Table 5.24 Impact Assessment: Landscape (Operation Phase) ........................ 105 Table 5.25 Operation Phase Environmental Impact Summary........................... 105 Table 6.1 EMAL Revised Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program.................. 110 Table 6.2 EMAL Revised Air Emissions Monitoring Program........................... 112 Table 6.3 EMAL Revised Monitoring Program for Seawater Intake & Outfall .. 114 Table 6.4 EMAL Revised Stormwater Monitoring Program .............................. 115 Table 6.5 EMAL Revised Groundwater Monitoring Program............................ 115 Table 6.6 Fluoride in Vegetation Standards ..................................................... 116 Table 6.7 EMAL Proposed Monitoring Program of Fluoride in Fodder ............. 116 Table 6.8 EMAL Proposed Noise Monitoring Program ..................................... 117 November 2011 - Final
viii
503406
Emirates Aluminium
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3.1 CAI Process Flow ............................................................................... 45 Figure 3.2 Phase 2 Site Layout ............................................................................ 47 Figure 3.3 Workforce – Construction Phase 2 ..................................................... 47 Figure 3.4 Average Daily Potable Water Consumption – Construction Phase 1 . 52 Figure 3.5 Average Daily Sewage Flow – Construction Phase 1 ........................ 53 Figure 4.1 Hourly SO2 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS – 2010 - July 2011 ....... 59 Figure 4.2 Daily (24-h) SO2 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011 59 Figure 4.3 Hourly HF Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011 ......... 60 Figure 4.4 Daily (24-h) HF Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011 . 60 Figure 4.5 Hourly NO2 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011........ 62 Figure 4.6 Daily (24-h) NO2 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 201162 Figure 4.7 Hourly CO Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011 ......... 63 Figure 4.8 Daily (24-h) PM10 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 201163 Figure 4.9 Noise Monitoring Locations – Site Boundary ...................................... 75 Figure 4.10 Noise and Vegetation Monitoring Locations ....................................... 75 Figure 5.1 Dust Monitoring Locations .................................................................. 79 Figure 5.2 Noise Monitoring Locations................................................................. 91 503406
ix
Emirates Aluminium
LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDIX A
Figure A.1
Figure A.2
Figure A.3
Figure A.4:
Figure A.5:
Figure A.6:
Figure A.7:
Figure A.8:
Figure A.9:
Figure A.10:
Figure A.11:
Figure A.12:
Figure A.13:
Figure A.14
Figure A.15
Figure A.16
Desalination: Process Diagram
Anode Plant Fume Treatment: Process Diagram
Water Balance Update
Worst Case Maximum Predicted Hourly Average Concentration of SO2 in
ambient Air
Worst Case Number of Exceedances of the EAD Hourly Standard for SO2
in ambient Air
Average Case Maximum Predicted Hourly Average Concentration of SO2
in ambient Air
Average Case Number of Exceedances of the EAD Hourly Standard for
SO2 in ambient Air
Worst Case Maximum Predicted Daily Average Concentration of SO2 in
ambient Air
Average Case Maximum Predicted Daily Average Concentration of SO2 in
ambient Air
Worst Case Maximum Predicted Long-Term Average Concentration of
SO2 in ambient Air
Average Case Maximum Predicted Long-Term Average Concentration of
SO2 in ambient Air
Worst Case Maximum Predicted Long-Term Average Concentration of HF
in ambient Air
Average Case Maximum Predicted Long-Term Average Concentration of
HF in ambient Air
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations
Marine Assemblage Descriptions – Al Taweelah Area
ADPC Marine Seabed Monitoring Sampling Points
x
503406
Emirates Aluminium
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAQMS
ADD
ADDC
ADPC
ADSSC
ADWEA
AE
Al
Al2O3
API
AQS
BaP
BAT
BOD
BREF
Techniques
C2F6
CAI
CEMP
CEMS
CF4
CH4
CO
CO2
COD
CWM-AD
DA
E&S
EAD
EC
EHS
EIA
EIP
EMAL
EMS
EPA
EPCM
EPFIs
ESMA
ESRF
EU
503406
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station
Abu Dhabi Datum
Abu Dhabi Distribution Company
Abu Dhabi Port Company
Abu Dhabi Sewerage Services Company
Abu Dhabi Water & Electricity Authority
Anode Effect
Aluminium
Alumina
American Petroleum Institute
Air Quality Standards
Benzo[a]pyrene
Best Available Techniques
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
European Commission’s Reference Document
on
Best
Available
Hexafluoroethane
Cast Aluminium Industries
Construction Environmental Management Plan
Continuous Emission Monitoring System
Tetrafluoromethane
Methane
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Center of Waste Management – Abu Dhabi
Degraded Airshed
Environmental and Social
Environment Agency - Abu Dhabi
Electrical Conductivity
Environment, Health and Safety
Environmental Impact Assessment
Evaporation / Infiltration Ponds
Emirates Aluminium
Environmental Management Sector (EAD)
see US-EPA
Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management
Equator Principles Financing Institutions
Emirates Authority for Standardisation and Metrology
Environmental Studies Review Form (EAD)
European Union
xi
FEED
FFP
Fg
FHM
FNTP
Fp
FRC
Ft
FTC
GAC
GCC
GE
GHG
GHGMS
GTC
GWL
GWP
HC
HF
HRSG
HTM
IFC
IPPC
IUCN
KIZAD
KPI
KPIZ
LAeq
LHM
MED
MPN
N2O
NADD
NaOH
NDA
NILU
NO2
NOC
NOx
NTU
O3
OESMP
OSPAR
Emirates Aluminium
Front-End Engineering Design
First Flush Pond
Fluoride (gaseous fraction)
First Hot Metal
Full Notice to Proceed
Fluoride (particulate fraction)
Free Residual Chlorine
Fluoride (total i.e. gaseous & particulate fractions)
Fume Treatment Centre (anode baking furnace)
Gulf Aluminium Council
Gulf Cooperation Council
General Electric
Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gases Management System
Gas Treatment Centre (reduction)
Groundwater Level
Global Warming Potential
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen Fluoride
Heat Recovery Steam Generator
Heat Transfer Medium
International Finance Corporation
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Khalifa Industrial Zone of Abu Dhabi (former name: KPIZ)
Key Performance Indicator
Khalifa Port Indstrial Zone
Equivalent continuous A-weighted noise level
Last Hot Metal
Multi-Effect Distillation
Most Probable Number
Nitrous oxide
New Abu Dhabi Datum
Sodium hydroxide
Non- Degraded Airshed
Norwegian Institue for Air Research
Nitrogen dioxide
No Objection Certificate (EAD)
Nitrogen oxide
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Ozone
Operation Environmental & Social Management Plan
Oslo and Paris Commission
xii
503406
Emirates Aluminium
PAH
PB
PCV
PFC
PM10
PM2.5
PNTP
RO
RSB
RTI
RTO
S
SLII
SO2
SOP
SPL
SPRO
STP
SWRO
TDS
TSS
UAE
UNFCCC
USD
US-EPA
UV
VDC
VOC
WHO
WS
503406
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Prebaked anode cell
Prescribed Concentration or Values
Perfluorocarbon
Particulates of 10 micrometers or less in aerodynamic diameter
Particulates of 2.5 micrometers or less in aerodynamic diameter
Partial Notice to Proceed
Reverse Osmosis
Regulation and Supervision Bureau (Abu Dhabi)
Research Triangle Institute
Regenerative Thermal Oxidiser
Sulphur
SNC-Lavalin International Inc.
Sulphur dioxide
Standard Operation Procedures
Spent Pot Lining
Second Pass Reverse Osmosis
Sewage Treatment Plant
Sea Water Reverse Osmosis
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
United Arab Emirates
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United States Dollar
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ultraviolet
Vertical Direct Chill
Volatile Organic Compound
World Health Organization
Workshop
xiii
Emirates Aluminium
LIST OF UNITS
°C
AE/pot/d
dBA
g/s
GJ
ha
hr
kA
kg
kg/h
km
km2
kPa
kV
kW
kWh
L
m
m3/d
mg/L
mg/m3
mg/Nm3
atmosphere)
ml
mm
MPa
Mt
MW
MWth
Nm3/h
Nm3/min
ppm
t Al/y
t CO2eq/y
t
tpy
V
y
ηg/m3
μg/m3
Celsius
Anode effect per pot per day
A-weighted decibel
Gram per second
Giga joule
Hectare
Hour
Kiloampere
Kilogram
Kilogram per hour
Kilometer
Square kilometer
Kilopascal
Kilovolt
Kilowatt
Kilowatt hour
Litre
Meter
Cubic meter per day
Milligram per litre
Milligram per cubic meter
Milligram per normalized cubic meter (referenced at 0°C and 1
Millilitre
Millimetre
Megapascal
Megatonne
Megawatt
Megawatt thermal
Normalized cubic meter per hour (referenced at 0°C and 1 atmosphere)
Normalized cubic meter per minute (referenced at 0°C and 1 atmosphere)
Part per million
Tonne of aluminium per year
Tonne of equivalent carbon dioxide per year
Tonne
Tonne per year
Volt
Year
Nanogram per cubic meter
Microgram per cubic meter
xiv
503406
Emirates Aluminium
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
From 2007 to 2010, the Emirates Aluminium Company (EMAL) built and started Phase 1
of their aluminium smelter complex in the Khalifa Industrial Zone of Abu Dhabi (KIZAD)
in Taweelah, UAE. Phase 1 was in full production (740,000 t Al/y) by December 2010,
ahead of schedule and within budget.
EMAL Smelter, Al-Taweelah, UAE
The EMAL complex Phase 1 includes a dedicated berth at the Khalifa port, a dedicated
gas-fired power plant and an integrated aluminium smelter composed of two polines
(DX technology) of 378 pots each presently operated at 350 kA, a carbon plant, raw
materials handling and storage facilities, a casthouse producing billets, sheet, sows and
ingots and a liquid metal transfer station for delivery of liquid aluminium to downstream
users.
Phase 1 was achieved while maintaining due care to Environment, Health and Safety
(EHS) matters. The EMAL Project was approved by the Environmental Agency of Abu
Dhabi (EAD) for a total capacity of 1.4 million tonnes of aluminium per year to be
developed in two phases, based on an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
submitted in June 2007. As Phase 1 is now fully operational, EMAL is undertaking the
construction of the second phase (Phase 2) that will increase the annual aluminium
production capacity from 740,000 to ultimately 1,400,000 tonnes.
Therefore, this 2011 EMAL Project Environmental Update (hereafter named Report)
provides an update of changes carried out to the initial smelter plans described in the
2007 EIA. This Report also presents the additional environmental baseline data
collected since June 2007. The Report provides an assessment of the impacts
associated with these project changes that could not be considered in 2007. A brief
update of the environmental management plans is also provided, focusing particularly
with the environmental monitoring program recently approved by EAD. The reader is
503406
1
November 2011 – Final
Emirates Aluminium
referred to the original 2007 EIA for baseline data available prior to June 2007, and to
the project features or impact assessment that remained unchanged since then.
1.2
OVERVIEW OF EMAL FACILITIES
The EMAL smelter Phase 1 consists of a state-of-the-art aluminium production plant,
including:
•
Two potlines with four (4) potrooms, each having 189 DX pots (total of 756 pots) to
be operated at 380 kA, where alumina is reduced to aluminium through an
electrolytic process
•
A carbon plant, including two baking furnaces, where the DX anodes required for
electrolysis are formed, baked, rodded and stored
•
A casthouse, where liquid aluminium from the potrooms is cast into ingots, sows,
billets and sheet
•
A storage area for alumina, coke and pitch. The capacity of alumina and coke silos
installed is for the total smelter capacity (1.4 M t Al/y)
•
A dedicated power plant (1,750 MW installed) and desalination (6,650 m3/d)
•
Ancillary services, warehouses and storage buildings distributed over the plant, and
•
A dedicated port facility for receiving raw materials
The following components are planned for Phase 2 that will allow EMAL to eventually
reach a capacity of 1.4 Million tonnes of aluminium per year:
•
One potline with two potrooms, each having 222 DX+ pots (total of 444 pots) to be
operated at 480 kA
•
A carbon plant, including one baking furnace, dedicated to the production (forming,
baking, rodding and storage) of DX+ anodes
•
An extension to the casthouse to produce additional ingots and sheet
•
Additional capacity for the power plant (1,090 MW) and the desalination plant
(6,650 m3/d)
•
Ancillary services, warehouses and storage buildings
1.3
SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY
As mentioned earlier, the initial 2007 EIA was prepared for a total capacity of 1.4 M t
Al/y. Some changes occurred to the initial plans, in the normal process of project
detailed design and optimization phase. In early 2011, EMAL completed a gap analysis
of the 2007 EIA to identify project changes or commitments that needed to be updated
or clarified with the EAD. The results of the gap analysis were reported initially into the
2
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Technical Modifications. Project changes highlighted in the June 2011 FEED (Front End
Engineering Design) are reported in Section 3 and the environmental impact of these
changes are assessed in Section 5.
This environmental impact assessment has been prepared according to generally
accepted methods in order to identify and evaluate, based on best current knowledge,
the environmental impacts of the project. Quantitative techniques were used as a basis
to update the assessment of impacts. More specifically, the air dispersion modelling was
updated to reassess impacts of hydrogen fluoride and sulphur dioxide on air quality.
The information presented in this study takes also into account environmental data
collected by EMAL (e.g. ambient air quality data, quality of final effluent, air emissions,
ambient noise data, etc.) and by ADPC/KIZAD (ambient air data, marine environment).
When essential information for the evaluation of the environmental impacts is not
available, the study then refers to the available documentation from other operating
smelters using similar technologies, such as DUBAL for inspection of smelter impacts on
surrounding vegetation.
EMAL maintained continuous engagement with statutory stakeholders during the
development of the project. Several meetings were held with the EAD and other
governmental organizations during which EMAL made presentations on subjects related
to the project at full capacity or to subjects which had an influence on the design of
Phase 2 (e.g. KPIZ air quality program). Table 1.1 lists the meetings held with the
different governmental organisations since the EIA was approved. An appropriate level
of engagement will be maintained as it may require.
Regarding EMAL’s public consultation and engagement with its stakeholders (including
the local communities), several smelter visits were organized in the last two years with
students or the public in general, in which people could address their questions to
EMAL’s representatives. The general public gained knowledge of Phase 2 through
several articles that appeared recently in the national newspapers. EMAL is organizing
a Stakeholders Public Consultation Process Event at a nearby community where
stakeholder representatives (including the nearby communities) will be invited to attend.
Information will be shared and feedback will be obtained (through various methods) on
the existing Phase 1 facilities, plans for Phase 2 and environmental impacts related to
the whole project. The stakeholders are invited to comment on the total project and
provide direct feedback during the Public Consultation Event or questions via EMAL
website. EMAL will make sure that all relevant concerns are promptly addressed.
503406
3
Table 1.1
List of Meetings – Statutory Consultation
Date
Meeting with
12-Jul-2009
EAD/RTI
25-Jul-2010
EAD/RTI
31-Oct-2010
EAD/RTI
13-Apr-2011
EAD/RTI
13-Sep-2011
EAD/RTI
4-Oct-2011
EAD/RTI
30-May-2010
AD Drug Enforcement
Department
6-Jul-2010
9-Sep-2010
24-Nov-2010
24-May-2011
6-Jun-2011
ADPC
ADPC
ADPC/NILU
ADPC
ADPC
13-Jun-2011
ADPC/NILU
9-Dec-2010
RSB
12-Jan-2011
RSB
9-Feb-2010
22-Mar-2011
RSB
RSB
1.4
Emirates Aluminium
Subject
Presentation of the water contingency plan and validation of EMAL
approach for the OESMP
Review of EMAL Compliance Reporting to EAD and understanding
of EAD’s process for technical modifications and reports review.
Review of project changes for Phase 1 and changes planned for
Phase 2 and review of permitting process for approval of changes
SO2 strategy – not install SO2 seawater scrubbers for FTCs and
Phase 2 GTCs
Clarifications meeting for EAD’s comments on EMAL technical
modifications 2
Presentation to EAD’s technical committee regarding clarifications
on EMAL technical modifications 2 (emission targets) and SO2
strategy for phase II
EMAL Application for Precursor Chemicals License
EMAL - ADPC Sensitive Industrial Neighbours Discussion
KPIZ air quality program
KPIZ Air quality program presentation by NILU
EMAL-ADPC Environmental Coordination Meeting
Waste Management facility in the IZ area
KPIZ Air Quality Program Update and ADCP-EMAL AQ
Coordination
Compliance Pre-meeting
Technical compliance meeting: Water quality & Recycled water
regulations discussion
Presentation of EMAL license compliance program to RSB
Visit to RO plant and EMAL laboratory
REPORT STRUCTURE
The Report is structured in six different chapters as follows:
•
Introduction (chapter 1)
•
Environmental regulatory framework (chapter 2)
•
Project description (chapter 3)
•
Description of the environment (chapter 4)
•
Environmental impacts (chapter 5)
•
Environmental management plans (chapter 6)
When figures were not inserted directly in the text, they were included in Appendix A
(mainly Figures in A3 format).
4
503406
Emirates Aluminium
1.5
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
This report was prepared by a team of technical experts of the Environment division of
SNC-Lavalin as listed in Table 1.2 and supported by the SLII Engineering team and the
EMAL Construction and Operation teams.
Table 1.2
List of SNC-Lavalin Contributors
Name
Role & Responsibilities
Robert A. Auger, Eng., M.A.Sc.
EIA Manager
Introduction, environmental regulatory framework,
operation facilities & impacts, QA/QC
Brian Murphy
SLII Project Director, EMAL Project
Valérie Hébert, Eng.
Environmental Engineer
Description of the environment, construction activities
& impacts, environmental management
Éric Delisle
Meteorologist - Air quality assessment
Marc-André Bélanger
Geographer – Cartography
The following individuals were responsible on behalf of EMAL for providing relevant
information and reviewing the technical content and conclusions of this report at various
stages of its preparation.
Table 1.3
List of EMAL Contributors
Name
Position
Saleh Al Abdulla
Senior Manager, EHS, Security & Fire – Projects
Frank Briganti
Vice President, EHSSQ
Mohamed Al Jawi
Technical Head, Environment
Hatem Galal Elnady
Senior Environmental Specialist
503406
5
Emirates Aluminium
2
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2.1
OVERVIEW
A comprehensive discussion on the applicable environmental laws, regulations,
standards, guidelines and international treaties was presented in chapter 2 of the 2007
EIA. The present chapter aims at providing a summary of the changes to the
environmental regulatory framework that occurred since 2007. This section starts with
an update on the environmental permitting undertaken by EMAL.
2.2
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING UPDATE
The regulatory authority responsible for environmental permitting, inspection and control
in Abu Dhabi is the Environment Agency Abu Dhabi (EAD).
The initial Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Emirates Aluminium Smelter
Project was submitted in June 2007 to the Environmental Agency of Abu Dhai (EAD)
and took into account the ultimate smelter capacity (1.4 M t Al/y), at the EAD’s request.
The EAD approved the EMAL Smelter Complex Project on 9 July 2007 by issuing a NoObjection Certificate (NOC-0007/07).
In April 2010, the EAD issued an Update of Environmental Permitting Procedures
and Guidelines. The Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) explain the permitting
process for industrial projects including the submittal of Technical Modifications for
approval of project changes. The new procedures also detail the contents required for
Construction and Operation environmental management plans (CEMP and OESMP).
EMAL followed these new procedures for the submittal of the OESMP, CEMP and
Technical Modifications1.
During the detailed engineering and the construction of the smelter, changes were made
to the initial plans. It is a normal process to modify and optimize design in the detailed
design phase of a project. EMAL obtained EAD approval for all project modifications.
Table 2.1 provides a list of the documentation submitted by EMAL and the
corresponding EAD approval. EAD requested explicitly to submit project changes in the
form of Technical Modifications and not as an updated EIA. This EMAL Project
Environmental Update is developed for EMAL internal use and Phase 2 Lenders’
requirements.
1
http://www.ead.ae/en/portal/presentations.aspx
503406
6
Emirates Aluminium
Table 2.1
Date
Documentation Filed for EAD Approval – EMAL Project
Subject
Purpose
EAD Approval
March 2007
Initial EIA
•
Initial Environmental Impact Assessment for
project approval
EPD/07/L/405 (with conditions)
issued on 18/04/2007
June 2007
Final EIA
•
Initial Environmental Impact Assessment for
project approval
EPD/07/ESR/0019 (with conditions)
June 2007
CEMP
•
Construction Environmental Management
Plan
EPD/07/ESR/0017 (with conditions)
issued on 09/07/2007 &
NOC 0007/07 issued on 09/07/2007
July 2007
EIA Addendum A
•
Transporting from/to Jebel Ali raw material &
product metal – plan during wharf
construction
EPD/07/ESR/034
17/10/2007
Revised CEMP
•
Revised Construction Environmental
Management Plan
EPD/07/ESRF/0076 issued on
23/10/2007
07/07/2008
Revised CEMP and
NOC renewal
•
•
EMS/08/ESRF/0173 issued on
29/07/2007 & NOC 0131/08 valid
29/07/2008 up to 28/07/2009
•
NOC renewal for construction activities
Use of brackish water for construction
purposes
No construction camp required
15/10/2008
Phase 2 site
preparation activities
•
Information letter
EMS/08/L/842 issued on 04/11/2008
15/10/2008
Water supply
contingency plan SO2 wet scrubber
•
Information letter
EMS/08/L/856 issued on 13/11/2008
22/10/2008
Groundwater
discharge to marine
environment
•
Environmental permit application
NOC 0131/08 issued on 09/11/2008
November
2008
Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Station
•
Information letter
EMS/08/L/859 issued on 19/11/2008
17/06/2009
Labour camp for
construction
•
Letter informing that a temporary labour
construction camp (5000 people) is finally
required on-site
EMS/09/L/284 issued on 16/07/2009
05/07/2009
Water supply
•
Technical report
Conditions 01862 issued on
22/11/2009
27/07/2009
NOC renewal
•
NOC 0019/10
for 14/02/2010 up to 13/02/2011
05/11/2009
OESMP
•
Operation Environmental and Social
Management Plan
EMS/09/L/456
12/11/2009
Labour camp for
construction
•
Environmental Management Action Plan for
the temporary labour camp for construction
NOC-0172/09 valid from 29/10/2009
up to 28/10/2010
13/12/2009
OESMP
•
Operation Environmental and Social
Management Plan
EMS/09/ESRF/ issued on
15/12/2009 (request for
resubmission)
21/01/2010
Revised OESMP
•
Revised Operation Environmental and Social
Management Plan
EMS/09/ESRF/ issued on
17/02/2010 (with conditions)
February 2010
Permanent Industrial
License
•
Industrial License Application
Environmental conditions 01862
08/02/2010
NOC renewal
•
NOC 0018/10
valid from 14/2/2010 up to 14/2/2011
•
Groundwater discharge to marine
environment
To use the same arrangement for
groundwater discharging process to
discharge the seawater used for water
treatment plant commissioning process
08/02/2010
NOC renewal
•
NOC 0019/10
valid from 14/2/2010 up to 14/2/2011
02/03/2010
OESMP
•
Answer to EAD Comments and
Recommendations for EMAL’s Operations
Environmental and Social Management Plan
(OESMP), Phase -1
28/03/2010
21/06/2010
Protected
•
Remove the white sand habitat conservation
Approval Letter 01/08/2010
503406
7
Environmental Zone
in EMAL
Emirates Aluminium
areas from EMAL property
13/07/2010
Water supply
•
Further delays in the commissioning of the
seawater intake
EO/EMS/10/L/376
07/11/2010
Water contingency
plan
•
Delays in the start-up due to unforeseen
situations
EO/EMS/10/L/553
18/01/2011
Technical
Modifications #1
Main changes to the Project
• Desalination plant technology
• RTO for pitch fume treatment
• Hot bath fumes directed to a GTC
• Phase 1 potline amperage to creep from 340
to 380 kA (378 pots/potline)
• One potline (426 pots) for Phase 2 using DX+
technology at 440 kA
• No seawater scrubber installed for FTC
• Power plant: 4 power blocks instead of 5
Industrial License 1497 issued on
10/03/2011 with following conditions:
Comply with 2007 EIA
Changes carried out as per Tech.
modifications
Comply with CEMP and submit
quarterly reports
Submit updated OESMP at least 30
d prior to operation
22/06/2011
Technical
Modifications #2
Main changes to the Project
• Phase 2 : Potline with 444 pots DX+ at 420
kA
• Changes to air emission target levels
• Revised monitoring program
• No seawater scrubber for all FTCs
• No seawater scrubber for Phase 2 GTCs
EAD Comments
18/08/2011
09/10/2011
Response to EAD
observations on
Technical
Modifications #2
Clarifications on :
• Changes to air emission target levels
• Additional info on SO2 emission levels
• Review of SO2 reduction alternatives
• New air dispersion modelling results (SO2 ad
HF)
EMS-11-ESRF-229
issued on 26/10/2011 with
conditions:
• Monitor and report %S in coke in
quarterly reports
• Mitigation option to implement if SO2
levels > EAD standards at property
limit
Note: Excluding construction and operation follow-up reports to EAD.
2.3
REGULATION AND SUPERVISION BUREAU (RSB)
The Regulation and Supervision Bureau (RSB) is the independent regulatory body for
the water, wastewater and electricity sector of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. It has exclusive
authority to regulate all companies undertaking activities associated with electricity and
water production, transmission, distribution and supply. In addition, the Bureau also
regulates the wastewater sector to ensure the safe collection, treatment and disposal of
wastewater products.
Since the EMAL EIA was issued in 2007, RSB has published the following
environmental regulations, which are applicable to the project:
•
Incident Reporting Regulations (2008)
•
Fuel Storage Tank Regulations (2009)
•
Recycled Water and Biosolids Regulations (2010)
The main requirements associated with these regulations are summarised in section 2.6.
8
503406
Emirates Aluminium
2.4
IPPC GUIDELINES
The European Union (EU) Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)
regulations, as they are applicable in the European Union, are not part of the Abu Dhabi
regulatory framework. However, EMAL intends to comply with best international
standards (i.e. IPPC) whenever possible.
The IPPC Directive (Directive 2008/1/EC) is a set of common rules for permitting and
controlling industrial installations throughout the EU. It is based on the following
principles:
1. An integrated approach
2. Best Available Techniques (BAT)
3. Flexibility
4. Public participation
The Best Available Techniques applicable to EMAL are described in the Reference
Document (BREF) on BAT in the Non-Ferrous Metals Industries published by the
European Commission. The initial BREF for the non-ferrous metals industries was
published in 2001, but is currently under review. A draft revision of the BREF was issued
in July 2009, after the smelter complex construction was well advanced, and has not
been finalized yet.
In summary, the 2009 BREF mentions that the following features are to be considered to
minimize environmental impact from aluminium smelters:
•
Closed conveyors, pneumatic transfer systems and storage silos to be considered for
handling and storage of coke and alumina
•
Automatic multiple point feeding of alumina in electrolytic pots
•
Computer control of the pots based on active databases and monitoring of cell
operating parameters
•
Complete hood coverage of the pots connected to a separate gas exhaust and filter
system. The use of robust cell covers and adequate extraction rates taking account
of fluoride evolution and carbon burn off
•
Minimization of the time for changing the anodes and other actions that need pot
covers to be removed to achieve better than 99% fume collection on a long-term
basis. Anode butt cooling in an enclosure. Use of a programmed system for pot
operations and maintenance
•
Scrubbing fluoride and HF from the pot fumes using alumina followed by dust
removal in a fabric filter system to achieve a minimum of 99.9% removal of total
fluoride. The alumina should be reused in the process
503406
9
Emirates Aluminium
•
If sulphur removal is practiced using a wet scrubber system, the system should be
used with a system to remove fluoride, HF and tars
•
When there is a combined anode plant, the use of alumina scrubber and fabric filter
system to remove tar fume from the milling, blending and baking stages. Use of the
alumina in the electrolytic process. The IPPC also mentions the use of Regenerative
Thermal Oxidiser (RTO) or coke filters as a BAT technique for the mixing and
forming stages provided that coke from filters is reused within the fabrication of
anodes
•
Use of established efficient cleaning methods in the rodding shop to recover fluoride
from the cleaning process and from the melting of steel components. Use of effective
extraction and filtration systems in this area
•
Use of low sulphur carbon (<2%) for the anodes or anode paste where possible from
a production point of view, taking air quality into account
•
Use of rotary gas or flux injection for holding furnaces (casthouse)
Most of these features are incorporated in the smelter design and EMAL procedures.
The following features were not implemented in the smelter operations:
•
Anode butt cooling in an enclosure is not required (hot butt treatment)
•
Phase 2 will not use seawater scrubbers for the GTCs as implemented in Phase 1
•
The maximum sulphur content in coke will be 2.8%, resulting in anodes with a
content of 2.5%S
•
Alumina will be trucked from the main alumina silos to Phase 2 GTC daily silos
instead of using an enclosed conveyor system as implemented in Phase 1
2.5
EQUATOR PRINCIPLES
The project’s lenders adhere to the Equator Principles, a voluntary set of standards for
determining, assessing and managing social and environmental risk in project financing.
The latest version of the Equator Principles was issued in July 2006. In terms of
applicable environmental standards, in addition to relevant host country laws, regulations
and permit, it refers to the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance
Standards and Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines (Principle 3).
The following IFC guidelines are applicable to the project:
•
IFC EHS General Guidelines (2007)
•
IFC Industry Sector EHS Guidelines
•
Base Metal Smelting and Refining (2007)
•
Thermal Power Plants (2008)
10
503406
Emirates Aluminium
2.6
MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
2.6.1
Smelter Air Emissions
Since the 2007 EIA, the IFC and the EU issued new guidelines applicable to the smelter.
These new guidelines are presented in Table 2.2 and applicable EAD standards that did
not change since 2007 are added for comparison purposes.
Table 2.2
Smelter Air Emission Standards / Guidelines
Parameter
Process Area
EAD Standard
Stationary Sources
Anode Baking FTC
Potline GTC
Particulates
PFCs
Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)
Total Fluorides
3
3
150 mg/Nm
1 – 5 mg/Nm
1 – 5 mg/Nm
None
< 0.1
AE/pot/day
< 0.1 AE/pot/day
All scrubbers and
dust collectors
Potline
3
3
3
Potline GTC
2 mg/Nm
< 0.5 mg/Nm
< 0.2 mg/Nm
Anode Baking FTC
2 mg/Nm3
< 0.5 mg/Nm3
< 0.6 mg/Nm3
Casthouse
2 mg/Nm
3
Not applicable
< 1 mg/Nm
Potline GTC
20 mg/Nm
< 0.8 mg/Nm
3
< 0.5 mg/Nm
Anode Baking FTC
20 mg/Nm3
< 0.8 mg/Nm3
< 1 mg/Nm3
Potline GTC
Sulphur Dioxide SO2
3
Range Associated
with IPPC BAT
IFC Guidelines
3
3
Not applicable
3
Not applicable
3
1000 mg/Nm
3
3
3
50–200 mg/Nm
Control of S content
of the anodes (<2%S)
Anode Baking FTC
1000 mg/Nm
Cast house
1000 mg/Nm
50–200 mg/Nm
Hydrogen Chloride HCl
Casthouse
20 mg/Nm3
< 5 mg/Nm3
< 5 mg/Nm3
Chlorine
Casthouse
10 mg/Nm3
Not applicable
< 3 mg/Nm3
Nitrogen Oxides NOx
Casthouse
200 mg/Nm
100 mg/Nm
< 100 mg/Nm
Carbon Monoxide CO
FTC, casthouse
500 mg/Nm3
Not applicable
Not applicable
Anode Baking FTC
None
Not applicable
< 0.5 µg/Nm
Paste plant RTO
None
Not applicable
< 0.5 µg/Nm3
Anode Baking FTC
None
Not applicable
< 0.5 mg/Nm EPA16
3
< 0.2 mg/Nm
OSPAR11
Paste plant :
Mixing (RTO) and
Grinding
None
Not applicable
< 0.5 mg/Nm3 EPA 16
3
< 0.2 mg/Nm
OSPAR11
Anode Baking FTC
20 mg/Nm3
5–50 mg C/Nm3
1–10 mg C/Nm3
Paste plant RTO
20 mg/Nm
3
3
3
3
3
Benzo(a)pyren B(a)P
3
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons PAH
Hydrocarbon total
3
5–50 mg C/Nm
3
1–10 mg C/Nm
3
EMAL will comply with EAD standards. The pollution control technology installed in
Phase 1 and those intended for Phase 2 are capable of ensuring compliance with EAD
limits. EMAL intends to comply with best international standards (i.e. IFC and IPPC)
503406
11
Emirates Aluminium
whenever possible. Compliance with international standards (mainly IPPC) for some
parameters and point sources emission is not guaranteed due to limitations of BAT in
hot region climate. Hence modifications to project design criteria are needed. Rationale
and discussion of modifications of emissions targets are presented in Section 3.6.1.
EAD approved the revised targets in October 2011.
2.6.2
Power Plant Air Emissions
IFC EHS Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants were issued in 2008. These guidelines
are close to the 2001 EU Directive on Large Combustion Plants to which the EAD refers
to in regard to EMAL power plant air emissions.
Table 2.3 summarises the UAE standards and IFC guidelines applicable to the power
plant air emissions (EU standards are also included as requested by the EAD). These
standards/guidelines have been included in the environmental design criteria for EMAL
Phase 2.
Table 2.3
Power Plant Air Emission Standards/Guidelines
UAE Limits for
EU Air Emission
IFC Emissions Guidelines for
Hydrocarbon Fuel
Limitations from Large
Combustion Turbines
Combustion Sources
Combustion Plants
6,7,8
(Unit > 50 MWth)
1,2
3,4,5
(Turbine Units)
(> 50 MWth)
Pollutant
Fuel
NOx
(mg/Nm3)
Gas
70
50
51 (25 ppm)
Fuel
150
120
152 (74 ppm)
35 (3% O2)
NA
200 (3% O2)
NDA: use of 1% or less S fuel
DA: use of 0.5% or less S fuel
NA
NA
NA
NDA: 50
DA: 30
NA
NA
SO2
3
(mg/Nm )
Particulate Matter
3
(mg/Nm )
CO
(mg/Nm3)
Gas
Fuel
500
Gas
250
Fuel
Gas
Fuel
500
1
From Executive Order No 12 of 2006 (of Federal Law 24 of 1999) about Protection of Air from Pollution.
Nm3 is at one atmospheric pressure, 25 degree Celsius.
3
From DIRECTIVE 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the
limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.
4
3
Nm is at one atmospheric pressure, 0 degree Celsius. Dry gas, corrected at 15% O2 except if otherwise
specified.
5
Compliance is reached if 95% of all 48-h mean value is < 110% of the emission limit value. Limit values do not
apply for start-up and shut-down periods. Limit values apply only for above 70% load.
6
From IFC EHS Guidelines – Thermal Power Plants (December 2008)
7
Emission levels should be evaluated on a one hour average basis and be achieved 95% of annual operating
hours. / DA: Degraded Airshed (poor air quality; airshed should be considered as being degraded if nationally
legislated air quality standards are exceeded) / NDA: Non-Degraded Airshed
MWth: Megawatts thermal input on HHV basis
NA:
Non-Applicable
S:
Sulfur content (expressed as a percent by mass)
2
12
503406
Emirates Aluminium
2.6.3
Ambient Air Quality Standards
IFC EHS General Guidelines specify that projects with significant sources of air
emissions, and potential for significant impacts on ambient air quality, should prevent or
minimize impacts by ensuring that emissions do not result in pollutant concentrations
that reach or exceed relevant ambient quality guidelines and standards by applying
national legislated standards, or in their absence the current WHO Air Quality Guidelines
or other internationally recognized sources.
The Report refers to the Abu Dhabi ambient air standards (Table 2.4). The European
Ambient Air Quality standards (AQS) are also listed for comparison.
Table 2.4
Ambient Air Quality Standards
European AQS (2011) (1)
EAD
AQS
Concentration
Concentration
Permitted
exceedances each
year
1 hour
350 µg/m³
350 µg/m³
24
24 hours
150 µg/m³
125 µg/m³
3
1 year
60 µg/m³
n/a
n/a
1 hour
400 µg/m³
200 µg/m³
18
24 hours
150 µg/m³
-
-
1 year
-
40 µg/m³
n/a
1 hour
30 mg/m³
n/a
n/a
8 hours
10 mg/m³
10 mg/m³
n/a
1 hour
200 µg/m³
n/a
n/a
8 hours
120 µg/m³
120 µg/m³
25 days average
over 3 years
PM10
24 hours
150 µg/m³
50 µg/m³
35
Total
Suspended
Particulates
24 hours
230 µg/m³
n/a
n/a
1 year
90 µg/m³
n/a
n/a
Pollutant
Averaging period
Sulphur dioxide
(SO2)
Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2)
Carbon
monoxide (CO)
Ozone (O3)
(1) Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm (Consulted 18-01-2011)
n/a: not applicable
2.6.4
Final Effluent
As mentioned above, the IFC EHS Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants were issued
only in 2008. Therefore the effluent guidelines listed in these IFC guidelines were added
in Table 2.5 in which the EAD limits for marine discharge and the IFC EHS Guidelines
for Base Metal Smelting and Refining are also listed. These limits are applicable for
liquid effluent from both the power plant and smelter (including seawater from the SO2
scrubbers and blowdown from the seawater cooling towers) prior to discharge to the
ADPC outfall. They have been included in the environmental design criteria for EMAL
Phase 2. These levels should be achieved, without dilution, at least 95 % of the time
that the plant or unit is operating,
503406
13
Table 2.5
Emirates Aluminium
Applicable Limits for Liquid Effluent
Parameter
Unit
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
mg/l
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mg/l
pH
2
Floating Particles
mg/m
o
Temperature increase
C
Turbidity
NTU
INORGANIC CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Ammonia as N
mg/l
Nitrate as N
mg/l
Chlorine Residual
mg/l
Cyanide
mg/l
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/l
Fluoride (F )
mg/l
-2
Sulphide (S )
mg/l
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
mg/l
Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen as N
mg/l
Total Phosphorus as P
mg/l
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/l
TRACE METALS
Aluminium (Al)
mg/l
Antimony (Sb)
mg/l
Arsenic (As)
mg/l
Barium (Ba)
mg/l
Beryllium (Be)
mg/l
Cadmium (Cd)
mg/l
Chromium, total (Cr)
mg/l
+6
Chromium VI (Cr )
mg/l
Cobalt (Co)
mg/l
Copper (Cu)
mg/l
Iron (Fe)
mg/l
Lead (Pb)
mg/l
Manganese (Mn)
mg/l
Mercury (Hg)
mg/l
Nickel (Ni)
mg/l
Selenium (Se)
mg/l
Silver (Ag)
mg/l
Zinc (Zn)
mg/l
ORGANIC CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Halogenated Hydrocarbons and
mg/l
Pesticides
Hydrocarbons (HC)
mg/l
Oil & grease
mg/l
Phenols
mg/l
Solvents
mg/l
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
mg/l
BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES
Total Coliform
MPN/100 ml
Faecal Coliform
CFU/100 ml
Egg Parasites
Number
Warm Parasites
Number
UAE Standards for Marine
1
Discharge
IFC EHS Guidelines –
Base Metal Smelting &
2
Refining (2007)
IFC EHS Guidelines –
Thermal Power Plants
3,4
(2008)
50
(5)
NA
6–9
None
5
75
20
6–9
(6)
<3
-
50
6–9
(7)
See Note
-
2
40
1
0.05
>3
20
0.1
50
10
2
100
-
50
0.2
-
20
0.1
0.05
2
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.5
2
0.1
0.2
0.001
0.1
0.02
0.005
0.5
0.2
0.01
-
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.005
1.0
None
-
15
10
0.1
None
75
5
-
10
-
1000
1000
None
None
-
-
5
-
-
1
From Executive Order No 37 of 2001 (of Federal Law 24 of 1999) about Protection of the Marine Environment.
Effluent levels applicable to aluminium smelters.
Effluent Guidelines to be applicable at relevant wastewater stream e.g. from washing HRSG / air preheater, acid washing,
regeneration of demineralizers and condensate polishers, oil-separated water, site drainage and cooling water.
4
Applicability of heavy metals should be determined in the EIA. Guideline limits in the Table are from various references of
effluent performance by thermal power plants.
5
The UAE criteria of 1,500 mg/l is not applicable considering that EMAL uses seawater with TDS levels of approximately
46,000 mg/l (refer to section 4.4).
6
At the edge of a scientifically established mixing zone which takes into account ambient water quality, receiving
water use, potential receptors and assimilative capacity.
7
Site specific requirement to be established by the EIA
2
3
14
503406
Emirates Aluminium
2.6.5
Ambient Marine Environment
The EAD has recommended ambient marine water quality standards for Abu Dhabi
Emirate that should be attained at the edge of the zone where initial mixing and dilution
of a liquid effluent take place in the marine environment. Table 2.10 of the 2007 EIA is
reproduced in Table 2.6 below to ease the reference to this standard. It is assumed that
impacts to the marine environment should be minimal if the effluent respects these
standards at the edge of the mixing zone.
It should be noted that the proponent (ADPC) is responsible for monitoring of marine
environment quality.
Table 2.6
Recommended Ambient Marine Water Quality Standards for Abu
Dhabi Emirate (AWQOs)
Parameter
Proposed Maximum
Concentration
Units
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Floating Particles/ Floatable/ Debris
Nil
Temperature increase
±3
Delta Celsius of background seawater
≥ 10
<5
5
Not objectionable
No change from background
Meter of Secchi Depth
% of background concentration
o
mg/l (5 day at 20 C
-
0.004
mg/l
0.005
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.01
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
0.001
Not visible
5
>4
< 33
890
6.5 – 8.5
0.001
0.001
34
0.004
2.5
0.01
20
0.3
9.4
mg/l
Turbidity/Transparency/Clarity
Salinity
BOD5
Odor
Color
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Ammonia-(Free as N) or
Ammonia NH3-Nitrogen
Arsenic (As)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chlorine Residual (Cl2)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Cyanide (total)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Oil & grease
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Solids
Si – SiO3
pH
Phenols
Phosphorous Total
Phosphate (total as P)
-2
Sulphide (S )
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Zinc (Zn)
Nickel (Ni)
Iron (Fe)
Vanadium (V)
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
μg/l
pH unit
mg/l
mg/l
μg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Nitrate NO3-N
95
NO2
34
μg/l
μg/l
μg/l
70
MPN / 100 ml
15
BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES (Bacteriological)
Total Coliform
503406
2.6.6
Emirates Aluminium
Treated Sewage Effluent
EMAL treated sewage effluent quality shall comply with the applicable criteria from the
Recycled Water and Biosolids Regulations issued by RSB in 2010 (Table 2.7). The
treated water is used for irrigation purposes.
Table 2.7
Quality of Treated Sewage Effluent: Applicable Criteria
Parameters
pH
BOD
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Units
RSB Restricted Reuse (P2)
& Irrigation criteria
pH
6-8
mg/l
10
mg/l
20
Faecal coliforms
CFU/100 ml
1000
Intestinal Enterococci
CFU/100 ml
200
Number/l
<1
Helminth Ova
Turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit - NTU)
NTU
10
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
mg/l
>1
Residual Free Chlorine (RFC)
mg/l
0.5-1
Aluminium (Al)
mg/l
5
Arsenic (As)
mg/l
0.1
Beryllium (Be)
mg/l
0.1
Cadmium (Cd)
mg/l
0.01
Chromium (Cr)
mg/l
0.1
Cobalt (Co)
mg/l
0.05
Copper (Cu)
mg/l
0.2
-
Fluoride (F )
mg/l
1
Iron (Fe)
mg/l
5
Lead (Pb)
mg/l
5
Lithium (Li)
mg/l
2.5
Manganese (Mg)
mg/l
0.2
Molybdenum (Mo)
mg/l
0.01
Nickel (Ni)
mg/l
0.2
Selenium (Se)
mg/l
0.02
Vanadium (V)
mg/l
0.1
Zinc (Zn)
mg/l
2
Source: RSB Recycled Water and Biosolids Regulations 2010: Restricted reuse (P2) & Irrigation criteria.
Note: Standards are maximum values, except for pH, DO and RFC.
2.6.7
Fuel Storage Tanks
All aboveground fuel storage tanks with capacities equal to or greater than fifty thousand
(50,000) imperial gallons (227,000 L) per tank shall meet the criteria set out in the RSB
Fuel Storage Tank Regulations 2009.
16
503406
Emirates Aluminium
These regulations are intended to ensure the prevention and early detection of any fuel
release from aboveground fuel storage tanks and to minimize the risk of fuel releases
impacting on the environment and on public health. Their requirements are summarized
hereafter:
•
Fuel storage tanks shall comply with API 650 or similar internationally recognised
standard and shall carry a nameplate or placard providing the specifications of the
tank including tank identification number, date of installation, capacity, etc.
•
Facilities shall provide for early fuel leak detection in storage tanks either through
remote instrument alarms like fall-in-level, detection of vapours or other remote
instrument intervention.
•
Any interstitial spaces (including but not limited to those located in double-walled
tanks, double-bottom tanks, and double piping) shall be equipped with interstitial
monitoring equipment capable of detecting a release from the primary containment
into the interstitial space under all operating conditions.
•
The area around a fuel storage tank shall have a secondary containment designed to
contain a fuel leak with the following characteristics:
–
Able to contain at least 110% of the design capacity of the largest tank in the
secondary containment area;
–
Constructed with materials which are impermeable to, and compatible with
the substances stored, and that will prevent a release into the environment;
–
Designed and constructed to contain any fuel released from the fuel storage
tank system and prevent fuel from reaching surface water, groundwater, or
adjacent land before clean-up;
–
Equipped with a manual controlled pump or drain pipe to remove any
accumulated water or fluids.
•
The base of a steel fuel storage tank shall be protected from corrosion using cathodic
protection or a similar internationally recognised method.
•
The material used in the construction of the system shall be compatible with the fuel
oil to be stored. With regards to corrosion protection, the tank requirements are the
following:
503406
–
Metallic fuel storage tanks on foundations consisting of material that can allow
moisture penetration and corrosion shall be protected from corrosion;
–
Where cathodic protection is used it shall be designed by a corrosion expert
and comply with API 651 or with similar internationally recognised standards;
and
–
Exposed surfaces of fuel storage tank systems shall have a protective coating
to prevent and control atmospheric corrosion. The coating shall be applied
according to the manufacturer’s instructions and approved for use by Abu
Dhabi Water and Electricity Authority (ADWEA).
17
Emirates Aluminium
Steel piping shall be protected from external corrosion by:
–
piping located above ground and not in contact with the soil;
–
cathodic protection; or
–
double-walling.
•
Fuel storage tanks shall be equipped with a level indicator or other measurement
device that accurately indicates the level of fuel in the tank. The level indicator or the
measurement device shall be accessible and installed so that it can be conveniently
read locally or provide remote control room indication. The level detectors should be
interlocked with the filling-line control valve as well as outflow pump.
•
Fuel storage tanks shall be equipped with an alarm or another automatic mechanism
that automatically shuts the flow into the tank when the tank reaches the safe fill level
recommended by the manufacturer. All automatic shutoff equipment shall be
equipped with a mechanism that will function in the event of power failure,
malfunction or other similar events.
•
The alarm referred to above shall consist of a visual or audible device capable of
alerting the transfer operator, by sight or by hearing, to prevent an overfill situation.
•
All fuel transfer areas, where filling connections are made with vehicles, shall be
equipped with a spill containment system, such as spill boxes or containment areas
capable of containing and collecting spills and overfills at connection points and
preventing a release during the transfer of the substance to and from the tank.
•
Fuel Storage Tank Systems shall comply with the UAE national civil defence codes
and standards for fire protection.
2.6.8
Incident Reporting
As a Regulation & Supervision Bureau (RSB) license holder, EMAL shall comply with the
RSB Incident Reporting Regulations (2008). The Regulations give direction for the
classification, reporting, notification and investigation of the following categories of
incidents:
•
Operational
o Electricity – generation, transmission, distribution
o Water – desalination, transmission, distribution
o Wastewater – collection, treatment, disposal
•
Health and Safety
o Fatality
o Major Injury
o Ill-health
o Dangerous Occurrences
•
Environment.
18
503406
Emirates Aluminium
As per the Regulations, an Environmental Incident is defined as an unplanned event or a
chain of events that results in the release of substances into the environment which may:
•
negatively affect the physical, chemical or biological quality of eco-systems and
natural resources;
•
have a negative impact on public health and welfare;
•
cause damage to structures of cultural significance or sacred values; or persistent
damage to an extensive portion of eco-systems resulting in severe impacts on
populations or habitats, long-term impact on natural resources or
•
damage structures of cultural significance – where outside assistance is required.
If such an incident occurs, RSB is to be notified as soon as is practicable and within
24hrs (either by telephone, personal meeting, fax or email) and in writing within 3
working days (by email, fax or letter).
503406
19
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1
OVERVIEW
Emirates Aluminium
The 2007 EIA was prepared for a smelter of 1.4 Mt to be built in two phases. Therefore,
the Report compares the Project (1.4 Mt) of 2007 to the Project (1.4 Mt) as it stands in
2011. Some modifications to the 2007 plans have already occurred in the course of
Phase 1 while other modifications to initial plans are planned for Phase 2.
Compared to the initial concept proposed in the original EIA, EMAL undertook and
implemented the following main changes in Phase 1 (approved by EAD in March 2011):
•
Increase of pot amperage from 350 kA to 380 kA for potlines 1 and 2 (Phase 1)
•
RTO instead of coke scrubbers for green anode plant fume treatment technology
•
Treatment of hot bath fumes in a potline gas treatment center (GTC) instead of a
dedicated gas treatment center in the Carbon Area
•
Reverse osmosis rather than multi-effect distillation for seawater desalination
In addition for Phase 2 and the overall project, the following technical modifications
related to the project design were approved by the EAD in October 2011 and include:
•
Construction of one potline of 444 DX+ pots for Phase 2 designed to be operated up
to 480 kA instead of two DX potlines operated at 380 kA. Two GTCs equipped with
3,500-tonne fresh alumina silo will treat the gases emitted from the Phase 2 potline.
•
Seawater scrubbers will not be installed for anode baking Fume Treatment Centers
•
Seawater scrubbers will not be installed for the Phase 2 GTCs
•
Instead of a conveyor to carry alumina from the silo farm to the GTC silos, EMAL will
use its fleet of alumina hopper trucks to transport alumina from the silo farm to the
Phase 2 GTC silos
•
Three baking furnaces to be installed in total instead of four;
•
A lower number of power generation units to be installed for the power plant (4
power blocks instead of 5)
3.2
DESIGN MODIFICATIONS AND JUSTIFICATION
As mentioned earlier, the initial 2007 EIA was prepared for a total capacity of 1.4 M t
Al/y. Some changes occurred to the initial plans, in the normal process of project
detailed design and optimization phase. At the time the original EIA was issued to the
EAD in June 2007, some processes, equipment and capacities were defined on a
preliminary basis, before the actual equipment was selected. This section reviews the
modifications that were carried out to the smelter and port facilities after the EIA was
20
503406
Emirates Aluminium
approved by the EAD. Table 3.1 provides an overview of project changes and the
following sections describe these changes in detail.
Table 3.1
Main Modifications to the Initial Smelter Plans
Smelter
Component
Modification to Initial Plans
Rationale and Need for Modification
Carbon Plant
3 anode baking furnaces instead of 4
Needed a separate production line for the
anodes to be used in DX+ potline
The 2 Ph1 furnaces are sufficient for Ph 1.
Paste Plant
RTO to treat pitch fume instead of coke
scrubber
RTO has a better performance than coke
scrubber
Fume treatment
Centers
Seawater scrubbers will not be installed for
the FTCs
Use of coke with a lower sulphur content
(2.8% max. versus 3.5% in 2007 EIA)
Predicted SO2 emission in 2007 higher than
actual measurements – FTCs are not a major
source of SO2
Bath Treatment
Hot bath fumes directed to an existing GTC
instead of a separate scrubber
Existing GTC had spare capacity.
Similar design for Phase 2
Electrolysis
Ph 1: 2 DX potlines (576 pots) at 380 kA
Ph 2: 1 DX + potline (444 pots) at 420 kA
(up to 480 kA)
2007 EIA: 4 potlines at 340 kA (1488 pots)
Present practice in all smelters is to increase
the current into the cells, to increase the
aluminium output per cell, and thus obtain a
more efficient production.
DX+ is an improvement of DX technology
Gas Treatment
Centers
2007 EIA: 8 GTC (1 per potline)
Ph 1: 4 GTCs with seawater SO2 scrubbers
Ph 2: 2 GTCs without seawater scrubbers
GTC stack height of 70 m for Phase 2
Phase 1 GTC and FTC efficiency tests show
SO2 removal of >40% by the dry scrubbers
Ambient ground-level SO2 concentrations
monitored near the smelter were very low during
the time when wet scrubbers were not
operational
Casthouse
Final aluminium cast mix:
335,000 tpy - 680 kg remelt sows
570,000 tpy – 22.7 kg standard ingots
380,000 tpy - extrusion billets
380,000 tpy - sheet ingots
Final mix for the ultimate capacity not known in
2007
Casthouse Dross
Slighly higher dross generation than predicted
in 2007 (10 vs 8 kg/t)
Dross treatment by a third party using a salt
process (CAI)
Final cast mix, which influences dross
generation rates not known when the EIA was
prepared.
Treatment method not known in 2007.
Raw Materials
Use of EMAL fleet of hopper trucks for
transportation of alumina between the silo
tank farm and the Ph 2 GTC daily silos
Transportation of pitch from Jebel Ali
Pitch daily tanks : 2 x 400 t for Ph1
1 X 600 t for Ph 2
Rational use of EMAL fleet for transportation
of alumina and pitch
The possibility to build 2 x 10,000 tonnes pitch
tank at the wharf, as described in 2007 EIA
remains for the future.
Consumption of
raw materials and
natural gas
In general, lower specific consumption of raw
materials - Natural gas consumption 10%
higher than predicted in 2007
In 2007, natural gas estimate did not include
gas turbine degradation and used HHV
instead of LHV for heating value of the gas
Desalination plant
Desalination technology changed from MultiEffect Distillation to Reverse osmosis
Cost effective solution for the project not
detrimental in terms of impacts
Sewage Treatment
Plant
STP capacity of 700 m3/day composed of 2
modules with a process train of biological
treatment, secondary clarification, tertiary
filtration and UV treatment.
Details of treatment not available when EIA
was issued in 2007 (flow expected to be
675 m3/d)
Spent Pot Linings
Ongoing study for a central treatment facility in
the Gulf by Gulf Aluminium Council
High potential for reusing SPL in a local
cement factory
EMAL as a member of GAC follows closely the
development of this project.
DUBAL has done successful SPL reuse trials
in a local cement factory.
Power plant
Combustion turbines: Frame GE 9 FA
4 power blocks instead of 5 (2007 EIA)
Turbine supplier not known in 2007 EIA.
Power plant size refined during the FEED
503406
21
3.2.1
Emirates Aluminium
Infrastructure
No significant change impacting the EIA has been made to Phase 1 configuration since
June 2007. Plant services and utilities including tie-ins to Phase 1 consist of:
•
Compressor system and compressed air reticulation network
•
Primary fuel gas reducing skid and reticulation network to secondary skids
•
Potable water, permeate water, and fire fighting water reticulation networks
•
Wastewater reticulation
•
Storm water drainage system
•
Sewerage system
•
Seawater supply and discharge systems from intake
•
Distribution grids for medium voltage, low voltage and communication cables
•
Non-process buildings
•
Road system around Phase 2 facilities, including parking areas
The compressed air network will be composed of 12 operating centrifugal compressors
located in two compressor houses, as opposed to 19 smaller units mentioned in 2007
EIA. Considering that each compressor has a peak output of 232 Nm3/min and that the
system will be operated with two compressors on standby, the continuous peak capacity
of the system will be 2,320 Nm3/min.
The other plant services and utilities are planned in accordance to June 2007 EIA
approval and do not require any modifications to the EIA.
3.2.2
Power Plant
The major components of the Power Plant systems include the following:
•
Gas Compression Station (if required)
•
Power blocks: combustion turbines, heat recovery steam generators, steam turbine,
generator
•
Intake/outfall seawater pump station for Power Plant and Smelter
•
Seawater cooling towers
22
503406
Emirates Aluminium
•
Water treatment and seawater desalination system and storage
•
Fuel oil storage
•
Emergency diesels
The power plant is a combined cycle configuration with natural gas as the primary fuel
and liquid fuel as emergency. In addition to the two back-up gas turbines, two combinedcycle power blocks, composed each of 2 Gas Turbines (General Electric Frame 9 FA), 2
Heat Recovery Steam Generators and 1 Steam Turbine were installed in Phase 1. One
back-up gas turbine will be converted to one of the two additional combined-cycle power
blocks planned for Phase 2. In total, the capacity installed will be 2,838 MW (4 power
blocks – 1 back-up gas turbine) instead of 3,650 MW (5 power blocks – 2 back-up gas
turbines) to better correspond to the smelter power demand (2,650 MW) at full capacity
and the availability of natural gas. Changes are indicated in Table 3.2. With the
exception of the seawater desalination system described in section 3.2.3, the other
components will be built in accordance with June 2007 EIA.
Table 3.2
Updated Power Plant Characteristics
Characteristic
June 2007 EIA
Update
October 2011
Turbine Frame
Siemens W 501 G
GE 9 FA
10 x 254
9 x 218
5 x 256
4 x 219
10
8
50 m
55 m
Gross installed capacity – combustion turbines (MW) (1)
Gross installed capacity – steam turbines (MW)
(1)
Number of HRSG and seawater cooling towers
HRSG Stack Height
(1) Gross installed capacity for operating conditions using natural gas at ambient temperature of 25 oC
3.2.3
Seawater Desalination System
The project description presented in the June 2007 EIA report planned a Multi-Effect
Distillation (MED) plant that would supply desalinated water to the EMAL complex.
Instead of this technology, a Reverse Osmosis (RO) system was implemented for Phase
1 and will be expanded for Phase 2. The Reverse Osmosis is a process in which
pressure is applied to the more concentrated solution on one side of a semi-permeable
membrane, resulting in the movement of solvent but not solutes, separating fresh water
from salt water.
The desalination plant aims to provide potable water, water for fire protection, service
water, cooling towers make-up and water as well as feed water for the demineralization
unit which provides water for the HRSG feed water system and the emergency water
requirement for NOx abatement when gas turbines are burning distillate oil. The plant,
when fully developed, will be able to produce 13,300 m3/d of desalinated water from
33,250 m3/d of seawater.
As shown on the simplified flow sheet in Figure A.1, the desalination plant consists of:
503406
23
Emirates Aluminium
•
multimedia filters, to reduce the level of suspended matter up to 20 - 25 μm
contained in the screened and chlorinated seawater, through top to bottom filtration
via sand filters
•
cartridge filters (spiral wound type), which then prevent fine particles or sand up to 5
μm from entering the membrane system
•
SWRO (sea water reverse osmosis) trains, composed of spiral wound membranes,
that produce permeate water
•
SPRO (second pass reverse osmosis) trains in order to meet the design parameters
for desalinated water and
•
chemicals dosing systems, used for the following applications:
3.2.4
–
coagulation of flocs in the multimedia filters (ferric chloride)
–
inhibition of free chlorine prior to entering the sensitive RO membranes
(sodium metabisulfite)
–
to avoid scaling of RO membranes (anti-scalant made of polymers and
copolymers)
–
preventing RO membrane bio-fouling (non-oxidising biocide)
–
chlorination of desalinated water for water supply distribution (calcium
hypochlorite)
–
pH adjustment before SWRO and SPRO trains and re-mineralization of
the final permeate distributed to the service and potable water tanks
(sodium hydroxide)
–
to increase the hardness of the service and potable water (sodium
bicarbonate and calcium chloride)
Port Facilities and Material Storage & Handling
No significant change impacting the EIA has been made to Phase 1 configuration since
June 2007. In general terms, and as planned in the June 2007 EIA, this area consists of
the following main components:
•
Ship unloading equipment for alumina and coke; and
•
Belt conveyor system from the port to the onshore silo farm
•
Material handling equipment at silo farm; and
•
Alumina handling system from the silo farm to the GTC silos
Instead of an alumina handling system and a reclaim conveyor to carry alumina from the
silo farm to the GTC silos as initially planned in the EIA and implemented for Phase 1,
EMAL will make use of its fleet of alumina hopper trucks to transport alumina from the
silo farm to the Phase 2 GTC silos. The other components will be implemented as
planned in the EIA. The onshore silo farm was totally erected in Phase 1, but did not
24
503406
Emirates Aluminium
include the two 10,000-tonne pitch tanks as a decision has not been made as yet if they
will be required. In addition, a new 600-tonne heated pitch tank will be added to the two
existing 400-tonne tanks installed in Phase 1 as opposed to two 500-tonne tanks
mentioned in the 2007. For an indefinite time, EMAL will continue to transport liquid pitch
from Jebel Ali to the smelter.
Details about the actual storage of chemical and fuels and the additional storage
required for Phase 2 are provided below (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3
EMAL Chemical and Fuel Storage Tanks
3
Tank #
Location
Power Plant
1
RO Plant
2
RO Plant
3
RO Plant
4
RO Plant
5
RO Plant
6
RO Plant
7
RO Plant
8
RO Plant
9
RO Plant
10
ST Building
11
ST Building
12
ST Building
13
Power Plant
14
Power Plant
Central Maintenance
15
Mobile Fleet WS
16
Mobile Fleet WS
17
Mobile Fleet WS
18
Mobile Fleet WS
19
Mobile Fleet WS
20
Mobile Fleet WS
21
STP
22
STP
23
STP
24
STP
25
STP
Paste Plant
26
Pitch Plant
27
Pitch Plant
NA
Wharf
NA
Wharf
28
HTM building
29
Paste Plant building
30
Paste Plant building
Casthouse
31
Chlorine Scrubber
1
Stored material
Ferric Chloride
Sodium Meta Bisulfite
Antiscalant
Non Oxidizing Biocide
Calcium Hypochlorite
Sodium Bicarbonate
Calcium Chloride
Sodium Hydroxide
Sulfuric Acid
Tri-sodium Phosphate (2 tanks)
Carbohydrazide
Ammonium Hydroxide
Distillate diesel Oil
Distillate diesel Oil
Capacity - m
(1)
(% containment)
Actual
Additional
(Phase 1)
(Phase 2)
4 (113%)
13 (112%)
1.55
0.25
1.07 (136%)
27(110%)
11
21 (110%)
4 (188%)
7 (135%)
1.80
5 (159%)
15,000 (168%)
648
4
13
1.55
0.25
1.07
27
11
21
4
7
1.80
5
15,000
648
Engine oil
Hydraulic oil
Waste coolant
Waste oil
Diesel Fuel
Diesel Fuel
Poly electrolyte
Poly electrolyte
Poly aluminium chloride
Sodium hypo chlorite
Odour control chemical
8 (133%)
8
3
12 (121%)
22.5 (391%)
22.5
1.89 (120%)
1.51
0.75 (137%)
0.3 (130%)
0.15
-
Liquid pitch
Liquid pitch
Liquid pitch
Liquid pitch
HTM oil
HTM oil
Mould spray oil
400 (200%)
400
40 (250%)
18 (111%)
0.20 (300%)
600
10,000
10,000
40
18
0.20
8 (125%)
-
20% NaOH
Volume of secondary containment in % of the largest tank present in the same containment.
503406
25
Emirates Aluminium
All tanks have a secondary containment sufficient to retain 110% of the tank’s capacity
in case of spill. All valves, filling points and vents are located inside the secondary
containments. Some of the tanks are located in the same containment, as showed in
Table 3.3 where the volume of the containment is provided only for the largest reservoir.
3.2.5
Reduction
The Reduction Area is where the alumina is converted into aluminium through an
electrolysis process in pots placed side by side in a potroom. Two potline buildings form
a potline. Power generated from the power plant is transformed into direct current and
then distributed to the reduction cells via large aluminium busbars. Several
configurations were studied for the Phase 2 reduction sector. The basic parameters that
defined the capacity of the reduction area were the availability of gas and power. A new
potline of 444 DX+ pots at 420 kA (designed to be operated up to 480 kA) connected to
2 GTCs is planned for Phase 2 for a capacity of 550,000 t Al/y.
Combined with the fact that since June 2007, the reduction technology has improved, a
revised operation scheme is also proposed for Phase 1. The current will be
progressively increased from 350 kA to 380 kA for the potlines 1 and 2, aiming for a total
production of approximately 800,000 t Al/y.
Phase 2 will be equipped with two alumina injection dry scrubbers (GTCs). GTC stack
height was optimized to 70 m.
3.2.6
Carbon
The carbon sector includes the following main components:
•
Carbon recycling shop to reclaim green scrap and anode butts
•
Paste plant composed of three mixing lines and two anode cooling tunnels
•
Anode handling and storage shop
•
Anode baking furnaces
•
Hot bath removal, cooling and treatment
•
Anode rodding shop
•
Carbon services
There will be three open-type furnaces instead of four as planned in the EIA. The new
anode baking furnace (ABF) will be dedicated to the production of anodes for the DX+
potline, which are different in size than the anodes produced for the DX potlines.
26
503406
Emirates Aluminium
The Carbon area has seen the following changes in the pollution control equipment
between the June 2007 EIA and its actual configuration, which are described in section
3.5:
•
Change in type of paste plant fume treatment technology
•
Treatment of hot bath fumes in Reduction Area gas treatment center instead of
dedicated center in Carbon Area.
•
Removal of the anode baking furnace Fume Treatment Center SO2 scrubber.
3.2.7
Casthouse
The final product mix at the casthouse is detailed in Table 3.4. The details of final mix
were not known at the time the June 2007 was prepared. Extra capacity will allow
flexibility for meeting client’s orders in due time.
Table 3.4
Product
Updated Capacity for Finished Casthouse Products
(1)
Description
Installed
Capacity (tpy)
(1)
(2007 EIA)
2011 Update
(tpy)
(Oct. 2011)
Standard ingots
22.7 kg ingot – Three casting lines
300,000
570,000
Remelt sows
Low profile air-cooled 680 kg sows
150,000
335,000
Extrusion billets
6xxx series alloys – Two VDC casting lines
330,000
380,000
Sheet ingots
1xxx, 3xxx, and 5xxx series alloys
Two VDC casting lines
165,000
380,000
945,000
1,665,000
Total Output from Casthouse (tonnes)
(1) Installed capacity for Phase 1 is re-estimated to 1,100,000 tpy for Phase 1 (190,000 tpy re-estimated for
all casting lines except remelt sows capacity that remains at 150,000 tpy).
3.2.8
Employment
The employment data provided in the June 2007 EIA has been updated (Table 3.5). By
the end of 2011, the total number of EMAL workers is expected to reach 2,234, most of
them (approximately 2,182) dedicated to the operation of Phase 1. Once the plant
becomes fully operational, the total number of EMAL workers is expected to reach
2,859.
Emiratisation being at the core of the company’s human resources strategy, the
objective of having an operation workforce composed of at least 20% UAE nationals (as
mentioned in the 2007 EIA) remains. While the 2011 objective is 20%, the 2012
objective will be increased to 23%. Presently, the proportion of Emirati employees is
above 18%.
503406
27
Table 3.5
Emirates Aluminium
EMAL Operation Manpower
No. of workers
2007 EIA Estimate
2011 Update
Addendum Revised
Estimate
Phase 1
2,300
2,182
Phases 1 & 2
4,000
2,859
Project Phase
3.3
REVISION OF RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATION PHASE
Some minor adjustments are noted for the key material and energy input ranges related
to the smelter Phases 1 and 2 (Table 3.6), some of which are either in line or lower than
values reported in the EIA. It should be noted that some of the DX+ potline key input
values are still not known from practical experience on a complete potline and therefore
represent design basis values (e.g. net carbon consumption and total input electrical
power).
Table 3.6
IPPC Key Input Ranges – Prebake Potlines
EIA 2007
Phase 1
Phase 2
IPPC Range for
Prebake Potlines
kg/t Al
1920
1920
1920
1900 – 1930
Anodes – net carbon
kg/t Al
420
406
415
390 – 440
Aluminium fluoride
kg/t Al
15
15
15
13 – 30
Parameter
Unit
EMAL
ELECTROLYSIS
Alumina
Cathode life
Years
5
5
5
5–8
Rodding plant cast iron
kg/t Al
1.4
0.7
0.7
1.0 – 3.0
Ramming paste
kg/t Al
1.55
1.34
1.11
0 – 25
kWh/t Al
14,965
14,965
15,320
13,600 – 15,700
% anode
weight
5.1%
5.7%
5.7%
Approx. 5%
GJ/t anode
2.5
1.72
1.78
Approx. 2.3
Dross
kg/t Al
8
10
10
10 – 50
Input energy
GJ/t Al
0.83
1.5
1.35 – 1.6
0.3 – 2.5
Homogenization
GJ/t Al
1.2
(2)
NA
0.5 – 1.2
Flux (chlorine)
kg/t Al
0.14
0.14
0.14
0 – 1.5
WATER (smelter) (3)
m3/ Al
2.0
2.0
1.1
0.2 – 10
Total electrical power
ANODE BAKING
Baking fire loss
Input energy
CASTHOUSE
1.
2.
3.
Including pollution control, auxiliary consumption, carbon plant, AC/DC conversion loss
Included in input energy.
Without power plant and GTC seawater scrubbers
28
503406
Emirates Aluminium
3.4
UPDATE PROJECT SCHEDULE
A Phase 2 updated schedule is presented in Table 3.7. It is based on 33 months for First
Hot Metal (FHM) and 42 months for Last Hot Metal (LHM) from EPCM partial notice to
proceed for Phase 2. This schedule has been validated against actual duration of
activities on Phase 1 for engineering, purchasing, equipment manufacturing and
construction.
Following the schedule, site preparation activities have started in July 2011. Major
construction activities are planned for 2012, beginning with the power plant civil works in
January 2012, followed by civil works in the smelter area (April 2012) and steel erection
(August 2012).
Most of the work will be organized on a six-day per week basis and some construction
activities will proceed on a 24-hour per day schedule.
Lenders will be updated of changes during bi-annual Environmental and Social (E&S)
visits. The EAD will be updated of changes through the quarterly reporting.
Table 3.7
Phase 2 Schedule
No
Milestones
Date
Status
00
Feasibility Study
14-Jun-10
Completed
01
Technology Selection by EMAL
23-Dec-10
Completed
02
Front-End-Engineering Design Report (FEED)
15-June-11
Completed
03
EPCM Partial Notice to Proceed (PNTP)
5-July-11
Completed
04
EPCM Full Notice to Proceed (FNTP)
5-July-11
Completed
05
Completion of Award of all Long-Lead Item
Packages
01-Sep-11
Completed.
06
Start Site Preparation Work
15-Jul-11
Awarded, on-going
07
Start Power Plant Civil Works
15-Jan-12
As scheduled
08
Start Potroom Civil Work
01-Apr-12
As scheduled
09
Start Potroom Steel Erection
15-Aug-12
As scheduled
10
GIS Ready
18-Mar-13
As scheduled
11
First Power Available from Power Plant
(Simple Cycle)
01-Sep-13
As scheduled
12
First Rodded Anode
01-Oct-13
As scheduled
13
Ready for First Hot Metal
02-Dec-13
As scheduled
14
Power Plant Combined Cycle in Operation
30-Jul-14
As scheduled
15
Last Pot in Operation
02-Aug-14
As scheduled
503406
29
Emirates Aluminium
3.5
MODIFICATIONS TO POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
3.5.1
Gas Treatment Centers
The June 2007 EIA mentioned that SO2 seawater scrubbers were required to meet the
EAD ambient air standards outside EMAL property limit. Since the start of smelter
operations, the maximum hourly SO2 concentrations in ambient air recorded downwind
at KPIZ-ADPC AAQMS (6 months from September 2010 to February 2011) was
75 µg/m³ south of EMAL fence line and 125 µg/m³ at EMAL AAQMS in Al Samha Forest
Nursery (December 2009 to July 2011). These concentrations are several times below
the EAD 1-h standard of 350 µg/m³ and were measured during the ramp up phase until
reaching full production when SO2 scrubbers were not in operation and in the period
from 17 January to July 2011 when SO2 scrubbers were operating 40% of the time.
The actual SO2 emissions are lower than the values predicted in 2007 by the mass
balance, usually the basis on which air dispersion modelling is conducted to assess
impacts on ambient air.. As presented in Table 3.8 and Table 3.9, the performance and
efficiency tests on both FTC and GTC show SO2 abatement by the dry scrubbers (40%
on average for GTC, 60% for FTC).
The following tables 3.8 and 3.9 show the actual SO2 emission monitoring data for the
GTCs and the FTCs, while Table 3.10 present the annual emissions estimated from
actual data and maximum sulphur content in coke.
Table 3.8
SO2 Emissions Measured at Phase 1 GTCs (mg/Nm3)
3
GTC no.
SO2 Concentration (mg/Nm )
Test Description
Before GTC
After GTC
% SO2
Removal
5312
Perf. Test (6 tests avg.)
264
161
39%
5322
245
144
41%
294
152
48%
Eff. Test (4/07/2011)
321
197
39%
5321
5311 E
5311 W
Eff. Test (4/07/2011)
240
149
38%
5311 E
Eff. Test (4/07/2011)
259
138
47%
263
152
42%
Average
Table 3.9
FTC
no.
SO2 Emissions Measured at Phase 1 FTCs (mg/Nm3)
3
SO2 Concentration (mg/Nm )
Test Description
Before FTC
After FTC
% SO2
Removal
1
Perf. Test (5 tests avg.- Oct 2010)
590
295
30%
2
Perf. Test (4 tests avg.-Dec 2010)
557
195
65%
1
Eff. Test (8 tests - Aug 2011)
547
131
77%
565
207
60%
Average
30
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 3.10
Annual SO2 Emissions Scenarios (t/y) – 2.8% S Coke
Sources
Phase 1 and Phase 2
1,400,000 t Al/y
Phase 1
850,000 t Al/y
GTC Wet Scrubbing
Phase 2 Without GTC
Wet Scrubbing
Total
Based on Mass Balance Calculations
Potroom GTC
868
11,411
12,279
Potroom Roof vent
175
116
291
Anode Baking FTC
TOTAL
602
403
1,005
1,645
11,930
13,575
Based on Actual Monitoring Data (coke adjusted to 2.8%S)
Potroom GTC
868
7,291
Potroom Roof vent
175
115
290
Anode Baking FTC
578
454
1,032
1,621
7,861
9,483
TOTAL
8,160
Assuming the use of a 2.8%S coke, the emissions would follow the trends observed at
the stack exit during the performance tests, the average concentration of SO2 in the
GTC and FTC flue gas would be respectively 180 and 240 mg/Nm3. The air dispersion
modelling was updated with emission input data adjusted to take into consideration
these performance and efficiency tests (Refer to Section 5.3.1.2). Conservative values
of 200 mg/Nm3 and 300 mg/Nm3 were used as data emission input for the GTCs and the
FTCs. These concentrations refer to an annual emission of 9,500 t SO2/y, as presented
in Table 3.10. The comparison with the 2007 EIA annual emissions is presented in
Table 3.13.
In conclusion, based on these additional considerations (use of 2.8% S coke instead of
3.5% S as presented in 2007 EIA, actual stack SO2 emissions 40% lower than predicted
by mass balance, updated modelling outputs (taking into account higher stacks and
actual monitoring data), and maximum ambient hourly concentrations less than 1/3 of
the EAD 1-h standard in the first months of operation while SO2 scrubbing was not or
partially operated), seawater SO2 scrubbers are not included in the project scope for
Phase 2 GTCs.
3.5.2
RTO for Paste Plant
The technology presented in EMAL June 2007 EIA to clean the pitch fumes was a
conventional coke injection dry scrubber. This system was changed for a Regenerative
Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) technology, which is considered a best available abatement
technique (BAT) as per the European Commission’s Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control (IPPC) Draft Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the NonFerrous Metals Industries (July 2009).
The RTO technology treats the fumes by oxidizing the Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC),
including Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), at temperatures of 800 to 900°C. At
503406
31
Emirates Aluminium
these temperatures, VOC reacts with oxygen (O2) to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and
water (H2O) which are released to the atmosphere. The RTO process also recovers
sensible heat from combustion gases by means of ceramic beds. Consequently, it is
more energy-efficient than a conventional burner.
Figure A.2 illustrates the RTO operation. The raw gas passes through an inlet bed (or
heat exchanger) made of ceramics and is heated up (almost to oxidation temperature)
by the energy stored in the ceramics. The pollutants are being destroyed in the adjacent
combustion chamber by oxidation. The hot clean gas is led from the oxidation chamber
into a second bed, heating up the ceramics of this bed. The clean gas cools down and
leaves the system via the clean gas duct, exhaust fan and then stack. After a period of
time, the flow direction of the gas is changed and the heated outlet bed then becomes
the inlet bed and will heat up the raw gas.
For Phase 1, there are two paste production lines. Each line has a pitch fume treatment
system which collects pitch fumes from process areas (i.e. mixing, paste cooling, anode
forming, vacuum system and pitch storage tanks) and direct them to a 3-bed RTO. Thus,
there are two 3-bed RTOs (i.e. one for each paste production line). While the gas flows
through beds 1 and 2 as described above, the third bed is being flushed in order to
remove the remaining raw gas residues into the combustion chamber.
For Phase 2, EMAL plans to install a RTO system similar to Phase 1. Alternatively, a
RTO would be installed to treat high concentration fumes (paste cooler, other equipment
handling hot fuming paste and pitch handling system), in combination with a
conventional coke dry scrubber to treat the low concentration fumes from operations
such as anode forming, material crushing, etc., for the attainment of the best overall
performances and minimization of natural gas consumption.
3.5.3
Hot Bath Fumes Treatment
Hot bath processing and anode butt cooling are significant sources of hydrogen fluoride
that justify a treatment through an alumina dry scrubber. However, a detailed
engineering review concluded that there was some spare capacity at the Phase 1 potline
GTC scrubbers to collect gases from other sources. This solution can be implemented at
a lower cost than a dedicated GTC. For Phase 2, the same principle will be applied and
the fumes for the new hot bath processing and anode butt cooling will be collected to a
GTC of the new potline.
For Phase 1, the GTC extra capacity did not allow for the complete collection of fumes
emitted at the hot bath. Therefore, a dust collector was installed to collect fumes and
dust from the anode pallet load/unload station. Expected performance for PM emission
is 5 mg PM/Nm3. However, HF will not be captured. This operation is estimated to take a
period of less than a minute for each pallet, during which HF emissions will be emitted to
the dust collector. A small increase of less than 0.5 tonnes HF/year (< 0.1 % of total
plant HF emissions) is estimated for this emission.
32
503406
Emirates Aluminium
For Phase 2, the potline GTC will be designed to include fumes from hot bath processing
and anode butt cooling. Therefore, the HF emissions will remain essentially the same as
initially estimated in the EIA.
3.6
UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES - OPERATIONAL PHASE
Impact of project modifications in terms of the main changes to environmental releases
predicted in the June 2007 EIA is summarized in Table 3.11. The overall changes
related to each component of the environment are reviewed in details in the following
sections.
Table 3.11
Impact of Project Modifications on Environmental Releases
Project Modification
Impact on Air Emissions
Impact on liquid effluents
Impact on wastes
Seawater SO2 scrubber not
required for FTC
Increase: 870 t SO2/y
Reduction : 50,000 m /d of
seawater effluent
Not applicable
Seawater SO2 scrubber not
required for GTC Phase 2
Increase: 6,400 t SO2/y
Reduction : 650,000 m3/d of
seawater effluent
Not applicable
RTO for pitch fume treatment
Same as in EIA
Not applicable
Not applicable
GTC Performance (HF)
Worst case:
Increase : 73 t HF/y
Not applicable
Not applicable
Hot bath fume treatment
Negligible (gap< 1 t HF/y)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Potlne configuration
No changes in specific
emissions
Not applicable
Same SPL
generation
Gas turbine gas consumption
increase by 400 M m3/y
Increase GHG emissions
by 750,000 t CO2eq/y
Not applicable
Not applicable
3 baking furnaces instead of 4
No changes in specific
emissions
Water demand adjusted to
100 m3/d
Higher carbon
recycling rates (lower
anode consumption)
Casthouse mix
Not applicable
Project to reuse cooling
water in cascade will
decrease water demand by
3
2000 m /d
Dross generation
rates increase from 8
to 10 kg/t
Transportation of alumina
from farm silo to GTC Phase 2
Minor emissions of NOx
(~8 t/y), CO (~2 t/y) and
CO2 (~500 t/y)
Not applicable
Not applicable
(used oils)
Desalination process
Not applicable
Less than predicted in EIA
Not applicable
3.6.1
3
Air Emissions Update and Revised Targets
The smelter pollution control technology installed in Phase 1 and those intended for
Phase 2 are capable of ensuring compliance with EAD limits. EMAL intends to comply
with best international standards (i.e. IFC and IPPC) whenever possible. However,
compliance with international standards for some parameters for point sources emission
is not guaranteed due to limitations of BAT in the hot region. Hence modifications to
project design criteria are needed. Table 3.12 summarizes the different guidelines and
standards as well as the emission targets proposed by EMAL, based on the
performances achieved for Phase 1. These revised emission targets were presented to
503406
33
Emirates Aluminium
the EAD and approved on 26/10/2011 (EMS/11/ESRF/229). The rationale for changing
these emission targets is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Table 3.12
Paramete
r
Particulates
PFCs
HF
Total
Fluoride
SO2
Update EMAL Emission Targets Approved by the EAD
Process Area
EAD
Standard
Stationary
Sources
Anode Baking
FTC
Potline GTC
150 mg/Nm
IFC
Guidelines
Range Associated
with IPPC BAT
3
Expected
Emission
in EIA 2007
3
< 5 mg/Nm
3
< 5 mg/Nm
< 2 mg/Nm
1 - 5 mg/Nm
3
1 - 5 mg/Nm
150 mg/Nm
Potline
None
Potline GTC
2 mg/Nm
Anode Baking
FTC
2 mg/Nm
Casthouse
2 mg/Nm
Potline GTC
20 mg/Nm
3
0.8 mg/Nm
3
< 0.5 mg/Nm
< 0.3 mg/Nm
Anode Baking
FTC
20 mg/Nm
3
0.8 mg/Nm
3
< 1 mg/Nm
3
Total Smelter
Not
applicable
Potline GTC
1000 mg/Nm
Anode Baking
FTC
3
< 5 mg/Nm
< 0.1 AE/pot/day
0.5
3
mg/Nm
3
3
3
Not
applicable
3
1000
3
mg/Nm
3
< 0.2 mg/Nm
3
< 0.6 mg/Nm
3
< 1 mg/Nm
Not
applicable
3
3
< 0.2 mg/Nm
0.5 mg/Nm
3
Not applicable
Not
applicable
< 0.7 mg/Nm
< 0.2 mg/Nm
3
< 0.5 mg/Nm
Not mentioned
< 1 mg/Nm
3
< 0.5 mg/Nm
< 0.4 kg/t Al
< 0.4 kg/t Al
95% removal
Phase 1: 95% removal
Phase 2: No removal
3
150< conc <330 mg/Nm
95% removal
Casthouse
20 mg/Nm
3
Chlorine
Casthouse
10 mg/Nm
3
NOx
Casthouse
200 mg/Nm
100 mg/Nm
< 100 mg/Nm
3
< 60 mg/Nm
CO
GTC, FTC,
casthouse
500
3
mg/Nm
Not
applicable
Not applicable
500 mg/Nm
BaP
Anode Baking
FTC
Paste plant
RTO
3
< 5 mg/Nm
Not
applicable
< 3 mg/Nm
3
3
3
< 0.3 mg/Nm
)
3
3
< 1.0 mg/Nm
3
< 5 mg/Nm
3
3
3
50 – 200 mg/Nm
Control of S content
of the anodes (<2%S)
Not
applicable
50-200
3
mg/Nm
< 0.1 AE-min/pot/day
3
1000 mg/Nm
3
3
< 0.1 AE/pot/day
Casthouse
HCl
3
3
All scrubbers
and dust
collectors
< 0.1
AE/pot/day
Updated Project
Design Criteria
3
3
No SO2 removal
3
180< conc <300 mg/Nm
3
< 10 mg/Nm
< 10 mg/Nm
0.2<HCl< 0.6
3
mg/Nm
< 5 mg/Nm
0.4 mg/Nm
3
3
3
< 3 mg/Nm
3
< 100 mg/Nm
3
3
PAH
Hydrocarbon
total
Anode Baking
FTC
Paste plant mixing RTO
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
None
None
None
None
Anode Baking
FTC
20 mg/Nm
3
Paste plant
RTO
20 mg/Nm
3
3
< 0.5 mg/Nm
3
Not specified
3
Not specified
Not specified
< 0.5 µg/Nm
< 0.5 µg/Nm
3
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
< 0.5 mg/Nm EPA 16
3
< 0.2 mg/Nm OSPAR11
3
< 0.5 mg/Nm EPA 16
3
< 0.2 mg/Nm OSPAR11
5–50 mg
3
C/Nm
< 1–10 mg C/Nm
3
5 – 50 mg
3
C/Nm
< 1–10 mg C/Nm
3
34
FTC: < 200 mg/Nm
3
Casthouse:<100 mg/Nm
GTC: derogation to EAD
3
3
< 0.2 mg/Nm
OSPAR11
< 0.5 mg/Nm OSPAR 11
Not specified
< 10 mg/Nm OSPAR11
3
3
3
< 2 mg C/Nm
3
Not specified
< 10 mg C/Nm
3
< 1.7 mg tar/Nm
3
< 10 mg C/Nm
3
< 1.7 mg tar/Nm
503406
Emirates Aluminium
3.6.1.1
Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)
For the time being, BAT limits have not yet been developed for hot weather regions.
Experience with smelters in the Arabian Gulf shows that HF emissions are higher in hot
weather climates than in smelters located in cooler climates on which the experience of
GTC suppliers was mainly developed. The IFC limit of 0.5 mg HF/Nm3 was based on
guarantees usually provided by GTC suppliers in cooler climates.
Operation of the GTCs with wet scrubbers at EMAL Phase 1 results in HF emissions
lower than 0.1 mg HF/Nm3, which is better than the maximum levels of 0.2 mg HF/Nm3
predicted in the 2007 EIA. However, due to some commissioning issues, the wet
scrubbers entered gradually in operation on 17 January 2011 and were in operation
about 40% of the time from January to June 2011. Full operation of wet scrubbers is
expected in Q1 2012.
After 22 months of operation, with good operation procedures, the limit of
0.5 mg HF/Nm3 has been difficult to be consistently achieved for GTC’s alumina dry
scrubbers when the wet scrubbers were not in operation. This situation in EMAL is not
different from the other smelters in the Arabian Gulf. Recent experience of other
smelters with alumina dry scrubbers installed in the last three years show that the annual
average of HF emissions is approximately 0.7 mg/Nm3, with peak values up to
1.4 mg/Nm3 occurring in the summer months. Despite these facts, the GTC supplier
provided a guarantee of 0.5 mg HF/Nm3 for the Phase 2 GTCs as they expect to gain
knowledge from the optimization of the GTC operation for Phase 1.
Therefore, EMAL proposes a revised project emission target of 0.7 mg HF/Nm3 for
annual average. In terms of total fluorides, as the proportion of gaseous fluorides (HF)
and particulate fluoride is approximately 2/3 – 1/3, the annual target for total fluorides will
be 1 mg/Nm3. However, maximum HF emission will comply with the EAD HF emission
standard (2.0 mg/Nm3). Considering that the HF emissions may potentially be higher
than expected in the 2007 EIA, air dispersion modelling is updated in Section 5.3.1.2.
3.6.1.2
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
The SO2 emissions are related to the sulphur content of raw materials (coke and pitch).
Contrarily to the expected sulphur content predicted for coke (3.5% S) in the 2007 EIA,
EMAL will be able to procure in a sustainable manner coke with a Sulphur content up to
2.8% (equivalent to 2.5% S anodes). The EU IPPC Draft Reference Document on BAT
in the Non Ferrous Metal Industries (July 2009) mentions that emission levels between
50 and 200 mg/Nm3 can be obtained if the anode sulphur content is less than 2%. The
IFC limits refer to this same range only for the SO2 emissions from holding and
degassing of molten aluminium (casthouse).
EMAL will not be below these concentration levels for each single source in the smelter.
While SO2 concentrations from Phase 1 GTC’s will be lower (less than 20 mg/Nm3) than
503406
35
Emirates Aluminium
the IPPC range due to the use of seawater scrubbers and that SO2 emissions from
casthouse will be below 50 mg/Nm3, the expected SO2 emissions from Phase 2 GTC’s
should be close to 200 mg/Nm3 as shown from the actual emission monitoring data
collected at Phase 1 GTCs (see Table 3.8 and discussion in Section 3.5.1). These levels
will be confirmed by the CEMS data that will be collected for the Phase 2 GTC’s.
The performance and efficiency tests on both FTCs and GTCs show that actual SO2
emissions are lower than the values predicted by the mass balance. From mass balance
calculations, the emission of SO2 in the flue gas of Phase 2 GTC’s would be in the range
of 330 mg/Nm3 at the entry of the potline dry scrubber for a 2.8% S coke. The maximum
values of 330 mg/Nm3 for the GTCs and 300 mg/Nm3 for the FTCs in Table 3.12
represent the maximum concentrations as per mass balance calculations (2.8%S coke).
All EMAL sources of atmospheric emissions will always meet the EAD SO2 emission
standard of 1000 mg/Nm3 for stationary sources. SO2 levels will be lower than the IFC
limits of 50-200 mg/Nm3 required for holding and degassing of molten aluminium
(casthouse).
3.6.1.3
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
The EAD CO emission standard of 500 mg/Nm3 applies to all combustion sources of
EMAL that is all the equipment burning natural gas. There are no emission guidelines
from either IFC or EU BAT.
The EAD CO emission standard will not apply to the reduction process (GTC’s stacks),
as it is not a combustion source where combustion can be adjusted with air addition. The
CO ambient air monitoring data collected at ADPC and EMAL AAQMS presented in
Section 4.2.2.3 shows that CO levels in ambient air are much lower than EAD ambient
air standards and are not a concern for the air quality in the area.
3.6.1.4
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
With regard to PAHs, the best available technology (RTO) was selected to control
emissions of pitch fumes and PAH from the paste plant (see section 3.5.2). The EU BAT
levels are 0.2 mg/Nm3 (OSPAR11) or 0.5 mg/Nm3 (EPA16). There are no limits
specified by IFC.
Knowledge of suppliers of BAT equipment is incomplete in certain applications, such as
RTO. The PAH emissions measured during the first performance tests in Phase 1 were
approximately 8 mg/Nm3 (OSPAR 11). Operation parameters were revised to obtain a
better performance in terms of PAH emissions. PAH monitoring was conducted in
August 2011 and results were 6.1 and 4.3 mg/Nm3 for RTO 1 and RTO 2 respectively.
Additional PAH monitoring was recently conducted in October 2011 and results should
be known by the end of 2011.
36
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Considering that most (~ 95%) of the PAHs are removed and that the levels emitted are
only traces, it is proposed that a revised target of 10 mg/Nm3 (OSPAR 11) be applied as
an acceptable performance for the RTO.
In comparison with regulatory levels for PAH emissions from other countries (as
requested by the EAD), it can be mentioned that Environment Canada is presently
contemplating an emission standard of 20 g PAH (EPA 15) per tonne of paste. This
emission limit reflects the operation of less efficient air pollution control equipment (coke
injection dry scrubbers).
According to EMAL stack monitoring data, emissions of 10 mg/Nm3 (OSPAR 11) are
approximately equivalent to a concentration of 20 mg/Nm3 (EPA 15). Considering the
amount of paste produced during the performance tests, this concentration corresponds
to an emission of 7 g PAH (EPA 15) per tonne of paste, which is 35% of the expected
future Environment Canada PAH emission standard.
In conclusion, a PAH emission target of 10 mg/Nm3 (OSPAR11) is an achievable limit for
EMAL and adapted for the operation of a RTO in hot weather climate. This level was
approved by the EAD in October 2010.
With regard to anode baking FTCs, a PAH limit of 0.5 mg/Nm3 (OSPAR11) is proposed
as a reasonable limit for the project, based on performance tests and expected
monitoring results.
3.6.1.5
Updated Annual Air Emissions
Taking into consideration all the project modifications introduced in the design of the
project, the annual atmospheric emissions predicted in the EIA are updated in Table
3.13.
The largest difference with the June 2007 EIA is related to the SO2 emissions. The
removal of the seawater scrubbers for Phase 2 GTCs and all FTCs will increase the
annual emissions by 7,300 tonnes. As mentioned in Section 3.6.1.2, SO2 emissions are
estimated based on use of 2.8% S coke and 95% removal efficiency for wet scrubbers
(Phase 1). For Phase 2, two cases are provided: an emission of 200 mg/Nm3 (GTC)
and 300 mg/Nm3 (FTC) based on performance test; and an emission of 330 mg/Nm3
(GTC) and 280 mg/Nm3 (FTC).
Annual PAH (OSPAR11) emissions were estimated based on a worst-case emission of
10 mg/Nm3 at RTO stacks and 0.5 mg/Nm3 at FTC stacks. Overall the annual PAH
emissions will be slightly less than predicted in the 2007 EIA.
503406
37
Table 3.13
Emirates Aluminium
Annual Atmospheric Emissions – EMAL Aluminium Smelter
Particulate
Fluoride
HF(1)
Parameter
SO2(2)
PAHs (3)
Total
Particulates
Source
Avg
t/y
Max.
t/y
Avg
t/y
Max.
t/y
Perf test
data
Max
t/y
t/y
Electrolysis stacks
70.5
100
35
50
8,160
12,279
---
72
Potroom roof vent
168
350
84
175
290
291
---
490
Baking furnace
stack
1.8
1.8
1
1
1,032
1,005
Bath processing
plant
2.1
2.1
1
1
-
Paste plant stack
0
0
0
0
Holding furnace
stack / casthouse
0
0
0
TOTAL 2011 (t/y)
242
454
kg/ t Al
0.173
0.324
(3)
1.8
14
-
-
8
0
0
4.8(3)
3
0
Traces
Traces
0
280
121
227
9,483
13,575
6.6
870
0.086
0.162
6.77
9.70
0.0047
0.62
EIA 2007 (t/y)
382
191
2,167
7
520
kg/t Al
0.273
0.137
1.55
0.005
0.37
(1) Based on a roof vent emission of 0.25 kg HF/t Al (worst case) and 0.12 kg HF/t Al (average case), and GTC
3
3
stack concentrations of 0.7 mg/Nm (average case) and 1.0 mg/Nm (worst case)
(2) Maximum calculated using a sulphur mass balance of 2.8% S for coke and 0.6% S for pitch, and 95%
removal efficiency for Phase 1 GTCs – Performance test data indicates 40% SO2 removal for GTCs
3
3
(3) Based on an emission of 10 mg/Nm for paste plant RTO and 0.5 mg/Nm for baking furnace (OSPAR 11)
Two cases are provided for the HF emissions. The worst case (454 t HF/y) considers an
emission of 0.26 kg HF/t Al at potroom roof vents as presented in the EIA, and a
maximum emission of 1 mg HF/Nm3 for all GTCs. However, the average case is much
lower due to the roof vent emissions presently less than 50% (maximum of 0.12 kg HF/t
Al) of the values predicted in 2007. The average case (242 t HF/y) considers an
average concentration of 0.7 mg HF/Nm3 for all GTCs, despite the fact that Phase 1 SO2
scrubbers will further reduce the HF emissions by at least 30 t HF/y (based on an
emission of 0.2 mg HF/Nm3). Both worst and average cases consider a concentration of
0.5 mg HF/Nm3 for FTC stacks.
The particulate (PM) emissions (870 t/y) are higher than predicted in 2007 (520 t/y). An
erratum occurred in 2007 EIA. PM emissions from smelters equipped with a double
ventilation system are similar to emissions from a high draft system such as EMAL. PM
emissions from potroom roof vent are in the range of 0.35 and not 0.1 kg PM/t Al as
initially mentioned in 2007, leading to a total emission of 870 t/y. The PM emissions
measured at EMAL roof vents proved this assertion to be confirmed with an average of
0.31 kg PM/t Al.
38
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Power Plant Emissions
Based on CEMS data and on results of the performance tests done on the emissions of
the gas turbines, the estimated power plant emissions considering the worst case of 4
power blocks in continuous operation throughout the year will remain equal or lower than
the emissions expected in 2007 (Table 3.14).
Table 3.14
Annual Emissions from the Power Plant
Parameter
2007 EIA (t/y)
Update 2011 (t/y)
Basis of estimate
SO2
600
600
46 ppmv H2S in gas
NOx
6692
5100
20 ppmv – 15% O2 dry
Particulates
669
325
2.5 mg/Nm3– 15% O2 dry
CO
2510
500
3 ppmv – 15% O2 dry
3.6.1.6
Air Emissions Related to Transportation of Pitch and Alumina
Annual air emissions resulting from the transportation of alumina and pitch by trucks are
provided in Table 3.15. For both cases, a diesel consumption of 35 L/100 km was
assumed for the calculations. EMAL will use its fleet of alumina hopper truck to carry
alumina from the silo farm to the GTC silos. A total of 80 loads per day will be
necessary, for a round-trip of 2 km. Pitch will continue to be transported from Jebel Ali
and a total of 3400 round trips (130 km per round trip) per year are required.
Table 3.15
Pollutant
NOx
CO
SO2 (1)
PM10(2)
NMVOC
Greenhouse gases
CO2 (GWP=1)
CH4 (GWP=21)
N20 (GWP=310)
CO2 eq
Annual Emissions Estimated for Transportation of Raw Materials
IPPC Emission Factor
g/kg diesel
Emission (tonnes/y)
Pitch
Alumina
49
16
1.0
1.93
7.1
0.9
0.3
0.02
0.035
0.13
6.6
2.2
0.14
0.26
1.0
3140
0.17
1.3
3546.6
56
0.003
0.023
63
425
0.023
0.176
480
(1) Assumption: 0.05% of sulphur in diesel – Diesel density: 875 kg/m3
(2) Source : US EPA AP42 Emission Factors
GWP: Global Warming Potential
503406
39
3.6.2
Emirates Aluminium
Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases were reviewed in light of project changes. The smelter GHG
emissions remain the same with less than 2.7 million tonnes CO2eq/y, as shown in Table
3.16.
EMAL was the first installation of large frame gas turbines in the UAE. The estimate for
the consumption of natural gas for the power plant was underestimated in 2007 as it did
not consider turbine degradation and used HHV instead of LHV for the heating value of
the gas. Greenhouse gases from the power plant were re-estimated taking into account
a worst case in terms of gas consumption. The specific GHG emission for the power
plant is estimated to 398 g CO2/kWh (LHV), similar to the value of 396 g CO2/kWh
mentioned by IFC (IFC 2008). The efficiency (LHV) of the power plant is estimated to be
in the range 52.3% - 53.3%.
Table 3.16
Update Greenhouse Gas Emission
GHG Emissions Factors
Combustible
Units
Natural gas
g/m
3
CO2
CH4
N2O
1,891
0.037
0.033
Gasoline
g/L
2,360
0.41
1
Diesel
g/L
2,730
0.13
0.1
1
21
310
t CO2/y
t CH4 /y
t N2O /y
159.5
142.3
8,200,000
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
GHG from Combustible
Power Plant – gas
Consumption
Units
4,311,000,000
3
m /y
8,152,000
t CO2eq /y
GHG Emissions Smelter
Phase 1 – Smelter – gas
Phase 2 – Smelter – gas
Diesel (vehicle)
Sub-total Smelter
Process GHG Emissions
m3/y
174,000
3.4
3.04
175,000
55,000,000
3
m /y
104,000
2.04
1.82
105,000
4,000,000
L/y
11,000
0,52
0,4
11,000
289,000
118
1,630
291,000
t CO2 /y
t CF4 / y
C2F6
t CO2eq /y
1
6,500
9,200
92,000,000
t CO2 eq/y
Key data
Units
1
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Net anode consumption
406/415
kg/t Al
2,048,000
0
0
2,048,000
Anode Effect
0.1
AEmin/pot/d
-
20
2.4
152,000
Baking losses
32
kg/t Al
160,000
0
0
160,000
2,208,000
130,000
22,000
Sub-total Smelter
t CO2 eq/y
2,360,000
Total Smelter
2,650,000
Total Power Plant
8,200,000
Total GHG Emissions (t CO2 eq./year)- 2011 Update
10,850,000
GHG Emissions (t CO2 eq/year) Estimated in 2007 EIA
10,100,000
40
503406
Emirates Aluminium
3.6.3
Water Management Update
The same principles mentioned in June 2007 EIA still guide the water management
strategies in EMAL smelter (Phases 1 and 2):
•
Minimize water consumption and tend as much as possible to a zero discharge for
process wastewater from the aluminium smelter.
•
To the maximum extent possible, wastewater is recycled to another part of the
process that has a lower quality requirement (e.g., casthouse cooling tower
blowdown will be recycled in cascade in other casthouse cooling towers prior to use
through the anode baking fume treatment conditioning tower).
•
Sanitary wastewaters are segregated and treated by a dedicated facility designed to
treat most of the wastewater from the construction site works.
•
No washdown water is used on floors in the process areas (except for the mobile
equipment washing area), and the process areas are not be equipped with floor
drains.
•
Landscaped areas will be equipped with an irrigation system. The irrigation system
will use recycled water (disinfected treated sanitary wastewaters and settled storm
water runoff) to the maximum possible extent.
•
Wastewater generated at the power/desalination plant (including boiler blowdown,
neutralized demineraliser regenerant and desalination system blowdown and cooling
water) are fed to the cooling tower basins and serve as part of the tower system
makeup water.
3.6.3.1
Water Balance
The water balance has been substantially optimized since 2007 and is presented in
Figure A.3. Based on current water demand, less process water than initially estimated
will be required for the different processes, whether it’d be for cooling purposes or for
SO2 seawater scrubbers:
•
The removal of the seawater scrubbers for all the FTC’s and Phase 2 GTC’s will
reduce the consumption of seawater by 700,000 m3/d.
•
A lower liquid to air ratio will be required to maintain a SO2 removal efficiency of 95%
than initially planned in the design (3.2 l/Nm3 versus design value of 3.5 l/Nm3)
reduces the amount of seawater consumed by approximately 50,000 m3/d.
•
Cooling tower requirements in permeate water as makeup water for air compressors
will be reduced by 1,500 m3/d to 500 m3/d.
503406
41
3.6.3.2
Emirates Aluminium
Final Effluent
The final liquid effluent from EMAL site is mostly composed of the effluent from the SO2
wet scrubbers and the blowdown from the seawater cooling towers. While the June 2007
EIA provided only an estimation of the quality of this effluent prior to its discharge to
ADPC marine outfall, Phase 1 monitoring data is now available (Table 3.17) and
provides a sound basis for the prediction of the impacts associated with Phase 2.
Though the seawater SO2 scrubbers were in operation 40% of the time between January
and June 2011, the ‘time on’ was increased to 50% in July and 75% in August and
September 2011, during the three hottest months of the year. Apart from pH levels that
were reduced by approximately 0.5 units (from 8.1 to 7.6 in average), there are no clear
trends observed on other parameters for the liquid effluent.
As per the monitoring data collected so far, the final effluent quality is in compliance with
the EAD limits for all parameters and generally complies with the IFC criteria. Results
obtained for the following parameters are discussed below: Free Residual Chlorine
(FRC), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), temperature, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
and salinity:
•
Free Residual Chlorine (FRC): The FRC daily average (0.09 mg/l) in the final
effluent is complying with both the EAD limit (1 mg/l) and the IFC guideline (0.2 mg/l).
However, 12% of the measurements have exceeded the IFC guideline (without
exceeding the EAD limit). These higher levels were probably due to chlorine shock
treatments to prevent marine biofouling. The operating data and shock treatment
procedure will be reviewed to ensure that free chlorine at effluent remains within IFC
limits. It is expected that FRC levels at the final effluent will reduce when the
seawater scrubbers will be in full operation. Between 20 July and 2 October 2011
when 75% of the seawater scrubbers were in operation, the highest chlorine level
was 0.14 mg/l.
•
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD): The COD weekly average (44 mg/l) is
complying with both the EAD limit (100 mg/l) and the IFC guideline (50 mg/l).
Although the COD levels have slightly exceeded the IFC guideline on two occasions
(maximum: 58 mg/l) over 41 values, the guideline has been achieved for 95% of the
measurements. As per the IFC Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants (2008), the
effluent guidelines should be achieved, without dilution, at least 95% of the time that
the plant or unit is operating, to be calculated as a proportion of annual operating
hours.
42
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Final Effluent Quality (2010-2011)
Average
Maximum
No. of
Exceedances
0
1.0
3.0
0
6-9
368
7.1
8.0
9.0
0
µS/cm
-
-
368
35,200
64,968
74,200
-
TDS
mg/L
NA
-
283
25,520
47,708
54,454
-
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
>3
IFC Limit
270
6–9
EAD Limit
(1)
Unit
<3
Parameter
Minimum
No. of
Measurements
Table 3.17
Daily measurements (15/08/2010 to 02/10/2011)
ΔT
C°
5
pH
-
Conductivity
1
mg/L
Weekly measurements (05/09/2010 to 25/09/2011)
-
368
4.2
5.2
7.7
0
0.2
295
0
0.09
0.66
34
0
Fluoride
mg/L
20
5
41
0.6
1.0
1.4
SO4
mg/L
-
-
53
3,325
3,957
4,419
-
Oil & grease
mg/L
10
10
108
2
3
4
0
100
50
mg/L
COD
Variable measurement frequency (15/08/2010 to 25/09/2011)
41
36
44
58
2
Hydrocarbon
mg/L
15
5
16
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0
TOC
mg/L
75
-
2
1.8
2.2
2.6
0
Turbidity
NTU
75
-
40
0.3
0.9
1.4
0
g/kg
-
-
86
38
43
73
-
TSS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
20
50
5
20
5
5
5
0.6
3,299
2
1.2
3,696
4
1.8
4,048
5
0
0
COD
mg/L
100
50
4
23
39
46
0
BOD
mg/L
50
-
3
2
3
4
0
Oil & grease
mg/L
10
10
3
2
2
3
0
HC
mg/L
15
5
2
4
0
mg/L
20
0.2
5
4
<0.01
4
Al
0.02
0.03
0
As
mg/L
0.05
0.5
5
<0.001
0.002
0.003
0
Cd
mg/L
0.05
0.1
5
<0.001
0.006
0.010
0
Cu
mg/L
0.5
0.5
5
0.003
0.009
0.030
0
Cr
mg/L
0.2
0.5
5
<0.001
0.006
0.010
0
Fe
mg/L
2
1.0
5
0.004
0.079
0.250
0
Hg
mg/L
0.001
0.005
3
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
0
Salinity
Quarterly (01/12/2010 to 11/09/2011)
Fluoride
SO4
Mn
mg/L
0.2
-
4
0.001
0.011
0.016
0
Ni
mg/L
0.1
-
5
<0.001
0.005
0.010
0
Pb
mg/L
0.1
0.5
5
<0.001
0.008
0.020
0
Zn
mg/L
0.5
1.0
5
<0.001
0.004
0.01
0
Sb
mg/L
0.1
-
3
<0.001
0.006
0.006
0
Ba
mg/L
2
-
3
0.008
0.009
0.010
0
Be
mg/L
0.05
-
3
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0
Co
mg/L
0.2
-
1
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0
Se
mg/L
0.02
-
3
<0.001
0.005
0.005
0
Total Phosphorus (P)
mg/L
2
-
5
0.01
0.04
0.11
0
B
mg/L
-
-
3
3.6
4.1
4.9
0
1
Applicable at the edge of a scientifically established mixing zone which takes into account ambient water
quality, receiving water use, potential receptors and assimilative capacity.
503406
43
Emirates Aluminium
•
Temperature: The 2007 EIA predicted a temperature differential of less than 1˚C
between the water intake and the outfall. This has been the case for 72% of the
measurements, the average temperature difference being 1˚C, with a maximum
value of 3˚C. These results are complying with the EAD limit of 5˚C at outfall
discharge and obviously comply with the IFC guideline of 3˚C applicable at the edge
of the mixing zone of the discharge (after discharge mixes in seawater).
•
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and salinity: As mentioned in section 2.6.4 above,
the UAE limit of 1,500 mg/l for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is not applicable to the
final effluent considering that EMAL uses seawater that already has TDS levels
many times above this value at the water intake. The 2007 EIA predicted that salt
concentrations in the final effluent would consistently be between 1,000 and
2,500 mg/l above the existing seawater background levels (refer to 2007 EIA, section
5.5.1). This is confirmed by the data collected so far by EMAL at the outfall where the
TDS and salinity levels are on average respectively 1,900 mg/l and 1,250 mg/l higher
than the levels measured at the intake.
3.6.4
Waste Management Update
3.6.4.1
Dross Update
This section provides the latest available information regarding dross treatment and
disposal at EMAL, including revised dross quantities. When the 2007 EIA was prepared,
EMAL had not yet confirmed its dross treatment and disposal method, although the EIA
mentioned that it would potentially be done off-site by a third party.
Dross (or skimmings) is a type of waste generated at the casthouse, which consists of
solid impurities and oxides floating on the surface of the molten aluminium. It can easily
be skimmed before casting the metal and then recycled to recover the metal. Based on
Phase 1 operation, it is expected that EMAL dross generation rate will remain under
10 kg/t Al (Table 3.18). While this rate is higher than initially estimated in the 2007 EIA, it
remains at the lower end of the 10-50 kg/t Al range reported in the Draft Reference
Document on Best Available Techniques in the Non-Ferrous Metals Industries (the socalled BREF) published by the European Commission (EC, 2009).
Table 3.18
Dross Generation at EMAL
Dross generation
Rate (kg/t Al)
Annual quantity (t/yr)
2007 EIA
(Phases 1 & 2)
2011 Update
(Phases 1 & 2)
8
Max. 10
11,200
13,100
44
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Dross generated by Phase 1 operations is currently being sent to the Cast Aluminium
Industries (CAI) facility in Dubai for metal recovery. Dross transport started in September
2010 after EMAL obtained an approval from the Center of Waste Management – Abu
Dhabi (CWM-AD).
Dross processing at CAI starts after unloading of material in designated areas where it
gets segregated into lumpy (+300 mm) and loose material (-300 mm) fractions. The
lumpy fraction is sent to the furnace directly, whereas the loose material is sent to the
alchemizer to enrich the material into three grades: +4mm, +20 mesh, and -20 mesh.
The +4 mm and +20 mesh is sent to the smelting furnace, whereas the -20 mesh is
packed in jumbo bags for possible sale. Liquid metal is tapped from the furnace cooled
down and allowed to solidify into sow cast. The waste residue from the smelting process
is sent to the secondary crushing to extract alumina from the waste before it is sent to
Jebel Ali landfill. CAI is working on an expansion project that will allow the reception and
treatment of the additional quantity of dross that will be generated by EMAL Phase 2.CAI
Process flow is depicted in the below figure (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1
3.6.4.2
CAI Process Flow
SPL Update
Expected average pot life has remained at five years. EMAL has structured a formal
process aimed to develop the overall SPL management strategy and outline the
roadmap for the construction of a de-lining facility. Various SPL treatment options are
currently being explored and once concluded a decision will be made if a dedicated SPL
503406
45
Emirates Aluminium
storage facility is required. Nevertheless, basic engineering has been performed on a
potential dedicated SPL storage facility if later required. The following strategic planning
milestones have been achieved:
•
Development of environmental guidelines for SPL project
•
Contingency plan for pot failures during 2011-12
•
Feasibility study for delining/lining
•
Basic engineering proposal for delining project (project No. 1101)
•
Basic engineering proposal for SPL storage and logistics management (RD1116)
•
Investigation of possible treatment options currently existing in the UAE
•
Treatment options identified in the UAE and collaborating with Dubal to finalise a
joint strategy for treatment in the cement industry
•
SPL treatment strategy for a centralized treatment plant in the GCC countries, in
conjunction with GAC; and endorsed feasibility on treatment
Adequate temporary safe storage for SPL in a building or in specialized containers will
be a minimum requirement to be implemented in EMAL. SPL will be temporarily
accumulated before it is sent for treatment / recycling. The following approaches will be
assumed for temporary safe storage of SPL that takes into account environmental
considerations:
•
The plant will allow an indoor area for pot delining
•
Separating area will be equipped with dust control equipment
•
SPL storage on a confined impervious floor
•
Absence of water inside the storage facility
•
SPL will be maintained in a dry state to prevent accumulation of explosive
concentrations of hydrogen and methane
•
SPL storage area will be adequately and continuously ventilated
•
Be secure and marked to prevent unauthorized, unrecognized and undetected entry
3.7
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
This section describes the activities and temporary facilities related to the construction of
EMAL Project Phase 2 based on the Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) study
completed by SNC-Lavalin International Inc. (SLII) in June 2011.
46
503406
Emirates Aluminium
3.7.1
Overview
The construction of Phase 2 of EMAL Smelter Complex Project is planned to take place
from 2011 to 2014. The EPCM contract has been awarded to SLII. Construction will be
undertaken using conventional construction techniques and equipment common to major
heavy industrial projects. Figure 3-2 shows EMAL Phase 2 construction areas (green),
which will be fenced from the Phase 1 operations area (orange).
Figure 3.2
3.7.2
Phase 2 Site Layout
Labour Force
The number of construction workers will vary depending on the schedule (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3
503406
Workforce – Construction Phase 2
47
Emirates Aluminium
It is estimated that there will be an average of 5,000 workers and a peak workforce of
12,000. It is expected that the breakdown of the total workforce will be approximately:
30% unskilled and semi-skilled, 60% trade people and 10% supervision and
management professionals. The contractors mobilized on EMAL Project will provide
accommodation to their workers in existing camps located in Taweelah, Jebel Ali,
Mussafah or elsewhere and the workers will commute by bus to the construction site.
There will not be any construction workers accommodated on site.
3.7.3
Construction Activities
3.7.3.1
Site Preparation
Some of the permanent bulk earthworks required for Phase 2 were completed in 20082009 following the completion of Phase 1 site preparation activities. The required backfill
material was sourced from a municipal borrow pit located in Sweihan (approximately
70% of the material) and another borrow pit located in Area B (east) of Khalifa Industrial
Zone Abu Dhabi (KIZAD) (approximately 30% of the material) by 35 to 40 m3 trucks on
local roads. It is to be noted that EMAL informed the EAD of these activities in October
2008 (refer to letter EMAL/1000/L0012/SA/aw dated 15 October 2008).
The remaining scope, comprising permanent fill and cut-to-fill works along with
temporary earthworks for building construction roads and creating laydown areas, will be
done as early as possible since this activity is part of the project’s critical path. The
primary source of supply of off-site general backfill material will be identified and
selected by the site preparation contractor.
The site levels for both Phases are based on an internal study that has been conducted
to define the safe operation floor elevation, in terms of storm surge, wave action and sea
level rise. The recommended site formation level is +2.40 m NADD (New Abu Dhabi
Datum) and the study has concluded that a safe floor level for buildings should be set at
a minimum of +2.70 m NADD, which allows a 300 mm freeboard in case of overtopping
from events greater than the 1 in 100 year return period.
3.7.3.2
Fencing
The complete permanent fencing of EMAL site has been completed as part of Phase 1.
Additional fencing will be used extensively during the construction of Phase 2 in order to
segregate the construction and operation areas. Approximately 19 km of fencing will be
used for this purpose.
3.7.3.3
Roads
The permanent site access roads up to the plant fence have been completed as part of
Phase 1, however, these roads are currently being relocated as part of ADPC and
48
503406
Emirates Aluminium
KIZAD development plan. As for the internal roads, a perimeter access road and a
network of temporary unpaved roads have been built to be used during the construction
phases. The permanent road network required for Phase 1 has also been completed
and consists of hot metal and service roads that will be extended to meet the Phase 2
requirements.
3.7.3.4
Foundations
As confirmed by the geotechnical investigation, Phase 2 foundations will be generally
identical to those of Phase 1 (i.e. concrete piles and stone columns). Exception will be
taken in cases where new buildings will be in close proximity to existing Phase 1
structures and when stone columns placement could impact Phase 1 operations.
3.7.3.5
Concrete Works
The major concrete works include the foundations and the slabs on grade for the main
sectors of the smelter (reduction, carbon plant and casthouse) and power plant. Many
structural slabs will also be pre-cast on site (e.g. floor slabs, busbar supports, anode
baking furnace walls, etc.). Concrete reinforcing steel bars will be generally supplied to
the site pre-cut and bent with some pre-assembly of the steel reinforcing cages done off
site.
3.7.3.6
Steel and Sheeting
As soon as concrete operations will have progressed sufficiently to provide a safe work
area, structural steel erection will begin, using standard techniques. This will involve the
delivery of pre-fabricated structural steel to the site and their erection with cranes.
Sheeting will be delivered to the site and erected using cranes and special mobile
gantries that travel along the structure. The GTCs and alumina silos in the potroom
courtyards will be installed when the foundations have been constructed.
3.7.3.7
Mechanical and Electrical Works
The mechanical erection and installation of the numerous items of mechanical
equipment will start in sections of the buildings, as their construction is complete.
Likewise, electrical lighting and cabling will commence after closure of the building or
after completion of steel erection in the case of open structures. Mechanical erection
also includes the installation of the ventilation ducting, dust collection systems,
conveyors, mechanical machinery and internal electrical system. Extensive use will be
made of construction cranes to install mechanical equipment.
A major activity will be the installation and welding of the busbar system, which will occur
in the basement of the potrooms. The busbar system will be pre-fabricated off-site and
delivered as sub-assemblies to ensure accuracy in assembly and minimize on-site work.
503406
49
3.7.3.8
Emirates Aluminium
Equipment Installation
Most of the equipment will be delivered to the site in large pre-assembled sections to
reduce site installation time. Bulky and heavy equipment may require delivery by barge.
The gas turbines, steam turbines, and HRSGs are composed of large modules that will
need to be installed on their foundations before building erection is completed. This
major construction phase will take place during the final year of construction.
3.7.4
Temporary Facilities
3.7.4.1
Construction Cabins
A number of facilities put in place during the construction of Phase 1 will be used for
Phase 2. This includes the site cafeteria and mosque, first aid medical services, security
cabins and gates and construction warehouse. However, all existing construction cabins
are to be relocated. The installation of additional construction cabins will also be required
on Phase 2, all project engineering will be performed on site and this will result in a net
increase of personnel for the EPCM contractor when compared to Phase 1.
3.7.4.2
Laydown Areas
Contractors mobilizing on site for Phase 2 will be allocated dedicated laydown areas
where they will install their temporary offices, storage areas, work areas and
maintenance workshops.
3.7.4.3
Construction Batch Plant & Precast Yard
Concrete will be supplied by two site-specific concrete batch plants already installed at
the eastern end of the site during Phase 1. The batch plants will remain available on site
until the end of Phase 2 works, with two central mixers in operation, and will be
dismantled at the end of the construction phase. The existing precast yard installed
adjacent to the batch plant during Phase 1 will remain available at its current location
until the end of Phase 2 works. However, the original size of the precast yard size will be
reduced. Fugitive emissions from the batch plants are described in Section 0.
3.7.5
Temporary Services
3.7.5.1
Power Supply
A study has shown that power produced by generators is more expensive than power
purchased from Abu Dhabi Distribution Company (ADDC). Consequently, the 11 kV
construction power infrastructures will be reviewed and rearranged to provide power to
50
503406
Emirates Aluminium
as many contractors as possible for their laydown area offices. Construction power will
be supplied through generators.
3.7.5.2
Water Supply for Construction Activities
Water will be required for various construction activities (e.g. dust abatement, ground
compaction, piling, etc.). During construction of Phase 1, these water needs were met by
pumping seawater at two temporary stations located on Abu Dhabi Port Company
(ADPC) land (approximately 500 m from EMAL site) and by pumping brackish
groundwater from four shallow water lagoons dug on site. Although the 2007 EIA did not
mention that groundwater and seawater would be used for construction purposes, the
EAD was informed about the situation in 2008 (refer to letter EMAL/1000/L001/SA/vh
dated 28 July 2008)
Similarly, seawater and groundwater will also be used for Phase 2 construction activities
and the water lagoons that are located within the Phase 2 footprint will cease to be
utilised. In addition, the treated sewage effluent from EMAL Sewage Treatment Plant
(STP) that is not used for irrigation purpose may be used for construction activities.
3.7.5.3
Potable Water Supply
Although most of the potable water will be used on site for human consumption, some
construction activities such as concrete fabrication and concrete curing will require
potable water.
During the construction of Phase 1, the EPCM contractor collected data regarding
potable water consumption on site. This data is presented below on a daily basis and
compared to manpower on site (Figure 3.4). With an average close to 400 m3/day,
potable water consumption reached a maximum of approximately 1,400 m3/day. Based
on these figures, it is estimated that the construction of Phase 2 will necessitate
approximately 300 m3/day on average and could reach a maximum of 1,000 m3/day.
The existing tie-in to ADDC distribution network will be used to provide most of the
potable water required during construction of Phase 2. Various tapping points on the
existing water line installed on site and used during Phase 1 to supply water to the
power plant will allow both smelter and power plant contractors to fill their tankers to
provide water in their own areas.
503406
51
Average Daily Potable Water Consumption – Construction Phase 1
20,000
1,600
18,000
1,400
16,000
1,200
14,000
m3/day
1,000
12,000
800
10,000
8,000
600
6,000
400
no. of workers
Figure 3.4
Emirates Aluminium
4,000
200
2,000
Jan-08
Feb-08
Mar-08
Apr-08
May-08
Jun-08
Jul-08
Aug-08
Sep-08
Oct-08
Nov-08
Dec-08
Jan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
May-09
Jun-09
Jul-09
Aug-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Dec-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10
Jul-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Oct-10
Nov-10
Dec-10
Jan-11
Feb-11
Mar-11
Apr-11
May-11
Jun-11
Jul-11
0
Water consumption (m3/day)
3.7.6
Manpower
Port Facilities and Material Handling
Oversize and/or heavy equipment to be delivered on site for Phase 2 can be handled
through the ADPC provided temporary construction jetty that was used during Phase 1.
This jetty facility will remain available for EMAL Phase 2 use until Khalifa Port
construction is completed.
General cargo and container shipments will be handled in Jebel Ali Port (Dubai) and
Mina Zayed (Abu Dhabi) until the Khalifa Port is able to begin shipping and receiving
cargo.
3.7.7
Construction Camp
As per the present plans, there will not be any workers accommodation on site during
the construction of Phase 2. All workers will be bused to site from various worker
accommodations (depending on who wins the various construction contracts). Should
the plans change, prior notification will be given to the lenders and the EAD. The existing
on-site camp will be dismantled at the end of the Phase 2 construction works and will be
rehabilitated in view of a suitable industrial use.
It is in the interest of the project that workers benefit from good living conditions and
well-managed workers’ camps. As mentioned in 2007 EIA, SLII will regularly (and
without notice) audit the living conditions in the labour camps. Contractors consistently
unable to maintain good living conditions for their workers will be banned from the
project. Additional information on construction camps is provided in Section 5.2.5.
52
503406
Emirates Aluminium
3.7.8
Wastewater Management
No fixed collection system for sewage will be put in place during the construction phase
because most of the toilets for the construction workforce will not have a fixed location.
The sanitary facilities will move along with their working area. In addition, the location of
various offices and toilet facilities will be spread out throughout the complex area and a
network of temporary above ground pipes would hinder the movement of various
vehicles.
The contractors mobilized on site will be responsible for supplying portable toilets to
meet their workforce needs. The sanitary facilities, all equipped with holding sumps, will
be regularly emptied by a tanker truck. Most of the sewage will be offloaded at a
permanent lifting station for treatment at EMAL onsite Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
while the sewage in excess of the STP capacity will be transported to a municipal
sewage treatment plant by an Abu Dhabi Sewerage Services Company (ADSSC)
licensed service provider.
EMAL STP was commissioned in 2009. With a capacity of 700 m3/day, it comprises two
modules with a process train having biological treatment, secondary clarification, tertiary
filtration and UV treatment. The sludge cake is sent to an offsite approved disposal
facility offsite as per the legal requirements while the treated effluent is being reused for
on-site landscape irrigation and dust suppression. This is in line with the UAE
Government philosophy of reusing water to the maximum extent possible.
During the construction of Phase 1, the EPCM contractor collected data regarding
wastewater generation on site. These data are presented below on a daily basis and
compared to manpower on site (Figure 3.5).
Average Daily Sewage Flow – Construction Phase 1
600
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-
500
m 3 /d
400
300
200
100
J an-08
F eb-08
Mar-08
Apr-08
May -08
J un-08
J ul-08
Aug-08
Sep-08
O c t-08
N ov -08
D ec -08
J an-09
F eb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
May -09
J un-09
J ul-09
Aug-09
Sep-09
O c t-09
N ov -09
D ec -09
J an-10
F eb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May -10
J un-10
J ul-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
O c t-10
N ov -10
D ec -10
J an-11
F eb-11
Mar-11
Apr-11
May -11
J un-11
J ul-11
0
no. of workers
Figure 3.5
Wastewater (m3/day)
503406
53
Manpower
Emirates Aluminium
On average, the sewage flow was approximately 210 m3/d and peaked at 560 m3/d.
Based on these figures, it is estimated that the construction of Phase 2 will generate
approximately 150 m3/d of sewage per day on average and could reach a maximum of
400 m3/d. Therefore, it is expected that EMAL STP will suffice to treat all sewage
generated on site during the construction of Phase 2 (refer to Table 3.19 below). As
mentioned above, should the STP capacity be exceeded, the excess sewage will be
treated off-site.
Table 3.19
Average Sewage Flow Projection
Description
3
Average daily flow (m /day)
Phase 1 operation
300*
Phase 1 operation & Phase 2 construction (max
flow)
Phases 1 & 2 operation
700
525*
*SLWP (2008) Feasibility Report on Sewage Treatment Facilities (017661-0000-40EE-0001).
3.7.8.1
Storm Water Management
Prior to its development, EMAL site was characterised by very little storm water runoff
being generated. Storm water management has proven not to be an issue during the
construction of Phase 1. For instance, during the first 15 months of construction of
Phase 1, there was only one 3-day event where storm water accumulated on site due to
heavy rains. During this event, construction activities and circulation on site were
minimized until most of the accumulated water had either evaporated or gradually
seeped into the ground.
If necessary, storm water runoff that could accumulate in site depressions after heavy
rains during the construction of Phase 2 could be pumped to one of Phase 1
evaporation/infiltration ponds that are part of the permanent storm drainage system.
3.7.8.2
Dewatering
The permanent storm drainage system and power plant aeration basin will be used by
contractors to discharge their dewatering water. It is to be noted that an EAD approval
might be required if the water is directed to the marine environment (via the aeration
basin). Refer to section 5.2.2 below.
3.7.9
Waste Management
Waste generated during the construction phase will be managed in accordance with the
Project CEMP approved by the EAD (refer to section 6.2 below). All contractors
mobilized on site will have the responsibility to manage the waste they generate.
Contractual agreements will specify contractors’ obligations in terms of waste
management. Contractors will be instructed to remove all legacy of construction waste
54
503406
Emirates Aluminium
remaining on site once construction activities are completed. In addition, all contractors
will be responsible for ensuring proper waste segregation in order to optimise re-using
and recycling opportunities. Waste management procedure has been updated to ensure
that contractors comply with the requirements. With regard to ramming paste, EMAL is
responsible for its procurement and, therefore any excess will be managed by EMAL.
Table 3.20 presents an overview of waste management practices on EMAL site. It
includes waste data collected by the EPCM contractor during the construction of
Phase 1 and the estimated quantities associated with the construction of Phase 2.
A central waste management facility will be made available on site to facilitate the
collection of recyclables such as plastic, paper & cardboard, metal and wood. These
materials will be collected by specialized companies for off-site recycling or re-use.
Concrete waste will be crushed on-site (using a portable concrete crusher) and re-used
as fill material (e.g. site preparation, road base). This innovative initiative diverted many
thousands of tonnes of concrete from landfills during the construction of Phase 1.
Most mobile equipment will have oil changes in workshops located off-site. However,
some relatively stationary equipment (such as hydraulic shovels or cranes) will have
their oil changed on site by the equipment owners (contractors) and the waste oil will be
disposed of by an environmental service provider approved by the EAD. Only
environmental service providers approved by the EAD will be authorized to dispose of
used oil and other hazardous waste such as used batteries, contaminated soil, paint and
thinner leftovers, etc.
General wastes comprise mainly food waste, but also scrap construction materials
unsuitable for re-use and recycling. These wastes will be sent to a landfill site approved
by Abu Dhabi municipality.
Table 3.20
Type
Waste Management – Construction Phases
Main sources
Management
method
Quantity (t)
Phase 1
Phase 2 (estimated)
65
46
Recyclable
Used oil
Oil changes
Off-site recycling
Plastic
Packaging material
Off-site recycling
278
195
Cardboard/ Paper
Offices, packaging material
Scrap construction materials
(e.g. steel, aluminium)
Scrap construction
materials, packaging
material
Pour surplus, scrap
concrete
Off-site recycling
Off-site recycling/reuse
331
233
6,141
4,315
Off-site re-use
4,724
3,320
On-site re-use
NA
NA
395
278
116,858
82,116
Metal
Wood
Concrete
Non-Recyclable
Hazardous Waste
Non-Hazardous
Waste
503406
Landfilling,
Batteries, contaminated soil,
incineration (medical
paint, medical waste
waste)
Scrap construction
Landfilling
materials, food waste
55
4
Emirates Aluminium
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
The 2007 EIA includes a comprehensive description of the physical, biological and
human environments in a study area of approximately 15 km x 15 km that had been
defined to include the environmental components likely to be directly or indirectly
affected by the construction or operation of the aluminium complex. The following
sections supplement the 2007 EIA by providing the latest available information regarding
the state of the environment in the study area, more specifically with regards to land use,
air quality, soil and groundwater quality, noise and fauna and flora. Most of the data has
been gathered by EMAL Operations Environmental Team as part of their environmental
monitoring activities.
4.1
LAND USE
Since 2009, the level of activities in Kizad has increased dramatically, not only due to the
EMAL project, but also the port development, massive earthworks and the construction
of new road infrastructures. Approximately 19 km2 of land area were cleared and
grubbed within Kizad and then filled, spread and compacted to a new raised level of
+2.5 m MSL. As a result, land use in Kizad has changed significantly. Some industrial
buildings started to be erected for Kizad and other tenants, but EMAL remains up-to-now
the only industrial facility that started its operations.
Kizad is a feature of the Abu Dhabi Vision 2030 and will play a major role in the
emirate's industrial and economic diversification by serving as a key hub for large scale
industrial investments serviced by a world class port, transport and other facilities.
Phase 1 of Khalifa Port will open in Q4 2012, replacing Abu Dhabi’s existing main port of
Mina Zayed. The new port will have an initial capacity of 2 million TEUs (Twenty Foot
Equivalent Units) of containers and 9 million tonnes of general cargo. Over the long
term to 2030, Kizad will comprise 420 km2 of prime industrial land organized into
vertically integrated clusters for aluminium, steel, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology, life sciences, food and beverages, glass, paper and other major sectors.
4.2
AIR QUALITY
4.2.1
2007 to 2009
The 2007 EIA presented 2006 air quality data from ADWEA’s permanent ambient air
quality monitoring station (AAQMS), which is located in Al Samha West near the Abu
Dhabi–Dubai Highway, approximately 12 km south-southeast of EMAL site (refer to
Figure A.8). Table 4.1 summarises the data collected at this station from 2007 to 2009
for some of the main parameters of interest to EMAL: sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10).
56
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Except for PM10 concentrations that regularly reach levels beyond the EAD ambient air
standards, the regional air quality can be considered as good.
Table 4.1
ADWEA Al Samha AAQMS Summary (2007-2009)
Pollutant
SO2
Units
NO2
µg/m
3
CO
µg/m
3
PM10
mg/m
3
µg/m3
Monthly maximum of 1-hour average concentrations
EAD 1-hour standard
350
400
30
NA
Minimum
2.7
33.2
1.1
NA
Maximum
45.4
122
6.4
NA
Average
13.7
59
2.2
NA
EAD 24-hour standard
150
150
10
150
Minimum
1.7
13
0.4
88
Maximum
16.2
47
6.3
1,487
6.2
30
1.5
506
EAD 1-year standard
60
NA
NA
NA
Minimum
1.1
9
0.2
33
Maximum
6.9
30
1.8
529
Average
3.4
19
0.6
163
Monthly maximum of 24-hour average concentrations*
Average
Monthly average concentrations**
Source: NEWRC & ADWEA (2010)
*Maximum 8-hour average concentration and UAE 8-hour standard for CO
**Daily average concentration for PM10
4.2.2
2009 to 2011
From December 2009 onwards (i.e. when EMAL operations begun), air quality data is
available from EMAL’s permanent AAQMS located in Al Samha forest nursery. This
location, approved by EAD, is downwind of predominant winds in the direction from the
aluminium complex.
Additional air quality data is available for a 6-month period (September 2010 to February
2011) during which ADPC operated a temporary AAQMS close to EMAL site (inside
KPIZ).
The location of both stations is shown on Figure A.14 and air quality data is summarised
in Tables 4.2 to 4.6 for the main parameters of interest to EMAL: sulphur dioxide (SO2),
hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate
matter (PM10). It is to be noted that HF had not been measured at ADPC station and is
thus only presented for EMAL AAQMS. EMAL AAQMS data is represented graphically
in Figures 4.1 to 4.8. A short discussion is then presented for each parameter.
The results are compared to the EAD standards except for HF, for which no EAD
standard exists. In this latter case, an average yearly concentration of 1 µg/m3 is used:
503406
57
Emirates Aluminium
this level is judged sufficient to protect vegetation as per the World Health Organisation
(WHO). It has been recognized that fluoride levels in ambient air should be less than 1
μg/m3 to prevent effects on livestock and plants.
Table 4.2
Maximum SO2 Concentrations in Ambient Air (µg/m3) (2009-2011)
EMAL AAQMS
Period
ADPC AAQMS
Max 1-h
Max 24-h
Monthly
AVG
Max 1-h
Max 24-h
Monthly
AVG
EAD Standard
350
150
60 (year)
350
150
60 (year)
20 to 31 December
2009
8.6
50.7
8.6
-
-
-
January 2010
53.1
29.9
14.0
-
-
-
February 2010
119.3
35.7
12.5
-
-
-
March 2010
101.0
37.4
14.2
-
-
-
April 2010
65.1
23.4
12.5
-
-
-
May 2010
105.0
22.3
12.6
-
-
-
June 2010
61.4
17.4
8.7
-
-
-
July 2010
76.0
21.0
7.0
-
-
-
August 2010
103.5
18.0
7.4
-
-
-
September 2010
125.0
15.8
8.4
32
9.4
4.6
October 2010
95.4
19.4
10.4
58
9.0
3.0
November 2010
54.5
21.1
11.3
75
11.9
5.7
December 2010
64.9
22.6
10.9
45
12.5
5.8
January 2011
31.1
15.2
8.6
February 2011
57.1
18.2
9.4
March 2011
117.5
35.5
11.9
-
-
-
April 2011
61.7
19.0
10.1
-
-
-
May 2011
107.7
25.2
11.7
-
-
-
June 2011
90.8
20.7
9.5
-
-
-
July 2011
38.5
12.7
6.0
-
-
-
Maximum
125.0
37.4
14.2
75
13.1
5.8
Table 4.3
61
10.7
13.1
4.0
Average HF in Ambient Air (2010-2011)
EMAL AAQMS
Period
WHO value
Average
concentration
(µ/m3)
1
2010
0.015
2011 (January to July)
0.007
58
503406
503406
/0 1
3 1 /2 0 1
/0 1 0
0 2 /2 0 1
/0 3 0
0 1 /2 0 1
/0 4 0
0 1 /2 0 1
/0 5 0
3 1 /2 0 1
/0 5 0
3 0 /2 0 1
/0 6 0
3 0 /2 0 1
/0 7 0
2 9 /2 0 1
/0 8 0
2 8 /2 0 1
/0 9 0
2 8 /2 0 1
/1 0 0
2 7 /2 0 1
/1 1 0
2 7 /2 0 1
/1 2 0
2 6 /2 0 1
/0 1 0
2 5 /2 0 1
/0 2 1
2 7 /2 0 1
/0 3 1
2 6 /2 0 1
/0 4 1
2 6 /2 0 1
/0 5 1
2 5 /2 0 1
/0 6 1
2 5 /2 0 1
/0 7 1
/2 0
11
01
µ g /m 3
Figure 4.2
59
Jul-11
Jun-11
May-11
Apr-11
Mar-11
Feb-11
Jan-11
Dec-10
Nov-10
Oct-10
Sep-10
Aug-10
Jul-10
Jun-10
May-10
Apr-10
Mar-10
Figure 4.1
Feb-10
Jan-10
Concentration, ug/m3
Emirates Aluminium
Hourly SO2 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS – 2010 - July 2011
SO2
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time
Daily (24-h) SO2 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011
SO2
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
DATE
/0
05 1 /2
/0 010
12 2 /2
/0 010
16 3 /2
/0 010
21 4 /2
/0 010
25 5 /2
/0 010
30 6 /2
/0 010
03 7 /2
/0 010
08 9 /2
/1 010
12 0 /2
/1 010
17 1 /2
/1 010
21 2 /2
/0 010
25 1 /2
/0 01
01 2 /2 1
/0 01
06 4 /2 1
/0 011
10 5 /2
/0 011
15 6 /2
/0 011
7/
20
11
01
Concentration, ug/m 3
Figure 4.4
60
J ul-11
J un-11
M ay -11
A pr-11
M ar-11
Feb-11
J an-11
Dec -10
Nov -10
O c t-10
S ep-10
A ug-10
J ul-10
J un-10
M ay -10
A pr-10
Figure 4.3
M ar-10
Feb-10
J an-10
Concentration,ug/m 3
Emirates Aluminium
Hourly HF Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011
HF
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Time
Daily (24-h) HF Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011
HF
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
DATE
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 4.4
Maximum NO2 Concentrations in Ambient Air (µg/m3) (2009-2011)
EMAL AAQMS
Period
ADPC AAQMS
Monthly
AVG
Max 1-h
Max 24-h
Monthly
AVG
150
-
350
150
-
21
18.7
-
-
-
83.7
39.4
19.8
-
-
-
February 2010
95.2
41.2
16.7
-
-
-
March 2010
107.7
44.1
16.9
-
-
-
April 2010
74.4
24.3
14.5
-
-
-
May 2010
79.0
37.5
19.1
-
-
-
June 2010
91.5
33.3
17.7
-
-
-
July 2010
57.4
22.3
12.3
-
-
-
August 2010
77.7
23.5
14.7
-
-
-
September 2010
58.5
26.4
13.8
69.0
31.8
19.1
October 2010
50.3
23.8
14.4
79.1
26.4
15.3
November 2010
65.1
27.1
18.5
95.6
36.0
23.0
December 2010
75.6
31.8
20.2
79.5
49.9
25.7
January 2011
75.7
30.0
17.7
February 2011
73.0
28.1
15.3
March 2011
73.3
31.2
14.3
-
-
-
April 2011
74.4
27.6
17.9
-
-
-
May 2011
56.1
23.3
15.4
-
-
-
June 2011
63.4
21.4
14.7
-
-
-
July 2011
83.8
32.2
15.5
-
-
-
Maximum
107.7
44.1
16.5
95.6
49.9
25.7
Max 1-h
Max 24-h
EAD Standard
400
December 2009
51.6
January 2010
Table 4.5
74.3
32.9
30.5
17.3
Maximum 1-h CO Concentrations in Ambient Air (mg/m3) (2009-2011)
Period
EAD 1-hour Standard
EMAL
AAQMS
ADPC
AAQMS
Period
EMAL
AAQMS
ADPC
AAQMS
30 mg/m3 (1-h) and 10 mg/m3 (8-h)
20 to 31 December 2009
0.7
-
November 2010
0.9
0.6
January 2010
1.8
-
December 2010
2.6
0.6
February 2010
1.2
-
January 2011
1.2
0.9
March 2010
0.8
-
February 2011
1.0
April 2010
1.0
-
March 2011
1.0
-
May 2010
1.0
-
April 2011
1.0
-
June 2010
0.9
-
May 2011
2.0
-
July 2010
0.9
-
June 2011
1.2
-
August 2010
1.4
-
July 2011
3.0
-
September 2010
0.9
0.6
Maximum
3.0
0.9
October 2010
1.4
0.6
503406
61
Figure 4.5
Emirates Aluminium
Hourly NO2 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011
NO2
120
100
80
60
40
20
July-11
June-11
May-11
April-11
March-11
February-11
January-11
December-10
November-10
October-10
September-10
August-10
July-10
June-10
May-10
April-10
March-10
February-10
January-10
0
Time
Figure 4.6
Daily (24-h) NO2 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011
Concentration,ug/m3
NO2
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
DATE
62
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Figure 4.7
Hourly CO Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011
CO
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Jul-11
Jun-11
May-11
Apr-11
Mar-11
Feb-11
Jan-11
Dec-10
Nov-10
Oct-10
Sep-10
Aug-10
Jul-10
Jun-10
May-10
Apr-10
Mar-10
Feb-10
Jan-10
0
Time
Figure 4.8
Daily (24-h) PM10 Concentration at EMAL AAQMS - 2010 - July 2011
PM10
1200
Concentration ug/m3
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Date
503406
63
Emirates Aluminium
Maximum 24-h PM10 Levels in Ambient Air (µg/m3) (2009-2011)
Table 4.6
EMAL AAQMS
Period
Max 24-h
ADPC AAQMS
No of
exceedances
Max 24-h
No of
exceedances
EAD Standard
150
-
150
-
December 2009
99
1
-
-
January 2010
54
0
-
-
February 2010
776
12
-
-
March 2010
848
26
-
-
April 2010
492
23
-
-
May 2010
550
25
-
-
June 2010
526
30
-
-
July 2010
415
30
-
-
August 2010
274
29
-
-
September 2010
332
28
382.2
16
October 2010
188
23
324.3
4
November 2010
165
5
137.0
0
December 2010
164
10
598.2
2
January 2011
281
3
February 2011
784
8
886.0
13
March 2011
447
9
-
-
April 2011
280
11
-
-
May 2011
285
13
-
-
June 2011
473
18
-
-
July 2011
1013
19
Maximum
1013
241 in 2010
81 in 2011
886.0
35 in
6 months
4.2.2.1
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)
Ambient air concentrations of SO2 and HF measured at Al Samha and at the site
boundary since the commissioning of the smelter have consistently been lower than
applicable EAD SO2 ambient air standards (1-h: 350 µg/m3; 24-h: 150 µg/m3 and annual:
60 µg/m3) and WHO guideline (annual HF: 1 µg/m3). It is noted that 98% of the time, the
hourly SO2 levels were below 21 µg/m3 (6 % of 1-hour standard) at the ADPC station.
Maximum 1-h and 24-h levels were respectively 21% and 9% of the EAD standards. At
EMAL station, maximum levels were respectively 35% and 25% of the EAD standards
for the whole period of smelter commissioning. These maximums are two to three times
higher than the maximum levels measured at the ADWEA station in Al Samha from 2007
to 2009 which further confirms the low impact of EMAL on ambient SO2 levels.
Hydrogen fluoride levels measured at EMAL AAQMS are negligible, representing less
than 2% of the WHO guideline.
64
503406
Emirates Aluminium
4.2.2.2
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
The NO2 maximum concentrations were well below the EAD ambient air standards
(1 h: 400 µg/m3; 24-h: 150 µg/m3), the maximum levels being less than 1/3 of the
standard, whether hourly or daily maximums. These levels were very similar to the
ambient air results recorded by ADWEA in Al Samha.
4.2.2.3
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide is not usually related to air quality issues around aluminium smelters,
and the same conclusion applies for EMAL, with the maximum hourly concentration in
air ambient for each month being less than 2.6 mg/m3 at ADPC and EMAL AAQMS,
compared to the EAD 1-h and 8-h ambient air quality standards of 30 and 10 mg/m3. It is
noted that, 98% of the time, the hourly CO concentration levels were below 0.4 mg/m3 at
the ADPC station. These maximum levels are two times less than the highest hourly
concentration monitored at the ADWEA station in Al Samha.
4.2.2.4
Particulates (PM10)
As for PM10, exceedances of the UAE 24-hour standard of 150 mg/m3 have frequently
been measured in the above-mentioned three monitoring locations. These exceedances
may be attributed to climatic factors, sand storms and land use in the area. The 2007
EIA mentions that it is normal in that type of environment to record particulate
concentrations exceeding the standards. It was also noted in ADPC Baseline Ambient
Air Quality Report (NILU, 2011) that heavy wind and dust clouds were experienced
several times in the Emirates between August 2010 and February 2011 (i.e. the
monitoring period of ADPC temporary station).
4.3
SOIL AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY
As there are no national guidelines available for comparison of the soil and groundwater
quality parameters, soil and groundwater quality results presented below are compared
to the target values (T values) and intervention values (I values) from the Dutch
Government (Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial planning and Environment, 2000). The
T values for soil indicate the level at which there is a sustainable soil quality while the T
values for groundwater are indicative of background levels (for the Netherlands) and
must only be viewed as a guide. The I values for both soil and groundwater are
representative of the level of contamination above which there is a serious case of
contamination.
503406
65
4.3.1
Emirates Aluminium
2007 Baseline Data
The Al Taweelah site is characterized by a shallow, highly saline (high TDS) permanent
water table relative to site levels. The existing Ground Water Level (GWL) varies from
elevation 0,0 m to -0,4 m (ADD) but this may change as site levels are modified and
ground surfaces are covered with buildings and pavements. Mounding of the GWL will
occur in the vicinity of the stormwater infiltration ponds following heavy rain. Tide has no
measurable influence on GWL beyond 40 m from the coast.
A soil and groundwater quality survey was conducted on EMAL site in August 2007,
prior to the beginning of Phase 1 major construction activities (Sustainability, 2007). Soil
composite samples were taken at four different locations on site in pits dug using a
backhoe loader. Groundwater samples were taken in nine different boreholes available
on site following geotechnical studies. As most of boreholes disappeared during
construction, EMAL is considering reinstalling new observation wells.
Results are presented in Table 4.7 and Table 4.8 below. Soil analyses did not detect
petroleum hydrocarbons or the following heavy metals: arsenic, copper, lead, mercury.
Results for chromium, nickel and zinc were all below the Dutch T values.
Table 4.7
Soil Quality Baseline (2007)
Parameter
Moisture
pH
Units
Dutch
guidelines1
(T/I values)
Near
borehole # 7
Near
borehole #
18
Near
borehole #
42
Near
borehole #
53
%
-
0.3
2.9
1.1
1.5
-
-
8.9
8.8
9.1
8.3
Nitrates
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
mg/kg
-
15
1.9
<1
3.5
mg/kg
-
<2
<2
<2
<2
Magnesium
mg/kg
-
4,924
5,069
3,993
4,683
Sodium
mg/kg
-
2,246
3,209
2,122
2,074
Potassium
mg/kg
-
154
327
130
177
Arsenic
mg/kg
29/55
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
<1.2
Boron
mg/kg
-
14.0
9.5
14
14
Chromium
mg/kg
100/380
2.9
4.3
2.3
2.7
Copper
mg/kg
36/190
<1.4
<1.4
<1.4
<1.4
Iron
mg/kg
-
478
582
357
468
Lead
mg/kg
85/530
<1.8
<1.8
<1.8
<1.8
Mercury
mg/kg
0.3/10
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
<0.025
Nickel
mg/kg
35/210
2.8
3.1
1.7
3.2
Zinc
mg/kg
140/720
1.3
36
1
2
1
Dutch guidelines, Ministry of Housing, spatial planning, Environment, Target values and intervention values for
soil and groundwater (2000). Note: The Dutch guidelines express the values for soil/sediment as the
concentration in a standard dry soil (10% organic matter and 25% clay).
66
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Groundwater analyses did not detect petroleum hydrocarbons or the following heavy
metals: arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc. However, some of
these latter results are of limited use because of the high detection limit of the analysis
method, which is in some cases above the Dutch guidelines I value (e.g. chromium, lead
and mercury) or between the T and I values (e.g. copper, nickel and zinc).
borehole # 86 borehole # 53 borehole # 42 borehole # 27 borehole # 18 borehole # 14 ‐ DUPLICATE borehole # 14 borehole # 7 borehole # 3 Groundwater Quality Baseline (2007)
borehole # 1 Table 4.8
Parameter Units Dutch 1
guidelines (T/I values) pH total dissolved solids total sulphates biochemical oxygen demand chemical oxygen demand ‐ ‐ 7.6 7.6 7.8 9.2 9.3 7.4 7.9 7.3 7.7 7.6 mg/l ‐ 37,520 556 31,120 414 422 18,600 27,180 28,280 19,040 13,980 mg/l ‐ 3,702 115 3,115 66 75 2,316 2,746 3,000 1,598 904 mg/l ‐ 18 11 <2 <2 <2 <2 14 8.0 12 48 mg/l ‐ 69 38 <1 <1 <1 <1 46 23 46 162 mg/l ‐ 3.2 5.7 1.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.7 0.2 1.3 mg/l ‐ <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 nitrate total petroleum hydrocarbons calcium mg/l ‐ 539 22 509 1.5 3 473 1,018 610 315 282 magnesium mg/l ‐ 1,289 7 1,896 2.3 3 732 1,325 1,001 627 587 sodium mg/l ‐ 8,050 90 9,805 58 59 3,985 8,520 5,801 3,461 4,012 potassium mg/l ‐ 375 5.9 809 <2.2 <2.2 216 392 309 190 171 arsenic µg/l 10/60 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 boron mg/l ‐ <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 chromium µg/l 1/30 <68 <68 <68 <68 <68 <68 <68 <68 <68 <68 copper µg/l 15/75 <70 <70 <70 <70 <70 <70 <70 <70 <70 <70 iron mg/l ‐ 0.6 <0.5 1.1 0.8 0.9 <0.5 0.5 1.3 <0.5 <0.5 lead µg/l 15/75 <90 <90 <90 <90 <90 <90 <90 <90 <90 <90 mercury µg/l 0.05/0.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 nickel µg/l 15/75 <63 <63 <63 <63 <63 <63 <63 <63 <63 <63 zinc µg/l 65/800 <150 <150 <150 <150 <150 <150 <150 <150 <150 <150 1 Dutch guidelines, Ministry of Housing, spatial planning, Environment, Target values and intervention values for soil and groundwater (2000). 4.3.2
2011 Monitoring Data
EMAL environmental monitoring programme makes provision for groundwater sampling
and analysis to be conducted on a yearly basis during the operational phase of the
smelter. The first of these annual monitoring campaigns took place in 2011. Results are
503406
67
Emirates Aluminium
provided in Table 4.9 for the only monitoring well that remained intact after the
construction of Phase 1.
This well (AB-102) was not sampled during the 2007 baseline survey, but it was sampled
in 2006 and the results were included in the 2007 EIA. The results of the 2011
monitoring campaign are therefore compared to the results obtained in 2006.
Table 4.9
Groundwater Quality Monitoring (2011)
Parameters
Unit
Dutch
Guidelines
1
T/I Values
EIA Study
Results
(2006)
AB-102
Borehole
Results
(8-Mar-11)
AB-102
Borehole
Results
(8-May-11)
AB-102
Borehole
Results
(31-Jul-11)
pH
-
-
7.7
8.0
7.7
-
Conductivity
µS/cm
-
-
50,400
33,600
-
Fluoride
mg/l
0.5/-
1.2
2.6
1.8
1.9
Oil & Grease
mg/l
-
-
ND
ND
-
Aluminium
mg/l
-
<2
0.019
0.015
-
Sulphate
mg/l
-
2,288
4,479
3,942
2,948
Sodium
mg/l
-
-
10,235
6,378
-
Chloride
mg/l
100/-
15,263
17,289
11,183
-
As
µg/l
10/60
<1
5
13
-
1
Ba
µg/l
-
-
20
6
-
Cd
µg/l
0.4/6.0
<0.4
6
1
-
Cr
µg/l
1/30
30
5
<1
-
Co
µg/l
-
-
<1
<1
-
Cu
µg/l
15/75
23
15
<1
-
Hg
µg/l
0.05/0.3
0.6
<1
<1
-
Pb
µg/l
15/75
<10
7
3
-
Mo
µg/l
-
-
151
131
-
Ni
µg/l
15/75
<100
6
2
-
Zn
µg/l
65/800
10
4,980
1,000
1,100
Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2000 The monitoring well AB-102 was first sampled in March 2011. Sampling was repeated in
May and July 2011 in order to verify a number of parameters exceeding the Dutch
guidelines:
•
Fluoride and chloride: Results exceed the Dutch T background value. These
results are consistent with the 2006 analysis and were expected since higher values
for fluoride and chloride occur naturally in areas subject to marine influence (salt and
brackish water) such as EMAL site.
•
Arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd) and copper (Cu): Some of the results exceed the
Dutch T value but not the I value. There is no indication of a serious case of
contamination.
•
Mercury (Hg): The mercury level measured in 2006 was exceeding the Dutch I
value. However, the 2011 results are of limited use because of the high analysis
method detection limit (1 µg/l), which is above the Dutch I value.
68
503406
Emirates Aluminium
•
Zinc (Zn): All 2011 results exceed the Dutch I value which indicates a serious case
of contamination.
It is to be noted that an engineering project has been initiated to drill new boreholes to
replace some of the damaged wells so that monitoring of groundwater quality can be
done at more than one location in the future. Results for zinc will be analysed in regard
of the entire smelter. It should be noted that whilst the 2006 baseline results on EMAL
site show low zinc concentrations, the results of metal analysis conducted in 2005 (by
PB Power & Dome Oilfield) from 21 various wells at Al-Taweelah complex show that zinc
concentration is above T values (65 ppb) in all 21 wells; and above I values (800 ppb) in
9 of these wells. These wells are located in the northeast portion of existing Taweelah
complex and are less than 500m from the closest boundary with KPIZ area A to the east
and close to EMAL.
4.4
SEAWATER QUALITY
As part of its environmental monitoring programme, EMAL is analysing the seawater
quality at the water intake. The results so far obtained are summarised below (Table
4.10) and compared to the EAD Recommended Ambient Marine Water Quality
Standards for Abu Dhabi Emirate. In general, the quality of the seawater received at the
seawater intake is good, except for the levels of total phosphorus found 10 to 50 times
above EAD ambient marine standard:
•
pH: The six first daily pH measurements (6 on 362) were between 8.5 and 8.6,
slightly above the EAD expected range of 6.5-8.5. Subsequent levels were all in the
expected range. Adjustment seems to be done on the monitoring equipment after the
first week of operation of the equipment,
•
Free Residual Chlorine (FRC): With an average value of 0.45 mg/l. These levels
are not representative of ambient marine water quality as water samples are taken in
the intake after the point of injection of chlorine used to prevent marine biofouling.
•
Total Organic Compounds (TOC): This parameter was measured on a daily basis
for a period of one month starting on 2 October 2010. One exceedance of the EAD
standard for TOC was measured (2.8 mg/l versus a limit of 2.5 mg/l).
•
Cadmium (Cd) and Copper (Cu): The first campaign of the four quarterly monitoring
campaigns conducted by EMAL showed Cd and Cu levels above EAD standards in
the seawater intake. However the level of quantification for the analysis was
increased to the ppb level for the metals after the first campaign and concentration
levels for all metals decreased in subsequent campaigns.
•
Total Phosphorus (P): All four quarterly monitoring campaigns conducted by EMAL
so far have shown P levels above EAD standard of 0.001 mg/l.
503406
69
Average
Maximum
No. of
Exceedances
Daily measurements (16-08-2010 to 02-10-2011)
Temperature
C°
272
pH
6.5-8.5
362
Conductivity
µS/cm
362
TDS
mg/L
281
Salinity
g/kg
82
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
>4
362
mg/L
0.01
195
Weekly measurements (16/08/2010 to 25/09/2011)
Fluoride
mg/L
52
Sulphate
mg/L
52
Oil & grease
mg/L
not visible
106
Hydrocarbon
mg/L
5
14
COD
mg/L
39
Variable measurements (02-10-2010 to 12-10-2010)
TOC
mg/L
2.5
35
Turbidity
NTU
10
7
Quarterly (01-12-2010 to 11-09-2011)
Fluoride
mg/L
4
Minimum
No. of
Measurements
EAD
Standards1
Unit
Seawater Quality at the Water Intake (2010-2011)
Parameter
Table 4.10
Emirates Aluminium
19.0
7.8
56,300
43,353
37.4
4.2
0.00
28.2
8.2
62,910
45,779
42.0
5.3
0.45
36.0
8.6
92,918
49,342
44.8
7.4
2.08
6
NA
0.5
3,249
1
<0.01
24
0.8
3,809
NA
<0.01
30
1.1
4,519
3
<0.01
40
-
1.3
0.2
2.0
0.5
2.8
1.1
1
0
0.95
1.18
1.77
-
SO4
mg/L
4
3,264
3,611
3,991
TSS
mg/L
<33
1
<5
<5
<5
0
COD
mg/L
3
29
31
34
O&G
mg/L
not visible
3
0
ND
0
Al
mg/L
4
0.004
0.0095
0.015
As
mg/L
0.005
4
<0.001
0.003
0.003
0
Cd
mg/L
0.001
4
<0.001
0.003
0.01
1
Cu
mg/L
0.01
4
0.003
0.008
0.02
1
Cr
mg/L
0.01
4
<0.001
0.006
0.01
0
Fe
mg/L
0.3
4
0.003
0.02
0.07
0
Hg
mg/L
4
<0.001
0.001
0.001
Mn
mg/L
3
0.001
0.008333
0.014
Ni
mg/L
0.02
4
<0.001
0.001
0.001
Pb
mg/L
0.01
4
<0.001
0.0055
0.01
0
Zn
mg/L
0.01
4
0.003
0.0055
0.01
0
Sb
mg/L
3
<0.001
0.001
0.001
Ba
mg/L
3
0.009
0.009667
0.011
Be
mg/L
3
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Co
mg/L
3
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Se
mg/L
3
<0.001
0.011
0.011
Total Phosphorus (P)
mg/L
0.001
4
0.01
0.03
0.05
4
B
mg/L
3
4
4
5
1
EAD Recommended Ambient Marine Water Quality Standards for Abu Dhabi Emirate: maximum
concentration.
70
503406
Emirates Aluminium
4.5
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
The 2007 EIA mentioned that the live patch coral resource in Taweelah is the most
important in eastern Qatar and Abu Dhabi and might be the largest continuum of pristine
coral in the Gulf (7 km reef), and of key importance to the long term survival of coral
habitat in the emirate of Abu Dhabi and the entire Gulf Region (see Figure A.15). To
protect this ‘national treasure’, ADPC has invested 240 million of dollars to build an
environmental breakwater of 8 km and the way the port is constructed will prevent,
should an accident occur, any chemicals or other products from leaking out beyond the
port. The following paragraphs present the results of the Corals monitoring program as
provided by ADPC.
The coral is satellite mapped and also monitored three times a year through reference
points on the seabed to enable immediate recognition of its development during camera
drags. The monitoring program extends in the area between the western boundary of
Khalifa Port’s construction footprint and the western side of the biggest Ras Ghanada
breakwater (entrance channel to the palace). This area includes all habitats that were
considered to be of critical biodiversity value in the Khalifa Port EIA and the Ecological
and Environmental Conditions Baseline Survey and Mapping. Chosen habitats for
monitoring are dense and sparse coral, and dense seagrass.
The monitoring program consists of quarterly visits to 85 points at which short, georeferenced video-clips are taken (see Figure A.16). These points were previously visited
in the January 2008 baseline survey, three times in 2008, three times in 2009 (January,
May, and October), and three times in 2010 (January, May and September) and three
times in 2011 (January, May, and September) hence offer an opportunity to compare the
status of the seabed through time. The results provided by ADPC cover the surveys
including January 2011. A total of 40 photo-transects were placed randomly in four
permanent stations that were originally installed during the January 2008 baseline and
revised twice during 2008 (May and September), three times in 2009 (January, May, and
October), and three times in 2010 (January, May, September). From both the 85 video
points and the 40 photo-transect stations, 4 levels of degradation of environment and
coral assemblage are measured:
GREEN: comparable to baseline, no visible degradation
BLUE: slight degradation; impact <10%
ORANGE: moderate degradation; impact <25%
RED: heavy degradation; impact > 25%
The first monitoring period in May/June 2008 showed an absence of impacts, hence
overall condition GREEN. A significant amount of brown algae was observed in the
peripheral sparse coral areas of the study site, but this was not deemed to be adversely
impacting status of the coral assemblage.
503406
71
Emirates Aluminium
The second monitoring period in October 2008 also showed absence of impacts in most
areas but slight to severe degradation due to port construction in a sparse coral area.
The third monitoring period in January 2009 still showed an absence of impacts on the
majority of the dense coral area, but previously observed impacts in the sparse coral
area continued and expanded slightly (three impacted sites in January 2009 versus one
in October 2008; SC-7, SC-23) and the seagrass area (one impacted site in January
2009; SG-1) in proximity to a recently constructed causeway.
The fourth monitoring period in May 2009 confirmed overall absence of impacts in the
dense coral area, but previously observed impacts continued in the sparse coral area
(sites SC-7, SC-23 did not recover). Also an increase in brown algal prevalence was
observed as in May 2008, which added impacts that are, however, considered
reversible. A dense seagrass site (SG-1) that had showed impacts in January 2009 had
recovered by May 2009 and was returned to condition GREEN. Overall condition was
GREEN, with two dense coral and nine sparse coral sites BLUE due to a (most likely)
temporary algae bloom (DC-12, DC-13, SC 1, 2, 3, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25) and two
monitoring station (SC-7, SC-23) remained at RED. Impacts were concentrated in the
immediate area of construction operations and not in the main critical habitat area. None
of the habitat polygons required changes, thus the overall impacts were slight.
The fifth monitoring period in October 2009 saw all stations revert to GREEN status, with
the exception of sparse coral SC-7 which moved from RED in May to BLUE in October,
and SC-23 which remained fully degraded and therefore RED. The large-scale shift back
to GREEN for most sites occurred because of the absence of Padina algae that was
prevalent in May 2009. Overall condition was therefore GREEN for October 2009.
The sixth monitoring period in January 2010 saw many stations move to BLUE status,
due to partial coral mortality in these sites. While overall coral colony frequency did not
decline markedly, live tissue-cover on many colonies, in particular the indicator species
Porites harrisoni, showed declines. The likely reason is an accumulation of stresses from
disease and sedimentation. No impacts were observed in the seagrass community. A
single sparse coral station, SC-10, was elevated to RED status in January 2010 because
of severe sedimentation. The station is however in close proximity to the construction
footprint and the impact was not unexpected.
The seventh monitoring period in May 2010 saw two additional dense coral stations
move to BLUE status (DC-2, DC-13), due to partial coral mortality in these sites. While
overall coral colony frequency did not decline markedly, live tissue-cover on many
colonies, in particular the indicator species Porites harrisoni, showed declines. Overall
live tissue cover on the reef declined from ~50% at baseline, to ~40% presently. This
decline represents a stabilization of what was observed in the previous monitoring
period, not a new decline. The likely reason is an accumulation of stresses from disease
and sedimentation. Impacts were also observed in the seagrass community (SG-7
moved to RED status). Three sparse coral stations, SC-7, SC-12, SC-23, were elevated
72
503406
Emirates Aluminium
to RED status in May 2010. The stations are however in close proximity to the
construction footprint and the impact was not unexpected.
The eighth monitoring period in September 2010 coincided with a very hot summer with
associated bleaching in many coral taxa. Construction activities during the monitoring
had already ceased (since July) and observed stress was natural. At the time of the
survey, bleaching had already abated, but diseases continued to decimate corals. The
branching coral genus Acropora experienced an overall decline of about 50% for all
colonies. Also, Porites harrisoni experienced, in many areas, about 25% reduction in live
tissue cover. Most faviids had already regained normal colour and mortality was <10%.
The natural impacts of the hot 2010 summer far exceeded those of the construction
process. The reef remains vibrant and regeneration is expected. The bleaching event of
summer 2010 was a natural phenomenon. Similar bleaching was reported from the
Indian Ocean (Maldives), the western Pacific (Mariana Islands), and the Caribbean. It
was a world-wide event and can therefore not be connected with the construction
activities at Khalifa Port.
The ninth monitoring period in January 2011 allowed assessment of regeneration from
the September 2010 bleaching event, as well as the previous mortality due to stress
accumulation over the summer 2009 and winter 2009/10. No further decline in coral
condition was observed, but clear regeneration both from the 2009 and 2010 events.
Corals had fully recovered from the bleaching and the disease outbreak that had caused
significant mortality in the genus Acropora had abated. Porites that had suffered from
these diseases and from partial mortality in 2009 had arrested tissue die-back and
continued tissue regeneration. Faviids had suffered the least through these events and
had expanded in coverage and showed clear signs of active recruitment. Overall, the
reef gave a healthy impression.
The 8-km Environmental Breakwater was fully functional as of May 2010 and was
completely finished in September 2010. At the time of survey in January 2011, no
impacts from the port, at which ore offloading for the aluminium smelter was already in
action, were discerned. Monitoring at 85 video points and 40 photo-transect stations
revealed that the GIS map product produced for TO 001 remained valid within the
assigned monitoring area.
4.6
AMBIENT NOISE
EMAL environmental monitoring programme for the operational phase includes ambient
noise monitoring at the site boundary and at sensitive receptor locations in the
surrounding environment. The results obtained so far are presented hereafter.
Ambient noise monitoring carried out as part of the environmental management of
Phase 1 construction activities is discussed in section 5.2.4.
503406
73
4.6.1
Emirates Aluminium
Site Boundary
At site boundary, ambient noise monitoring is carried out on a monthly basis in four
locations (north, south, east and west) shown on Figure 4.9.
This monitoring activity started in May 2010. Although all results are so far in compliance
with the EAD allowable daytime limits of 60-70 dBA for industrial areas, noise levels
measured at the south boundary are sometimes slightly higher than expected under
normal conditions because of ADPC construction activities taking place in the vicinity
(Table 4.11).
Table 4.11
Ambient Noise Monitoring Results – Site Boundary
SITE BOUNDARIES – 2010
Month
East Boundary (dBA)
West Boundary (dBA)
South Boundary (dBA)
North Boundary (dBA)
May‐10 20‐May‐10 56.4 21‐May‐10 55.3 22‐May‐10 53.6 23‐May‐10 54.3 Jun‐10 24‐Jun‐10 59.6 23‐Jun‐10 56.2 22‐Jun‐10 60.4 25‐Jun‐10 56.7 Jul‐10 18‐Jul‐10 52.6 19‐Jul‐10 47.1 25‐Jul‐10 54.3 20‐Jul‐10 46.8 Aug‐10 26‐Aug‐10 56.2 15‐Aug‐10 51.9 11‐Aug‐10 51.9 16‐Aug‐10 58.8 Sep‐10 21‐Sep‐10 57.0 16‐Sep‐10 50.6 14‐Sep‐10 55.5 19‐Sep‐10 54.3 Oct‐10 14‐Oct‐10 49.3 10‐Oct‐10 52.0 13‐Oct‐10 57.7 12‐Oct‐10 56.4 Nov‐10 2‐Nov‐10 58.0 11‐Nov‐10 53.1 24‐Nov‐10 56.2 4‐Nov‐10 52.9 Dec‐10 26‐Dec‐10 65.6 27‐Dec‐10 59.7 28‐Dec‐10 55.9 29‐Dec‐10 60.2 SITE BOUNDARIES – 2011
Month
East Boundary (dBA)
West Boundary (dBA)
South Boundary (dBA)
North Boundary (dBA)
Jan‐11 19‐Jan‐11 57.5 12‐Jan‐11 56.9 23‐Jan‐11 58.4 18‐Jan‐11 59.5 Feb‐11 15‐Feb‐11 52.1 27‐Feb‐11 57.3 14‐Feb‐11 57.8 16‐Feb‐11 54.0 Mar‐11 8‐Mar‐11 55.3 7‐Mar‐11 54.6 9‐Mar‐11 54.7 21‐Mar‐11 55.7 Apr‐11 21‐Apr‐11 56.5 17‐Apr‐11 54.7 5‐Apr‐11 68.4* 12‐Apr‐11 55.4 May‐11 15‐May‐11 58.7 19‐May‐11 58.4 11‐May‐11 56.2 17‐May‐11 58.9 Jun‐11 14‐Jun‐11 56.8 8‐Jun‐11 58.8 15‐Jun‐11 59.3 9‐Jun‐11 58.0 Jul‐11 18‐Jul‐11 59.5 20‐Jul‐11 56.5 17‐Jul‐11 58.6 19‐Jul‐11 57.5 Aug‐11 16‐Aug‐11 60.7 9‐Aug‐11 57.6 17‐Aug‐11 58.2 15‐Aug‐11 60.7 NOTE: All measurements done from 8h00 to 16h00 * High value due to ongoing construction activities from ADPC side, which is closer to the south boundary of EMAL November 2011 - Final
74
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Figure 4.9
4.6.2
Noise Monitoring Locations – Site Boundary
Surrounding Environment
One survey of the ambient noise levels in the surrounding environment was carried out
after the commissioning of EMAL and the results are summarised in Table 4.12 below.
All results were found to be in compliance with the EAD allowable daytime limits of 5060 dBA for residential areas. Noise levels were measured at three locations considered
as sensitive receptors (close to residential areas): two locations in Al Samha and one
location in Al Taweelah (close to workers’ accommodations). Monitoring locations are
shown on Figure 4.10. The sources of noise were all associated with nearby traffic.
Figure 4.10
503406
Noise and Vegetation Monitoring Locations
75
Table 4.12
Emirates Aluminium
Noise Monitoring Results – Sensitive Receptors
Noise Levels (LAeq (dBA))
Month
Al Samha Location No. 2
Al Samha Location No. 6
Al Taweelah Location No.
15
EAD limit for Residential areas (daytime): 50-60 dBA
May 2011
4 May 2011
56.5
4 May 2011
42.9
9 May 2011
50.8
NOTE: All measurements done from 8h00 to 16h00
4.7
FAUNA AND FLORA
As mentioned in section 4.1 above, land use in the KIZAD area has changed
significantly from 2007 to 2011. This has had a significant impact on fauna and flora.
Mitigation measures implemented by EMAL, notably the fauna translocation project, are
discussed in section 5.2.3 below.
It was noted in the 2007 EIA that His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan
owns a private herd of approximately 2,000 animals at Ras Ghanada to the northeast of
EMAL site. In a recent communication with EMAL, Ras Ghanada site manager
mentioned that half of the herd have recently been relocated to Al Ain.
4.7.1
Fluoride in Vegetation
EMAL environmental monitoring programme includes the sampling of vegetation at the
mangrove of Ras Ghanada and in the national farmlands of Al Samha for analysis of its
fluoride content. Of particular interest are the irrigated grazing fields of Ras Ghanada
used to feed gazelles living in the smelter’s vicinity.
Results of the first two monitoring campaigns are presented below (Table 4.13).
Sampling locations are shown on Figure 4.10.
Table 4.13
Sampling
Date
10-Apr-11
Fluoride in Vegetation Analysis Results (2011)
Sample ID
Fluoride
(mg/kg of dry weight)
Site # 550
Al Samha
Almond
Leaves
7.6
Site # 550
Al Samha
Palm Leaves
13.1
Site # 498
Al Samha
Grass
5.5
Ras Ghanada
Grass
29.3
Annual: 40
Max (2-month): 60
Max (1 month): 80
Ras Ghanada
Leaves
39.6
Not Applicable
Sampling
Location
Standard of Reference
(mg/kg of dry weight)
(1)
Not Applicable
7-Jul-2011
1
Maximum fluoride concentration in vegetation for herbivorous animal protection (Canada & US).
76
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Since there is no UAE standard for fluoride concentrations in vegetation, results for
grass fed to animals are compared to an annual criteria of 40 mg/kg (dry weight) of
fluoride in fodder adopted in other countries with aluminium smelters (Quebec, Canada
and western United States) to protect herbivorous animals from dental wear and bone
fluorosis. All results in grass are so far complying with the annual criteria.
As a reference, Dubal conducts a quarterly monitoring of the content of fluoride in leaves
of trees on their property and at proximity. Fluoride content varies with location and the
type of tree sampled which is also the case for the differences in EMAL monitoring
results. The results of DUBAL 2010-2011 (7 campaigns so far) were the following:
•
Indian Almond (6 sites): Average fluoride concentration in leaves of Indian Almond
trees varied between 5 and 15 ppm at the 4 sampling sites located in the
neighbourhood. On Dubal property, the average concentration was 29 ppm in a
residential compound north of the smelter and 61 ppm at Gulf extrusion. Fluoride
concentration in leaves of Indian Almond appear to be low compared to other
species. These values are similar to historical data collected from 2001 to 2008, with
an average from 8 to 14 ppm for sites outside Dubal and 23 ppm at Dubal and 29
ppm at Gulf extrusion. Since 2001, aluminium production has progressively doubled
from 500,000 to 1,000,000 tonnes Al/y.
•
Oleander (1 site) and Conicarpuserecta (2 sites): Average fluoride concentration
is low (< 5 ppm) for Oleander species located in Jebel Ali Garden, on the other side
of Sheikh Zayed Highway. One site of Conicarpuserecta is low in fluoride (7.5 ppm in
average) while the sampled leaves at the Dubal parking lot shows an average
concentration of 223 ppm with a range from 69 to 429 ppm (the two last campaigns
being lower than 75 ppm).
•
Eucalyptus (2 sites in Dubal greenbelt): South site is at 460 ppm while North site
is at 745 ppm with a range from 161 to 1514 ppm.
Oleander and Indian Almond are tolerant to fluorides while sensitivity of
Cornicarpuserecta is intermediate. Eucalyptus species are either sensitive or
intermediate.
503406
77
Emirates Aluminium
5
DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
5.1
METHODOLOGY
The Report follows the same environmental impact assessment methodology that was
used in the 2007 EIA (refer to 2007 EIA Volume 1, chapter 5).
For the impacts associated with the construction phase, the Report addresses the
impacts associated with Phase 2 only, based on environmental data gathered during the
construction of Phase 1. For the impacts associated with operation activities, both
Phases are considered.
5.2
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
The environmental impacts associated with the construction phase are described and
assessed based on the impacts of Phase 1 construction activities documented by the
Phase 1 Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management (EPCM) contractor
(SNC-Lavalin/Worley Parsons - SLWP) from 2007 to 2011. The impacts are compared
with those that were foreseen in the 2007 EIA for both phases. It is to be noted that
social impacts have not been included.
5.2.1
Ambient Air Quality
The main atmospheric emissions that can have an impact on air quality during the
construction phase are the following:
•
Dust emissions
•
Exhaust emission
5.2.1.1
Dust Emissions
Sources of dust during the construction of Phase 2 include vehicle traffic on unpaved
roads and raw material handling at the concrete batch plant. The site preparation
activities such as earthmoving, backfilling and grading were the main sources of dust
during Phase 1 construction. These activities will continue at a reduced pace as some of
the earthworks were completed as part of Phase 1 and will thus represent a more limited
source of dust during the construction of Phase 2.
During the construction of Phase 1, dust (PM10) levels in ambient air quality have been
periodically sampled over 24-hr using one of the following methods:
•
High-volume sampler: carried out by a third party (an EAD-accredited laboratory)
•
Laser photometer (DustTrackTM II Aerosol Monitor): carried out by SLWP
78
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Three sampling locations (Figure 5.1) were chosen in order to gather data downwind
(location 2), upwind (location 1) and close to a sensitive receptor i.e. EMAL office
(location 3) based on the most prevalent annual wind directions.
Figure 5.1
Dust Monitoring Locations
Dust levels measured on site during the construction of Phase 1 were generally below
the 150 μg/m3 UAE 24-hr criteria for PM10 (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1
Ambient 24-hour Average PM10 Levels (μg/m3) on EMAL Site during
the Construction of Phase 1
Sampling Campaigns
Date
Method
Locations
1. Close to the Palace
Wall (Etisalat Tower)
2. Near the South
Eastern Fence
3. Near Project’s
Admin. Building
2008-09
High-volume sampler
13
103
23
2008-12
High-volume sampler
30
51
71
2009-07
DustTrack II
15
16
83
2009-09
High-volume sampler
49
61
2009-11
DustTrack II
-
68
-
2010-01
DustTrack II
-
160
-
2010-06
DustTrack II
-
61
-
503406
79
Emirates Aluminium
The only measure exceeding the criteria (160 μg/m3 at site 2) was associated with wind
speed in excess of 30 km/hr for most of the sampling period. It is to be noted that
because of climatic factors and land use in the area, ambient dust levels tend to be high
(refer to 2007 EIA - Volume 1, chapter 4). Dust levels measured at EMAL permanent
ambient air quality monitoring station located in Al Samha are frequently higher than the
UAE criteria for PM10.
Dust mitigation measures listed in EMAL Construction Environmental Management Plan
(CEMP) include:
•
On-site perimeter asphalt roads
•
Dust suppression (water spraying) on unpaved roads
•
Use of tarpaulins to cover truck loads (as per the municipality requirements)
•
Keeping the drop height of loaders as low as possible when handling dusty material
5.2.1.2
Batch Plant Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive emissions from the batch plant were estimated by using the US EPA AP-42
Emission Factors (updated August 2011) and the estimated amount of concrete that will
be required for Phase 2 (310,000 m3). All the emission sources listed in AP-42 were
taken into consideration into the analysis including:
•
Aggregate transfer
•
Sand transfer
•
Cement unloading to elevated storage silo (pneumatic)
•
Cement supplement unloading to elevated storage silo (pneumatic)
•
Weigh hopper loading
•
Mixer loading (central mix)
Emissions from aggregate and sand transfer as well as from weigh hopper loading are
controlled at the batch plant. As emission factors are only available for uncontrolled
sources, these sources are not considered in the estimate. The estimated fugitive
emissions related to the controlled sources of concrete batching will be approximately
21 tonnes of PM over two years, in which 4 tonnes a year will be emitted as PM10. This
level will be less than 0.5% of the annual PM10 levels emitted by the smelter. Dust levels
taken downwind of batch plants during Phase 1 (Site 2 in Table 5.1) showed that
concrete batching does not lead, by itself, to exceedances of EAD ambient air
standards.
During Phase 1, the last three mitigation measures detailed below were implemented at
the batch plant to minimize emissions of fugitive dust and reduce ambient PM10 levels
80
503406
Emirates Aluminium
after a 24-h concentration of 103 μg/m3 was recorded downwind of batch plant in
September 2011.
•
Sand and aggregates to be stored in hoppers or bunkers which shield the materials
from winds
•
Enclosed aggregate/sand conveyors at the batch plant
•
Use of curtains for the transfer point between loader and conveyor
•
Use of cement bulkers with tight blower systems to transfer the cementitious
materials from the truck to the elevated silos
Considering that the above-mentioned mitigation measures implemented in Phase 1 will
be maintained for Phase 2 and the PM10 levels regularly below 50% of the EAD 24-h
standard (150 µg/m3) downwind of EMAL batch plants, their impact on air quality is
considered negligible.
5.2.1.3
Exhaust Emissions
Any stationary equipment (e.g. compressors, electricity generators, etc.), mobile
equipment (e.g. cranes, loaders, graders etc) and vehicles (e.g. transport trucks, buses
and cars) equipped with diesel or gasoline engines will generate air pollutants such as
nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide
(SO2), particulate matter (PM10) and hydrocarbons (often expressed as non methane
volatile organic compounds).
During the construction of Phase 1, SLWP recorded the consumptions of diesel from its
own use as well as the contractors. From 2007 to December 2010, a total of
approximately 32 million litres of diesel was consumed by machinery and generators on
site. Taking into account the magnitude of the works planned for Phase 2, a total of 21
million litres can be expected to be consumed for construction of Phase 2. By using
IPPC (1996) emission factors estimated for European non-road mobile sources and
machinery, the total amounts of air pollutants likely to be generated for non-road
equipment during Phase 2 were estimated and presented in Table 5.2.
Road vehicles were excluded from the calculations given the difficulty to keep track of
fuel consumptions of every car, bus or truck entering or leaving site. The emissions
presented in this table are the global emissions estimated for Phase 2 on-site
construction activities over the total duration of Phase 2 (~2.5 years). These emissions
are not significant and the impact on air quality is expected to remain very low.
503406
81
Table 5.2
Emirates Aluminium
Phase 2 Emissions from Non-Road Mobile Sources and Machinery
IPPC Emission Factor
g/kg diesel
Pollutant
Emission
(tonnes)
NOx
49
900
CO
16
294
SO2
(1)
1.0
18
PM10
1.93
35
NMVOC
7.1
130
Greenhouse gases (US EPA AP42 Emission Factors
CO2 (GWP=1)
3140
57,700
CH4 (GWP=21)
0.17
3.1
N2O (GWP=310)
CO2 eq
(1)
1.3
24
3547
65,200
3
Assumption: 0.05% of sulphur in diesel – Diesel density: 875 kg/m - GWP: Global Warming Potential
5.2.1.4
Impact Assessment
The 2007 EIA considered dust emissions only in the assessment of the impact of
construction activities on air quality. The impact was assessed as being of very low
significance. It was noted that the project site is located relatively far from inhabited
sites.
This revised impact assessment takes into account both the dust emissions and the
exhaust emissions. Based on Phase I dust monitoring results and exhaust emissions
calculations, the impact of Phase II construction activities is assed as being of very low
significance (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3
Impact Assessment: Air Quality (Construction Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
(Phases I & II)
Low
Local
Short
Very low
2011 Update
(Phase II)
Low
Local
Short
Very low
82
503406
Emirates Aluminium
5.2.2
Water and Soil Quality
The 2007 EIA identified the following potential sources of impact on water (groundwater
and/or seawater) and soil quality during the construction of the smelter complex:
•
Stormwater run-off with elevated suspended solids
•
Dewatering activities
•
Spill of contaminants (e.g. lubricants, fuel, oil, chemicals)
•
Waste storage (e.g. sewage, hazardous waste)
Stormwater
During the construction of Phase 1, stormwater run-off had not been identified as a
source of impact on seawater quality. This is due to rain paucity and to the fact that
EMAL site is not directly adjacent to the sea.
Dewatering
Dewatering took place on EMAL site from November 2008 until it ceased on 1 April
2010. During the construction of Phase 1, the volume of water to be removed from
various excavations precluded practical disposal via the conventional method of
infiltration and evaporation from the surface. Therefore, EAD approval was sought to
direct this groundwater to the marine environment which is close to the western fence of
the project property line. The quantity of groundwater that was directed to the sea was
approximately 1,000 m3/hr at the peak of the dewatering. This flow rate later on reduced
considerably. The EAD approval included three specific conditions:
•
Ensure that the dewatering equipment including pipes is installed in the right manner
to avoid water leakage.
•
The water shall be directed first to the settling tanks to ensure that the concentration
of total suspended solids (TSS <50 mg/l) and turbidity (<75 NTU) are within the
authorized limits as mentioned in the environmental regulations. If in any case the
abovementioned limits increase, the pumping shall cease immediately and the water
shall be pretreated to meet the limits.
•
The pumping of water to the marine environment shall be at an optimum rate where
the output from the pipes does not disturb the receiving environment and the
sediments get enough time to settle thereby reducing the turbidity caused by the
water flow.
In order to meet the EAD specific permit requirements, strict measures were put in place
by SLWP, including:
503406
83
Emirates Aluminium
•
Complete analysis of the marine water close to the discharge point (April 2009) to
ensure that the project’s discharge was not causing any damage to the receiving
environment (cf. Table 5.4)
•
Regular inspections of the water discharge hoses to check for any leaks/disruption of
water transfer
•
Daily analysis of the water samples to check for the turbidity from May 2009. Most of
the daily values were below 2 NTU units with occasional excursions between 2 and 3
NTU (maximum: 3.4).
•
Provision for extra holding capacity in case the discharges had to be held on site for
pre-treatment and
•
Provision for the control of the flow rate of the dewatered groundwater to the marine
environment in case there was any sudden surges in the groundwater abstraction.
During the first six months of dewatering, weekly monitoring of TSS was done and
results ranged from 10 to 21 mg/l. In May 2009, this program was changed, with the
EAD approval, to daily analysis of turbidity.
Two single values exceeded applicable guidelines: manganese was twice as the EAD
limit on the 2nd campaign but not detectable a week after. COD levels doubled from
March 25 to March 31, over the IFC limit of 50 mg/l.
COD levels were high the same day that TDS levels were unusually higher than
seawater background (66,800 versus 40-45,000 mg/l). Chloride levels may have
interfered in the analysis. Low COD concentrations (< 50 mg/l) should be analysed by
titrating a solution of mercuric sulphate on the basis of a weight ratio of 10:1, HgSO4:Cl¯
to eliminate chloride interference, using the amount of Cl¯ present in the original volume
of sample (5220 B – Open Reflux Method - Chemical oxygen Demand). If groundwater
must be dewatered in Phase 2, concentrations of chloride and sodium will be added to
the list of parameters and special care will be taken for chloride interference for the
analysis of COD.
During the first months of dewatering, there was a concern that the seabed was
disturbed by the dewatering flow and causing turbidity. This situation was resolved by
connecting the end of the discharge hoses to steel pipes kept in place by barrels. This
setting enabled the water to be discharged at approximately 50 to 70 cm above the
seabed thereby curtailing any disturbances that may add to the ambient turbidity and
sedimentation levels.
Based on monitoring data gathered by SLWP, there is no evidence that Phase 1
dewatering activities have constituted a significant source of impact on seawater quality.
84
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 5-4
Detailed Analysis of Discharged Groundwater (2009)
Parameter
Units
Detection
limits
31/03/11
25/03/11
25/02/11
EAD Limit
IFC
Guideline
mg/L
5
11.5
<5
<5
50
20
mg/L
5
66,880
44,590
41,800
pH unit
0.01
6.96
7.38
7.46
6 < pH < 9
6 < pH < 9
C
0.1
28
25
22
-
-
NTU
0.1
0.4
0.32
1.3
75
-
mg/L
0.01
0.19
0.15
0.39
2
-
Physical Properties
TSS
TDS
pH
o
Temperature
Turbidity
-
Inorganic Chemicals
-
Ammonia – Nitrogen (NH4 )
Chlorine residual
mg/L
0.01
0.02
< 0.01
< 0.01
1
-
Cyanide (total)
mg/L
0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.05
-
Fluoride (F )
mg/L
0.01
3.6
< 0.01
< 0.01
20
5
Sulphide
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.1
-
BOD5
mg/L
2
14
<5
<2
50
-
Phosphate (as P)
mg/l
0.01
0.1
0.27
0.18
2
-
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/L
5
63
26
35
100
50
Aluminium (Al)
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
20
-
Antimony (Sb)
mg/L
0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.1
-
Arsenic (As)
mg/L
0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.05
0.05
Barium (Ba)
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
2
-
Beryllium (Be)
mg/L
0.02
< 0.02
< 0.01
< 0.02
0.05
-
Cadmium (Cd)
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.05
0.05
Chromium (Cr)
mg/l
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.2
-
Cobalt (Co)
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.2
-
Copper (Cu)
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.02
0.5
0.1
Iron (Fe)
mg/L
0.01
0.06
< 0.01
0.58
2
-
Lead (Pb)
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.1
0.1
Manganese (Mn)
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
0.4
0.05
0.2
-
Mercury (Hg)
mg/L
0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.001
0.01
Nickel (Ni)
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.1
0.1
-
Trace Metals
Selenium (Se)
mg/l
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.02
-
Silver (Ag)
mg/L
0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.005
-
Zinc (Zn)
mg/L
0.01
0.07
< 0.01
0.04
0.5
0.2
Halogenated Hydrocarbons/Pesticides
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
Nil
-
Hydrocarbons
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
15
5
Organic Chemicals
Oil & Grease
mg/L
5
<5
<5
<5
10
-
Phenols
mg/L
0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.1
-
Total organic carbon (TOC)
mg/L
0.1
1.3
1.64
1.36
75
-
MPN/100 ml
2
7
<2
-
1000
400
Biological Properties
Fecal Coliforms
503406
85
Emirates Aluminium
Spillage of Contaminants
The only significant source of impact on water (in this case groundwater) and soil quality
during the construction of Phase 1 was the spillage of contaminants, which was
sometimes related to waste storage (e.g. inadequate storage of hazardous waste such
as used oil and used oil filters, sewage overflows, etc.), but more often associated with
maintenance activities (e.g. oil change), equipment breakdown (e.g. tipper truck overturn
accident resulting in hydraulic oil spill) or storage and handling of hazardous materials
such as diesel. Although specific measures had been included in EMAL CEMP to
prevent accidental spills, a number of environmental incidents occurred on EMAL site
during the construction of Phase 1, mostly hydrocarbon spills (e.g. diesel, hydraulic oil).
As per EMAL procedures, there are three levels of environmental incidents: Level I
(minor), Level II (significant) and Level III (major). A minor environmental incident is
defined as an incident where there is no risk of contamination and when it is possible to
clean up with the intervention kits available on site. In order for a fuel spill to be classified
as a minor environmental incident (Level I), the quantity released must be less than 25
litres. Similarly Level II and Level III are classified based on spills in the range of 25 to
100 litres and more than 100 litres, respectively. Table 5.5 provides a summary of the
environmental incidents that were reported on EMAL site during Phase 1.
Table 5.5
Environmental Incidents – Construction Phase 1
Incident Level
I – Minor
II – Significant
III – Major
No. of incidents reported
140
5
3
Following an environmental incident on site, all contaminated material is collected in tight
containers and stored on site until further disposal by an EAD-approved environmental
service provider. A copy of the disposal certificate is then received by the contractor and
kept onsite for records.
Rehabilitation of Laydown Areas
In order to ensure that laydown areas are restored to an acceptable state, that is suitable
for the future use of land, does not cause any harm to the humans or the environment;
and does not present any environmental legacy of contamination upon work completion,
.The EMAL CEMP contains a procedure regarding the rehabilitation of laydown areas
when a contractor demobilizes from the site. The procedure makes provision for a closeout inspection to be conducted by the EPCM Contractor Environmental Specialists to
ensure, amongst other things, that the rehabilitated area is clean (no sign of soil
contamination) and that waste transport and disposal activities have been carried out as
per the legal requirements and the Project’s procedures. The contractor must have
provided the required evidences in terms of manifests, waste transfer notices and/or
disposal/treatment certificates. This procedure applies to any contaminated soil that has
been collected following an environmental incident.
86
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Assessment of Impacts
The intensity of the potential impact of accidental spills on groundwater and soil quality
during the construction of Phase 2 has been assessed based on the following:
•
Groundwater on EMAL site is unsuitable for human consumption due to its
hypersalinity and brine quality (low environmental value).
•
A high number of environmental incidents, mostly minor spills, were reported during
Phase 1, but measures had been implemented to mitigate the impact on
groundwater and soil quality (medium degree of disturbance).
Taking these elements into consideration, the impact is anticipated to be of low intensity.
Of local extent and short duration, the potential impact of accidental spills on
groundwater and soil quality during the construction of Phase 2 is assessed as being of
very low significance (Table 5.6).
Table 5.6
Impact Assessment: Water and Soil Quality (Construction Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
(Phases I & II)
Negligible
Local
Short
Negligible
2011 Update
(Phase II)
Low
Local
Short
Very low
5.2.3
Fauna and Flora
Prior to the construction of Phase 1, EMAL site was characterised by two main habitat
subdivisions:
•
366 ha were designated as species-rich sand sheet (64% of the site)
•
209 ha were designated barren plains / supra-tidal flats (36% of the site)
The species-rich sand sheets found on EMAL site were part of one of the last remaining
areas of Sphaerocoma aucheri dominated white sands on the UAE coast supporting a
rich terrestrial biodiversity including at least 42 species of flowering plants, 17 species of
reptiles and 5 species of mammals. Of particular concern were the following species:
chestnut-bellied sandgrouse (Pterocles exustus), lesser short-toed lark (Calandrella
rufescens), and the wonder gecko (Teratoscincus keyserlingii). Of more importance than
these individual species was the unique and biodiverse community, the last remnant of a
once more extensive community which has been fragmented and destroyed by a wide
range of coastal development projects.
The 2007 EIA predicted that the loss of habitat caused by the construction of the smelter
complex would have an impact of very high significance on terrestrial fauna and avian
threatened species. Therefore, EMAL implemented a number of mitigation measures
503406
87
Emirates Aluminium
based on the recommendations of Dr. Andrew Gardner of Zayed University (Abu Dhabi)
an expert in the field of terrestrial biology:
•
•
Conservation & creation of white sand habitat: During the construction of Phase
1, a white sand area which was not required for plant construction north-west of
the site was left unlevelled with the surface layer intact (including fauna and flora)
fenced and protected. In addition, on some of the land used by the project, the
top 10-30 cm of sand that contains the majority of seed bank was preserved and
stored north-east of the site for creation of white sand habitats on the barren
saline flats. This area was also fenced and designated as a protected area.
However, as these two areas will be required for the construction of Phase 2,
they will lose their conservation status. The CEMP Fauna and Flora Protection
Procedure will be modified accordingly.
Translocation of smaller animals: A site-wide fauna translocation project was
carried out at the beginning of the construction of Phase 1 by a specialist team of
small mammal and reptile handlers with experience in similar environments and
project scenarios and supervised by SLWP. The EMAL Project translocation
team successfully identified, tracked, captured and safely relocated more than
900 specimens of terrestrial fauna from EMAL site to alternative habitable
locations approved by EAD within the Abu Dhabi Emirate (refer to Table 5.7
below). Animals removed from site, with the exception of six reptiles handed over
to the EAD for their genetic library, were all released to appropriate areas as
agreed with the EAD. The specialist team also conducted some filming work
during the course of the project, and compiled a brief documentary which later
served for environmental awareness purposes. The specialized team completed
more than 95% of the fauna translocation in October and November 2007 (prior
to the start of major construction activities). After this period, SLWP
Environmental Specialists took over and proceeded to translocation every time
an animal was encountered and successfully captured.
•
Invertebrates and insecticide spraying: As per EMAL CEMP, insecticide spraying
is to be avoided on EMAL site in order to maintain the food chains and the
pollination of the vegetation.
•
Invasive alien species: As per EMAL CEMP, the contractors shall ensure the use
of local plant only for landscaping. Prosopis juliflora, a highly invasive plant
species, shall not be used by Contractors in the landscaping.
88
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 5.7
EMAL Wildlife
Translocated
Translocation
Project:
Animals
Captured
Scientific name
Common name
Number caught
Echis carinatus
Saw-scaled viper
47
Teratoscincus scincus
Wonder Gecko
9
Stenodactylus spp.
Sand Geckos
429
Gerbillus cheesmani
Gerbils
77
Hemidactylus spp.
House Geckos
223
Cerastes gasparetti
Horned viper
14
Malpolon moilensis
False cobra
43
Acanthodactylus spp.
Sand lizard
77
Phrynocephelus arabicus
Arabian toad-headed agama
5
Spalerosophis diadema cliffordii
Clifford's snake
1
Jaculus jaculus
Lesser jerboa
9
Hemiechinus spp.
Hedgehog
1
Androctonus crassicauda
Arabian Thick tailed scorpion
2
Varanus griseus
Desert monitor
3
Psammophis schokari
Arabian Sand Snake
1
Uromastyx aegyptius-
Spiny tailed lizard (Dhub)
1
TOTAL
and
942
Despite the mitigation measures mentioned above, the overall impact of the construction
of EMAL Project on fauna and flora remains of very high significance as all the speciesrich sand sheets previously found on the site will have been lost as a result of
construction activities. However, most of the impact occurred during the construction of
Phase 1 with the backfilling and/or levelling of most of the areas required for both
Phases. Therefore, the impact of the construction of Phase 2 alone on fauna and flora is
assessed as being of low significance (Table 5.8).
Table 5.8
Impact Assessment: Fauna & Flora (Construction Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
(Phases I & II)
Very high
Local
Long
Very high
2011 Update
(Phase II)
Low
Local
Long
Low
5.2.4
Noise Environment
In the 2007 EIA, the transportation of backfill material and concrete from local suppliers
was considered as the main source of impact on ambient noise during the construction
phase. However, during the construction of Phase 2, there will be no transportation of
concrete from local suppliers. A concrete batch plant is available on site and the number
503406
89
Emirates Aluminium
of trips required for the transportation of backfill material on site will be very limited
compared to Phase 1 as a part of the backfilling required for Phase 2 has already been
completed.
The main noise-producing activities associated with the construction of Phase 2 are
expected to be the following:
•
Site preparation and landscaping
•
Stone columns and piling
•
Foundation construction
•
Transportation of material, equipment and workers
This may lead to a temporary increase of ambient noise levels around the construction
site and along the main access roads.
During the construction of Phase 1, ambient noise levels were periodically monitored by
the EPCM contractor using a sound level meter (Lutron SL-4001). Twelve (12) sampling
locations were used along the site’s boundary (Figure 5.2). A total of four noise
monitoring campaign were conducted from 2008 to 2010 (Table 5.9).
Noise levels exceeding the EAD limits were recorded at the following locations:
•
Sampling location 1 (south-west corner of the site): Exceedances were caused by
Abu Dhabi Port Company (ADPC) earthworks being carried out outside EMAL site.
No action was taken by EMAL.
•
Sampling location 10 (south fence / gate B): A marginal exceedance of 0.5 dBA was
measured. No corrective action was taken after the next survey showed compliance
with EAD limits.
•
Sampling location 3 (west fence): The exceedance was caused by water pumps.
While there is no sensitive receptor (e.g. residential area potentially affected from the
noise) close to this location, one of EMAL Project Environmental Target is to achieve
“Zero Environmental Violation to the laws and regulations of the Emirate of Abu
Dhabi and the UAE”. Therefore, actions were taken in order to comply with EAD
noise limit values: water pumps were relocated farther from the site boundary and
provided with enclosures to reduce the noise levels. No exceeedance was measured
during the subsequent monitoring campaign.
90
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 5.9
Sampling
location
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Equivalent Noise Levels (Leq) measured at EMAL site boundary during
the Construction of Phase 1
Sampling campaign
2008-11
Day
61.78
65.75
62.77
62.85
56.86
44.76
46.01
50.59
63.09
61.21
63.24
57.98
2009-04
Day
56.9
51.8
50.5
46.8
55.4
48.9
41.7
43.9
51.8
58.1
53.8
57.5
2009-10
Day
63.4
51.0
67.9
49.5
56.6
56.9
49.2
47.6
55.4
54.5
60.5
51.7
2010-01
Night
68.2
56.0
67.2
50.1
52.9
51.4
49.1
49.3
52.8
60.5
55.4
53.1
Day
73.3
51.6
61.3
47.8
53.6
55.9
42.9
41.2
56.4
63.9
48.0
51.9
Night
65.8
46.2
50.9
45.5
48.3
49.0
47.2
48.1
48.9
50.1
53.7
48.6
EAD Limit for Industrial Areas (Heavy Industries): Day (7:00 to 20:00): 60-70 dBA/ Night (20:00 to 7:00): 50-60 dBA
Figure 5.2
Noise Monitoring Locations
Considering that construction activities associated with Phase 2 are reduced in scope
compared to Phase 1, their impact on ambient noise is not expected to exceed the
impact associated with Phase 1. The anticipated impact remains of low significance.
503406
91
Table 5.10
Emirates Aluminium
Impact Assessment: Ambient Noise (Construction Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
(Phases I & II)
Medium
Local
Short
Low
2011 Update
(Phase II)
Medium
Local
Short
Low
5.2.5
Impacts Related to Workforce Accommodation
Construction workforce accommodation and living conditions are of prime importance for
EMAL and SLII and was considered as a potential issue for Phase 1. The Project
ensures that working or living conditions are in compliance with international standards
(IFC) and UAE regulations by auditing regularly the workers’ camps. These regulations
and standards include requirements on camp location, condition of buildings, sleeping
quarters, entertainment areas, kitchen and dining facilities, sanitary services (toilets and
showers), drinking water, health services, waste removal, general hygiene, pest control,
first aid, grievance mechanism, emergency and transportation outside camps in day-off.
The audit form developed for the inspections addresses all these issues.
SLII conducted a total of 28 inspections between July 2007 and July 2010 during the
construction of Phase 1 (Table 5.11). One inspection (# 18) coincided with an ECA
audit. ECA were satisfied with their visit and did not make any comment. Contractors
were notified of non-compliances and follow-up was done with the contractors, including
visits when required, to ensure that the non-compliances were adequately resolved.
Table 5.11
Workforce Camp Inspection Log – 2007 to 2010 (Phase 1)
#
DATE
CONTRACTOR
LOCATION
01
02
08-07-2007
UNIBETON
AL FARAA CAMP, AL TAWEELAH
08-07-2007
AL MASAOOD BERGUM
JEBEL ALI FREE ZONE, DUBAI
03
08-07-2007
AL MASAOOD BERGUM
MUSSAFAH, ABU DHABI
04
21-05-2008
AFC
AL TAWEELAH, ABU DHABI
05
26-05-2008
AFC
FORCE 10 CAMP, AL TAWEELAH
06
26-05-2008
SBF
07
26-05-2008
KELVIN CATERING
08
01-07-2008
SBD
AL SAMHA, ABU DHABI
09
23-07-2008
GROUP FIVE
JEBEL ALI INDUSTRIAL AREA, DUBAI
10
24-07-2008
OUTOTEC
11
04-11-2008
OUTOTEC
12
26-05-2009
GROUP FIVE
JEBEL ALI INDUSTRIAL AREA, DUBAI
13
27-05-2009
AFC
PARCO - JEBEL ALI, DUBAI
14
27-05-2009
AFC
AL QUOZ, DUBAI
15
27-05-2009
AFC
16
27-05-2009
AFC
17
19-08-2009
UNIBETON
92
503406
Emirates Aluminium
18
09-09-2009
AFC
PARCO - JEBEL ALI, DUBAI
19
09-09-2009
TARGET ENGINEERING
HOSPITALITY CAMP, AL TAWEELAH
20
09-09-2009
DEUTSCHE BABCOCK
21
09-11-2009
PETRON EMIRATES
22
09-11-2009
AIC
23
09-11-2009
UNIBETON
24
09-11-2009
ECL
25
10-11-2009
GROUP FIVE
26
06-07-2010
GROUP FIVE
27
06-07-2010
TARGET ENGINEERING
28
06-07-2010
OUTOTEC
Social impacts were assessed as unknown in the 2007 EIA given the absence of a
detailed land development plan within KIZAD. Since then, KIZAD announced that all
workers’ accommodation are to eventually be located within self-contained workers city
on the south eastern edge of Area B on the basis that no living accommodation is
permitted within Area A. Meanwhile, and until these workers city are available, workers
will commute from camps located either in the Abu Dhabi or the Dubai/Jebel Ali areas.
Based on Phase 1 experience, the impacts of social impacts related to workforce
accommodation is considered to be low for Phase 2 (Table 5.12).
Table 5.12
Social Impact Assessment (Construction Workforce Camps)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
(Phases I & II)
Not Assessed
Regional
Short
Not assessed
2011 Update
(Phase II)
Low
Regional
Short
Low
The rights of workers to get good living conditions are of prime importance for EMAL and
camps are located at distances from family houses to avoid disruption of local
communities. To ensure decent living conditions for the construction workers, a
procedure was developed to set the minimum requirements for the labour camps and to
implement a mechanism to ensure that these requirements are met.
5.2.6
Summary
Table 5.13 summarises the impacts of the construction of EMAL Project Phase 2. The
impact significance anticipated in the 2007 EIA for both phases has been included.
503406
93
Table 5.13
Emirates Aluminium
Construction Phase Environmental Impact Summary
Environmental
Component
Impact Significance
Description of Impact
(+/-)
Source of Impact
Ambient Air
Quality
Alteration of the local
ambient air quality by dust
and other pollutants (THC,
NOx, CO, SO2) (-)
Dust emissions: traffic on
unpaved roads
earthworks, concrete batch
plant
Other pollutants: use of
mobile equipment and
vehicles
Water & Soil
Quality
Contamination of soil and
groundwater by
hydrocarbons (-)
Fauna & Fauna
2007 EIA
(Phases 1 & 2)
2011 Update
(Phase 2)
Very low
Very low
Hydrocarbon spills (e.g.
hydraulic oil, diesel)
Negligible
Very low
Loss of faunal habitat (-)
Construction of the smelter
complex
Very high
Low
Noise
Environment
Increased noise levels at
the smelter complex site
and along access roads (-)
Construction activities
Low
Low
Social Impact
Living conditions (+/-)
Disruption to nearby
communities (+/-)
Workforce Accommodation
Not defined
Low
(+): positive impact / (-): negative impact
5.3
OPERATION PHASE
Impacts associated with EMAL operations (Phases 1 and 2) have been re-assessed
based on the revised project description (section 3) and updated environmental baseline
(section 4). Only the significant impacts associated are discussed hereafter.
5.3.1
Ambient Air Quality
The 2007 EIA identified the following sources of significant impacts on ambient air
quality:
•
Material handling at the port and material transportation
•
Air emissions from the smelter complex
EMAL understands that it is the role of EAD and ADPC/KIZAD to inform future tenants
about the activities of the industries already established in KIZAD to ensure that
cumulative impacts are properly addressed in future EIAs the same way EMAL
considered the cumulative impacts of the Taweelah and EMAL power plants in the 2007
EIA. The reader is referred to the 2007 EIA (Section 5.2.2.3) for the details of this
cumulative impact assessment on air quality. ADPC/NILU has already translated most
of the prospective tenant production numbers into emissions (as part of our current and
future KPIZ emissions inventory) and modelled much of what Kizad may look like in
2030.
94
503406
Emirates Aluminium
5.3.1.1
Material Handling & Transportation
In terms of dust nuisance, the 2007 EIA estimated the potential impact on air quality
associated with material handling at the port as being of very low significance. This
impact assessment remains considering that the strategy for material handling at the
port has not changed for alumina and coke.
However, the strategy for alumina transportation has changed for Phase 2 as alumina
will be transported by trucks between the silo farm and the GTC daily silos, instead of
using gallery-enclosed conveyor as initially planned and installed for Phase 1. Pitch will
continue to be transported by tanker trucks (9-10 trips a day) from Jebel Ali by the truck
road, thus avoiding Highway 11 between Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Nevertheless, the
impact intensity is still anticipated to be low as the annual emissions presented in Table
3.15 will not likely induce any significant incremental change on air quality.
Consequently, an impact on air quality of low significance is expected for this project
change (Table 5.14).
Table 5.14
Impact Assessment: Air Quality (Operation Phase - Material Handling
& Transportation)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
Low
Site specific /
Local
Long
Very low
2011 Update
Low
Site specific /
Local
Long
Very low
5.3.1.2
Air Emissions from the Smelter Complex
An air dispersion model was used to evaluate the effects of the smelter on ambient air
quality in the region. The same methodology than in the 2007 EIA was used. The same
internationally recognised air dispersion model (CALPUFF but updated version) and 3D
meteorological database created with the advanced MM5 meso-scale meteorological
model were used. Only emission parameters for the smelter sources differ from those
used for the original EIA. Since SO2 and HF were the two most important air
contaminants of concern, additional model runs were performed those two contaminants
only.
The reader is referred to the 2007 EIA (Section 5.2.2.3) for the cumulative impact
assessment of the EMAL and Taweelah power plants (NO2). This assessment is still
valid.
For each of SO2 and HF, two scenarios were considered for the ultimate aluminium
annual production of 1.4 Mt: average or realist emissions and worst case emissions.
Both cases were already discussed in section 3.6.1. Emissions parameters for both
503406
95
Emirates Aluminium
cases are presented in Table 5.15 for roof vents emissions and in Table 5.16 for point
sources emissions.
Table 5.15
Emission Parameters for the Electrolysis Roof Vents for the Proposed
Expanded Aluminum Smelter (1,400,000 t Al/yr)
Electrolysis building roof vents
Parameters
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
4
2
850,000
550,000
Number of pots per building
189
222
Electrolysis building height (emission height) (m)
18.5
18.5
Electrolysis building length (m)
1,295
1,530
Electrolysis building width (m)
26
26
Average building separation (m)
57.3
79
Roof vent width (m)
10.8
10.8
Number of electrolysis buildings
Aluminium production (t/y)
Roof vent exit temperature (°C)
(1)
Ambient + 16°C
Ambient + 16°C
(1)*
4,233
4,972
(2)
2,103
2,470
3
3
0.809
1.05
– Worst 0.25 kg/t
1.69
2.18
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) - Average and worst
1.39
1.83
Flow per building (A m³/s)
4
Buoyancy Factor F' (m /s³)
Base elevation (m)
Emission of contaminants (g/s/source)
Gaseous fluoride (HF) (3) – Average 0.12 kg/t
Gaseous fluoride (HF)
(4)
(5)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Not a direct input to air dispersion model, but used to calculate the buoyancy factor F’.
Average ambient temperature of 27°C.
Based on the maximum long-term measured average emission factor at one roof vent (2010-2011 up to 03 June 2011) of
0.12 kg HF/t Al for the actual smelter.
As per EIA (2007)
Mass balance calculations based on 2.8 % sulphur content in coke and 99 % pot gas collection efficiency.
96
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 5.16
Emission Parameters for the GTC and FTC stacks for the Proposed
Expanded Aluminum Smelter (1,400,000 t Al/yr) with GTC SO2
Seawater Scrubbing for Phase 1 only
Electrolysis GTCs
Parameters
Anode Baking FTCs
Phase 1
Phase 2
East
Phase 2
West
Phase 1
(2 ovens)
Phase 2
(1 oven)
850,000
275,000
275,000
-
-
Pots per GTC
189
222
222
-
-
SO2 sea-water scrubbing (Yes/No)
Yes
No
No
No
No
Number of GTCs or FTCs
4
1
1
2
1
Stacks per GTC
6
1
1
-
-
Number of stacks
24
1
1
1
1
Base elevation (m)
3
3
3
4.4
4.4
Stack height (m)
52.6
70
70
65
65
Stack diameter (m)
3.0
7.0
7.0
2.4
2.4
Exit temperature (°C)
37
105
105
108
108
13.6
19.6
22.0
18.9
14.8
0.0595
0.382
0.427
0.031
0.024
0.0849
0.546
0.610
0.031
0.024
1.15
181
181
19.1
12.3
1.15
109
122
18.3
14.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
Aluminium production (t/y)
Exit velocity (m/s)
Emission of contaminants (g/s/source)
(1)
– Average
Gaseous fluoride (HF) (2) –Worst
Sulphur dioxide (SO2)
(3)
– Worst
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) (4) -Average
Concentration of contaminant
(mg/Nm³)
(1)
– Average
Gaseous fluoride (HF) (2) –Worst
(3)
– Worst
14
331
296
312
257
(4)
–Average
14
200
200
300
300
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
3
Worst case of 1 mg/Nm to take into account summer conditions
Based on manufacturers guaranteed concentration for HF of 0.7 mg/Nm³ for GTCs and 0.5 mg/Nm³ for FTCs.
Based on 2.8 % sulphur content in coke, 99 % pot gas collection efficiency and 95% SO2 scrubbing efficiency for Phase 1
GTCs.
3
3
200 mg SO2/Nm for GTC’s and 300 mg SO2/Nm for FTC’s in accordance with Phase 1 performance and efficiency tests
(adjusted for 2.8%S coke).
503406
97
Emirates Aluminium
Results for SO2 and HF for both average and worst case emission scenarios are
presented on maps of the area in Appendix A:
Figure A.4: Worst Case Maximum Predicted Hourly Average Concentration of SO2 in
ambient Air
Figure A.5: Worst Case Number of Exceedances of the EAD Hourly Standard for SO2
in ambient Air
Figure A.6: Average Case Maximum Predicted Hourly Average Concentration of SO2
in ambient Air
Figure A.7: Average Case Number of Exceedances of the EAD Hourly Standard for
SO2 in ambient Air
Figure A.8: Worst Case Maximum Predicted Daily Average Concentration of SO2 in
ambient Air
Figure A.9: Average Case Maximum Predicted Daily Average Concentration of SO2 in
ambient Air
Figure A.10: Worst Case Maximum Predicted Long-Term Average Concentration of
SO2 in ambient Air
Figure A.11: Average Case Maximum Predicted Long-Term Average Concentration of
SO2 in ambient Air
Figure A.12: Worst Case Maximum Predicted Long-Term Average Concentration of HF
in ambient Air
Figure A.13: Average Case Maximum Predicted Long-Term Average Concentration of
HF in ambient Air
It must be noted that the scale of figures A.8 and A.9 for maximum daily average
concentrations of SO2 in ambient air was adjusted to show the Al Sahma area and the
20 µg/m³ curve that will be used in the discussion on human health issues later on in this
report (Section 5.3.2).
Maximum predicted concentration of SO2 in ambient air for the worst and average
emissions cases are summarised on Table 5.17 for selected areas: property line, Ras
Ghanada mangrove and ambient air monitoring sites. For large areas (property line and
mangrove) the range of maximum concentrations over the area are indicated. The
contribution of the smelter to maximum ground-level concentrations of SO2 in ambient
air remain well below the EAD standards with the exception of maximum hourly
concentration very close to the smelter. Some exceedences of the 1-hour EAD standard
of 350 µg/m³ are predicted at some area of EMAL property line and at the KPIZ
monitoring site for both emissions case scenarios. At the border of the mangrove area,
some exceedences (up to 3 over a 5-year period) are predicted for the worst case
emission scenario only.
Predicted concentrations are higher than predicted concentration presented in the EIA.
Highest increases are at the property line. In Al Samha City, the contribution of the
smelter to ambient SO2 concentrations increases, but predicted concentration remain
well below the EAD of IFC/WHO standards.
98
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 5.17
Case
Worst
Case
Average
Case
EIA 2007
Notes:
5.3.2
Summary of Maximum Predicted Concentration (µg/m³) of SO2 in
Ambient Air
Time
Period
EAD AQ
Standard
Plant
boundary
Ras
Ghanada
(North and
East of the
smelter)
1-hr
350
220 – 1,488
(0 - 132)
87 – 444
(0 - 3)
24-hr
150
20- 116
Annual
60
1-hr
KPIZ
AAQMS
EMAL
AAQMS
Al
Samha
City
420 (4)
271
113
9 - 84
74
39-
18
1.7 -14
0.5 – 9.9
12
5.1
1.8
350
161 – 1,028
(0 - 49)
62 - 287
283
180
78
24-hr
150
19 - 84
6 -56
54
29
14
Annual
60
1.6 - 12
0.4 -7.8
9.8
3.8
1.7
1-hr
350
550 (3)
357 (1)
-
132
63
24-hr
150
66
26
-
15
14
Annual
60
15
4.7
-
1.9
1.1
(2010-2011)
Number of exceedances of the EAD standard over a 5-year period in parenthesis.
In the 2007 EIA, the KPIZ station was located near the present EMAL monitoring site.
Impact on Human Health
The 2007 EIA identified the impact on human health as a potential direct impact resulting
from the smelter’s air emissions. Overall the impact assessment remains the same
(Table 5.18).
A discussion on the effects of fluoride, SO2, PM10, CO and NO2 on human health is
included in the 2007 EIA. While the potential impacts associated with fluoride, SO2 and
PM10 emissions were identified as being negligible, the potential impacts associated with
CO and NO2 were considered as being of low significance.
Overall the expected emissions of NO2 for the whole complex will be reduced by at least
1,500 t/y (~ 20%), so the potential impact on human health will be reduced and will
remain of low significance.
Regarding the impacts of SO2 on human health, despite an increase of the emissions,
the 24-h concentrations predicted in Al Samha remains approximately 50% of the
ultimate WHO air quality guideline (20 µg/m3) for the average case (SO2 emissions
based on performance test results). Therefore the impact of SO2 on human health will
remain negligible in the residential areas. For short-term exposures (1-h), though the
model predicts some excursions beyond EAD standards, it should be mentioned that in
European countries the hourly standard can be exceeded 24 times a year. Figures A.5
and A.7 show that this allowance of exceedance of European limits would remain much
localized on EMAL property limit, in an area where human beings are expected not to
503406
99
Emirates Aluminium
remain more than a few minutes. Therefore impacts of short-term SO2 exposures on
human health are also expected to remain negligible. The earlier ambient air monitoring
results show maximum ambient concentrations levels lower than predicted. The
installation of a new permanent SO2 ambient air station and the possibility to use a
mobile station to monitor SO2 ambient air levels downwind will allow a verification of
these predicted impacts.
Table 5.18
Impact Assessment: Human Health (Operation Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
Low
Local
Long
Low
2011 Update
Low
Local
Long
Low
5.3.3
Impact on Fauna and Flora
The 2007 EIA identified the impact on fauna and flora as a potential indirect impact
resulting from the smelter’s air emissions. The only impact that was considered
significant in the 2007 EIA was the potential indirect impact of fluoride on small
herbivorous animals, which could be at risk of developing bone fluorosis (through their
diet). This impact assessment remains the same considering that the expected overall
average fluoride emissions from the smelter will be reduced (Table 5.19).
The best indicator of the presence of fluoride in the environment and potential impact
(e.g. dental wear) on ungulates (gazelles) remains the testing of fluoride levels in fodder
(grass). It is to be noted that EMAL first two monitoring campaigns for fluoride in grass
show compliance with the annual criteria identified to protect herbivorous animals from
dental wear and bone fluorosis (refer to section 4.7.1 above). This monitoring program
(refer to Section 6.4.7) should be continued on a regular basis to ensure that the
recommended levels in grass (fodder) are not exceeded.
Dr. Weinstein executed in May 2006 a vegetation survey around DUBAL smelter and
concluded that the lack of visible injury and the UAE climate suggest a more appropriate
annual limit of 0.5 μg HF/m3 for sensitive plants. Dr. Weinstein observations of visible
impacts of fluoride on plants were limited to a single ornamental plant near the
administrative building, on DUBAL smelter site. DUBAL presently conducts quarterly
monitoring of vegetation (tree leaves) as recommended by Dr. Weinstein (2006).
Rough approximations of the study area’s desert plants’ sensitivity to HF expressed in
annual average concentration can be estimated as follows:
100
503406
Emirates Aluminium
•
Sensitive, 0.5 to 1.0 μg/m3 of HF
•
Intermediate, 1.1 to 3.0 μg/m3 of HF
•
Tolerant, more than 3.0 μg/m3 of HF
Nevertheless, there are several limitations that should be associated with these
classifications:
•
Sensitivity relates to the occurrence of foliar symptoms only, not to growth, yield,
number of flowers, fruits or seeds produced, or quality. Fluoride is highly toxic to
cellular processes, so that plants without visible symptoms may have other quality
defects, such as reduced vigour, reduced sugar content, reduced numbers and sizes
of fruit.
•
Almost half of the species classified were unknown to the plant specialist that used
knowledge of related genera and characteristics of plant families and field
experience over many years.
•
Plants grown in the United Arab Emirates are potentially exposed to air pollution over
the entire year, whereas in temperate climates, they are exposed for 6-7 months. On
the other hand, the plants are often water-stressed, which tends to increase their
tolerance to fluoride. During dark or drought conditions, the stomata of the plant are
closed; the resistance to gas uptake is very high and the plant has a very low degree
of susceptibility to injury. There is also a possibility that dust deposited on leaves
might reduce gas uptake.
Dr. Weinstein concluded that in comparison with other world class smelters, there is no
doubt that there is less injury evidence at DUBAL than at other smelters, despite the fact
that total fluoride emissions are probably lower at these smelters (note: larger capacity of
smelters compared by Dr. Weinstein is 430,000 t Al/y). The differences lie in the
ecological conditions present at each smelter – tropical coastal rainforest or North
American southern or boreal forests- where there is adequate soil moisture and infinitely
more sensitive species. This conclusion is valid for EMAL and there should be limited
visible impacts of fluoride emissions on vegetation (e.g. burnt leaves), based on the
observations of Dr. Weinstein.
Table 5.19
Impact Assessment: Fauna & Flora (Operation Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
Low
Local
Long
Low
2011 Update
Low
Local
Long
Low
503406
101
5.3.4
Emirates Aluminium
GHG & Climate Change
According to the US Energy Information Administration (2011), the total greenhouse
gases (GHG) emissions resulting from the consumption of energy in the UAE were
193.4 Mt CO2 in 2009. Taking into consideration non-fuel GHG emissions from DUBAL
and the cement plants, the GHG emissions totalized approximately 200 Mt/y for the
country in 2009.
A 1.4 Mt Al/y smelter would contribute approximately 10.85 Mt CO2/y (Table 3.16). The
contribution of the smelter to the GHG emissions will add approximately 5.4% of the
country’s emissions.
The UAE acceded to the United Nations Frame Work Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) in December 1995 and became an official UNFCCC party in March 1996
with a mandated commitment, as a Non-Annex 1 Party to the Convention, to regularly
submit a national inventory of GHG emissions. As a non-Annex 1 country, the UAE is
not obliged to meet a GHG emission reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol.
However, under the general commitments of the UNFCCC – based upon the principal of
common but differentiated responsibilities - all nations, including the UAE, are
encouraged to undertake actions that limit the growth in GHG emissions and are
consistent with sustainable development.
Since the GHG limit is not established for the UAE, the impact of the smelter on the
capacity of UAE to meet its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol cannot be determined.
Considering that the EMAL Project would increase the UAE GHG emissions
(representing approximately 5% of the country’s emissions), the 2007 EIA estimated that
the impact of the Project on the UAE GHG budget as being of high significance.
Considering the revised GHG figures, the impact of EMAL on the UAE GHG budget
remains of high significance, as presented in Table 5.20.
Table 5.20
Impact Assessment: GHG & Climate Change (Operation Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
Medium
Regional
Long
High
2011 Update
Medium
Regional
Long
High
As mentioned in the 2007 EIA, EMAL will implement measures aiming at reducing its
GHG emissions (refer to section 6.6).
5.3.5
Impact on Marine Environment
The impact on marine environment was discussed in terms of effect of trace chemicals
on marine life. The results obtained so far (refer to Section 3.6.3.2) show that all the
102
503406
Emirates Aluminium
parameters at the final effluent meet the EAD standards. Dissolved oxygen remained
higher than 4% and pH is higher than neutral (above 7.5 in general). Delta T
(temperature) between intake and outfall were in average lower than 1 oC 72% of the
time as estimated in 2007, and the maximum increase of temperature was lower than
3 oC. Salinity of the final effluent will remain between 1 and 2.5 gpl higher than seawater
intake. All metals were lower than EAD or IFC limits as shown in Table 3.17. The only
parameter that did not meet the IFC criteria at all times is chlorine due to occasional
shock treatment, but the operation procedures can easily be reviewed and modified if
needed to meet the IFC criteria (e.g. use less chlorine or use chlorine inhibitor such as
sodium metabisulfite).
As the seawater scrubbers will not be installed in Phase 2 and that water balance was
further optimized, the final discharge will be reduced from 1.75 million m3/d to less than a
million m3/d. In these conditions, a low intensity of impacts combined to a local extent
and a long duration conclude to an impact of low significance. In addition, EMAL will
maintain contact with ADPC to share the results of the monitoring of the seabed
conducted three times a year by ADPC to verify the impacts on the marine environment.
Table 5.21
Impact Assessment: Marine Environment (Operation Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
2011 Update
Low
Local
Long
Low
5.3.6
Impact on Ambient Noise Levels
The main noise sources related to the operation of the smelter and power plant identified
in the 2007 EIA were the major pieces of equipment and the trucks for transporting
materials and finished products to the port. The impact on ambient noise in residential
areas was assessed as being of low significance.
Based on the noise monitoring results obtained so far by EMAL (refer to section 4.5),
this impact assessment remains unchanged (Table 5.22).
Table 5.22
Impact Assessment: Ambient Noise (Operation Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
Low
Local
Long
Low
2011 Update
Low
Local
Long
Low
503406
103
5.3.7
Emirates Aluminium
Socio-Economic Impacts
In the 2007 EIA, the economic benefits associated with the EMAL Project in terms of job
creation and economic spin-offs were considered to be of very high significance. Kizad is
a feature of the Abu Dhabi Vision 2030 and will play a major role in the emirate's
industrial and economic diversification by serving as a key hub for large scale industrial
investments serviced by a world class port, transport and other facilities. Potential UAE
supply chain development, to be developed into vertically integrated clusters, is an
objective of Kizad that aims into the implementation of an Aluminium Cluster.
‘The Kizad Aluminium Cluster is anchored by Emal’s smelter, which will be the largest
single site smelter in the world. Downstream Kizad is targeting rolling mills, extrusions,
castings, forgings and other downstream manufacturers in areas such as construction,
transportation, packaging and engineered metal products. Additionally Kizad is
consulting potential tenants about their requirements for service suppliers such as dross
recyclers that require easy access to a smelter.’
‘The Hot Metal Road will cut re-melting costs for mid-stream producers while the
proximity of downstream producers and service suppliers will generate business and
operational efficiencies which, supported by the low utility costs available at Kizad, will
offer all aluminium companies the opportunity to be highly competitive in the market
place.’ (http://kizad.com/en/article/industry-clusters/aluminium-industry.html)
EMAL intends to become an employer of choice that will attract and retain the maximum
number of UAE Nationals into all areas of business. During hiring, priority will be given
to nationals in the case of equal competency to reach an objective of 20% of total EMAL
workforce.
Although the 2007 EIA overestimated the required manpower for the operation of both
phases by almost 30% (refer to section 3.2.8), the positive impact of the project in terms
of economic benefits remains of very high significance for UAE Nationals and local
economy (Table 5.23).
Table 5.23
Impact Assessment: Economic Benefits (Operation Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
High
Regional
Long
Very High
2011 Update
High
Regional
Long
Very High
5.3.8
Landscape
As there has been no change in the smelter complex location and only minor changes to
the equipment, the overall visual impact of the project is still considered of low
significance.
104
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 5.24
Impact Assessment: Landscape (Operation Phase)
Assessment
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Significance
2007 EIA
Low
Local
Long
Low
2011 Update
Low
Local
Long
Low
5.3.9
Summary
Significant environmental impacts associated with the operation phase are summarized
in Table 5.25. This Table compares the impacts identified in the June 2007 EIA to the
revised impacts detailed in sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.8 above.
Table 5.25
Environmental
Component
Operation Phase Environmental Impact Summary
Description of Impact
(+/-)
Alteration of the local
ambient air quality (-)
Ambient Air
Quality
See also impacts on
fauna & flora and
human health
Source of Impact
• Generation of dust
from material handling
at the port and
transportation to the
smelter
• NO2 and SO2
emissions from the
smelter complex
• No SO2 scrubber for
GTC Phase 2
• Fluoride emissions
from the smelter
processes indirect
impact: animals
exposed to fluoride
through their diet
• GHG emissions from
the operation of the
smelter complex:
11.34 Mt CO2eq/y
(power plant: 76%;
smelter 24%)
Human Health
Impact of NO2 and SO2
on health (-)
Fauna & Fauna
Small herbivorous
animals at risk of
developing bone
fluorosis (-)
GHG and
Climate Change
Increase of the UAE
GHG emissions
(-)
Marine
Environment
Hazards to marine
environment (-)
• Final liquid effluent
Noise
Environment
Increased noise levels
at the smelter complex
site and along access
roads (-)
• Major pieces of
equipment (e.g. fans
and motors)
• Trucks transporting
materials and finished
products between the
port and the smelter
complex
Socio-economic
Impacts
Job creation (direct &
indirect) & economic
spin-offs (+)
• Operation of the
smelter complex
Landscape
Change in visual
perception of the
landscape (-)
• Presence of the
complex infrastructure
Impact Significance
Phases 1 & 2
2007 EIA
2011 EIA update
Very low
(Material
unloading at the
port)
Low (Material
transportation)
Very low
(Material
unloading at the
port)
Low (Material
transportation)
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
Not assessed
Low
Low
Low
Very high
Very high
Low
Low
(+): positive impact / (-): negative impact
503406
105
6
Emirates Aluminium
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLANS
This section aims at presenting an overview of the following key documents/strategies
that are part of EMAL environmental and social management system:
•
Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Policy
•
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
•
Operation Environmental and Social Management Plan (OESMP)
•
Environmental Monitoring Programme
•
Greenhouse Gases Management System (GHGMS)
•
Landscaping Strategy
•
Community Engagement Plan
6.1
ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY (EHS) POLICY
EMAL EHS Policy, which was not available when the EIA was issued in 2007, is
presented in Appendix B, signed by Saeed Fadhel Al Mazrooei, EMAL actual President
and Chief Executive Officer. The Phase 2 EPCM Contractor’s EHS Policy is also
included in the same appendix.
6.2
CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (CEMP)
EMAL Phase 2 EPCM contractor (SLII) is fully committed to continue to be an industry
Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) implementation role model. This specifically
includes:
•
Placing the highest priority on the health and safety of all EMAL Phase 2 project
stakeholders
•
Minimizing the environmental footprint of the project
In this context, EMAL Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is a key
component of the EPCM Contractor’s EHS Management Plan. It describes the
resources and activities that the EPCM Contractor is committed to deploying during the
construction of the EMAL Project so as to minimize potential environmental impacts on
the surrounding area. It also includes the following procedures for environmental and
social management during the construction phase as well as the transitional phase
between construction and operation of the Project:
106
503406
Emirates Aluminium
•
Environmental Management
•
Environmental Follow-up
•
Site Environmental Inspection by External Entities
•
Water Management
•
Dust Management
•
Noise Control
•
Waste Management
•
Hazardous Materials Management
•
Contaminated Soil Management
•
Environmental Issues related to Maintenance, Fuelling and Cleaning of Vehicles and
Equipment
•
Cultural and Archaeological Heritage
•
Rehabilitation of Laydown Areas
•
Labour Camp Requirements
Labour Camp
The CEMP is a dynamic tool that permits a quick response, not only to planned
construction site activities but to unforeseen environmental issues that can arise during
the work and that require an immediate response. It is designed to meet requirements
pursuant to the laws and regulations of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi and the UAE. It permits
a prompt response to any environmental disturbance to the surrounding area through
the implementation of measures designed to alleviate or to compensate for any
unanticipated impact.
EMAL submitted its Phase 1 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to
the EAD in July 2007 (EAD approvals EPD/07/ESR/0017 & EPD/07/ESRF/0076).
Revision 1 of the CEMP was issued in July 2008 (EAD approval EMS/08/ESRF/0173).
The EAD more recently approved the document to be used on Phase 2 (refer to EAD
conditions No. 01862 attached to EMAL industrial license No.1497 renewed on 17
February 2011). Procedures of the CEMP have been updated in October 2011 to reflect
the most recent information on the project.
503406
107
6.3
Emirates Aluminium
OPERATION ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (OESMP)
The main purpose of EMAL Operations Environmental and Social Management
Programme (OESMP) is to ensure that:
•
All potential impacts on the environment as a result of operations of EMAL Smelter
are recognised and appropriate provision is made for the effective management of
such impacts. Management implies preventing or minimising negative impacts while
maximising the positive impacts (benefits) of the activity
•
Relevant environmental legal requirements are recognised, planned for and met
during operations of the smelter
•
International lender requirements are recognised, planned for and met during
operations of the smelter
•
Best practice is promoted and supported in implementing the required environmental
and social management functions, and
•
A basis is established for continual improvement of environmental and social
management into the future
The OESMP has been based on the ISO14001 Environmental Management Systems
standard. This approach is to allow for an effective transition to a certifiable
Environmental Management System (EMS) at a later stage but more importantly to
ensure that the programme presented in the OESMP is based on a robust management
philosophy. As such the structure fulfils the requirement of being able to comply with
standards such as ISO, OHSAS and so forth, and lends itself to being integrated with the
smelter’s overall Integrated EHSQ Management System. The OESMP has accordingly
been structured to reflect the different components of the ISO14001 standard. This
structure is prefaced by a brief description of the project (so the OESMP can serve as a
standalone document) and then a description of the overall environmental and social
management approach that underpins the OESMP.
EMAL OESMP was prepared prior to the beginning of EMAL operations. It was formally
submitted to the EAD in December 2009, and then revised in January 2010 (EAD
Approval EMS/10/ESRF/0086).
6.4
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME
Environmental monitoring is one of the most important tasks performed by EMAL
environmental team. This includes not only the monitoring of EMAL effluents (e.g. air
emissions, water final effluent), but also the monitoring of the surrounding environment
(e.g. air quality, ambient noise, vegetation).
EMAL’s comprehensive environmental monitoring programme is based on the proposed
programme described in the 2007 EIA and includes the following aspects:
108
503406
Emirates Aluminium
•
Ambient air quality;
•
Emissions to air;
•
Seawater quality;
•
Water effluent quality;
•
Potable water quality;
•
Treated sewage effluent & sewage sludge;
•
Stormwater quality;
•
Groundwater quality;
•
Vegetation; and,
•
Ambient noise.
The 2007 EIA mentioned that the environmental monitoring program would be revised
after two years of operation. EMAL has begun this revision process after 18 months of
operation and informed EAD in the Technical Modifications Document no. 2 issued in
June 2011 (EAD approval issued in October 2011). Revision of the programme takes
into account the monitoring results obtained so far. In addition, some monitoring
frequencies and parameters have been adjusted to reflect current practices in the
aluminium industry and expected observations for an aluminium smelter located in a hot
weather climate country.
6.4.1
Ambient Air Quality
Proposed ambient air quality monitoring program is presented in Table 6.1. As specified
in the EIA, EMAL has installed an Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station (AAQMS) in Al
Samha forest nursery. The only changes to the AAQMS concern the addition of a
permanent SO2 ambient station near the smelter where the highest number of
exceedances of EAD 1-h SO2 standard is predicted by the air dispersion model (Figure
A.14), the deployment of a mobile ambient air station around the smelter site, the list of
parameters and the HF monitoring method.
CO2 has been removed from the list of parameters to be monitored (as there are no
criteria for CO2 in ambient air) and O3 and NMHC have been added upon EAD request
(refer to EPD/07/ESR/0019 - Revised EIA approval with conditions). As for HF
monitoring, in the expectation of obtaining more accurate results on a continuous basis,
EMAL decided to install a real time monitor (Picarro G1205) instead of using manual
sampling with weekly analyses.
503406
109
Table 6.1
Emirates Aluminium
EMAL Revised Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program
Area
Frequency
/ Duration
Location
Surrounding environment
At specific locations around the
smelter
Al Samha
forest nursery
Parameters
Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring
Station (AAQMS)
HF
SO2
NOx
PM10
CO
O3
NMHC
Continuous
Mobile AAQMS
HF
SO2
NOx
PM10
CO
O3
NMHC
Continuous
AAQMS
SO2
Continuous
Mobile
Area near the smelter where the highest number of
exceedances of EAD 1-h SO2 standard is predicted
by the air dispersion model (Ref: Figure A.14)
6.4.2
Method/
Instrument
Air Emissions
In its approach, the monitoring program proposed in Table 6.2 for air emissions is
generally consistent with the information presented in the update EIA and the initial EIA.
The modifications are the following:
•
Sampling frequency at the smelter (GTCs, FTCs, paste plant & casthouse): It was
increased upon EAD request (refer to EPD/07/ESR/0019 - Revised EIA approval with
conditions).
•
A Continuous Emission Monitoring system (CEMS) will be installed for Phase 2
GTC’s, to follow closely the SO2 emitted at the stacks.
•
Sulfur content in coke will be regularly monitored and reported to EAD as part of the
quarterly monitoring reports (EAD approval condition – EMS/11/ESRF/229)
•
SO2 emissions from the smelter: The mass balance is a best practice in the
aluminium industry. Mass balance will be checked against actual SO2 monitoring
data from the CEMS to be installed on Phase 2 GTC’s. The only exception is the
Phase 1 GTCs for which seawater SO2 scrubbers are installed to verify the removal
efficiency of the seawater SO2 scrubber. EMAL monitors on a monthly basis Key
Performance Indicators (KPI) required to calculate the SO2 mass balance including
net anode consumption, net packing coke consumption and anode baking losses,
sulfur content in pitch and coke, as well as consumption of coke and pitch. Annual
SO2 emissions are calculated for the reduction GTCs and baking anode FTCs by
using the following formulas:
110
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Reduction GTC: NAC X %S-BA X 2 X Prod X [1% + 99% X (1-SO2%removal)]
Baking anode FTV: PAC X %S-Coke X 2 + Pitch X %S-Pitch X 2
Where :
NAC is net anode consumption (in kg C/t Al)
%S-BA is % of sulfur in baked anodes
Prod: Production of aluminium (t Al/y)
PAC: Net packing coke consumption (t C/y)
%S coke: Average content of sulfur in coke (%)
Pitch: Annual consumption of pitch (t/y)
%S pitch: Average content of sulfur in pitch (%)
SO2 %removal = Global removal of sulfur dioxide with the seawater SO2
scrubber
•
PAH emissions (carbon stacks): Considering that only a supplier has the capacity to
do PAH sampling in the UAE and that these samples must be analysed abroad, this
parameter will be monitored on an annual basis
•
Total tars are removed for reduction (GTCs and potroom vents). For the aluminium
industry, emissions of tars and PAH related to former Söderberg reduction process
were quasi-eliminated with the anode prebake process
•
RTO stacks: The list of pollutants to be monitored at the paste plant has been
revised mainly to take into account the specificity of the RTO (refer to Technical
Modifications no.1 – January 2011). The following parameters have been added:
TPM, PAH, VOC, NOx and CO
•
Casthouse: CO for which there is an EAD emission standard, has been added to the
list of parameters
•
TPM emissions monitoring at power plant was eliminated completely would it be
manual sampling or Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS), since PM
emissions are very low and that there are no international standards for PM emitted
from gas-fired turbines
503406
111
Table 6.2
Area
Emirates Aluminium
EMAL Revised Air Emissions Monitoring Program
Location
Frequency/
Duration
GTC stacks
4 / year
(one stack per
GTC per
monitoring
campaign)
Smelter
(Reduction)
Method/
Instrument
Parameters
Manual sampling
(US-EPA Method
5 et al.)
HF
Fp
Ft
TPM
SO2
US EPA CTM 034
CO
Phase 2 GTC
Continuous
CEMS
SO2
Potroom roof
vents
50 weeks/year /
2 weeks
US-EPA Method
14A / Cassettes
(4 sampling units
per potroom)
HF
Fp
Ft
TPM
Manual sampling
(US-EPA Method
5 et al.)
HF
Fp
Ft
TPM
SO2
US EPA CTM 034
NOx
CO
Manual sampling
PAH
Manual sampling
(US-EPA Method
5 et al.)
TPM
Total tars &
VOC
US EPA CTM 034
NOx
CO
Manual sampling
PAH
4 / year
Changes to EIA
program
Total tars
removed
CEMS (SO2)
added for
Phase 2 GTCs
SO2 removed
Total tars
removed
FTC stacks
Smelter
(Carbon)
1 / year
2 / year
RTO stacks
1 / year
Smelter
(Casthouse)
Power plant
Furnaces
stacks
HRSG & GT
stacks - 10
stacks
(including bypass stacks)
2 / year
(one stack per
product line per
monitoring
campaign)
Continuous
Manual sampling
US-EPA Method 5
PAH, VOC,
NOx & CO
added
TPM
HCl*
Cl2*
*where
CO added
chlorine
/chloride salts
are used
US EPA CTM 034
NOx
CO
Continuous
Emissions
Monitoring
System (CEMS)
CO
NOx
O2
SO2
112
Tars replaced
by PAH
CO2 to be
removed and
be calculated
by mass
balance
TPM removed
503406
Emirates Aluminium
6.4.3
Seawater Intake and Final Effluent
Continuous monitoring of the seawater quality (from the intake) and final effluent quality
(from the discharge pipe to the outfall) for parameters such as flow pH and temperature
will be carried out as per the EIA.
The main modification proposed for the monitoring program of the seawater intake &
outfall presented in Table 6.3 is a reduction in the monitoring frequency of some other
parameters (fluoride, sulfates, hydrocarbons, COD) from weekly to monthly (24-hour
composite).
In the case of the monitoring to be conducted on a quarterly basis, the list of parameters
was revised to include TSS, Hg and Pb (to be able to compare with effluent standards)
and exclude morpholine (because this additive is not used).
6.4.4
Sewage Treatment Plant
The monitoring strategy for the treated sewage effluent has been revised based on RSB
Recycled Water & Biosolids Regulations 2010, which were not available when the EIA
was issued in 2007.
Monitoring is carried out to ensure compliance with RSB Regulations in order to re-use
the treated sewage effluent for irrigation. Values are reported directly to RSB.
6.4.5
Stormwater
The monitoring strategy for stormwater monitoring has been revised based on the final
arrangement of the stormwater management system (Table 6.4).
Stormwater is not intended to be directly sent to the sea. It is not judged necessary to
measure some parameters continuously at the outlet of the First Flush Ponds (FFP) nor
the Evaporation / Infiltration Ponds (EIP). In the unlikely event of sea discharge2,
stormwater would be directed to the sea water discharge line and would be mixed with
the other effluents from the smelter and power plant before reaching the discharge
outfall. The final effluent is continuously monitored for parameters such as flow,
temperature and pH.
The monitoring strategy consists in grab sampling and laboratory analysis of the
stormwater quality from the FFP prior to discharge for aluminium, fluoride, sulfates, TSS,
oil and grease, COD, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, TDS, salinity, and metals.
2
The stormwater management system relies on evaporation for ultimate disposal.
503406
113
Table 6.3
Area
Emirates Aluminium
EMAL Revised Monitoring Program for Seawater Intake & Outfall
Location
Seawater
pipe from
ADPC intake
(seawater
intake)
Frequency/
Duration
Method/
Instrument
Parameters
Changes to EIA
program
Continuous
Flow-meter
Thermometer
pH-meter
Conductivity meter
Salinity meter
DO meter
Flow
Temperature
pH
Conductivity
Salinity
DO
As per EIA
Weekly /
24 -hour
composite
Automatic sampling
/ Laboratory
analysis
Fluoride
Sulfates
Oil and grease
COD
As per EIA
4 / year
24 -hour
composite
Automatic sampling
/ Laboratory
analysis
TSS
Total
Phosphorous
Sulfites
Metals (Al, As,
Cd, Cu, Cr,
Fe, Hg, Mn,
Ni, Pb, Zn)
TSS, Hg & Pb
added
Continuous
Flow-meter
Thermometer
pH-meter
Conductivity meter
Salinity meter
DO meter
Flow
Temperature
pH
Conductivity
Salinity
DO
As per EIA
Automatic sampling
/ Laboratory
analysis
Fluoride
Sulfates
Oil and grease
COD
Residual
chlorine
Automatic sampling
/ Laboratory
analysis
TSS
Total
Phosphorous
Sulfites
Metals (Al, As,
Cd, Cu, Cr,
Fe, Hg, Mn,
Ni, Pb, Zn)
Power Plant
Discharge
pipe to
ADPC outfall
(discharge
outfall)
Monthly /
24 -hour
composite
Quarterly /
24 -hour
composite
114
Frequency
reduced
Periodically for
residual chlorine
TSS, Hg & Pb
added
Morpholine
removed
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Table 6.4
Area
EMAL Revised Stormwater Monitoring Program
Frequency/
Duration
Location
First Flush
Pond FFP(3)
Plant-wide
FFP (3)
6.4.6
Before any
discharge
into EIP
(from FFP),
discharge
into sea
water return
line or reuse for
irrigation
As required
Method/
Instrument
Parameters
Changes to EIA
program
Fluoride
Al
Sulfates
TSS
Oil & grease
COD
Grab sampling /
Laboratory analysis
Grab sampling /
Laboratory analysis
pH
DO
Conductivity
TDS
Salinity
Cyanide
Metals (As,
Ag, Cd, Cr,
Cu, Hg, Pb,
Zn)
Cyanide
Metals (As,
Ag, Cd, Cr,
Cu, Hg, Pb,
Zn)
Modified
sampling
method
Sludge as per
EIA
Groundwater Quality
No modification has been made to the parameters of the proposed groundwater quality
monitoring program presented in Table 6.5. Groundwater monitoring will be conducted in
five or six observation wells to be installed on EMAL site property, after coordination with
the activities planned for the construction of Phase 2. There will not be any monitoring of
external wells.
Table 6.5
Area
Plantwide
503406
EMAL Revised Groundwater Monitoring Program
Location
Monitoring
wells
Frequency
/ Duration
1 / year
Method/
Instrument
Parameters
Changes to
EIA program
Manual
sampling /
Laboratory
analyses
pH
Conductivity
Fluoride
Oil & grease
Salinity
Aluminium
Sulphates
Sodium, Chloride
Metals (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Co,
Cu, Hg, Pb, Mo, Ni, Zn)
PAH
As per EIA
115
6.4.7
Emirates Aluminium
Forage (Vegetation)
EMAL does not expect the concentrations of fluoride in fodder to substantially vary
through the year. Fodder is grown in two locations in Ras Ghanada to provide green
grass to gazelles captive of this area. Fodder is also grown in the farms of Al Samha.
EMAL will undertake to initially monitor the fluoride in fodder on a once per six months
basis to set the baseline and once per year thereafter (if below 20ppm), as presented in
Table 6.7.
Concentrations in fodder will be compared with an international standard (Table 6.6) on
fluoride in fodder (used in the US and Canada) developed to protect grazing animals.
Table 6.6
Fluoride in Vegetation Standards
Fluoride Standard
(mg/kg of dry sample)
Period
Annual Average
40 ppm
Maximum average over 2 consecutive months
60 ppm
Maximum over a single month
80 ppm
As long as fluoride concentrations in fodder are lower than 40 ppm, the frequency will
remain at once per 6 months. If the concentrations of samples get higher than 40 ppm,
the frequency will be increased to a monthly basis. If concentrations remain consistently
low (e.g. < 20 ppm) after one year, frequency could be reduced to an annual basis.
When Phase 2 is started, frequency of sampling will be raised to a once per 6 month
basis for a year and then reduced to an annual basis if concentrations of fluorides
remain lower than 20 ppm.
An inspection of vegetation will be conducted with a specialist knowledgeable in the
effects of fluoride on vegetation (Ras Ghanada, farms, greenbelt plantation, nursery)
approximately once after Phase 1 has reached full production and once after Phase 2
has reached full production.
Table 6.7
EMAL Proposed Monitoring Program of Fluoride in Fodder
Frequency/
Duration
Area
Location
Surrounding
environment
2 / year (to set the
Ras Ghanada baseline and once
mangrove
per year thereafter if
(2 locations)
below 20 ppm
Al Samha
national
Once after Phase 1
farmlands
Once after Phase 2
(2 locations)
Method/
Instrument
Parameter
s
Changes to EIA
program
Manual sampling /
Laboratory
analysis
Fluoride
Frequency
fromBi-weekly to
bi-annually
Fluoride
Changed
Frequency
(initially
annually)
Visual inspection
116
503406
Emirates Aluminium
6.4.8
Noise Monitoring
The EIA monitoring program includes only one survey of the noise levels generated by
the smelter operation (Phases I & II) to be carried out off-site at three locations
considered as sensitive receptors (close to residential areas).
As an alternative to this unique survey, EMAL proposes to monitor ambient noise levels
at the site boundary (four locations) on an annual basis as presented in Table 6.8. This
strategy will enable EMAL to verify its operational phase noise levels and take corrective
actions if necessary.
Table 6.8
EMAL Proposed Noise Monitoring Program
Area
Location
Frequency/
Duration
Method/
Instrument
Changes to EIA
program
EMAL site
boundary
Fenceline
(North,
South, East,
West)
Annual /
24 hours
Bruel & Kjaer Type
2250 A Handheld
Sound Level Meter
Replaces offsite noise
monitoring
6.4.9
Marine Environment
In the 2007 EIA Table 6.2 page 6-23, the following is mentioned: The proponent will
implement a monitoring program to ensure conservation of the integrity of key areas of
habitat, such as the coral reefs off the coast of Ras Ghanada. The monitoring program
will be optimized taking into account Al Taweelah’s and the Khalifa Port’s plans for
habitat conservation.
This monitoring of marine environment is the responsibility of the port proponent.
6.5
LANDSCAPING STRATEGY
It is the intention of EMAL to incorporate greenery throughout the site. EMAL have
engaged two landscaping consultants to prepare an outlay of possible landscaping
greenery to two areas:
1. New administration buildings
2. Smelter landscaping (based on desert landscaping incorporating sustainability
and low maintenance concept)
Landscaping will progressively be carried out as the construction works tend to
completion. As Phase 2 will be a large expansion project, the landscaping will be done
towards the end of Phase 2 to avoid conflict with project needs.
503406
117
6.6
Emirates Aluminium
GREENHOUSE GASES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (GHGMS)
The environmental impact associated with EMAL greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions
has been identified as being of high significance considering that EMAL Project will
result in a significant increase of the overall GHG emissions in the UAE. In order to
mitigate this impact, EMAL is developing a GHG Management System (GHGMS) made
up of the following elements:
•
Reducing GHG emissions at source using technology based on Best Available
Techniques (BAT);
•
Monitoring GHG emissions to check the effectiveness of emissions management
strategies;
•
Preparing a GHG inventory;
•
Reporting the GHG inventory;
•
Reviewing the performance;
•
Developing objectives & targets for continual improvement; and,
•
Checking the performance by system of internal & external audits.
6.7
PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS
6.7.1
Background
EMAL is an Emirati company, aligned with the Abu Dhabi 2030 vision and built for the
benefits of present and future generations. Since its inception, EMAL has been
determined to position itself as a considerate and constructive corporate citizen.
This document is part of the overall Stakeholder Engagement Plan Programme (SEP).
EMAL’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) is based on the principle of “Neighbour of
Choice”, in order to ensure that stakeholders have opportunities to engage effectively
with EMAL on an on-going basis. Effective implementation of the SEP will ensure that
EMAL actively establishes itself as an integral part of the local community, so that the
presence of the smelter in Al Taweelah is seen as a source of pride for the residents of
the local community and the region.
This plan provides the basis for effective, transparent and honest two-way
communications between EMAL and its stakeholders.
As a local company, it is aiming to align its strategy with the Emirati cultural and social
values and benefit from the pride and trust that the Emirati people have for their country
and government. The methodologies employed for the public consultation programme
are culturally sensitive due to the fact that the culture in the UAE is different from
Western countries.
118
503406
Emirates Aluminium
6.7.2
Purpose and Objectives
EMAL has aimed to maintain two way communications with its stakeholders which
includes the local community, government entities, and the NGO’s.
The International Finance Corporation (IFC) describes consultation as a two-way
process of dialogue between the project company and its stakeholders. The IFC
Performance Standards, the basis of the Equator Principles stress that public
consultation should continue through the entire life of the project and must be
documented to demonstrate that stakeholders had the opportunity to influence the
project and be informed of on-going developments (both positive and negative) at the
project. The public participation process described below has been designed to fulfil the
IFC and Equator Principles objectives for adequate stakeholder consultation, taking into
account the culture and the accepted information sharing process in the UAE. This is
reinforced by good practice guidance which dictates that the objectives of public
participation during environmental authorisation, taking into consideration regulatory
requirements and good practice guidelines are to provide sufficient and accessible
information to stakeholders to:
•
Raise issues of concern and suggestions for enhanced benefits.
•
Verify that their issues have been recorded.
•
Assist in identifying reasonable alternatives.
•
Contribute relevant local information and traditional knowledge to the environmental
assessment.
6.7.3
Public Participation Approach
Identification of stakeholders:
Through its Stakeholder Engagement Programme (SEP), EMAL has already identified
its stakeholders and they are listed below:
•
Government authorities at the National, Regional and Local levels, including
Traditional leadership groups.
•
Non-commercial and Non-governmental Organizations at the International, National,
Regional and Local levels, including organised community-based organisations or
interest groups (labour, youth, education, religious, business, etc.).
•
EMAL’s local communities, including individual residents as well as non-organised
groups with particular areas of interest or that may be at risk (elderly, gender focus,
people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, indigenous groups, etc.). EMAL’s local
community is defined as the area surrounding the plant site within a radius of 15 km.
(other section, earlier in the document)
503406
119
Emirates Aluminium
•
Commercial organizations and business associations.
•
Employees
•
Media
6.7.4
Announcement of the opportunity to become involved in the Phase II
consultation process
EMAL uses a range of methods to ensure its stakeholders have the opportunity to
participate in the process, which include:
6.7.4.1
The Emirati cultural consultation process – The Majlis
Majlis is a key feature of civilisation in UAE. For decades, friends, neighbours and
families would gather in a Majlis.
Meaning 'place of sitting' in Arabic, the term is used to describe a place for social
gathering. In a tradition that spans centuries, most homes in the Gulf have a Majlis,
where the head of the family hosts guests.
EMAL will update the stakeholders who will attend the Majlis event on the Phase 1
operations including what has been achieved during this phase. Furthermore, the Project
team will inform the attendees on EMAL Phase 2 expansion plans. EMAL will also
provide the participants the processes to provide feedback in regards to the company’s
operations.
EMAL will formally announce the Majlis consultation process by various methods.
Letters of invitation will be sent out to stakeholders and reminder phone calls to ensure
maximum participation.
Announcements will also include flyers and advertisement in the newspaper.
The invitations will be sent to specific stakeholder groups (already identified in the
Stakeholder Engagement Plan - SEP) which include, as detailed below, ministries at the
national level, Abu Dhabi authorities and entities at the regional level, local communities
and organizations, non-governmental organizations and employees.
120
503406
Emirates Aluminium
Government Authorities:
On a national level, EMAL is working on building relationships with all Government
institutions and ministries. It will continue to engage with:
•
Ministry of Defence
•
Ministry of Interior
•
Ministry of Education
•
Ministry of Presidential Affairs
•
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
•
Ministry of Economy
•
Ministry of Energy
•
Ministry of Health
•
Ministry of Environment and Water
•
Ministry of Culture, Youth and Community Development
•
Ministry of Labour
•
Ministry of Social Affairs
Letters of invitation to the Majlis event will be sent to the following regional stakeholders:
Emirate of Abu Dhabi
EMAL considers the Emirate of Abu Dhabi as its key regional stakeholder where a
close working relationshipsis required with its authorities and entities, including:•
General authority of youth and sports welfare
•
Federal electricity and water authority
•
General authority of Islamic affairs and endowments
•
Emirates Identity authority
•
UAE Red Crescent
•
Abu Dhabi Municipality
•
Abu Dhabi Police
•
Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture & Heritage
•
Abu Dhabi Sports Council
•
Emirates Foundation
503406
121
Emirates Aluminium
•
Health Authority - Abu Dhabi
•
Khalifa Fund for Enterprise development
•
Family development foundation
•
Zayed Higher Organization for Humanitarian & special needs
Local community:
•
ADPC
•
Al Rahba Police
•
KIZAD
•
Dolphin Energy
•
Schools and kindergartens
•
Emirates Post – Al Rahba
•
Al Rahba Hospital
•
Culture & Heritage Club - Al Samha
•
Al Wehda Club- Al Shahama
•
Al Samha Civil Defence
•
Navy Base – Al Taweelah
•
Al Taweelah Power Station
•
Al Shahama Municipality
•
Al Shahama Transportation –DoT
Letters of invitations to the Majlis event will be sent to all the Non-government
agencies (eg. Emirates Wildlife Society, EEG etc.) that work in the UAE, public and
community-based organisations that promote Environmental, Safety and Health
awareness and supporting humanitarian causes. Communicating with these NGO’s will
allow EMAL to convey to them its Environmental and Community commitment and
answer all their queries and concerns.
Stakeholder lists for local communities will be developed throughout the stakeholder
engagement process and the implementation of the SEP.
Stakeholders may be individual residents or representatives of an interest group such as
an agricultural association, youth group or business collective. The purpose of
stakeholder identification within the local communities is to identify, document and
manage different stakeholder interests and issues pertaining to the project. Local
122
503406
Emirates Aluminium
communities will not be considered as one stakeholder group, as individuals and groups
may have numerous, diverse and conflicting interests
Announcement of the Majlis to the commercial organisations will be done through
press releases.
EMAL is an Emirati company, operating in the UAE. Thus, one of its main objectives is
to contribute to the national economy growth and to contribute to the individual welfare.
Providing business opportunities to the local companies is one way to fulfil this objective.
Therefore, EMAL is providing opportunities to commercial organisations owned by UAE
Nationals, with a focus on people from the community.
The procurement department has a policy to give priority to companies listed in Khalifa
Fund for Enterprise Development and Fund Mohammed bin Rashid Establishment for
Young Business Leaders.
Announcement of the Majlis event to the employees will be done through internal
newsletters and internal emails.
Employees should be considered a stakeholder category, however, as with projectaffected communities, not all employees will have the same interests or issues. Within
the category of project employees, there may be many stakeholders. Stakeholders in
this category may be individuals with specific issues and interests or groups, such as a
labour union.
Announcement of the Majlis event to the Media will be done through press releases
which will include:
•
Journalists: Analysts, Business editors, environment and social editors
•
Geographic outreach: International, Regional and National media
•
Media Vehicle: Print, broadcast and online
•
Languages: mainly in Arabic and English
6.7.4.2
Information sharing
EMAL engages the public and shares credible and transparent information with the
public through various methods including:
•
(Mujtama’una) a quarterly community newsletter that includes EMAL updates
achievements, job offers and community events.
•
Majlis
•
A dedicated website with a section dedicated to grievance email
•
Press release and photo stories.
•
Open days with the community.
503406
123
•
National Days.
•
Site tours.
Emirates Aluminium
EMAL includes contacts on the website and the community newsletter to ensure
interested parties have various easy means to contact EMAL regarding any issue.
6.7.4.3
Comments and Responses Received
EMAL will capture all the comments that will be raised by the community members
during the Majlis event. This will include capturing their verbal comments and/or by
requesting them to fill a survey form which will be distributed to all attendees before they
leave the Majlis area. The survey will try to capture all cooments, questions, any
concerns, identify the key areas (both positive and negative), EMAL’s response process,
future consultation processes etc.
6.7.4.4
Opportunity for on-going participation
The grievance mechanism is a management tool designed to help address stakeholder
concerns promptly and facilitate a trustworthy and constructive relationship. The purpose
of a grievance mechanism is to demonstrate responsiveness to stakeholder needs. It is
a mechanism through which the communities and individuals affected my EMAL’s
activities can formally communicate their concerns and grievances to the company and
facilitate resolutions that are mutually acceptable by the parties, within a reasonable
timeframe.
EMAL grievance mechanism may be submitted by telephone, in writing, via the EMAL
Cares link on www.emal.ae or in person at the company offices, or verbally through the
Community Officer and Senior Executive, who will put the grievance in writing for
management purposes.
All formal grievances will receive a formal reply within two weeks (10 working days). The
formal response will provide additional information or, if appropriate, further instructions
on proposed measures to resolve the issues. All grievances will be documented. The
importance of documenting all grievances is to make sure problems are accurately
understood and handled appropriately.
After the Majlis event EMAL will collect feedback from the attendees and schedule
continuous face to face meetings.
SMS messages and emails will be sent to the Majlis attendees to thank them for joining
the Majlis and to re-inform them about the website section where they can also include
their feedback.
124
503406
Emirates Aluminium
7
REFERENCES
DUBAL. Fluoride levels in vegetation. Personal communication. October 2011
Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment 2000. Circular on
target values and intervention values for soil remediation.
European Commission (EC) 2009. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Draft
Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Non Ferrous Metals
Industries. 842 p.
Higher Corporation for Specialized Economic Zones (ZonesCorp) September 2008.
Code of Practice – EHS Management for Workers’ Residential Cities. ZonesCorp COPEHS08. 35 p.
International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) August 2009. Workers’ accommodation: processes and
standards. Guidance note by IFC and the EBRD. 34 p.
International Finance Corporation (IFC) December 2008. Environmental, Health and
Safety Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants. 33 p.
International Finance Corporation (IFC) 2007. Environmental, Health and Safety
Guidelines – Base Metal Smelting and Refining. 23 p.
IPPC 1996. Estimated Emission Factors for European Non-Road Mobile Sources and
Machinery.
National Energy & Water Research Center (NEWRC) / Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity
Authority (ADWEA) 2010. Samha Air Quality Summary Report - January 2007 to
December 2009.
Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) 2011. Baseline Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring at KPIZ, Abu Dhabi.
PB Power and Dome Oilfield 2005. New Taweelah B Extension Project. Environmental
Statement. 254 p. and appendices.
SNC-Lavalin International Inc. (SLII) May- June 2011. EMAL Taweelah Aluminium
Smelter Complex Phase 2 - Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) Study Report.
SNC-Lavalin International Inc. (SLII). October 2011. Response to EAD Observations on
EMAL Smelter Complex Phase 2 Technical Modifications # 2. EMAL Smelter Complex
Phase 2. 15 p. + annexes
SNC-Lavalin International Inc. (SLII). June 2011. Technical Modifications # 2. EMAL
Smelter Complex Phase 2. 37 p. + annexes
SNC-Lavalin International Inc. (SLII). January 2011. Technical Modifications. EMAL
Smelter Complex Phase 2. 21 p.
503406
125
SNC-Lavalin
Assessment
Emirates Aluminium
Environment
2007a.
Emirates
Aluminium
Environmental
Impact
SNC-Lavalin Environment
Assessment – Addendum A
2007b.
Emirates
Aluminium
Environmental
Impact
Sustainability for Environment & Education Consulting (Sustainability) 2007. Soil and
Groundwater Environmental Baseline Data for EMAL Aluminium Smelter Complex Site.
Document no. 017661-LB-RDC-0001.
WEINSTEIN, L. 2006. Vegetation Survey and Impact of Fluorides from DUBAL.
Unpublished report.
126
503406
APPENDIX A
www.snclavalin.com
SNC-LAVALIN Inc.
455 René-Lévesque Blvd.
West
Montreal, Quebec
H2Z 1Z3 Canada
Tel.: (514) 393-1000
Fax: (514) 866-0795

Environmental Impact Assessment Phase II report - AGA

Transcription

Similar documents

www.alubond.com Aluminium composite panels for facade cladding

Matt Haigh – Planet-X Stealth Pro-Carbon

impressions - Polychromal

Building what matters - SNC

SFH6590 - Solray - Radiant Heating Panels

Flame Photometer (Model ESICO- 1381) for determination of alkali

week2-leticia.dadalto